# BP Oil spill effects



## Northwoods (Mar 4, 2011)

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/bp-oil-spills-effects-need-watching/1215934


----------



## Peixaria (Dec 31, 2008)

Just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Northwoods (Mar 4, 2011)

The big problem is the failure of the EPA to do it's job. When BP was ordered by the EPA to stop using Corexit 9500A, the "dispersent", they just kept using it, and the EPA let them. This stuff is actually a sinking agent that creates the "out of sight, out of mind" effect, and coats the sea floor. When the stuff stays on the surface, bacteria can naturally dissolve it. When it sinks at depth, the bacteria are either non existent, or it is too cold for them to do much. The EPA never did any kind of long term testing on the stuff, and the few tests that they did do were a joke, I know because I read them. They could have used natural oil dissolving products, but the company that makes Corexit is Nalco, which is owned by the oil companies. I personally think that your going to see future problems with tuna, and bottom species like snapper and grouper. If anyone wants more info, I started a facebook page when the spill happened, and there are some good links, and some informative articles I wrote under the notes section. The page is called "Gulf Oil Spill Crisis- Let's Take Action America".


----------



## Peixaria (Dec 31, 2008)

Northwoods, since you obviously have more data [and hours] on it than me. Can you refresh my memory as to who were the "BadGuys" that were profiting from these unstable deep well platforms, and installing substandard parts if I remember correctly. It occurs to me that this is an election year and that this hanus catastrophe has been neatly put to bed by the usual gang of idiots.


----------



## Peixaria (Dec 31, 2008)

Hey Northwoods, Just finished an article on this very topic. Lay the Snakes Straight so to speak, on just who you surmise was negligent at the Macondo well. I have a short list that includes BP, Transocean, Haliburton Energy, and Anadarko. You mentioned Nalco, is that a Dow subsidiary? Seeing as how this massive suit is coming to term can you clarify for the board?


----------



## Northwoods (Mar 4, 2011)

First of all, there are a couple of things that I want to throw out there. I am not an expert on the gulf oil disaster, I am a prison guard from Chicago that currently lives in Northern Minnesota and loves to fish. I suffered no direct effects from the spill, and had never fished anywhere in the region until a year after the spill happened. My philosophy is that it shouldn’t matter if it’s your backyard or mine, we all fish, and we all need to stick together. The BP gulf disaster really pissed me off once I started digging into things. 

That being said, the article I posted on here related to current findings on fish, which was the problem that I was addressing. (EPA and Corexit) Over the years in dealing with this whole thing, I have developed a great distaste for numerous government agencies that played a role both before and after the spill. In regards to who were the bad guys, and who was at fault is a much bigger question than what it seems. It really needs to be divided up into a couple of parts: who was responsible for the oil getting in the water, who was responsible for the failures before the spill occurred, and who was responsible for the failures after the spill occurred. I am going to cover some of it now and will put another post up with the rest of the info in a few days, (working OT this week for my Florida fishing trip). As I previously stated, I am not an expert on the gulf disaster. I have invested around about 500 hours into this whole thing between research, and trying to get things changed. If I have something wrong in what I wrote, let me know. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask. If I know the answers, I will give them. Thanks, and here we go for part 1. 

In regards to who was at fault, BP was number one, as they were the owner of the well, and were the ones making the decisions on what went on. The actual Deepwater Horizon rig itself was owned by Transocean; however, BP was responsible for the safety of the well, the people on it, and the environmental damage it could cause if there were problems. Regardless of who they try and blame, they are responsible for contractors and their performance. The explosion was a result of BP’s screw-ups, and as a result of the explosion, the blowout preventer failed so as far as responsibility, it was a domino effect that exposed screw-ups by several companies. BP used a cheaper well casing that they knew would increase risks, and had a design flaw on top of it, they ignored the warning signs that there was a problem, even admitting to inspectors at one point that they sent the one guy they hired to do the tests on the cement plug home that day and a BP guy overrode the safety procedures and gave it the ok. (BP no longer remembers saying that) Even though the testing said something was wrong, and that a negative pressure test that checks for leaks was inconclusive at best. Brilliant huh? They farmed out a lot of the responsibilities to contractors that they didn’t keep track of, and didn’t train their own staff on what to do in regards to catastrophic accidents, (some of the emergency plans were written in pencil). They didn’t adequately test the blowout preventer, or much of the other equipment on the well. BP ignored tests showing faulty concrete was used, put greed over safety, offered employee incentives for getting wells drilled quickly, and showed a blatant disregard for anything that didn’t equal profit for them. Apparently the 500,000 dollar backup shutoff mechanism was too pricey because BP chose not to buy it. BP and the rest of the big oil companies have invested billions in technology to drill in deeper waters, yet relied on years old technology for cleanup in case of a spill, instead they relied on the same used in the Valdez spill in 1989. (the Coast Guard also has some blame to catch in this) Prior to the gulf disaster, our countries oil spill testing facility In New Jersey had never received a visit from anyone at BP. The facility is the only one that allows both the private sector and our government to do full scale testing of equipment on actual oil. Nahhhhh, we’ll never spill anything, why go to there? BP has had a game plan from the start, and has stuck with it. BP claimed that Transocean was responsible for failures of maintenance, control procedures, and safety devices. BP is also going after Cameron (manufacturer of the blowout preventer) to try and get some cash out of them, plus BP is blaming The Zug, which is another swiss company that BP claimed had "deficient inspection and maintenance practices". So far they are the champions of the finger-pointing game. The other part of their game plan since the explosion has been a massive propaganda campaign that I will also touch on later. 

Transocean was the owner of both the Deepwater Horizon rig, and the blowout preventer. The blowout preventer was not manufactured by Transocean, but by Cameron International Corp. Even though the rig was operating in our waters, there is no external quality control of the blowout preventer, nor was it designed to operate at such depths. The design of the thing itself is even a problem. When a Norwegian risk-management company was hired to look at the blowout preventer, (it was never documented if they were able to look at the entire thing) according to them the problem was a design flaw, not misuse or poor maintenance. Keep in mind that Transocean is a Swiss company, and I was unable to find any info about possible past relations to the Norwegian company that did the study, but that the study really helps Transocean to deny responsibility. I wouldn’t be shocked to find ties between the two companies because that is pretty much a running theme with the whole thing. Why wasn’t a study done by a US company since the spill happened in our waters? The question often arises of why we can’t make them be inspected, they are just a company right? They are not a company, they are considered a “person” in the eyes of the law due to an antiquated Supreme Court decision from 1886 that declared the Southern Pacific Railroad to be a “person”, and was protected by the fourteenth Amendment, which keeps a person from being deprived from life, liberty, or property, even though they are not from here. This, in my opinion is a good example of big business getting its way in the early years, I like to think of it as the beginning of big business/ government corruption. The house did pass a bill to set new standards on blowout preventers, but surprisingly it didn’t get picked up by the senate because of opposition to it. What??? (Remember this part of it not getting picked up by the senate, I will get to that in the government part of this) BP really doesn’t want to take any responsibility, as do any of the big players. In my opinion, Transocean is just another of the greedy players in the whole thing that doesn’t want to grab the “hot potato”. They do take care of their own though. Transocean awarded staffers with 898,282 dollars in bonuses for safety performance in 2010. Yes, it’s true, sit and let it sink in for a minute. Transocean was still responsible for the rig, even though BP was the ultimate decisions. Transocean did increase shift times of workers as a cost saving method, even though workers said that it was having negative impacts, and we will always have the blowout preventer looming in the background, and it’s continued use on other rigs (I will also go over what role our government played in not correcting this later). Cameron still hides under the umbrella of “proprietary secrets” as the reason they don’t have to let any safety organizations do any type of certification, or quality control over blowout preventers that are used in our waters. Transocean continues to play the same blame game as BP. Transocean filed a suit against BP,Halliburton and the U.S. government to try and avoid having to pay anything. Who knows how long they will try and drag their end out. 

Halliburton workers were the ones putting in the cement plug, and who did the bad cement job on the well, and “accidentally” destroyed the results of the slurry tests, and other cement testing results. Two Halliburton employees did testify that they were told to destroy the notes, but apparently they were lying according to Halliburton. Transocean, Halliburton, and BP have been playing a finger-pointing game ever since the whole thing started.

Anadarko Petroleum owned a quarter of the well, and had no employees on the well and was also a non-operating partner. How much is their fault is a good question. In my opinion, their liability is equal to all the other big oil companies that ignore safety. If they would have had people on the rig, or were an operating partner, then I would put more blame on them. Anadarko’s claim was that “The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP's reckless decisions and actions," and "We recognize that ultimately we have obligations under federal law related to the oil spill, but will look to BP to continue to pay all legitimate claims as they have repeatedly stated that they will do” 

I had to go through a lot of my old research to write all of this, but there is more to the story, and more groups that were responsible. As soon as I get some free time, I will shed some light on the other players and their failures, and discuss the Corexit/Nalco/EPA issues. 
Thanks


----------



## Peixaria (Dec 31, 2008)

Thanx Brother, Looking forward to your follow up


----------



## Northwoods (Mar 4, 2011)

One correction on the above post. We can make them be inspected regardless of the 1886 Southern Pacific Railroad decision, it just limits some of our abilities of inspection on specific parts of the equipment. 


This one took some leg work to get done. It's quite long, but I hope you all take the time to read it, since it took quite a few hours to put together. I think people should know where their tax dollars have gone, and are still going. My purpose behind writing this was to inform and educate people on what our government did that helped create the gulf disaster, and some of what it is doing now. The most recent government report that some of this was taken from is around 15 pages long, and is very difficult to understand (at least it was for me). I had to read it about seven times to start to see the things that didn’t make sense. I double checked my sources, so everything should be correct. If something is wrong, or there are any questions, let me know. Anyways, here goes part two.

I was always under the impression that there was some government entity that would do some kind of surprise visits on oil rigs a couple of times a week, doing inspections, asking questions, making sure that the oil companies were doing their job safely, and following the rules. I was wrong……..very, very wrong. One of the common questions asked with the gulf disaster is how did we allow BP to have such dangerous operating practices?

With the de-regulation that took place in the 1980’s, the big oil companies started to pour millions of dollars into lobbying politicians to vote for Oil friendly legislation, and it never stopped. The Department of the Interior’s Mineral Management Services (MMS) is the department that is responsible for collecting royalties from the oil companies, (about 12 billion dollars a year), and also responsible for regulation of safety on offshore drilling rigs. My only defense to the department was that big oil had more friends in Washington than the MMS did. Well, sort of. 

One of the complaints from the MMS was that there was a lack of manpower for them to do adequate “surprise inspections”. MMS might have been low on manpower for inspections, but it didn’t enforce the rules that it did make, and only collected 6 percent of fines from violators over a 13 year period on both land and sea. MMS often relied on the word of the oil companies that safety issues were fixed. The problems with MMS have been going on for a long time, and many of them are pretty bad. There was the case of MMS regulators allowing oil industry officials to “fill in their own inspection reports in pencil and then turn them over to regulators who later traced over them in pen”. Later on MMS commented that the reports difficult to determine what was and was not accurate. There was a royalty-collection office located in Denver Colorado that had an even worse record. In a 2008 Interior Department’s Inspector General found that MMS employees broke the rules and created a "culture of ethical failure" by accepting gifts from, and having sex with, industry representatives. The problems didn’t stop there. In 2009, a former regional supervisor of the Gulf of Mexico region for MMS named Donald C. Howard pled guilty in federal court for lying about receiving gifts from an offshore drilling contractor. Mr. Howard was sentenced to a year’s probation. In subsequent investigations, it was found that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.” The Lake Charles La office had repeatedly accepted various gifts, including meals, hunting and fishing trips, and a trip to the Peach Bowl. Apparently the Lake Charles office was quite the place to party. One inspector from the office admitted to investigators that he used crystal meth. (investigators believed that he might have been high on meth during an inspection) Just what we need, a tweaker inspecting an oil rig! The report said the findings of the investigation had been presented to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Louisiana, which declined prosecution. (The Justice Department also declined to press charges from both it's investigations, and internal investigations from MMS) In mid-2008, a minerals agency employee conducted four inspections on drilling platforms while at the same time negotiating for a job at the same company. The inspector later took a job for the same company.

In the different investigations I read, the phrase that was used quite frequently was the “revolving door of the MMS”. It was a good deal if the big oil companies could get one of the regulators to switch to the dark side, then they would have an employee that knew the loopholes in the regulations, plus the employee still has friends that work for the MMS. I can just imagine the following conversation take place: “Hey Frank, how are you buddy? Things still going good at mineral management? Can’t say I miss it now that I’m working for BP! Anyway Frank, old buddy, old pal, I would let you see the logs for the blowout preventer maintenance, but uh…. I can’t find em, we can just let it slide can’t we? Don’t forget Frank, you still owe me two hundred bucks for that cocaine we snorted off that hooker at the Peach Bowl”. 

The lowly inspectors were not the only ones to take advantage of the big oil money. The following is a list of higher ranking DOI employees

1. J. Steven Griles , Deputy Secretary of the Department of Interior (2001-2004) before that job, Mr.Griles worked for an energy lobbying firm. Mr. Griles continued to receive payments of $284,000 a year from his coal lobbying firm WHILE he served as the DOI Deputy Secretary. (this has now changed, and they are no longer allowed to have financial involvement with private energy companies) In addition, he arranged several meetings with his former oil and gas industry clients, and awarded $2,000,000 in federal contracts to a former client. After leaving the DOI due to a scandal regarding buying a 1 million dollar home with another DOI employee and a ConocoPhillips lobbyist, Mr.Griles joined a lobbying firm run by a former Dick Cheney energy advisor. That would be the same Dick Cheney that worked for Halliburton. Remember the bad concrete on the well? 

2. January 2001: Gale Norton is sworn in as Department of the Interior Secretary of the Department of Interior (2001-2006). December 2006: Gale Norton joins Royal Dutch Shell.

3. March 2007: DOI appointee Julie MacDonald revealed to have received cash award of $9,628. The figure is just under the $10,000 mark that would have triggered an investigation by OPM. Mrs. MacDonald was also found to have tampered with findings in scientific studies to favor industry interests. May 2007: Report indicates MacDonald leaked internal DOI documents to Chevron employee.

4. Months after the purchase of the 2 million dollar home with Mr. Griles and a ConocoPhillips lobbyist, former DOI insubordinate Sue Ellen Wooldridge, issued an agreement delaying $500m in ConocoPhillips pollution cleanups.

5. Randall Luthi Director, DOI Mineral Management Service (2007-2009), and 30 year friend of Dick Cheney, (can you say Halliburton?) becomes president of The National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) weeks before the BP spill. NOIA is an offshore energy trade group, whose goal is to “secure reliable access and a favorable regulatory and economic environment.” NOIA is the same foundation that issued a statement that urged lawmakers NOT to raise liability caps on oil companies after the BP spill. 

6. In 2005, Jim Grant, The chief of staff of the Gulf of Mexico region raised the concern “Few or no regulations or standards” were present on deep water drilling rigs. Two years later, Mr. Grant left his government job to take a job with BP as their regulatory compliance and environmental manager, which just so happened to be for the Gulf of Mexico strategic performance unit, the same region that he worked in for the government. Once employed by BP, Mr. Grant made the statement in 2009 to the U.S Ocean policy task force that they should "carefully weigh policies that may establish exclusionary zones, disrupt the MMS leasing program or affect opportunities for economic growth".


In 2009, President Obama appointed Ken Salazar to root out the corruption in the MMS. Salazar appointed Sylvia Baca to the Department of the Interior to be Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, citing her “professionalism and detailed knowledge of the interiors land and energy responsibilities". Baca worked in several senior management positions for BP in 2001. Baca recused herself in any dealings with the Deepwater Horizon incident. At some point after the appointment during a senate hearing, (I couldn’t find a date) , Director Salazar acknowledged that there “has been a revolving door problem at his agency”. Really Mr. Salazar, you think?


----------



## Northwoods (Mar 4, 2011)

Oh yeah, I almost forgot a couple of things. In 2000, the well-oiled machine of the MMS issued a safety alert that said it “expects oil companies to have a backup system to activate blowout preventers if the main activation system fails”. The MMS didn’t enforce this, instead it relied on oil industry to ensure the systems were in place, did not do a formal survey. 
The Deepwater Horizon rig was inspected six times in 2008, the mandatory inspection number was twelve. Fifty percent is ok right? The total of missed inspections for the Deepwater Horizon rig was 16. The last MMS inspection was on April 1st, 2010. It was inspected by a novice inspector that was sent there alone. In addition, MMS did not require BP -- which owns the well that blew up -- to file a plan for reacting to a "potential blowout," (meaning an uncontrollable spill). They once again relied on industry officials to make sure it was done. (They did no formal surveys to make sure this was completed)

The MMS has now been divided into three separate departments to better regulate the oil industry. In their 2012 budget request, they planned for numerous changes to the agency if they were allowed to have the budget they requested. The plans were actually very good, and had some teeth to them. Unfortunately they didn’t get the budget they requested, and only received the same amount they received the year before, and we know how well those tax dollars were spent. The agency has claimed that they have put rigid new rules in place, but when you read the reforms, I mean really look at what they say, I am not sure they are doing much. 

The following is an example of one of the new policies: “the issuance of Notices to Lessees on new safety and environmental requirements. They call for “efficient preparation and utilization of broad programmatic reviews, fully integrated with site-specific assessments and mitigation approaches”. You look at it the first time, and it seems like they are making sure the rigs are safe right? What they said was that they issued notices, not that they intend to follow up on them. The statement from them says they “call for”, not “they implement”.

Another one is “requirements that operators must submit information regarding blowout scenarios with their Exploration. Further investigation is needed before the consequences of a blowout in deepwater can be fully evaluated”, and from a different section: “The Deepwater EA (environmental analysis) also identified additional studies and analysis needed to address issues and data gaps”. Data gaps? They have had a decent amount of time, what have they been doing?

Here are a few comments taken from the report on the improvements that have been made. 

1. “The BP Oil Spill constitutes significant new information and circumstances that may require re-evaluation of some conclusions reached in prior NEPA reviews.” (May require re-evaluation?)
2. “Additional Considerations Ultimately, the goals under NEPA (one of the three new agencies that spawned from MMS) will not be achieved without the full participation of other Federal agencies.” I thought they were supposed to be able to do this on their own? 

3. The next one was a question they asked themselves without ever alluding to an answer: “Has the categorical exclusion designation been an effective tool for reducing unnecessary paperwork without compromising the robustness of the NEPA analysis?” The Deepwater Horizon was given several categorical exclusions.

4. There were public comments taken during the process of coming up with the new rules, here is what the public had to say. “Commenters asserted that they did not have enough time to adequately examine, understand, and comment on the environmental documents associated with OCS oil and gas exploration and development plans.” 

5. In an internal investigation, it was found that some of the MMS’s own scientists “alleged that their findings have been suppressed”.

6. MMS did not require BP -- which owns the well that blew up -- to file a plan for reacting to a "potential blowout," meaning an uncontrollable spill, in this case as in several others, MMS did actually accept blame, which has been a very uncommon occurrence in this whole fiasco. 

7. They took the blame on this one: “An Oil Spill Risk Analysis, published in June 2007, reported an overall 94-96% chance of one or more spills greater than 1,000 barrels occurring.” 


So what are we left with? I believe what we are left with is an agency that was an utter train wreck and has now enacted reforms that they often don’t really describe, reforms that don’t state that the rules will be enforced or followed up on, and a review that was completed by a panel of 11 people, six of which were lawyers. If your apprehensive about them still being inept and incapable of doing their job correctly, don’t worry……wait.... I take that back. I forgot to tell all of you that there is a new deep water rig that will be utilized by Cuba, (we have no official jurisdiction) 90 miles off of the keys. It was built by China, (we all know how good China’s products are), that will operate deeper than the Deepwater Horizion, and was inspected by the Interiors Departments Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, who’s inspectors found that the rig “generally complies” with international and United States standards. Sleep well Floridians, the government has your back. 

If you want I can keep going on all of this, there is a lot more to the story. 

Thanks


----------



## cidman (Sep 10, 2007)

Northwoods, this makes my head hurt. Amazing job putting all this together.


----------



## Peixaria (Dec 31, 2008)

Thanks for the follow up Northwoods. Mindboggling to say the least, the illicit dealings,suppression, corruption of the previous admistration and Big Energy are still being uncovered and cleaned up. You need to publish this.


----------



## Northwoods (Mar 4, 2011)

The bad thing is that it's already out there in bits and pieces, just not all together. I might clean it up and put it out there at some point, but it's a waste during the elections, especially while gas prices are high. The last thing the talking heads want to bring up is anything about oil right now. Unfortunately the majority of the general public is short sighted and less concerned about something like big oil company regulation when gas is up. Sad but true. I will finish answering the initial question next week.


----------



## CarvedTones (Mar 6, 2012)

Is there a list anywhere of what fish commonly migrate through the spill area (whatever that is with regards to how far away water contains things from it that potentially cause harm to life) and then come inshore? I am thinking of a list of fish one might consider always releasing even when they are in good supply and legally tasty.

BTW, I visit FL with some regularity even though my location is NC, but it would be nice to know if there is a different list for things that would actually come this far versus what you have to worry about there. I was in the pan handle last October and it looked crystal clear with clean beaches, but I was afraid to harvest anything.


----------



## Northwoods (Mar 4, 2011)

It's a tough call to make as far as safety goes until long term research has been done. After learning more about the EPA, I would trust absolutely nothing they say, or at least take what they say with a grain of salt the size of a dump truck. Some of the best research thus far on the longer term effects of the dispersant corexit has been done by a high school science class. Yes, you read that correctly. The EPA did short term tests, but they were an utter joke, trust me, I read it and also had an independent toxicological scientist read the EPA report, and he came to the same conclusion that I did. NOAA has a lot of information in regards to water samples, but they still have not released any of it, and some of it is faulty. Chemicals in the dispersant rupture blood cells and disrupt the ability of oils to bond. The effects are currently unknown on how this would affect the lipid layers of cells in fish and other marine life. The concentrations that cause the rupturing of blood cells are a roughly a million times higher than what is being found in the open waters of the gulf. The big question thus far is how bio-accumulative the chemicals in Corexit (the dispersant used) are. Bio-accumulative basically means that certain toxins concentrate as they move up the food chain similar to mercury. The most valid information you will get is being done by independent researchers that are not receiving grants from the U.S. government, or BP. Be wary of any research that is done by anyone receiving grant money from either entity. 


I would be concerned if I was eating gulf seafood five times a week that came from areas heavily impacted by the oil/dispersant mixture, but that is just me. One of the biggest concerns at this point is the effects on the reproductive ability of fish and other marine life, and how the dispersant/oil mixture effects the lower ends of the food chain. Personally, I would stay away from large predator fish, since they typically have the highest concentrations of bio-accumulative toxins. The research just isn't being done yet, but a large percentage of that is due to BP and our government. Those two groups just want it to go away because neither one wants to admit how bad they screwed up after the oil hit the water. Again, in your situation, I would eat the fish. For now.


----------



## CarvedTones (Mar 6, 2012)

I do eat a lot of seafood; 5 times or more a lot of weeks if you count canned tuna (some of which comes from countries with far less concern for safety, so maybe the horse has bolted from the barn already) and processed pollock (fake crab). I love Gulf shrimp, but it tends to be pricey and not as fresh as what is local to me. Until BP, my local NC sounds made the Gulf look like mountain spring water. But I am starting to become more concerned.


----------



## Northwoods (Mar 4, 2011)

It's really a tough one to call at this point. From what I have read, the white gulf shrimp have been less abundant in shallower waters than they were in the past. I don't know if this has something to do with it or not. The ocean is polluted in general, but we know about most of those problems. This is a new one that most agencies are dragging their feet on. The big problem is that oil has toxic chemicals to start with, but becomes even more toxic when it is combined with dispersants. I hate to say anything negative that would hurt the fishermen in the gulf, but some of them even question things. If the accumulation of toxins is taking place, it most likely be a few more years before most game fish would show significant levels, but even that is speculation. The thing that pisses me off the most is the actions of the EPA. As soon as the well was capped, and the news attention started dropping off, Lisa Jackson, who is the head of the EPA started championing the cause of higher rates of health issues in minority communities. I don't have anything against her cause, but she was very busy with press releases and speeches about it, almost like she wanted the whole gulf issue to go away.
I think the best we can hope for is that some of the environmental advocates keep doing what they are and trying to do research as to the effects of the dispersants. The problem they run into is money, lack of assistance from government agencies, and BP propaganda. Nalco, the company that makes the dispersant likes to claim in their press releases that Corexit has some of the same ingredients found in ice cream. They leave out the fact that some of the other chemicals are carcinogens, nerve toxins, and cause internal bleeding. I guess we have to wait for Ben and Jerry's to come out with a Chernobyl flavor so they can say it's exactly like ice cream.

The minimal studies that BP has funded are done by people and groups that they select, and typically come back with results that are exactly what BP wants. Once they have the info, they can claim that "the scientists say everything is good", then use some of the billions of dollars in profit to push that info onto the web and down everyone's throat. I wish I could say it's safe, and I don't want to start a panic with all of you, but no one knows. The fact that no one knows can go either way, for the good or the bad. I just caution everyone to question what our government agencies have say and have done. I am not trying to go all black helicopter/tinfoil helmet, but if you look into what they have done, it doesn't add up to what they say, and that's not my opinion, it's a fact that can be proven when you look into things further than the press releases. Think about the fact that the FDA did some testing on the sea food, yet the actual chemical analysis was on minimal samples that they didn't disclose the location they were taken from. The primary test done by the FDA was the "smell test". I don't know how faithful I would be about the FDA's "smell test" being the primary method of analysis.

The key to the whole issue is the bio-accumulation factor, we will just have to wait and see. Again, no one should panic about the safety of the sea food from the gulf, just question what you hear, and use your judgement as far as safety goes. I don't have any kind of agenda here, I am just trying to put out the information that you are not going to get from the TV.


----------



## CarvedTones (Mar 6, 2012)

It's tough to know which way to turn these days; I have consciously increased my seafood (Mahi Mahi is packed in my lunch for the 3rd time this week  ) and I don't want to die of some condition I never heard of instead of having a heart attack. That was not the point of this exercise...


----------



## Northwoods (Mar 4, 2011)

Worry about the heart attack, not the fish. I should have been more specific about my concerns regarding the FDA smell test, and the concern of many of the commercial fishermen and shrimpers in the gulf. I apologize for that, as I don’t want to start a panic. The point behind that comment was to show the ineptitude of our government agencies that we pay to keep an eye on things for us. The reason I made the FDA statement was not that the food is currently unsafe, but that while the toxins from the dispersants were in heavy concentrations, the FDA did the minimum to test what was coming out of the waters. Think about the technology they had available and yet they relied on the “smell test” as their primary line of defense. The gulf fishermen have a reason to be concerned since many of them have friends that were cleanup workers that are now sick. 

The groups of people that have to really worry about the dispersants are the cleanup workers that were directly exposed to the chemicals. The same dispersants were used in the Valdez spill back in 89, where the workers had extremely high exposure levels since they were working directly with the contaminated oil. You will read some reports that the majority of workers on the spill are now dead, but from what I have found, that is untrue. The workers have had long term health effects, such as neurological impairment, chronic respiratory disease, leukemia, lymphoma, brain tumors, liver damage, and blood disease. BUT you need to remember that the workers were in direct contact with the toxins, just like the gulf cleanup workers were. Your chances of heart disease are astronomical compared to the potential risks associated with the chemicals in the gulf, unless it you had a direct exposure to the toxins.

Yes there might be unknown health concerns related to seafood from heavily hit regions, but they are yet unknown. If I caught a fish that had lesions on it, or some other obvious issue in appearance, I would not eat it. The reason I say that I wouldn’t eat large oily fish like tuna is because I want to wait a little longer to see what is going on, again, that is just me. The bio-accumulation factor is still an unknown. The other reason I personally wouldn’t eat large fish is because I am loaded with PCB’s from salmon fishing every weekend on Lake Michigan as a kid. We ate salmon 3 times a week, every week, every year from an area that was found to be heavily contaminated until my dad passed away and I quit salmon fishing. That was 25 years ago, and I am still relatively normal. (depending on who you ask) I am just paranoid about adding anything else to the mix. The potential long term effects are just unknown right now. Use common sense and weigh it out for yourself. If you catch a snapper with legs on it, don’t eat it.


----------



## Northwoods (Mar 4, 2011)

I want everyone to know there is a reason behind what some people might consider all the doom and gloom, and why you need to read it. Big oil companies and our elected representatives rely on ignorance of the public to allow them to create their own rules. A large amount of politicians accept campaign contributions from big oil, our current president also has a long history of accepting big oil money. What they all want is for people to be quiet, content, and ignorant, which allows them to make decisions for us instead of doing what they are supposed to do; represent the wishes of the electorate that put them in their current position. The only way to hold them accountable is to know more than they do, which I have found is not difficult to do. I have made phone calls, and gone down to our capital to speak to my state reps about issues that pissed me off. What I have found almost every time is that if I put in a few hours of research, I will know more than they do, yet they are the ones making the decisions. So, take the time to read this, educate yourself and anyone that brings this topic up in conversation. I am going to touch on this again in later posts, but please take the time to read, learn, and pass on information. Information is our best weapon for actual reform.


----------



## CarvedTones (Mar 6, 2012)

Northwoods said:


> If you catch a snapper with legs on it, don’t eat it.


Throw away my only chance at snapper drumsticks? I will have to think on that one. 

Thanks for putting together all the info. I will stay on the "flexitarian" diet and keep substituting seafood and/or veggies for beef and pork (chicken gets a free pass as long as it usually isn't fried). It is working; I am losing weight and "rotundness". I am going a little overboard with fish, but they taste so much better than soy...


----------

