Is Corexit to be Used Again? What Effects on Workers and Marine Life?

From a UK advance chemical analyst - ethylene oxide!

C2H4O is the Chemical Formula for ethylene oxide which was in Corexit 9580 per original MSDS 8-1-89

Corexit info also found on this page http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/corexit.htm

"There is a type of Corexit stockpiled at Alyeska Marine Terminal;"

a worker of approx 15 years said they may need to use it & pay a big price to keep it updated...

"It is nothing more than soap. A little caustic, well, so is lye" 12-19-02

Maybe he should check to see what the ethylene oxide component does to people *

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ethyleneoxide/index.html

Be sure you know what is in Corexit... Version Corexit 9527 of 9-14-92 only states 2-butoxyethanol as an ingredient... a poison also So what's in Corexit, really? *

To reiterate:

RCAC: "We repeat our previous recommendation that MMS postpone its Phase II Ohmsett demonstration" *

Phase I New Jersey test

Phase II: dumping Corexit in Alaska waters to see how it does in cold water. Horrors!

Are more lives being compromised, in addition to damage to the environment?

From the study of Inipol EAP 22, I conclude dispersants should NEVER be used,

they came into vogue based on false premises...

& all we do is ad poison to our waters...

in the end, the natural storms clean the oil spill residue...

anything man does is little more than making a bad situation worse.

But, if someone is making money... even if Exxon is making money on 'cleaning up its own disasters' ... maybe they'll just keep on doing what they want to do?

As for Inipol EAP 22 it is still thought to be OK (When it isn't)... a surfactant,* very little 'fertilizer'! *

They were 'cleaning the beaches' with the solvents - not bioremediating anything!

Regarding the lawsuit from the Fishermen on the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Cleanup:

I heard from the local Valdez, Alaska attorney

-ran into him at the grocery store November, 2002 -

that "There would be no pay-out to the fishermen for 4-5 years until the punitive damages were appealed, not one cent." *

Now Exxon is paying out the full 100 million to them all by January, 2003

checks are already in the mail to most of them.

(less any monies already paid by Alyeska or other related groups)

Why?

Could they have realized that since the ingredients of Inipol EAP 22 are more easily available, *

that people would soon realize that it was the chemicals that severely damaged the herring of 1993?

www.valdezlink.com/inipol/no.htm

Or is Exxon actually the lessee of the Alaska land leases... & they need help from the new administration? *

What I believed happened to EVERY ONE of the 1989 & 1990 bioremediation workers using Inipol EAP 22 ...

(Exxon owned this product that was field tested & lab tested simultaneously upon inception 7-28-02)

Not only are these workers' blood, skin and central nervous system damaged, but they are 'at the door' of kidney & liver problems & possible cancers; their children are at higher risk for leukemia and brain tumors.

... per research on this topic... & workers I have talked with. 'Cluster Evidence" should be very strong. *

Please pray for these men... it is their best hope for help *

"If I could ask God for anything, it wouldn't be material possessions...

it would be for good health and longevity."

The Alaska On-Scene Coordinator for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill...who worked the whole duration with the Alaska Dept of Environmental Conservation died in August, 2002 of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

Of course, it could be caused from 'anything.'

Says this 32 year old hard working father of 3,

"All I want is a correct diagnosis & an effective treatment."

Restated * Are they still using Inipol EAP 22? I'm afraid so!