COREXIT MSDS concerns and discussion:

[Yak-a-Lou]

SpeckTackler was kind enough to provide the link for the material safety data sheet (MSDS) on COREXIT, the product currently being used by BP as a dispersant:

http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf

I scanned the MSDS decently and saw this-n-that that makes me a tad nervous here and there.

However, if we take into consideration that the product is being HIGHLY diluted as soon as it is introduced to the waters, I am left to wonder how dangerous it really may or may not be to the environment. Please be clear that I have no position here. I'm wondering out loud and looking for answers via logic, rationality, etc...

Random and undereducated thoughts and questions:

Con = potentially bad for the environment because______(please fill in the blank). First thing I think of is that any time we add a butt-load of anything to the environment there are sure to be some negatives involved. It just ain't natural. What negatives specifically exists and how do they balance with not using COREXIT or a similar product?

Pro = I think/believe that the use of this product has resulted in fewer critters becoming contaminated. We seem to have smaller areas of floating oil and critters seem to mostly be able to avoid the oil. True? False?

Con = less oil floating as a single mass on the surface helps BP hide the true size and magnitude of this gross and catastrophic event. My concern here = if the event is viewed as smaller, the government, the nation and the world will give it less attention which may result in a smaller, less effective response.

Thoughts??? Facts???

[Speckled_Tiger]

good points Yak. I also would like to pose these logical questions: if it is proven to be "bad" for the environment, is it any worse that the crude itself? Will is degrade faster/slower? Does it get "trapped" in soil/sand/plants for extended periods of time?

[snake doctor]

In my opinion, the Corexit 9500 is being used to mask the total amount of oil leaked by BP as you suggest below. As for the guys blaming Corexit 9500 for acute toxic effects, this is very doubtful. It is more likely the heat and humidity, perhaps combined with some volatiles from the oil that makes for dizziness, headaches and nausea reported by clean up crews. The crews were too far from direct application sites of the Corexit 9500 discharges. It would be infinitely diluted miles from where it was dispersed, unlike the oil.

The oil is the major toxic component. The Corexit 9500 is trivial compared to the toxicity of crude oil.

[Yak-a-Lou]

NPR report on workers getting "ill" from exposure to oil and/or COREXIT. Appears to be simple heat exhaustion. Thanks to Snake Doctor for the link.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010...e-health-risks

[Laidback]

My experience with dispersants has always been that industry and the regulatory look at the trade-offs. Of course, the applications in the past have always been much smaller and for short periods of time. In the Pre-approved Zone where you can apply dispersants with the approval of the FOSC providing certain criteria are met. Anything outside of the established criteria requires the approval of the full Regional Response Team which is made up of all the stakeholders (Fed, State & Local). The RRT will look at a lot of options and consider some of the following:

Is the oil recoverable? If so, it is also dispersable. What is the poor point of the oil? If the oil threatens an environmentally sensitive area, would it be better to disperse it (Using Corexit) or let it impact the sensitive area while conducting active cleanup? That depends upon the time of year and species that would be affected. In the past, the use of dispersants has always been preferable to having oil impact an environmentally sensitive area. But as everyone knows, it has never been done on such a large scale as it is now.

If the crews conducting the spraying are following the established guidelines regarding safety, no workers should be present within a specified area while the spraying is being conducted. The planes fly very low to the water so I would also not expect the vapors or "mist" to spread any real distance.
I am not a Doctor, but I would be surprised if any people were affected by the dispersants.

That being said, I am sure that this will be a subject to be discussed at conferences for years to come.

[Speck Tackler]

We use corexit in our process operations and yes it is not the most "toxic" thing out there. I suspect soon enough some of these fishing restrictions will be lifted once this is determined. I have read the pros and cons of "sinking the oil". However I also suspect BP was playing an out of sight, out of mind card. There is a lot of water out there but we must remember that the oil is not going to break down right away. BP will be in the clean up operation for quite some time even if the well leak is eventually stopped. As far as the workers well who knows. Sure I know that some of them may be playing toward a class action but remember oil industry will never admit they hurt someone unless it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Those TRIR's are a sacred cow.