How oil dispersant works - Full demonstration

16 Oct 2011 12:17a.m.

Anna wrote:

Why are we using this in New Zealand? It is HIGHLY toxic, does no one care about this? The effects from Corexit 9500 are far far worse than anyone seems to realise. I have friends and family in the BOP and they are being exposed to this crap. Please don't let another 'agent orange' happen .. least of all in our beautiful NZ. National .. WTF are you doing??

15 Oct 2011 09:03p.m.

Nicholas wrote:

Some experts have also said that the use of Corexit has prolonged by decades the presence of toxic crude oil, because the dispersant sinks the oil beneath the ocean surface, where it cannot be quickly broken down by sun, waves and microbes. And the head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Ecology Department - Terry Hazen - argues that the use of dispersants can delay recovery of ocean ecosystems by decades: Hazen has more than 30 years experience studying the effects of oil spills. He says the oil will be damaging enough; toxic dispersants will just make it worse. He points to the 1978 Amoco Cadiz Spill off the coast of Normandy as an example. He says areas where dispersants were used still have not fully recovered, while areas where there was no human intervention are now fine. Dan Parker's lazy segment on Corexit is woefully lacking in journalistic rigour. His responsibility as a journalist is to provide both sides of the story. Why not interview some of the experts who have studied the dangers of this poison? A quick visit to the 'Clean the gulf now' web page reveals a wealth of info on Corexit 9500. "Andy Nyman, Associate Professor at LSU, highlights a prior study done on Corexit 9500 and 9527, the two varieties of Nalco dispersant being used by BP in the Gulf of Mexico oil catastrophe. Nyman’s study shows these two forms of Corexit cut the marine life survival rate in half. Combine this, with the review of 450 scientific articles spanning 11 years and you have to wonder why the EPA is claiming its 4 weeks of studies are better than all the existing scientific data that disagree." Another good source of information would be the people in the Gulf who have been exposed to Corexit and suffered serious health effects as a result. This Harbour master is hardly an informed expert or a scientist... Dan Parker Do some research. very poor journalism!

15 Oct 2011 08:42p.m.

Nicholas wrote:

Some experts have also said that the use of Corexit has prolonged by decades the presence of toxic crude oil, because the dispersant sinks the oil beneath the ocean surface, where it cannot be quickly broken down by sun, waves and microbes. And the head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Ecology Department - Terry Hazen - argues that the use of dispersants can delay recovery of ocean ecosystems by decades: Hazen has more than 30 years experience studying the effects of oil spills. He says the oil will be damaging enough; toxic dispersants will just make it worse. He points to the 1978 Amoco Cadiz Spill off the coast of Normandy as an example. He says areas where dispersants were used still have not fully recovered, while areas where there was no human intervention are now fine. Dan Parker's lazy segment on Corexit is woefyully lacking in journalistic rigour. Your responsibility as a journalist is to provide both sides of the story. Why don't you interview some of the experts who have studied the dangers of this poison? Another good source of information would be the people in the Gulf who have been exposed to Corexit and suffered serious health effects as a result. This Harbour master is hardley an informed expert or a scientist... shockingly poor journalism!