Although the US EPA released two studies claiming that "Little cancer risk from BP oil burn dioxin, new studies conclude" A sort of rebuttal article written by Mark Schleifstein of the Times-Picayune asks a lot of questions about how safe the EPA testing was. I agree with Mr. Schleifstein's conclusions. However, there are more concerns.
EPA claims that they tested for two families of toxic chemicals. These are the polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. But, how many chlorinated dioxins and furans did they test ? The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has declared that three dioxin like poisons are now "human carcinogens". These are 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-dioxin, 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-furan, and 3,3,4,4,5 pentachlorobiphenol. The EPA did not break down whether these three poisons were tested from the inadequate oil burn.
Imagine what could happen if these poisons got mixed together? And this doesn't include the other poisons. There are 75 chlorinated dioxins, 134 chlorinated difurans, and 209 polychlorinated biphenols. Please keep in mind that this does not include the brominated dioxins and furans, the polybrominated diphenol ethers, the chlorinated napthalenes, What do a lot of these poisons have in common: Perhaps a lot of them look "dioxin like"! Could they provide a much larger poisoning if combined?
What is EPA doing? Are they trying to stop mass hysteria? Perhaps preventing a social uproar is not practical. BUT, what about testing for alot of factors for acute toxicity. Also an epidemiological study which will encompass many years like the ones on Seves, Italy. However, then who would pick up the tab? I'm quite sure that BP would have nightmares over that suggestion. Maybe we should scrap the idea; after all, the dioxin explosions in Italy (76), England (60's), Germany, France,Austria, Holland, Russia. All of these countries had studies which showed injury from exposure to dioxin like chemicals. And let us not forget the Dow Chemical Company. Oh, that's right, Dow's studies didn't show anything but a skin rash.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The released results will be for the least toxic chemicals tested. The government is as culpable as BP in this horrendous disaster. When the pressure test failed, there is no viable excuse for why the project was not shut down and put into emergency mode. The BP engineer who got the maddest at the hearings is the one responsible. WHERE WAS THE INDEPENDENT INSPECTION AND MANAGEMENT???
ReplyDeleteThe lowest level of local government Construction Management understand this issue. Even a 6" fire line in a residential subdivision requires a witnessed pressure test. I was the only Senior Civil Inspector I know who was never offered a bribe by a contractor. When I was employed by private engineering consultants, I was often dispatched to witness a county inspector witnessing a fire line pressure test. Likely as not, the county inspector would be buddied up with the contractor and would be the one to get closest to offering a bribe. It is not difficult to shut this process down - all it takes is a small glare. Sometimes they can be let loose to blah, blah, blah for a while just so they know you are aware of exactly what is going down.
You bet the synergistic effect of combining chemicals is more toxic than the individual chemicals. Agent White was used in Vietnam in the early 60s when there was a scarcity of Agent Orange. Toxicity testing was not completed on Agent White at the time it was used. However, that is a moot point. I just read another report issued in 1970, that was clearly rigged concerning lab testing on animals. NO PROBLEM, LOW TOXICITY, AGENT ORANGE.
Agent White is 2,4 D + Picloram. Sheep exposed to these chemicals individually did not die. Sheep exposed to the combination all died. Additionally, each species reacts differently to the poison. There is even a big difference between guinea pigs and hamsters.
Since the government and the chemical companies don't care how many people are poisoned, why are they torturing these dogs, rodents, sheep, cattle, monkeys, etc.?? These tests only represent those species, not humans. It appears they are using selectively non toxic results from these animal studies and applying the data to humans. CANCER AND DEATH ARE NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE POISONING - not in humans and not in other animals.
When they see the sheep hyper salivating (like I have for many years), why do they say there were no long term effects? Can the sheep tell them they feel like dog crap day in and day out? How many dogs have gone insane without note? When they get vicious, is it blamed on being caged or some other stupid thing? That would be EXACTLY like saying the vets are sick due to PTSD.
They love to say the testing proved no or very low toxicity when the results are inconsistent. That's right. The findings are "not conclusive" because each individual is effected differently. Then each time the dioxin is released from the fat cells, circulated throughout the body and goes back into fat cells, the victim is repoisoned. AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Some of the tests could not be done because the sample literally blew up in the lab. Since this is considered to be "uncontrolled," the incidents will not be included in the test data.
ReplyDelete