In the video below Andy Nyman, Associate Professor at LSU, highlights a prior study done on Corexit 9500 and 9527, the two varieties of Nalco dispersant being used by BP in the Gulf of Mexico oil catastrophe.

Nyman’s study shows these two forms of Corexit cut the marine life survival rate in half over South Louisiana Crude alone. Combine this, with the review of 450 scientific articles spanning 11 years posted here and you have to wonder why the EPA is claiming its 4 weeks of studies are better than all the existing scientific data that disagree.

Remember we told you how the EPA study had cutoff values of 96 hours? If an organism had a heart rate of 1 beat per minute at hour 96 it was listed as having “no effect”, and if it died in hour 97, it still was STILL listed as “no effect” by the dispersant. Do you see where EPA protocol might be a real problem in terms of real world application??

A better question we should all be asking is: Why is the EPA backing BP’s unprecedented use of this deadly neurotoxin, which it KNOWS from existing data makes the oil more toxic and will do more long term damage than the oil alone?

In fairness, the EPA did “suggest” BP reduce its use of the dispersant. But USCG picked up where EPA left off and has granted nearly every exception BP has filed to increase dispersant use since EPA’s initial suggestion.

Don’t miss this excellent article from Truthout on dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico.