08-03-2010, 12:16 PM
|
#549 (permalink)
|
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
meanwhile, more dissent within the obama administration about bp's hyper-enthusiastic use of corexit to disperse the oil. the reasons for the dissent are below:
Quote:
Gulf oil spill chemical use alarmed EPA scientists
Five scientists and two other officials expressed concerns to superiors about use of dispersants, says whistleblower group
The Obama administration is facing internal dissent from its own scientists for approving the use of huge quantities of chemical dispersants to tackle the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Guardian has learned.
The Environmental Protection Agency has come under withering attack in Congress and from independent scientists for allowing BP to spray almost 2 million gallons of the dispersant Corexit on the slick and, even more controversially, pump the chemical into the leak site 5,000ft below the sea. Now it emerges the EPA's own experts have been raising similar concerns within the agency.
Jeff Ruch, exective director of the whistleblower support group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said he had heard from five scientists and two other officials who had expressed concerns to their superiors about the use of dispersants.
"There was one toxicologist who was very concerned about the underwater application particularly," he said. "The concern was the agency appeared to be flying blind and not consulting its own specialists and even the literature that was available."
Veterans of the Exxon Valdez spill questioned the wisdom of trying to break up the oil in the deep water at the same time as trying to skim it on the surface. Other EPA experts raised alarm about the effect of dispersants on seafood.
Ruch said EPA experts were being excluded from decision-making around the spill. "Other than a few people in the united command, there is no involvement from the rest of the agency," he said. EPA scientists would not go public for fear of retaliation, he added.
Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who introduced a ban on dispersants pending further testing in an oil spill bill passed by the House of Representatives last week, said the EPA had failed in its duty to protect the environment.
"We are undertaking a huge uncontrolled experiment with the entire Gulf," he said. "They have fallen down on the job very substantially because they allowed BP to use dispersants. Even when they told BP not to use dispersants they allowed BP to ignore their advice."
On Wednesday, a toxicologist from Texas Tech University is scheduled to tell a Senate hearing that the unprecedented use of dispersants "created an eco-toxicological experiment".
But independent scientists weighed in against the EPA for claiming that the combination of oil and dispersants posed no greater danger to marine life than oil on its own. Previous studies, including a 400-page study by the National Academy of Sciences, have warned the combination of oil and dispersants is more toxic than oil on its own, because the chemicals break down cell walls making organisms more susceptible to oil.
EPA made its assertion on Monday after testing how much of the mixture was needed to kill a species of shrimp and small fish, just two of the 15,000 types of sea animals in the Gulf. The EPA test did not address medium- or long-term effects, or reports last week that dispersants were discovered in the larvae of tiny blue crab, entering the food chain.
"It was only one test and it was very crude. We knew going into this and the EPA knew that this mixture is highly toxic to many, many species. There is a whole weight of literature," said Susan Shaw, the director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute, who has been organising scientists on the issue. "It is not the whole science. It's the convenient science."
Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst and veteran whistleblower at EPA, dismissed the tests as little more than a PR stunt. "They are trying to spin this limited piece of information to make it look like dispersants are safe and that the Corexit dispersant is safe."
EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
EPA is also under fire from Congress for allowing BP and the Coast Guard to ignore its order last May to cut the use of dispersants by 75%. Documents released by the Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey this week show the EPA allowed spraying of dispersants 74 times over a period of 48 days. At times, the agency gave advance approval for the use of dispersants for up to a week. The documents also showed the EPA allowed BP to spray 36,000 gallons of Corexit in a single day.
The controversy surrounding EPA's role in the oil spill marks a turning point for the Obama administration, which came to power vowing to repair the frayed relationship between scientists and government under George Bush and promising a new era of transparency.
|
BP oil spill: Obama administration's scientists admit alarm over chemicals | Environment | The Guardian
to the public employees group:
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility: Homepage
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|
|
|