Why The UK Banned Corexit
UPDATE: June 29 In the interest of integrity and maintaining factual data, I will always update and post corrections as I learn new information on a topic. To that end, the information in the original post below was sent to me from a university professor (originally from Rep. Markey) and, while the original information is factual and Corexit is a toxic product, the below information shows a slightly more straightforward interpretation, and I felt it important to share.
Thanks to my brother, the engineer, for the correction regarding UK’s “rocky shores test” (and for keeping ME honest):
From my understanding, the “limpet test” a.k.a. “rocky shores test” that is performed by the UK is primarily an evaluation of the ability of the limpet to adhere to a rock surface after exposure to a dispersant. The inability to adhere is a result of the slipperiness caused by the surfactant in the dispersant. “For the purposes of the test”, the limpet is assumed dead if it is unable to adhere to the rock after exposure. This is because a crustacean that is unable to adhere to the rock will likely die due to any of a number of causes including wave action, predation, etc.
While the negative effects on crustaceans are certainly of concern, the test result implies no toxic effects on other creatures OR on any creatures in areas where rocky shores are not present. In fact, the ban in the UK applies only to use of the dispersant in areas of rocky shores and has no effect in offshore applications (3 miles out and further).
Additionally, it’s important to point out that the UK ban on Corexit is specifically for rocky shoreline conditions and that (referencing Corexit 9500 and 9527): “Existing stocks of these products may still be used away from rocky shorelines in appropriate conditions.”
We have no idea how the UK would respond to BP’s unprecedented Corexit use in an oil catastrophe the size of BP’s Deepwater Horizon, nor do we know how much “existing stock” of Corexit is left there. I’m quite certain, based on the “rocky shores” ban that BP would not be allowed to spray Corexit aerially over a residential area, such as Barataria Bay, as many rumors out of Louisiana have indicated happened there. However, always presenting you with the full story, below is the original post.
Begin Original Post:
| Print article | This entry was posted by Jennifer Roth on June 26, 2010 at 10:39 pm, and is filed under BP Oil Spill, corexit. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |








about 1 year ago
If you look at the material about Corexit, you would see that it is not meant for use close to shore. In fact, it’s recommended use by Nalco is three miles off shore. Offshore use, which is how it is being used in the Gulf, is still authorized by the UK. Do some research.
about 1 year ago
Check the link Bob. It was updated earlier this morning.
I am doing my research. If you guys over at Nalco would like for us to believe Corexit is safe, why don’t you release samples of the product to multiple independent scientists and labs for testing, as well as make the complete formula available? Also, your claim that it’s being used properly and only off shore does not hold water. We have MANY accounts of Corexit being dumped over (residential) Barataria Bay.
Where is your research on the safety of using Corexit at the current depths, in these amounts and in the warm Gulf waters? If you spent less time defending against our claims and more time being open, transparent and showing us why we should trust you, then you might have a case.
I haven’t seen your documentation stating Corexit was only intended for off shore use, but if that is true, then why did the UK even conduct the “rocky shores test” on Corexit? Also, the UK document does not support your claim of “UNRESTRICTED” continued use in non-rocky shore applications. They do specifically say “EXISTING STOCK” only, which implies once you use what you have, you can not use any more. Corexit is, after all, OFF THEIR LIST.
Bob, I invite you to bring evidence to the table that Corexit is being used in a safe, effective manner. I’ve never wanted to be wrong about something so much in my life. But you guys over at Nalco just aren’t giving us a whole lot to believe.
about 1 year ago
Thanks for all this research.
Living on the Gulf, Walton County Florida, we are all disgusted and disheartened at this spill and with the governments debacle of reacting to this catastrophe. Shouldn’t each county/state be able to take the reigns and do whatever they can to stop this disaster? Seriously? We (who are east of you) are learning what has worked and sadly what hasn’t.
Our sheriff in Walton County, Michael Adkinson Jr is bucking Unified Command and will do whatever is necessary to stop the oil from polluting our shores. BRAVO to this hero.
More bits of good news:
Hair booms are working and are now being deployed in AL and LA.
From the hair boom creator via Facebook: Hairboom News: The army is using hairbooms in Mississippi. The VOO in LA are creating 4X4 floating pillows and deploying directly in oil. Coast Guard has agreed to pick up oiled boom and will be issuing press release. And in Alabama we are looking for boaters who will help us deploy into sensitive marshlands as well.
These were tested successfully in Alabama on private shorelines and areas and is now being used on a broader scale!
Again, appreciate all your efforts to keep citizens informed. PLEASE keep researching the dispersants and air/water quality. We are not getting clear answers in FL- so our Sheriff (Adkinson) has set up an independent task force to perform testing so we can have solid data to work from.
GOOD LUCK in your area of disaster response.
about 1 year ago
I don’t believe that there is any evidence that use of Corexit is safe. Below are the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) “Fact sheets” page for Nalco’s Corexit “Dispersant Type 1,” Corexit 9500; and “Dispersant Type 2,” Corexit 9527A.
http://www.piersystem.com/posted/2931/Corexit_EC9500A_MSDS.539287.pdf
http://www.piersystem.com/posted/2931/Corexit_EC9527A_MSDS.539295.pdf
The MSDS for Corexit 9527A states:
“‘excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects,’ and ‘repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol [an active ingredient] may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver.’”
and
‘”Prolonged and/or repeated exposure through inhalation or extensive skin contact with EGBE [butoxyethanol] may result in damage to the blood and kidneys.’”
Check it out. Independent testing is needed.
about 1 year ago
The day obama swims in the gulf with the toxic soup, it the day i will hold a glass up and take a sip myself. Cheers.
about 1 year ago
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=135033099859470&ref=ts
about 1 year ago
Any Gulf residents with stories are invited to submit them to me at nightrighter777@gmail.com.
I am interested in somehow getting around the current regimes monopoly use of toxic dispersants and into absorptive formulations that coagulate / neutralize the oil. Oillift.net; MYCELX of Georgia;
AmeriHaz are a few references to products that need to be made use of.
The toxic infusion of Corexit in our natural habitats is negligent and criminal.