Welcome one, welcome all!

The game is called the Presidential Oil Spill Commission and this episode features the use of Dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico Catastraphuk. The people had their day to complain to the commission earlier in the week, questioning the wisdom of using such harsh chemicals in the Gulf when long-range effects were unknown…but today is another day…this showdown is between the EPA, their yes-men scientists, and the afore -mentioned commission.

In the red corner, the EPA maintains that all is well and all is lesser than your evil so relax, enjoy the ocean breeze…

In the blue corner, the commission ain’t too sure about that…

Ready?

Here are the players…and here is the rundown; enjoy:

1. Christopher Reddy, an Associate Scientist of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanagraphic Institution (imagine that business card) – He states the surface use of dispersants is extremely typical and well understood to be safe.

2. Ed Overton, Professor Emeritus of the Louisiana State University Department of Environmental Sciences – He states all six elements found in Corexit, the dispersant used by BP, have been deemed safe for use in food and food packaging. He said the one element that used to be part of Corexit and was found to have had carcinogenic qualities has since been removed.

3. William Reilly, co-chairman of the Presidential Oil Spill Commission – He has the audacity to wonder if dispersants aren’t being used for cosmetic reasons, to keep the oil under the surface.

Admission #1. Under questioning by Reilly, both Reddy and Overton admit too little testing has been done and not enough is known about sub-sea application of the dispersants, which is being done at the well-head over a mile below the surface of the Gulf; too little is known about the effect this will have on deep-sea organisms.

Admission #2. Reddy admits the total volume of dispersants used, over 1 million barrels, is unprecedented and long-range studies will need to be done about the effect on the Gulf.

So, dispersants are safe, kind of, we think, but we wanna study it more.

4. Manthy Stanislaus, EPA’s assistant administrator for the office of solid waste and emergency response, “While the use of dispersants represents an environmental trade-off, it’s important to understand that oil is the No. 1 enemy and dispersants are not as toxic as the oil and they break down,” Stanislaus reports. “Dispersants break down over weeks rather than persisting for years as oil might.”

5. Terry Garcia, Presidential Oil Spill Commission Member and Executive Vice-President of the National Geographic Society is confused, and asks Manthy, “You say the dispersant is not as toxic as the oil, but you’re saying the solid waste that contains the oil is not dangerous and is being dumped in a non-hazardous landfill. How is that possible?”

Admission #3. Manthy admits more testing must be done on Corexit, despite saying it is less toxic than oil and no more toxic than any other dispersant. He goes on to reassure everyone in attendance how in the meantime, the EPA has gotten BP to use less of the dispersant.

Huh? Again, if it’s safe…

Admission #4. No answer by Manthy when asked the obvious follow-up by Reilly, “If it’s less toxic than oil and no more harmless than any other dispersant, why restrict the use of it?

Touche’, Mr. Reilly…well played, sir.

Mr. Reilly, who worked for the EPA during the Exxon Valdez Catastraphuk, then brings up the questions of a number of fisherman from Prince William Sound who doubted the wisdom of using a chemical agent that drove the oil underwater where fish would be less able to avoid it, and why in the past twenty years nothing has been learned, why no further preparations have been made on what to do in case of a catastraphuk…

Admission #5. “We do believe the process needs to be changed,” Stanislaus acknowledged.

Mr. Stanislaus, you say this like it’s something you might want to do in the future…a question, twenty years? What the hell have you been doing for twenty years? Coking it up to porn with the members of the Mineral Management Services?

Well…bully

And there ya have it, the play by play from the Presidential Commission where after several exhaustive, tense hours…all sides of the argument have been weighed, every facet of every questioned has been studied and soon, recommendations will be made on what to do next and apparently, by normal EPA time-tables, they’ll get to these recommendations sometime around 2030.

Read the full article:

2 scientists tell Presidential Commission fear of dispersants is “mostly” unfounded

Well, I feel better…

Have a nice day