Users Online Now:
1,628
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
742,629
Pageviews Today:
1,359,032
Threads Today:
641
Posts Today:
11,149
03:12 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
BP Spill Workers Say Dispersant Made Them Sick - Corexit manufacturer Nalco wants US district judge handling case to exempt it from any liability
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 18813246:MV8xOTIyNDIyXzMyMTg2NTYzX0IyMjA3Q0Ey] oh no..I wonder what could be making them sick? ..maybe we should have a look and see what's in Corexit! [ TECHNICAL PRODUCT BULLETIN #D-4 USEPA, OIL PROGRAM CENTER ORIGINAL LISTING DATE: APRIL 13, 1994 REVISED LISTING DATE: DECEMBER 18, 1995 "COREXIT® EC9500A" (formerly COREXIT 9500) [color=red]COREXIT® EC9500A [/color] [color=blue]VIII. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES[/color] 1. Flash Point: 181.4ºF 2. Pour Point: Less than -71ºF 3. Viscosity: 22.5 cst at 104ºF 4. Specific Gravity: 0.949 at 60ºF 5. pH: 6.2 6. Chemical Name and Percentage by Weight of the Total Formulation: [color=red]CONFIDENTIAL[/color] 7. Surface Active Agents: [color=red]CONFIDENTIAL[/color] 8. Solvents: [color=red]CONFIDENTIAL[/color] http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/ncp/products/corex950.htm [/quote] oh well seems like the good stuff is [color=red]CONFIDENTIAL[/color] [/quote]
Original Message
<snip><snap>
Nalco says that not only should it not be included the companies that are asked to pay up in this case, but it should be excluded from any future cases:
The spill responders contend that the federal Clean Water Act provides them immunity from liability for actions taken at the government’s direction.
"Nalco provided Corexit at the express request of the federal on-site coordinators," Nalco attorneys wrote in the dismissal motion filed in May. "Nalco supplied a product that was and had been listed on the federal government's list of approved dispersants for decades and that the government repeatedly approved for use during the response."
This is a compelling argument, because it is true: Corexit was listed as an approved dispersant, and it was what BP decided to use on the Gulf. The problem, though, is something we've covered here before: The federal government doesn't consider the human or environmental effects of the chemicals when approving them for the list. Companies like Nalco don't even have to disclose what kinds of chemicals are in their product in order to get them approved, thanks to the extremely outdated and industry-friendly chemical regulation laws in this country. Current chemical regulation laws actually makes it really difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency to do more than give these chemicals a rubber stamp.
[
link to www.motherjones.com
]
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>