NIOSH
wanted to do more, but...
"They
couldn't get Exxon to release its clinical data,
and
Exxon controlled access to workers at remote locations." *
http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/T99032316.html
-
Anchorage Daily News, May 13, 1999
|
A
bigger catastrophe than the oil spill itself:
What
has happened to the workers!
...
And
to think that we let EXXON run the show....
|
|
Regarding
the lauded use of bioremediation
...
in particular Inipol EAP 22
...
It's not much of a fertilizer considering it has a C:N:P ratio of 62:5:1 *
The key: This was an
Exxon product: per Exxon's MSDS for it 7-28-89
(Yes, then it was an Exxon product
with MSDS produced by Exxon),
It
may really be a "surfactant", *
Phosphorus? really... *
but,
by calling it a "fertilizer"
(which
technically it could be considered to be),
there
would be far greater public acceptance of it being sprayed onto a beach.
"I
am amazed that a Biochemist did not (apparently) have the opportunity of
evaluating your Inipol product, before approving it for general
use." -
field & lab tested simultaneously
*
"In
regard to C:N:P:S ratios, these are not appropriate. Further there
are molecular "Keys", catalysts, micro nutrients to be considered as
well.
Surely, almost
any Biochemist/Bacteriologist would know
that" - per a Specialist in the
bioremediation field.
|
'Twas an
Experiment. Putting it nicely *
Exxon
Valdez oil spill cleanup Photo Story
|
|
|
Rosa
Margesin, Silvia Gander, Gabriele Zacke, Anne Monique Gounot, and
Franz Schinner of Institute of Microbiology, University of Innsbruck,
Technikerstrasse 25, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Hydrocarbon degradation and enzyme activities of cold-adapted
bacteria and yeasts. - an Abstract
Extremophiles, August 26, 2003
"Only
four yeast strains but none of the bacterial strains could grow with
all hydrocarbons tested." at 10 degrees C
(source)
"HighWire Press, Internet Imprint of the Stanford University
Libraries"
|
Avoid
Chemicals, if you can
2002
9-3-03
Copyright
©
2002 - 2009 Margaret Diann Hursh