"No conspiracy is as diabolical as sheer cluelessness."
--moi, today, after reading the text below
I am reposting Keith Benning's article and commentary below because he has granted permission to repost it, his information is important, and not everyone (including me) wants to endure Facebook's four-point type. I have made a few edits for clarity. The Facebook group he has posted this to is HERE.
[or copy and paste this link to re-distribute:]
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=133712279989650&v=wall&ref=share
Kindra Arnesan / Arneson / Arnesen / is our hero! | Facebook [a public page]
Monday, June 28, 2010, at 10:03 pm Eastern Daylight Time
Keith Benning:
Since the spill happened, I begged for a job at the local paper so I would be able to use the media outlets at NOAA, and the EPA. I just got the nod, and I am officially an unpaid reporter for a town of 4,000! I am going to spoil the ending of my article, but this was too disturbing not to put up.
I wanted hard facts about when the dispersant switch from 9527A and 9500 happened. When I called the EPA, I talked to one of the media liaisons, and posed several questions to her about the dispersants used, EPA deadlines, and timelines. She checked but was unable to answer any of my questions. She told me that the only way I could get the answers was to talk to a BP rep, and that I would have to leave a message. I told her I would wait for him, and she tried several times to get me to just leave a message.
After her third suggestion of leaving a message, I asked her why the EPA was unable to answer my questions, since they were supposed to be monitoring BP, or at least that was my understanding. She was careful not to give me a direct answer. What she said was that BP would have more information about timelines and dispersants used. I mistakenly thought that the EPA was monitoring BP, and if you think they know what is going on, you're wrong.
So I finally got to talk to the BP rep Mark, and asked him my questions. Mark did not have the answers I was looking for off hand, so I spent the next several minutes waiting for him to find them.
Remember the EPA demand on May 20th to "find a less toxic dispersant now?" Then there is the second directive to "find a less toxic dispersant NOW NOW!!" Well, [it] didn't work out like that. They ran out of Corexit 9500, then switched to 9527A. They still have not "found" a less toxic alternative except for 9500A, which I describe in the article below. I thought they had made the switch to a better one because I have not heard of any change. I didn't hear about it because it did not happen. Apparently all three Corexit products are on the EPA's approved list. Independent scientists have said that there are several others on the list that are better, but the EPA and BP are currently doing tests on the others to find out.
What is the determining factor for toxicity by the EPA? I couldn't find that out, and neither can the EPA apparently. If they all made the list, don't they have the data on which one is less toxic? Until they do, Nalco products are the only ones being used. (Nalco has financial ties to Exxon, and reportedly to BP).
Want to know the scary thing? I am a prison guard turned reporter / activist, trying to help with the Gulf in any way I can, but I knew more than the BP rep! I quoted facts, dates, information; I kept getting "hold on while I look that up," and "so you're saying that we were using which one again?" I am not kidding, people!!! It took me a couple of days of research, but shouldn't this guy know this information like the back of his hand?
I am disgusted and appalled, but not surprised. If you think the EPA is the watchdog of BP, you're wrong.
I will leave the article up for the heck of it in case you want to read it.
-- Keith Benning
Facebook page: Gulf Oil Spill Crisis - Let's take action America!!!
Send BP Your Tax Dollars!
You might as well cut out the middle man, because apparently BP now runs our government. I am wrong, you say? If that is the case, you will have to show me better proof than what BP already has.
The EPA, under pressure from the American people, demanded that BP stop using Corexit 9500, and 9527A, two of the less effective and more toxic dispersants available according to some independent scientists. BP continued to use Corexit 9500 and 9527A until they ran out.
The EPA is a government agency of the same federal government that is in charge of our armed forces. If BP was ordered to stop, why didn't our government stop them? The rig is in our waters, there were toxic chemicals being dumped into the gulf, and a federal agency ordered them to stop. I don't remember seeing any surface to air missiles on the BP ship, or a heavily armed commando force. I am fairly sure that if a team of Navy Seals boarded the rig and simply said "stop," that BP would comply. That raises the question, if a United States Government Federal Agency told BP to stop, why didn't they, and why didn't our government make them?
When BP ran out of their old stocks of Corexit, they made the switch to Corexit 9500A, (the pickles and ice cream formula). What do pickles and ice cream have to do with oil dispersants? According to Mani Ramesh, the chief technology officer for Nalco, "All six ingredients are used in day to day life -- in mouthwash, toothpaste, ice cream, and pickles," Ramesh argues.
Apparently Mr. Ramesh eats a very different ice cream than I do. I went into the freezer to check the label of my rocky road, and absent from the label was the warning: "Avoid skin and eye contact, immediately flush area with large amounts of water, remove contaminated clothing, seek prompt medical attention for eye exposure, and medical attention for skin exposure if irritation persists." Or just take the Nalco precautions of: "Wearing a long sleeve shirt, chemical resistant gloves, and chemical protective goggles." --Nalco MSDS sheet. Ice cream will never be the same again.
What do oil dispersants do, you ask? The chemicals in dispersants merely break up the oil into smaller droplets, making it less likely to spread.
What else do the dispersants do? They are also likely to make the broken up oil drift down and choke life on the seafloor.
"We're wiping out critical elements of the base of the food chain of the Gulf," said Ron Kendall, chair of the Department of Environmental Toxicology at Texas Tech University in Lubbock. "This is an exotoxological experiment underway in one of the world's most productive and fragile ecosystems." Is that just speculation? Is the release of the dispersants an experiment by the "Joint Federal - industry response team"? Let's ask Nalco, the manufacturer of Corexit.
"I don't think anybody knows what would happen by applying the dispersants at depth; we do not have any knowledge that would allow us to predict what would happen." --Mani Ramesh, Nalco (Scientific American, 5/13/2010). Do you think we should trust the word of the Federal part of the response team, let alone the "industry" part? This is the same industry that stands to make millions off of the use of a company with financial ties to the big oil, which includes Exxon, who formed a joint partnership with Nalco in 1994.
Don't worry, little chickens; the fox is taking care of you.
Do you still think our government is in charge of the situation? The EPA might be a toothless watchdog, but they are still looking out for the environmental health of our waters, beaches, and marshes, right? The EPA stood up to BP, even if they were ignored, so they must be on our side.
I wanted to prove it to myself that the EPA was still standing up to BP, so I made a phone call to the EPA. When the friendly EPA staff member answered, I asked, "Could you tell me the type of dispersant currently being used in the Gulf oil spill?"
She asked me if she could put me on hold while she asked a BP rep. God Bless the United States of British Petroleum.
-- Keith Benning
Facebook page: Gulf Oil Spill Crisis - Let's take action America!!!
HERE is a PDF link to BP's official paper regarding the role of dispersants in the response to the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.
Deepwater Horizon Spill Response: Dispersant Use
Dispersant Background and Frequently Asked Questions
Effective June 19, 2010
[or copy and paste this link to re-distribute:]
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/Dispersant_background_and_FAQs.pdf
Keith Benning's take: "[A] lot of what-if's, as far as the science goes, and at this point I don't know what to believe, and not believe. Very carefully worded in a lot of areas. Not saying it is true, or untrue, but I think we need to educate ourselves from as many sources we can."
Amen to that. So please read BP's document and judge for yourself.
Wishing you a beautiful day,
Bill Brent
[this page last updated: 2010.06.29, 9:50 p.m. Hawaii time]
