Welcome to PatsFans.com

BP Thumbs Their Oil-Leaking Nose at the EPA

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Mrs.PatsFanInVa, May 23, 2010.

  1. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,100
    Likes Received:
    350
    Ratings:
    +624 / 13 / -6

    #24 Jersey

    The U.S. government is ordering energy giant BP to find less-toxic chemicals to break up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill amid evidence that the dispersants are not effective and could actually make the spill more harmful to marine life.

    The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday that BP has to choose an alternative dispersant by today and must begin using it by Sunday.
    The chemicals — touted as a critical means of attacking the growing spill — have questionable value over the long run and may actually slow down the bacteria that biodegrade crude oil, according to a USA TODAY review of the latest scientific studies and some of the world's top experts.

    Dispersants are toxic, and when mixed with oil can become even more dangerous than either the dispersant or oil alone, according to Fingas and EPA data.

    Oil treated with dispersants spreads through the water, more readily coming in contact with delicate fish eggs and other fragile sea dwellers.

    The company (BP) said it would continue to use only government-approved products.


    EPA tells BP to use less-toxic chemicals - USATODAY.com

    BP PLC says it's going to stick with the main chemical dispersant it's been using to fight the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, despite directions from the Environmental Protection Agency to use a less toxic agent.

    He says that tests show Corexit was among the most effective agents at dispersing the oil. And he said Corexit was the only dispersant available immediately and at great enough quantities to be used on the spill.


    BP to continue using dispersant on spill - USATODAY.com


    So let me get this straight. BP is using a chemical which is maybe more dangerous than the oil they are trying to clean up. The government tells them to knock it off. BP says, "Sure." Two days later BP says, "No," because "it's all we have," and damn the danger.

    Shouldn't they have known before the spill that one of their main lines of defense was hazardous in it's right and taken steps to have something else on hand? In large enough quantities?
     
  2. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,253
    Likes Received:
    140
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -4

    Isn't there also a problem here if all the government approved products are too toxic to be used (in the eyes of the government)?
     
  3. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,100
    Likes Received:
    350
    Ratings:
    +624 / 13 / -6

    #24 Jersey

    Looks like there are three that aren't as bad.

    BP will not be able to find an alternative dispersant that is not toxic, according to EPA records. All 14 of the approved dispersants listed on the agency's website are toxic to marine life at levels of a few hundred parts per million or less. Tests on all but three of the 14 indicate they are more toxic after being mixed with oil.

    (from the linked article)

    CNN is now saying that there is a warehouse full of a less toxic chemical in Texas. I cannot find a print link, however - there's usually a delay, I think.

    I get your point, tho, that the government should have been on top of this from the get-go and it becomes more and more apparent that they were not.

    I also think it's way past time for the government to get agressive and start doing their own "research" and their own hands-on clean-up and quit relying on BP to be doing the right thing as it becomes more and more obvious that they are not really cooperating at all - nor are they being very forthcoming with valid and honest information.
     
  4. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    So do libertarians and republicans still clamor for personal accountability but apologize for corporate accountability?
     
  5. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,253
    Likes Received:
    140
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -4

    That might be part of the Republican platform.
     
  6. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I think it is the republican platform.
     
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,370
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +672 / 7 / -2

    They very well may, but that would then raise the question of whether or not democrats (and I use the term for thread purposes), only hold the leadership/government accountable, when one of the other two are in office.
     
  8. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Does the Obama administration clamor for corporate accountability but give them passes on regulatory standards & give them awards while accepting campaign contributions?
     
  9. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Wait, so all of a sudden you guys are for government regulation? This ought to be good.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>