Skip to main content

View Diary: BP's Gulf Oil Spill Was Worse Than You Thought (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That it wasn't very toxic? (6+ / 0-)


    From the article cited above that you should have read:

    Cleanup workers were not the only victims; coastal residents also suffered. “My 2-year-old grandson and I would play out in the yard,” says Shirley Tillman of the Mississippi coastal town Pass Christian. “You could smell oil and stuff in the air, but on the news they were saying it’s fine, don’t worry. Well, by October, he was one sick little fellow. All of a sudden, this very active little 2-year-old was constantly sick. He was having headaches, upper respiratory infections, earaches. The night of his birthday party, his parents had to rush him to the emergency room. He went to nine different doctors, but they treated just the symptoms; they’re not toxicologists.”
    That was just one little anecdotal part of the section of the article that deals with Corexit's severe toxicity, how BP lied about that toxicity, and then pleaded guilty for lying about that toxicity.
    •  Yes, really. (11+ / 0-)

      The dispersant used, by itself wasn't all that toxic. When I say "all that toxic" I mean they compared toxicity with some other things, like pre-moistened hand towels and some other stuff anyone could buy at the grocery store.

      Which is stupid as well. Just because you can buy bleach or Pinesol or Formula 409 at the grocery store doesn't mean it's going to work well in your salt water aquarium.

      All the symptoms you block-quoted could be the result of the oil fumes themselves.

      My point is and was at the time, that as a strategy against the use of dispersants, focusing on the toxicity of the dispersant AS A MEANS OF GETTING THEM TO STOP USING DISPERSANT didn't work as well as, you know, just pointing out that sinking oil is not a smart thing to do. Making the outer shell of an oil droplet water soluble as a means of cleaning up oil (see raincrow's post above) is stupid, no mater what you're doing to accomplish that.

      At one point the Obama administration reminded me of Bush. Somebody from the EPA or the Coast Guard (don't remember now) said "look, it's working, we're hiding the oil".

      Right. You're hiding the oil. I can understand BP wanting to do that, but not my government.

      BP and the local and state governments were grasping for anything. Remember Kevin Costner's machine that made him a hero? Turns out for it to work with the oil that had been on the surface for more than a day or two, they had to add a solvent that was mostly high-grade gasoline -- that stuff was way way way worse than even the oil.

      We tried to get Rachel to cover that. She didn't. My guess is the brass at MSNBC shot it the hell down. They weren't going up against Kevin (fucking) Costner.

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 02:10:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The 2-butoxyethanol in the dispersant IS awful (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345, Fishgrease

        stuff, but it eventually evaporates.

        And since everything in gasoline comes from crude oil, I'm not sure how adding gasoline to the crude was so much worse, except for the poor bastards doing the work....?

        Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

        by raincrow on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:40:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's the lead substitutes (0+ / 0-)

          I'm told. Better for the air, worse when spilled, especially on water.

          It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

          by Fishgrease on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:55:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site