Inipol Poisoning *

Truth and Lies

 January 3, 2007 - My First Blog Post

What I am about to tell you is and has to do with one of the largest corporations in the world and their lies. I am a licensed Master Coast Guard Captain.  This all started in the Spring of 1989 in Prince William Sound ,Alaska when the super tanker the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh reef.  At the time I was working in Alaska at various ports, then the Exxon Valdez ran aground spilling crude oil in one of the biggest oil spills in North American history.

What happened the next several years in the oil spill clean up is one if not the biggest cover ups and lies of our time. Just after the crude oil had spread through out Prince William Sound and the Kenai Peninsula Exxon decided the magnitude of the oil spill was just too big to use hot water spraying to dissipate the crude oil off the beaches so Exxon incorporated the use of chemicals to try and further clean the most beautiful place in North America, Prince William Sound. I was hired to transport the chemical "INIPOL" on a vessel so the beach workers could spray the crude oil in what Exxon believed would clean the beaches a lot faster and a lot better. 

Exxon bought the chemical "INIPOL" from a French company that had used the INIPOL on a spill years before in Europe. The MSDS (material safety data sheet) from the French company (which I obtained from undisclosed sources) said that the chemical "INIPOL" was a very hazardous to anyone or anything that came in contact with it without protection, the sheet went on to say that laboratory mice exposed to the chemical also came down with cancerous tumors. 

Now when Exxon bought the rights to "INIPOL" they wrote their own MSDS sheet that said that the chemical was not hazardous if you were exposed to it.  That is a lie and we the people that were in contact with "INIPOL" have since the beginning of the oil spill and the use of the chemicals have endured major medical problems, such as cancerous tumors, major blood clotting problems just to name a few and we have gone unheard of because nobody such as lawyers have enough gall to go up against the Exxon empire. 

I am a living example of what has happened, I had cancerous tumors removed from my stomach in 1994 and now I have major blood problems and am 100% disabled because of Exxon's lies. There are hundreds of us, possibly thousands that were exposed and now have major problems. All I want to do is bring light to this problem that Senators and Congress men and women including the EPA, OSHA ,and countless others I have told and written to over the years have ignored because no doubt Exxon has them in their pocket. 

I know first hand that there have been some deaths as well as deformed babies because Exxon covered up and still is ignoring that countless people whom worked to return Alaskan Beaches to their once pristine beauty after they caused one of the largest if not the largest oil spills in North American history and then lied about it.  

I feel some what responsible because the vessel I operated and Captained for Exxon supplied the deadly Chemical "INIPOL" and now there are a lot of sick people and I should have known better but I never got the real truth until it was too late. I thank you for reading this and I am telling you the truth , believe me I do not have anything to lose and if enough people know the truth then maybe in some weird way we can make big corporations like Exxon stand accountable for their lies. Thank You for your time .

I wonder how much money EXXON earned on their 'bad product?'  *

January 7 & January 10, 2007  *

February 19, 2007

Mr White,
       My name is Captain Richard Nagel and I was in the RCAC in 1989, 1990, and 1991 before the chemicals " Inipol " and the rest were outlawed, so to speak.  My feelings run deep on the subject of the Chemicals used.  The reason is because I supplied all the Inipol in Prince William Sound and the Kenai Peninsula for Exxon.  In 1993 I was fired because I spoke up about the hazard's of the chemical Inipol.  This was after I got the MSDS report from the French Corporation that Exxon bought the rights to for Inipol.  I will have you know their MSDS report is totally different from the one Exxon published.  Make's one wonder why ?
 
If you have the time go to    http://exxontellslies.blogstream.com/    This is my story and believe me I am not proud of it.   I have hurt a lot of people by not speaking up before they were exposed.   
I resigned from the RCAC because they're full of shit.  If you would like to contact me feel free to do so,   I also was exposed.  I had half my stomach removed in 1994 because of cancer and now I have severe blood disorders and that's not even half of it .
                    Signed ,
                                               Captain Richard D.Nagel

A quick summary here  *

"Canadian researcher Peter Wells in 1984 concluded that part of the problem with oil dispersants is that their toxicity appears to be linked to their effectiveness: Effective dispersants are too toxic, and nontoxic dispersants are ineffective" quoted by ADN 8-15-89

http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV147.html

Coast Guard Vice Adm. Clyde Robbins, the on-scene coordinator for the spill cleanup

"What in the world are we doing testing this stuff now?" Robbins asks.

 http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV147.html Anchorage Daily News, 8-15-89

Peter Moutasano, a Department of Environmental Conservation member of the Resource Assessment Team in the area warned a reporter not to touch the rocks with bare hands because the fertilizer attacks red blood cells and can cause liver and kidney damage.  ADN, 9-16-89 http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV123.html 

Ramifications 

This really doesn't have a lot to do with a lot of things. I can not understand how Exxon can be so with out understanding about the people, including myself and our health issues. How a major Corporation like Exxon-Mobil can deny our health problems is beyond me.  As a Captain from 1989 thru 1992 I did look the other way as Exxon, VECO and whom ever else sprayed beaches from Prince William Sound to the Kenai Peninsula.  By the time we started supplying "Inipol" in 1990 to the Bay of Isles on Knight Island I knew there was some sort of a risk.

Now we know that the berthing vessel "Columbia" made it's own fresh water, but it did not filter out the "Inipol" that was washing off the beaches only a stone's throw away.  How can a corporation expose thousands of beach workers to the effects of a highly cancerous chemical to all these workers is beyond me.  Exxon knew the risks.  They not only bought the chemical "Inipol" but also the MSDS report and once they bought it they changed it. OK how does a corporation change a MSDS report when they had no long term studies to back up their claim that "Inipol" was as safe as honey on toast? ... and what really is the kicker is the French Corporation had run test ( long term exposure ) after the Tanker "Cadiz" ran aground off the coast of France some years before and had found out that "Inipol" was a major cancer factor in laboratory rats.  As of this date I have no idea how many People in France that was affected by the chemical, as they say their findings are inconclusive to date.  Kind of makes you wonder.

Now I was the Captain on the Vessel "Pegasus" and we or I supplied all the "Inipol" to all the beach workers in the oil spill, so if you are looking for a scape goat then I am it.  Yes I knew, but I didn't know until the summer of 1990 that "Inipol" was highly cancerous.  At that time I reported my findings to the RCAC in Anchorage and was told that since I was on the committee that over saw Tanker traffic in and out of Prince William Sound to keep my mouth shut.  I resigned in 1992 because as far as I could tell everyone in the RCAC was taking a bribe from the big Oil Companies.  Now I could be wrong, but I don't think so.  At any rate they went their way and I went mine. I suppose you would have to look at both sides, but why and what do I have to gain from lying? ... and besides the RCAC just handed down their paper on spreading chemicals on oil spills, and now they say it's not a good idea, the same thing I said back in 1990.There will be more

--------Captain Richard Nagel

by Captain (PM , CC ) on February 23, 2007 @ 8:14 PM
 
I would like to know more about this .... Mother-Margaret:

EPA source:   Inipol EAP-22 (oleophilic liquid fertilizer developed by a French firm in response to the Amoco Cadiz oil spill off the coast of France) 

NOT REALLY  Inipol was developed by France.  Exxon bought their patent and added 22 more chemicals... thereby 'creating' a new product, Inipol EAP 22,  entirely an EXXON Product

___________________

Subtidal invertebrates proved to be highly vulnerable to the oil spilled from the Amoco Cadiz tanker in 1978 off the coast of Brittany.10 #10. National Research Council. Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates, and Effects . National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1985.

___________________

Coping With an Oiled Sea (Part 7 of 11)

In the wake of the Amoco Cadiz oil spill the. French government established CEDRE, the ... Contingency Plans in France and in the ...
 
This oil spill was 6.5 times larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill:  68 million gallons.  The French have been experimenting with biodegradation accelerating agents.  They still prefer containment to dispersing agents, but it is still allowed per this article (p 3 of 11 pages)
 
"The French supplied one of the Products (Inipol eap 22) for bioremediation experiments in Prince William Sound"  "In the wake of the Amoco Cadez oil spill the French govt established CEDRE the Center for Documentation, Research and Experimentation on accidennntal pollution"
 
At this time Exxon owned the patent, I believe
 
It was only Inipol prior to Exxon purchasing the patent & adding 22 more chemicals
_________________

The high pressure washes (at pressures up to 100 psi) can also cause shifting beach sediment that can suffocate clams and worms, impeding recolonization. The recovery of the ecosystem after the 68-million-gallon Amoco Cadiz oil spill suggests the best cleanup strategy might be to allow nature to run its own course. As NOAA chief scientist Sylvia A. Earle has said, "Sometimes the best, and ironically the most difficult, thing to do in the face of an ecological disaster is to do nothing."12

________________
 
I would like to know how the workers of 1978 oil spill cleanup of French beaches ... health ... looks like that of the French 'gulf war syndrome' vets?
 
Same for EVOS workers of 1989/90/91 and the USA 'gulf war syndrome' vets?'  *