|Biologists Found *||
It doesn't take
a rocket scientist . . .
Inipol EAP 22,
that claims bioremediation success *
Aug, 1989 and 1990 during the
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill cleanup
... leaves a lot to be desired.
Claiming to be a fertilizer,
it has only minuscule amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus *
... and no potassium
N:P:K ratio doesn't look that bad,
until you check the C:N:P ratio (62:5:1) and find that it is a surfactant, * only 'technically' a fertilizer.
(Carbon is what we are trying to get RID of, right?)
Since it is well-known that no biodegrading or bioremediating takes place at 4 degrees C...
then we can also wonder whether maybe it wasn't 'pockets' of inipol held in suspension deep down in our waters that caused the devastation to the 1993 herring run.
Oh, the scientists had to come up with something... so they pinned it on a virus and said the Exxon Valdez oil spill had no effect. No one gives any thought to the fact that chemicals were dumped on our beaches & waters. One study states that 72 miles of the 1300 miles of oiled beaches were sprayed with 230 tons of surfactant
(Inipol EAP 22 wasn't even called a fertilizer).
Exxon basically used the spill to test its products: Corexit and Inipol EAP 22.
Well, let's see, the herring were bleeding through their scales, they couldn't swim straight and their bladders, per one report, were non-existent. Sounds like it would make a lot more sense to say it was the blood damage, skin damage, central nervous system damage and the kidney system damage that is caused from
C6H14O2/CH3(CH2)2CH2OCH2CH2OH * 2-butoxyethanol
of the very toxic Inipol EAP 22 *
Of course, if the fish were quite ill,
they would be susceptible to a virus & worse.
The first time the herring came in sick, says one researcher, was in 1993 and the fisheries was closed and with some exception (1997, 1998) has been CLOSED
1993 due to poor reproduction and/or
Only 1/6 (20,000 tons) of the stock returned; the other 100,000 tons died.
Lack of interest in sex and reproductive damage is also one effect of the
2-butoxyethanol in Inipol EAP 22.
Not to mention, that all components of the oil and the 2-butoxyethanol... are likely teratogens *
The men * that worked with this chemical,
haven't faired too well, *
best I can tell.
More questions than answers about this 'acclaimed' product. www.valdezlink.com/inipol/pages/tidbits.htm
If you ask me, inipol EAP 22 should NEVER be used again;
and if this is the cornerstone upon which 'bioremediation' came into vogue, then maybe that's a farce, too!
PO Box 233
Valdez, AK 99686
1-888-853-5333 Do you have other information?
2-7-03 ... a fisherman reports ... herring being born deformed? *
|David S. Page criticizes 60 minutes *|
If the Inipol EAP 22 workers are found, and stand up t o g e t h e r
they can prove, as none other...
what happened to them ...
& what our decisions for future oil spill cleanups should be. *
Consider that the proper personal protective equipment
would be similar to what is used when properly spray painting cars... or as when searching for anthrax: level IV
That is too expensive and cumbersome for use en mass.
Even if the product did some good,
appropriate protective gear would never be supplied.
For that reason alone, Inipol EAP 22 should not be used to damage our people;
nor should it be used to damage our environment, either, for that matter.
... on the Coast of Spain?
Please, please, 'NO!'
Other Items of interest regarding Legal History,
the Exxon Valdez & does oil linger or not? *
Captain's Shanty - Sailor Fun song, "The Fish of the Sea"
to abbreviated web contents - Exxon Valdez Oil Spill - workers