Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Attempted cleanup: health affects on cleanup wolkers
Line 50: Line 50:  
''Wired Science'' reports the [[Obama administration]] disaster-relief agencies and BP are using a toxic chemical to disperse oil in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster. Use of dispersants are said to be a public relations strategy.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/ Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative,] Brandon Keim, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from ''Wired Science'' 15 May 2010.</ref> U.S.[[Department of Homeland Security]] Secretary [[Janet Napolitano]] reported the dispersants were  dropped form [[C-130]] cargo aircraft.<ref>[http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-05-02/news/os-oil-disaster-chemical-cleanup-20100502_1_dispersant-spill-crude Oil-spill disaster: Chemicals used in cleanup add to toxic mix,] Kevin Spear, ''Orlando Sentinel,'' 2 May 2010.</ref> Jackie Savitz of the ocean-conservation group Oceana stated the use of dispersants is only slightly less horrendous than the Gulf oil spill itself. "You're basically pouring chemicals into the ocean, which is never a good thing."<ref>Ibid.</ref> According to a 2009 [[Environmental Protection Agency]] report  dispersants have not been used in the United State "because of possible long-term environmental effects, difficulties with timely and effective application, disagreement among [[scientist]]s and research data about their environmental effects, effectiveness, and [[toxic]]ity concerns" and the effects "are still unknown."<ref>Ibid.</ref> Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, executive vice president of the [[environmental]] group Ocean Conservancy, said dispersants risk damaging [[ecosystem]]s and hurting wildlife.<ref>Ibid.</ref>
 
''Wired Science'' reports the [[Obama administration]] disaster-relief agencies and BP are using a toxic chemical to disperse oil in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster. Use of dispersants are said to be a public relations strategy.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/ Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative,] Brandon Keim, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from ''Wired Science'' 15 May 2010.</ref> U.S.[[Department of Homeland Security]] Secretary [[Janet Napolitano]] reported the dispersants were  dropped form [[C-130]] cargo aircraft.<ref>[http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-05-02/news/os-oil-disaster-chemical-cleanup-20100502_1_dispersant-spill-crude Oil-spill disaster: Chemicals used in cleanup add to toxic mix,] Kevin Spear, ''Orlando Sentinel,'' 2 May 2010.</ref> Jackie Savitz of the ocean-conservation group Oceana stated the use of dispersants is only slightly less horrendous than the Gulf oil spill itself. "You're basically pouring chemicals into the ocean, which is never a good thing."<ref>Ibid.</ref> According to a 2009 [[Environmental Protection Agency]] report  dispersants have not been used in the United State "because of possible long-term environmental effects, difficulties with timely and effective application, disagreement among [[scientist]]s and research data about their environmental effects, effectiveness, and [[toxic]]ity concerns" and the effects "are still unknown."<ref>Ibid.</ref> Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, executive vice president of the [[environmental]] group Ocean Conservancy, said dispersants risk damaging [[ecosystem]]s and hurting wildlife.<ref>Ibid.</ref>
   −
The dispersant 2-BE is known to cause heath dangers to clean up workers and wildlife alike.<ref>[http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/chem_dispersants_work_at_cost Chemical dispersants seem to be keeping oil from Gulf shore, but results may range from simply cosmetic to very toxic.] Retrieved from Belona.org 15 May 2010.</ref> 2-BE has been documented to cause the breakdown of [[red blood cell]]s, leading to blood in  urine and feces, and can damage the kidneys, liver, spleen and [[bone marrow]] of humans – effects not included on the information sheet for workers.<ref>Ibid.</ref> The dispersant Corexit 9500 is associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems as sides effects to clean-up workers.<ref>Ibid.</ref> Lawrence Duffy of the University of Alaska claims dispersants "are more a public relations measure than a preventive one. It has an effect on our psychology because we don't see the oil slick,"<ref>Ibid.</ref> though oil particles continue to do damage.<ref>Oil-spill disaster: Chemicals used in cleanup add to toxic mix, Kevin Spear, ''Orlando Sentinel,'' 2 May 2010.</ref>  
+
=== Health concerns of cleanup workers ===
 +
 
 +
The ''[[Guardian (uk)]]'' has reported the controversy over Corexit exposeds the [[Obama administration]] to criticism that its scientific agencies have been too compliant with BP. In addition to sanctioning the use of Corexit, the Obama [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) has come under fire for withholding test results on the toxicity of the water close to shore.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/20/gulf-oil-spill-chemical-dispersant</ref>
 +
 
 +
The dispersant 2-BE is known to cause heath dangers to clean up workers<ref>http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolomon/oil_spill_clean-up_workers_get.html</ref> and wildlife alike.<ref>[http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/chem_dispersants_work_at_cost Chemical dispersants seem to be keeping oil from Gulf shore, but results may range from simply cosmetic to very toxic.] Retrieved from Belona.org 15 May 2010.</ref> 2-BE has been documented to cause the breakdown of [[red blood cell]]s, leading to blood in  urine and feces, and can damage the kidneys, liver, spleen and [[bone marrow]] of humans – effects not included on the information sheet for workers.<ref>Ibid.</ref> The dispersant Corexit 9500 is associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems as sides effects to clean-up workers.<ref>Ibid.</ref> Lawrence Duffy of the University of Alaska claims dispersants "are more a public relations measure than a preventive one. It has an effect on our psychology because we don't see the oil slick,"<ref>Ibid.</ref> though oil particles continue to do damage.<ref>Oil-spill disaster: Chemicals used in cleanup add to toxic mix, Kevin Spear, ''Orlando Sentinel,'' 2 May 2010.</ref>  
    
Most scientists agree that Corexit 9500 will have a much larger biological effect when it reaches coastal areas teeming with wildlife.<ref>Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative, Brandon Keim, ''Wired Science,'' 5 May 2010.</ref>  Many species are being threatened at a crucial time in their life cycle.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2818588720100428 FACTBOX-Possible environmental impact of Gulf oil spill,] ''[[Reuters]]'', 28 April 2010.</ref>
 
Most scientists agree that Corexit 9500 will have a much larger biological effect when it reaches coastal areas teeming with wildlife.<ref>Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative, Brandon Keim, ''Wired Science,'' 5 May 2010.</ref>  Many species are being threatened at a crucial time in their life cycle.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2818588720100428 FACTBOX-Possible environmental impact of Gulf oil spill,] ''[[Reuters]]'', 28 April 2010.</ref>
Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,450

edits

Navigation menu