From the National Examiner

Censored Gulf news: People bleeding internally, millions poisoned says 'EPA whistleblower'

"...we have dolphins that are hemorrhaging. People who work near it are hemorrhaging internally. And that’s what dispersants are supposed to do... Congressman Markey and Nadler, as well as Senator Mikulski, have been heroes... Mark Kaufman, EPA whistleblower, Democracy Now!

By Deborah Dupre
Human Rights Examiner
July 21, 9:44 AM


In its report, EPA Whistleblower Accuses Agency of Covering Up Effects of Dispersant in BP Oil Spill Cleanup, Democracy Now! states that "many lawmakers and advocacy groups say the Obama administration is not being candid about the lethal effects of dispersants," so Amy Goodman interviewed Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst at the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and a leading critic of the decision to use Corexit" who disclosed how the officials are lying about many things related to the catastrophe poisoning "millions of people." (Listen: Real Audio Strea or MP3 Download)

The rushed transcript includes Kaufman saying, "And I think the media now has to follow the money, just as they did in Watergate, and tell the American people who’s getting money for poisoning the millions of people in the Gulf. (Emphasis added)

"While concerns over the impact of chemical dispersants continue to grow, Gulf Coast residents are outraged by a recent announcement that the $20 billion government-administered claim fund will subtract money cleanup workers earn by working for the cleanup effort from any future claims.

The "Vessels of Opportunity" program has employed hundreds of Gulf Coast out of work people because of the spill which Kaufman says is viewed as yest another way "to limit the number of lawsuits against BP."

"And the government—both EPA, NOAA, etc.—have been sock puppets for BP in this cover-up. (Emphasis added)

Kaufman concurs with MSNBC's report last week, that "sole purpose in the Gulf for dispersants is to keep a cover-up going for BP to try to hide the volume of oil that has been released and save them hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of fines... not to protect the public health or environment. Quite the opposite.."

He says to follow the money, and that leads to individuals in the Obama Administration, naming Mr. Geithner, Mr. Summers with close ties to Larry Fink who owns BlackRock that owns most BP shares.

He commented on the children being poisoned:

"...you know, when you’re on the sand with your children and they dig, and there’s a little water?—they documented there was over 200 parts per million of oil waste in the water, and it’s not noticeable to the human eye... On top of it, the contamination in one of the samples was so high that when they put the solvent in, as a first step in identifying how much oil may be in the water, the thing blew up, just as he said, probably because there was too much Corexit in that particular sample."

When Goodman asked Kaufman to comment on the similarities between the Ground Zero of the Gulf catastrophe and what happened at Ground Zero of 911, he explained that he did the ombudsman investigation on Ground Zero, "where EPA made false statements about the safety of the air" ... since proven to be false.


Red herring: No more tests needed. Corexit known to be dangerous.

"The largest ingredient in Corexit is oil. But there are other materials. And when the ingredients are mixed with oil, the combination of Corexit or any dispersant and oil is more toxic than the oil itself. But EPA has all that information.

"That’s a red herring issue being raised, that we have to somehow know more information. When you look at the label and you look at the toxicity sheets that come with it, the public knows enough to know that it’s very dangerous. The National Academy of Science has done work on it. Toxicologists from Exxon that developed it have published on it.

"So, we know enough to know that it’s very dangerous, and to say that we just have to know more about it is a red herring issue. We know plenty. It’s very dangerous."

"[T]he media now has to follow the money, just as they did in Watergate, and tell the American people who’s getting money for poisoning the millions of people in the Gulf."

No mention was made by the whistleblower about military involvement in this operation, nor that the DoD has been in bed with EPA for decades, testing aerosol sprayed chemicals on unwitting individuals and large populations.

With all eyes on big bad BP, could it be the real red herring?

Hmmm...

• Senior EPA Analyst: “Government [Agencies] Have Been Sock Puppets for BP In This Cover Up”
  
  
  

→ Washington’s
Blog
I have previously noted
that dispersants are being used to cover up the amount of oil spilled,
and that they are making the effects of the oil spill worse. I have
also pointed out that dispersant Corexit is extremely toxic to people.
See this
and this.
The
senior policy analyst at the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response - and former the EPA ombudsman’s chief investigator - agrees,
telling Democracy Now today:

Corexit is one of a
number of dispersants, that are toxic, that are used to atomize the oil
and force it down the water column so
that it’s invisible to the eye. In this case, these dispersants
were used in massive quantities, almost two million gallons so far, to
hide the magnitude of the spill and save BP money. And the government—both EPA, NOAA, etc.—have
been sock puppets for BP in this cover-up. Now, by hiding the
amount of spill, BP is saving hundreds of millions, if not billions, of
dollars in fines, and so, from day one, there was tremendous economic
incentive to use these dispersants to hide the magnitude of the gusher
that’s been going on for almost three months.
***
We have
people, wildlife—we have dolphins that are hemorrhaging. People who
work near it are hemorrhaging internally. And that’s what dispersants
are supposed to do. EPA now is taking the position that they really
don’t know how dangerous it is, even though if you read the label, it
tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked
with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is
around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic—it’s an
economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public.
***

Who
saves money by using these toxic dispersants? Well, it’s BP. But then
the next question—I’ve only seen one article that describes it—who owns BP? And I think when you
look and see who owns BP, you find that it’s the majority ownership, a
billion shares, is a company called BlackRock
that was created, owned and run by a gentleman named Larry Fink. And Vanity
Fair just did recently an article about Mr. Fink and his connections with Mr. Geithner, Mr. Summers
and others in the administration. So I think what’s needed, we
now know that there’s a cover-up. Dispersants are being used. Congress,
at least three Congress folks—Congressman Markey, Congressman Nadler
and Senator Mikulski—are on the case. And I think the media now has to
follow the money, just as they did in Watergate, and tell the American
people who’s getting money for poisoning the millions of people in the
Gulf.
***
The sole
purpose in the Gulf for dispersants is to keep a cover-up going for BP
to try to hide the volume of oil that has been released and save them
hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of fines.
That’s the purpose of using the dispersants, not to protect the public health or
environment. Quite the opposite.

I have also
previously pointed
out the similarities between the government’s handling of 9/11 and
the oil gusher. Kaufman gives some insight about the parallels:

[Question]
You’ve made comparisons between Corexit, the use of Corexit and hiding
BP’s liability, and what happened at Ground Zero after the attacks of
September 11th, Hugh Kaufman.

[Kaufman] Yeah, I was one of the
people who—well, I did. I did the
ombudsman investigation on Ground Zero, where EPA made false statements
about the safety of the air, which has since, of course, been proven
to be false. Consequently, you have the heroes, the workers there, a
large percentage of them are sick right now, not even ten years later,
and most of them will die early because of respiratory problems,
cancer, etc., because of EPA’s false statements.

And
you’ve got the same thing going on in the Gulf, EPA administrators
saying the same thing, that the air is safe and the water is safe. And
the administrator misled Senator Mikulski on that issue in the hearings
you talked about. And basically, the problem is dispersants mixed with
oil and air pollution. EPA, like in 9/11—I did that investigation nine
years ago—was not doing adequate and
proper testing. Same thing with OSHA with the workers, they’re using
mostly BP’s contractor. And BP’s contractor for doing air testing is
the company that’s used by companies to prove they don’t have a
problem.

Here’s a video of the interview:


And see this.
Note regarding the
Exxon Valdez deaths. A YouTube- Corexit 9580 Dispersant Use in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Cleanup 1989of Corexit was used in the initial response to the Exxon Valdez oil
spill. However, the full-scale use of Corexit was not approved
(pages 56 & 69). The workers who were part of the test
application, and those who subsequently worked in and around the test
area, could have been exposed to Corexit.
Attorney Kerry Kennedy YouTube- CNN: Almost All Exxon Valdez Cleanup Crew Dead!!! that almost all of the cleanup crew working on the Exxon Valdez oil
spill are now dead, and that the average life expectancy for an
Exxon Valdez oil spill worker is around 51 years, 26.9 fewer years
than the average American.
However, I wrote to
toxicologist Dr. Ricki Ott - who has blown the whistle on the BP cleanup
(see YouTube- B.P. Suppressing Evidence! Riki Ott Amazing Interview! and this),
and who was present during the Valdez cleanup - to ask whether
Kennedy’s statement was correct. I received the following
reply from Dr. Ott’s personal assistant:

Ms. Kennedy was
mistaken.
For more information, check www.rikiott.com/spillinfo.php
. You will see that out of a workforce of 11,000, Exxon documented
6,722 cases of Upper Respiratory Illness. In 2003, a Yale grad student
conducted a pilot study that showed roughly 1/3 of the sample, taken
from the list of workers who reported URIs during the EVOS cleanup,
reported lingering symptoms.

There has been no
epidemiology study, so no statistics exist as to the mortality rate of
EVOS workers, to our knowledge.

I have no idea whether Kaufman and Kennedy
know something that Ott doesn’t.

__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36

Wikipedia


Composition

Corexit 9527

The proprietary composition is not public, but the manufacturer's own safety data sheet on Corexit EC9527A says the main components are 2-butoxyethanol and a proprietary organic sulfonate with a small concentration of propylene glycol.[15][16]
Corexit 9500

In response to public pressure, the EPA and Nalco released the list of the six ingredients in Corexit 9500, revealing constituents including sorbitan, butanedioic acid, and petroleum distillates.[3] Corexit EC9500A is mainly comprised of hydrotreated light petroleum distillates, propylene glycol and a proprietary organic sulfonate.[17] Environmentalists also pressured Nalco to reveal to the public what concentrations of each chemical are in the product; Nalco considers that information to be a trade secret, but has shared it with the EPA.[18] Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used as a solvent or moisturizer in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, and is of relatively low toxicity. An organic sulfonate (or organic sulfonic acid salt) is a synthetic chemical detergent, that acts as a surfactant to emulsify oil and allow its dispersion into water. The identity of the sulfonate used in both forms of Corexit was disclosed to the EPA in June 2010, as dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate.[19] Often referred to as docusate sodium, this chemical is the active ingredient in several stool-softener laxatives.
Toxicity

The relative toxicity of Corexit and other dispersants are difficult to determine due to a scarcity of scientific data.[3] The manufacturer's safety data sheet states "No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product," and later concludes "The potential human hazard is: Low."[20] According to the manufacturer's website, workers applying Corexit should wear breathing protection and work in a ventilated area.[21] Compared with 12 other dispersants listed by the EPA, Corexit 9500 and 9527 are either similarly toxic or 10 to 20 times more toxic.[7] In another preliminary EPA study of eight different dispersants, Corexit 9500 was found to be less toxic to some marine life than other dispersants and to break down within weeks, rather than settling to the bottom of the ocean or collecting in the water.[22] None of the eight products tested are "without toxicity", according to an EPA administrator, and the ecological effect of mixing the dispersants with oil is unknown, as is the toxicity of the breakdown products of the dispersant.[22]
Corexit 9527, considered by the EPA to be an acute health hazard, is stated by its manufacturer to be potentially harmful to red blood cells, the kidneys and the liver, and may irritate eyes and skin.[23][14] The chemical 2-butoxyethanol, found in Corexit 9527, was identified as having caused lasting health problems in workers involved in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.[24] According to the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the use of Corexit during the Exxon Valdez oil spill caused people "respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders".[16] Like 9527, 9500 can cause hemolysis (rupture of blood cells) and may also cause internal bleeding.[4]
According to the EPA, Corexit is more toxic than dispersants made by several competitors and less effective in handling southern Louisiana crude.[25] On May 20, 2010, the EPA ordered BP to look for less toxic alternatives to Corexit, and later ordered BP to stop spraying dispersants, but BP responded that it thought that Corexit was the best alternative and continued to spray it.[3]
Reportedly Corexit may be toxic to marine life and helps keep spilled oil submerged. There is concern that the quantities used in the Gulf will create 'unprecedented underwater damage to organisms.'[26] Nalco spokesman Charlie Pajor said that oil mixed with Corexit is "more toxic to marine life, but less toxic to life along the shore and animals at the surface" because the dispersant allows the oil to stay submerged below the surface of the water.[27] Corexit 9500 causes oil to form into small droplets in the water; fish may be harmed when they eat these droplets.[4] According to its Material safety data sheet, Corexit may also bioaccumulate, remaining in the flesh and building up over time.[28] Thus predators who eat smaller fish with the toxin in their systems may end up with much higher levels in their flesh.[4]

__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36

BP accused of 'buying academic silence'
By Robyn Bresnahan BBC News

The head of the American Association of Professors has accused BP of trying to "buy" the best scientists and academics to help its defence against litigation after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

"This is really one huge corporation trying to buy faculty silence in a comprehensive way," said Cary Nelson.

BP faces more than 300 lawsuits so far.

In a statement, BP says it has hired more than a dozen national and local scientists "with expertise in the resources of the Gulf of Mexico".

The BBC has obtained a copy of a contract offered to scientists by BP. It says that scientists cannot publish the research they do for BP or speak about the data for at least three years, or until the government gives the final approval to the company's restoration plan for the whole of the Gulf.

It also states scientists may perform research for other agencies as long as it does not conflict with the work they are doing for BP.

And it adds that scientists must take instructions from lawyers offering the contracts and other in-house counsel at BP.

Bob Shipp, the head of marine sciences at the University of South Alabama, was one of the scientists approached by BP's lawyers.

They didn't just want him, they wanted his whole department.

"They contacted me and said we would like to have your department interact to develop the best restoration plan possible after this oil spill," he said.

Russ Lea from the University of South Alabama: Some clauses in the contract "were very disturbing".

"We laid the ground rules - that any research we did, we would have to take total control of the data, transparency and the freedom to make those data available to other scientists and subject to peer review. They left and we never heard back from them."

What Mr Nelson is concerned about is BP's control over scientific research.

"Our ability to evaluate the disaster and write public policy and make decisions about it as a country can be impacted by the silence of the research scientists who are looking at conditions," he said.

"It's hugely destructive. I mean at some level, this is really BP versus the people of the United States."

In its statement, BP says it "does not place restrictions on academics speaking about scientific data".

'Powerful economic interests'

But New Orleans environmental lawyer Joel Waltzer looked over the contract and said BP's statement did not match up.

"They're the ones who control the process. They're depriving the public of the data and the transparency that we all deserve."

But some scientists who have been approached by lawyers acting on behalf of BP are willing to sign up.

Irv Mendelssohn is a professor in the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at Louisiana State University.

"What I'm doing wouldn't be any different than if I was consulting with one of the natural resource trustees. I am giving my objective opinion about recovery."

Some scientists approached by BP lawyers have been offered as much as $250 an hour.

Prof Mendelssohn says he would negotiate his normal consulting fee, which is between $150 and $300 an hour. But he says that is not why he is doing it.

"Good scientists, they're going to be giving their opinions based on the facts and they are not going to bias their opinions. What's most important is credibility."

But Cary Nelson is concerned about the relationship between corporations and academia.

"There is a problem for a faculty member who becomes closely associated with a corporation with such powerful financial interests.

"My advice would be: think twice before you sign a contract with a corporation that has such powerful economic interests at stake."

BBC News - BP accused of 'buying academic silence'

Deepwater Horizon alarms were switched off 'to help workers sleep'

Alarms and safety mechanisms on gulf disaster oil rig were disabled, chief technician at Transocean reveals

* Ed Pilkington in New York
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 23 July 2010 19.54 BST


Vital warning systems on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig were switched off at the time of the explosion in order to spare workers being woken by false alarms, a federal investigation has heard.

The revelation that alarm systems on the rig at the centre of the disaster were disabled – and that key safety mechanisms had also consciously been switched off – came in testimony by a chief technician working for Transocean, the drilling company that owned the rig.

Mike Williams, who was in charge of maintaining the rig's electronic systems, was giving evidence to the federal panel in New Orleans that is investigating the cause of the disaster on 20 April, which killed 11 people.

Williams told the hearing today that no alarms went off on the day of the explosion because they had been "inhibited". Sensors monitoring conditions on the rig and in the Macondo oil well beneath it were still working, but the computer had been instructed not to trigger any alarms in case of adverse readings.

Both visual and sound alarms should have gone off in the case of sensors detecting fire or dangerous levels of combustible or toxic gases.

The evidence of deliberate dilution of the rig's safety mechanisms is likely to have wide ramifications for BP and Transocean, the world's largest offshore drilling company. It switches the spotlight of blame away from BP and towards the subcontractor which took the decisions. Of the 126 crew on board the rig on 20 April, seven worked for BP and 79 for Transocean.

Williams said he discovered that the physical alarm system had been disabled a full year before the disaster. When he asked why, he said he was told that the view from even the most senior Transocean official on the rig had been that "they did not want people woken up at three o'clock in the morning due to false alarms".

Williams' testimony will raise questions about whether lives could have been saved had the alarms been properly set and the disaster mitigated.

He also revealed that a crucial safety device, designed to shut down the drill shack in the case of dangerous gas levels being detected, had been disabled, or bypassed as it is called.

When he saw that the system had been bypassed, Williams protested to a Transocean supervisor, Mark Hay, who dismissed his concerns. Hay responded: "Damn thing been in bypass for five years. Matter of fact, the entire [Transocean] fleet runs them in bypass."

In a third significant disclosure, Williams also revealed that a computer system used to monitor the drill shack was constantly freezing up, and on one occasion even produced wrong information. The system failed to indicate that a vital valve inside the blowout preventer, the device designed to shut down the well in case of problems, had been damaged.

Pressure is now likely to mount on Transocean to explain the discrepancies.

The New York Times reported earlier this week that a survey of workers carried out by Transocean shortly before the blast suggested key safety practices had not been followed.

Workers said that, while they were aware of unsafe practices on the rig, they were afraid to report mistakes for fear of reprisals.

A BP spokesman said last night: "The investigations continue to demonstrate that a range of things went wrong and that responsibility lies with a whole load of different companies."

Deepwater Horizon alarms were switched off 'to help workers sleep' | Environment | The Guardian

BP oil spill: taxpayers face clean-up costs

BP will be able to book a $10bn tax credit against the costs of cleaning up the Gulf oil spill, meaning US and UK taxpayers will be picking up part of the bill


* Richard Wray
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 July 2010 11.03 BST


BP is poised to spark fresh controversy after it emerged today that taxpayers on both sides of the Atlantic will be picking up part of the bill for dealing with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The cost of the clean-up has plunged BP into the red, meaning that the oil giant will be able to book a $10bn (£6.5bn) tax credit, slashing its tax bill in both the US and UK.

BP announced earlier today that it is making a $32.2bn provision for the cost of the spill caused by the explosion and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in April.

That pushed BP's second-quarter results into a record loss of $17bn, compared with a profit last year of $3.1bn.

The company explained, however, that the net impact on BP's bottom line will only be $22bn because the company will be able to record a $10bn tax credit. BP's UK tax bill will also be reduced, the firm added.

Both the US and UK governments receive hundreds of millions of dollars from the company in tax payments each year. News that BP will be able to write off against tax the cost of plugging the well, cleaning up the spill and compensating the thousands of people who have been affected, is likely to anger politicians of all political hues.

Only the fines that might be imposed by the US authorities would definitely not be tax-deductible, according to tax experts.

BP paid $8.4bn of tax last year, with roughly £930m going to the UK government. Tax experts reckon it paid a similar amount in US taxes.

Three years ago, airplane manufacturer Boeing ran into a storm of protest when it sought to write off against tax a $615m fine levied by the Department of Justice that settled an investigation into the improper hiring of a Pentagon official and the theft of data from Lockheed Martin Corporation. The fine was levied in order for Boeing to avoid criminal charges. Three Republican senators wrote to the US attorney general at the time to say that allowing Boeing to deduct payments to the government "would be unacceptable".

BP oil spill: taxpayers face clean-up costs | Business | guardian.co.uk