Home | About | Donate

Coast Guard Responders 'Harmed by Chemicals Used to Clean Up BP’s Spill'


#1

Coast Guard Responders 'Harmed by Chemicals Used to Clean Up BP’s Spill'

Andy Rowell

Sometimes, there is absolutely nothing worse than being proven right. It is the one thing you dreaded.

Ever since the horrendous Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010, I and many others warned against using the toxic chemical called Corexit arguing that it would do more damage than good.

The potential evidence of harm, or lack of evidence of its safety, was clear for everyone from BP to the US Government to see to if they had bothered to look.


#2

The Deepwater Horizon debacle was corporate malfeasance writ large on a variety of issues. Dispersants do more harm than good as they make the toxic organic compounds comprising the oil more bioavailable. The intent of dispersants is strictly to hide the evidence by making the oil (typically in slick form) “disappear” into the water thus rendering it “invisible” to the pesky public. Their application is done with malice aforethought. Corporate sin, pure and simple.


#3

The next time you hear the big brass and the politicians blather on about how much they care for our soldiers, sailors and marines please try to understand that they are always lying. Soldiers, etc. are just pawns to be used and abused. Every time. Remember how long war vets had to battle for relief from the effects of agent orange and gulf war syndrome. Now the government is denying the awful effects soldiers are suffering from KBR burn pits in Afghanistan and Iraq. Old men lying and youngsters dying. Every time.

Peace
Po


#4

“Coast Guard Responders 'Harmed by Chemicals Used to Clean Up BP’s Spill”

Let’s be clear about this: absolutely NO chemicals were used to “clean up” the spill. The chemicals (dispersants) were used to HIDE the vast quantities of crude oil by scattering it where it would not be seen, even though it would, in this manner, do even more damage.


#5

To this day I look at labels to make sure I am not buying any seafood from that area. When will people wake up and realize the downside to all this so called “growth”.


#6

There’s a long history of this. That’s not important because it makes this event better in any way, but it is important know that it will happen again–the very next time there is a major leak, be it chemical or radioactive,

Corporate and government responses get determined by a set of PR principles and practices that the actors call “damage control.” But what they call “damage” is almost entirely the spread of information,. particularly the spread of information in the early stages of publicity, when a substantial percentage of the population may take an interest. Because of this, respondents and residents near impacted areas should be aware of a few things in advance and act accordingly, despite corporate and government announcements.

Responsible parties will act to minimize their culpability in court or by reduced sales or whatever. They will therefore exaggerate descriptions of response and control and deny danger wherever they can. The standard for this is consistent: it is personal and corporate deniability within the period of extensive media attention.

To be as clear and blunt as possible, authorities will say things are fine or that danger is not certain as long as they feel that they can later deny in court that they knew differently.

This plays out differently case by case. We now know, for example, that the government knowingly killed many thousands of Americans by testing nuclear warheads in the Western US. The poisoning was particularly extensive and cruel because people had very little knowledge of radiation poisoning, so that it was easy to imagine that there would be little or no retribution. Media coverage of the leaks at Three Mile Island by Harrisburg, Pennsylvania were not particularly honest and left out the very telltale pattern of leukema and cancers downwind and downstream of the site in years following the major leaks. But they did not deny danger to the same extreme extent because the population was sufficiently informed that possibilities of a class action lawsuit were a real concern.

These principles operate similarly with fracking accidents and gas leaks (Aliso Canyon, CA 10/15), oil leaks (BP, Exxon-Valdez), and leaks of very toxic chemicals (Bhopal).

Once the leak happens, there are a lot of motives to get far away.


#7

Thank you WiseOwl and Donn, you two are exactly correct. I also take offence to the writer calling this tragedy a “spill” or “accident”, it was not. This incident can be directly linked to GREED on the part of BP and Transocean. On site engineers for both company’s knew they had a major problem before the well head exploded, but chose to continue their opperations. They also had a pretty good idea the antiquated blow-out preventer was not going to work. Why? Because as they were pulling drill pipe out of the well, they were finding chunks of rubber on the platform deck (floor). This rubber came from the inside BOP, which means there was little if any chance it would do it’s job.
During a 3 yr. stretch about this time, BP racked up one hell of a safety record:

  1. Installed a bow thruster on a rig backwards, nearly sinking the rig
  2. Bought an outdated oil refinery in Tx. City, with the warning to replace a worn-out tank in the refinery. They refused to spend $250,000 and 11 people lost their lives when said tank exploded.
  3. Bought part of the AK. pipeline, and refused to do proper maintenance, resulting in multiple spills and environmental damage.
  4. Deepwater Horizon, 12 deaths, and (see above).

This criminal company should not be allowed to operate any where in the world.


#8

Let me also add, at that time there was no plan or resources in the gulf to handle a major spill or leak. Even though they had vary limited knowledge of drilling at the depths they were drilling at.
BP was offered the use of the largest skimming ship in the world, they declined, too costly. Then the spraying began, we know how that turned out (out of site, out of mind)
The Coast Guard personal have a legitimate complaint, I personally know people who worked the incident and got violently sick from the fumes. But don’t forget, the CG was in charge of the clean-up operation, and gave the green light for dispersants to be used.

Sorry for going on and on, but this whole mess makes me sick.


#9

I find it hard to believe the stupidity or brilliance behind the decision to give oil profits the highest priority and nuclear power a wide open freeway. Just stop buying anything and quicken the pace of your own destruction yall. Yep…incoming! I miss eating a fried high quality fish sandwich and who trusts eating what is passed off as that now?


#10

It could kill off the marine population, good start at that already. shhh…it’s a in your face secret. Chemicals have more rights than people by a wide open country mile. Pacific…what Pacific? Gulf of Mexico…what Gulf of Mexico? Some people will actually eat anything from either place now. That is why the price of quality clean seafood has soared and finding it is likely a thing of the past.


#11

People do not spill 200 million gallons of anything,

Using a diminutive word to describe a massive gargantuan blowout shows this headline writer to be an unwitting tool of the oil companies.

Another US mind control term is “traditional agriculture.” There is nothing traditional about mechanized chemical warfare to raise poisonous food in farm fields.


#12

You bring up a point I forgot to mention, The Gulf States, shortly after the blow-out, significantly lowered the safety standards set for seafood so it could be sold as “safe” to the public. I miss our beloved shrimp and flounder, but I can’t bring myself to eat it.


#13

It is not just Coast Guard responders who were exposed to toxins. BP refused protective equipment to workers hired to clean oil from beaches. The were even denied the right to wear breathing masks provided by themselves and others. In addition, they were housed in the toxic trailers that FEMA offered to survivors of Hurricane Katrina. And the oil spilled and the chemicals used to disperse created a large “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico and its adjoining wetlands…


#14

Remember how Obama made all the nice progressive talk about the environment? How he would stop handing out permits for mountaintop removal or high risk deep ocean oil drilling? Not only did no actual “cleanup” take place, not only did no one go to prison for it, but somehow Democrats can keep lying and people keep voting for them. It’s almost as if there’s some sort of information dispersant being used.


#15

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/28/the-obama-environm


#16

Boycott BP! I have since 2010. It won’t help with the damage they have done, but at least they won’t get as rich.


#17

Instead of using dispersants why don’t companies pursue greater use of OLEO absorbers?
https://www.anl.gov/technology/videos/oleo-sponge-revolution-oil-spill-cleanup


#18

“nuclear power a wide open freeway” I’m sorry but what on earth are you talking about? Nuclear is by far the most regulated energy sector in the world, and has the most oversight as well as the most safety standards.


#19

What leaks are you referencing? If your comment is in reference to Three Mile Island there are several published studies made over the last 30 years in which there is no conclusive evidence that cancer rate increased due to radiological contamination from the event, and there is evidence that the radiological contamination itself was not severe enough to actual cause medical harm. I have a lot of sources to back them up, but CD will not let me post my comment for some reason.