Exxon Is Appealing the 4 - 5 Billion Dollar Punitive Damages?  *

Be Careful, It Could Go the Other Way & They Might Have to Pay More  *

 

Health Concerns of Workers, may Also be Health Concerns for their Children  *

What Experiments were Really Done with Chemicals ... to the Marine Environment? *

What Reproductive Damage?  *

 What Relationship Damage?

What Blood Damage?  

What Cancers?

& More? *

 

Anyone want the MSDS for Alyeska North Slope Crude oil? Check the link on www.valdezlink.com/inipol  The material safety data sheet information on the ingredients with fact sheets are here, too.  *

 

Often people will say, oh, the oil can cause health problems * ... (Maybe workers on the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill cleanup who worked with the Inipol EAP 22 chemical have health concerns because of the oil?) It turns out that benzene of crude oil is a known carcinogen, & the blood damage that will show up is

 

   No exposure could be safe, say most scientists, so why send people out in their own boats to try to clean up a spill of crude oil?  Did the men working with only the oil have appropriate protective gear during the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill cleanup?

Said one Valdez worker:  

"Our family was one of the first responders with our boats.  I came down with petroleum pneumonia.

My father died a few years later of leukemia... it doesn't run in our family."  BENZENE pdf format  an ingredient of *

 

Exxon is working hard to get a new version of Corexit approved by dumping it in Alaska waters again.  This version, I believe, has 2-butoxyethanol instead of ethylene oxide as the 8-1-89 version had.  Looking for the current ingredients for Corexit!   If Exxon wants to test it in our Alaska waters * ... adding chemicals is not good for the marine life.  We don't want to loose the whole fishing industry, do we? (Check the website link on herring) *

 

In cold water areas, no biodegrading even takes place, much less bioremediating at 4 degrees centigrade & lower,  so what's the point? Exxon should be cautious about appealing the 5 billion dollar punitive damages.  It could go the other way, and they might have to pay more.  Fifteen billion sounds about right.  And please bring back the Exxon Valdez.  It wasn't the ship's fault.

 

Often people say, oh, 2-butoxyethanol & such chemicals are in common household products.  Maybe so, but 10 minutes usage each month, in no way compares to the workers who were soaked with it during the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill cleanup:  14 days straight with 12 hour work days - exposure limits very much exceeded... but I don't think the company ran any exposure limit tests for the chemicals, from what workers are sharing.  Although Exxon tested the blood of some workers... only problem is:  from that day to this, only Exxon knows the results, not the men.  Did Exxon find evidence of hemolytic anemia?  *

 

Since Spray 'n Wash just mentions a surfactant as an ingredient & don't breathe or get on your skin, I suspect it contains 2-butoxyethanol.  The MSDS only states a couple of minor ingredients, and that there is a surfactant that is 10% by weight.   And on a bigger scale, maybe Exxon's trying to find a money-maker chemical surfactant... a "Spray 'n Wash" for oil spill cleanups! *   

In conclusion, whether it was the oil or the chemicals, it was all bad for the environment AND the PEOPLE.  There was no point in putting PEOPLE in harm's way when nature's storms did the best job of cleaning the beaches.  If we've learned anything... it is keep the people out of harm's way:  don't expose them to the oil and don't make a bad situation worse by 'cleaning' the beaches with surfactant's!