Fishermen local to Louisiana are getting sick from working on the spill cleanup effort, although British Petroleum assures them that they don't need respirators or protective clothing.
Riki Ott reports on Huffington Post:
Fishermen have never seen the results from the air-quality monitoring patches some of them wear on their rain gear when they are out booming and skimming the giant oil slick. However, more and more fishermen are suffering from bad headaches, burning eyes, persistent coughs, sore throats, stuffy sinuses, nausea, and dizziness. They are starting to suspect that BP is not telling them the truth.
The EPA is finding that the air is threatening human health on the coast, and that airborne chemicals far exceed what is allowed by Louisiana state standards.
For instance, hydrogen sulfide has been detected at concentrations more than 100 times greater than the level known to cause physical reactions in people. Among the health effects of hydrogen sulfide exposure are eye and respiratory irritation as well as nausea, dizziness, confusion and headache.
The concentration threshold for people to experience physical symptoms from hydrogen sulfide is about 5 to 10 parts per billion. But as recently as last Thursday, the EPA measured levels at 1,000 ppb. The highest levels of airborne hydrogen sulfide measured so far were on May 3, at 1,192 ppb.
The EPA's statement on dispersants:
When this crisis occurred, Coast Guard and EPA granted BP authorization to use an approved dispersant on oil present on the surface of the water in an effort mitigate the impact of the spill. This authorization included specific conditions to ensure the protection of the environment and the health of residents in affected areas. At this time, BP is authorized to continue use of this dispersant on the surface of the water. To ensure nearby residents are informed and protected, the EPA is constantly monitoring air quality in the Gulf area through air monitoring air craft, and fixed and mobile air stations. The air monitoring data is posted as it becomes available on www.epa.gov/bpspill.
The EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard have authorized BP to use dispersants underwater, at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak. Preliminary testing results indicate that subsurface use of the dispersant is effective at reducing the amount of oil from reaching the surface – and can do so with the use of less dispersant than is needed when the oil does reach the surface. While BP pursues the use of subsurface dispersants, the federal government will require regular analysis of its effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air quality, and human health through a rigorous monitoring program. Below is EPA's directive to BP, including the monitoring plan the company must adhere to in order to ensure the protection of the environment and public health. We reserve the right to discontinue the use of this dispersant method if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the benefits.
This is a serious action item. The human impact of this spill is enormous, and its effects are just beginning. We really must pressure the government to do right by the people who live near the Gulf of Mexico.
Please contact the EPA and tell them that you are concerned about the air toxicity in Louisiana. Don't let me stop you from telling them anything else that you think about the spill, either...
Update: RLMiller links in comments that the EPA is giving BP 24 hours to choose a new dispersant. But what dispersant will they choose? These things have to be organic solvents, yes? And the air quality might already be beyond the point where it is safe:
Dispersants have never been used in this volume before," said an administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision hasn't been formally announced. "This is a large amount of dispersants being used, larger amounts than have ever been used, on a pipe that continues to leak oil and that BP is still trying to cap.
If we have a moment today, let's write or call the EPA and tell them that we're paying attention. The EPA has acknowledged the risk publicly.
I think a good place to write is Environmental Justice -- their office of Compliance and Enforcement.
Snailmail, in case you like to send postcards (ht to mahakali overdrive):
Office of Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - OEJ
Mail Code: 2201A
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Sending a zillion postcards to the EPA would be an effective way to get our point across. You can delete email. A bin of postcards takes up sapce in an office and has to be hauled out to the recycling...
Also see angelajean's useful contact suggestions here.
LNK suggests we write contact thus program:
LOUISIANA
Labor Studies Program/LA Watch, Institute of Human Relations, Loyola University, Box 12, New Orleans LA 70118
504-861-5830, Fax: 504-861-5833
Must read comment by Olympia includes this video about the impact on Exxon-Valdez spill workers:
Update: Eclectablog has a nit that is actually worth a moment of your time. I used the term "organic solvent" above in a non-technical way. My hope was to not digress into chemistry by explaining what a surfactant and dispersant was and to keep our eyes on the action item. But I really should explain my choice of terms. A dispersant has to be both solvent and surfactant -- and it acts on organics. I chose the term "organic solvent" because it is familiar.
Please have a look at Eclectablog's excellent comment here.
It's time to start writing, folks.