CNN’s Campbell Brown conducted an interview with Kerry Kennedy of the RFK Center for Justice and Human Rights after Ms. Kennedy’s visit to the Gulf of Mexico where she discusses the headaches, burning eyes, sore throats, and nausea she and her team experienced, and the illness that local residents are experiencing.
Unfortunately, however, Ms. Kennedy chose to misrepresent specific facts during this interview. First, let’s hear what she had to say:
The startling dishonesty presented by Ms. Kennedy requires serious examination so that we can begin to question why false information is being given to the American people.
Ms. Kennedy is wrong on two very important points. 1) She says BP will not reveal the names of the chemicals being used, and 2) BP made the decision to use those chemical dispersants. Let’s take a closer look.
Campbell Brown asks, “We don’t even really know what is in this dispersant; BP is keeping a lot of information proprietary. What have you heard from healthcare workers…?”
Ms. Kennedy states, “People are getting sick and the patients, the healthcare providers cannot properly diagnose what the problems are because BP will not give them the names of the chemicals that are in the dispersants.”
From our Government’s EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#list), we can see the listed names of the chemicals that are in the dispersants.
The components of COREXIT 9500 and 9527 are:
CAS Registry Number is followed by the Chemical Name
Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)
Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.
Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs
Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light
*Note: This chemical component (Ethanol, 2-butoxy-) is not included in the composition of COREXIT 9500.
Campbell Brown then asks Ms. Kennedy, “Do you think the administration is doing enough to help people get through this?”
Ms. Kennedy says, “Well I think the administration frankly has been incredible in responding to this crisis, but this is BP’s crisis and BP has had a lot of control of the decision making particularly in those first few weeks and they made the decision to use all those dispersants without the consent of the people who are really going to be impacted, no.”
Take another look at the EPA’s website. Only our Government can authorize the use of those or any other chemicals. The EPA has even updated their webpage to reflect their direction to BP to reduce the amount of dispersant they’re using, and Ms. Kennedy certainly knows that only our Government can authorize and direct the use of the chemicals, not BP.
Excerpts from the EPA website:
What are the tradeoff considerations being weighed regarding the impact of fish and wildlife when making decisions about the subsea use of dispersants?
Dispersants are generally less toxic than oil. When considering the use of a dispersant in the deep ocean, the federal government weighs the effectiveness of the dispersant in breaking down the oil at such depths, the benefits of preventing the oil from rising to the surface and eventually hitting the shore where it is likely to do significant damage to birds, wetlands and aquatic life, and the long term impacts of the dispersant mixed with oil in deeper waters. We have a monitoring and sampling plan in place to track the movement of the oil and we reserve the right to stop the use of these dispersants at any time based on the results.
Does EPA make a determination on the toxicity of dispersants before they are approved?
EPA requires toxicology tests and reports for all dispersants that are approved on the National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule, the authorized list of dispersants. All determinations regarding the specific application or use of a dispersant are made by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator in charge of the response.
Surface Use of Dispersants in the Response to the BP Spill:
The authorization given to BP to use the dispersant on oil present on the surface of the water included specific conditions to ensure the protection of the environment and the health of residents in affected areas. At this time, EPA and the Coast Guard issued a directive requiring BP to decrease overall volume of dispersant by 75 percent and to cease use of dispersant on the surface of the water altogether unless provided prior written authorization from the Coast Guard. The Unified Command will continue to monitor for the effects of this dispersant on the environment and we reserve the right to discontinue its use.
Underwater Use of Dispersants in the Response to the BP Spill
The Coast Guard and EPA have authorized BP to use dispersants underwater at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak.
Have dispersants ever been used this much before?
While dispersants have been used in previous oil spills, this is the largest application of dispersants at an oil spill response in the United States. Since the spill occurred, EPA and its federal partners have closely monitored any potential impacts of the dispersant including air quality monitoring by both planes and through mobile and fixed locations. Air sampling is geared toward looking for significant increases in airborne (volatile) chemicals.
Although Ms. Kennedy correctly states, from her own direct experience in the Gulf, the symptoms and illness that is resulting from the use of the Corexit dispersants, why is she leading viewers to believe that BP, a British company working in our Federal waters, controlled by our Federal Government… that BP makes the decision to use whatever chemicals they choose, and that BP refuses to tell healthcare providers the chemical content of those dispersants?
According to our Government, what Ms. Kennedy is saying is blatantly false. So we’ll just need to look deeper into these Corexit dispersants.
JoAnne Morreti and her research team discovered some interesting facts about the money flow and individuals who stand to benefit greatly from our Government’s selection and use of the Corexit dispersants. Also note the use of Corexit is banned in Britain.
Excerpts from JoAnne’s article:
“The real money is in the use of dispersants.
There is a company called NALCO. They make water purification systems and chemical dispersants.
NALCO is based in Chicago with subsidiaries in Brazil, Russia, India, China and Indonesia.
NALCO is associated with UChicago Argonne program. UChicago Argonne received $164 million dollars in stimulus funds this past year. UChicago Argonne just added two new executives to their roster. One from NALCO. The other from the Ill. Dept of Education.
If you dig a little deeper you will find NALCO is also associated with Warren Buffett, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Soros, Apollo, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, Hathaway Berkshire.
Warren Buffet /Hathaway Berkshire increased their holdings in NALCO just last November. (Timing is everything).
The dispersant chemical is known as Corexit. What it does is hold the oil below the water’s surface. It is supposed to break up the spill into smaller pools. It is toxic and banned in Europe.
NALCO says they are using older and newer versions of Corexit in the Gulf.. (Why would you need a newer version, if the old one was fine?)
There is big money and even bigger players in this scam. While they are letting the oil blow wide open into the Gulf, the stakes and profit rise.”
President Obama owes the American people answers regarding why he authorized the use of Corexit, and why he has imposed a media blackout in the Gulf of Mexico.
President Obama states that “BP is operating at our direction. Every key decision and action they take must be approved by us in advance.”
Obama: Gov’t in Charge of Oil Disaster Response:
Gulf Oil Spill – BP Media Blackout Of New Orleans News Crew: (was that ordered by BP or President Obama?)
Toxic Oil Spill Rains Warned Could Destroy North America, Gulf of Mexico:
Surf On Pensacola Beach Boiling Like Acid:
Oil Rain In Louisiana?:
We should all be asking the President about this, and certainly asking Kerry Kennedy why she would make false statements regarding the largest environmental disaster our country has ever faced.