Natural Gas Fracking Polluting Drinking Water With Corexit’s Main Neurotoxin Pesticide Ingredient

Natural Gas Fracking Polluting Drinking Water With Corexit’s Main Neurotoxin Pesticide Ingredient

An Investigation Into Feds Coverup Of Natural Gas Fracking Reveals Drilling Pollutes The Drinking Water With Corexit’s Main Neurotoxin Pesticide Ingredient.

During the height of the BP Gulf Oil Spill I did a detailed reported on the dangers of the neurotoxin pesticide that BP was spraying in the Gulf. While our beloved regulators assured us Corexit was safe as dish soap my report showed otherwise and woke many people up to the dangers.

The Amount Of Neurotoxin Pesticide Corexit Sprayed By BP Tops 1 Million Gallons
Neurotoxin Pesticide Corexit is a Biohazard

BP’s latest oil spill response update for June 4th says the total amount of the dispersant used in the Gulf of Mexico more than 1,021,000 gallons.

But what most people don’t know is that the active ingredient of the toxic chemical dispersant, which is up to 60% by volume, being sprayed by BP to fight the Gulf oil spill is a neurotoxin pesticide that is acutely toxic to both human and aquatic life, causes cancer, causes damage to internal organs such as the liver and kidneys simply by absorbing it through the skin and may cause reproductive side effects.

In fact the neurotoxin pesticide that is lethal to 50% of life in concentrations as little as 2.6 parts per million has been banned for use in the UK since 1998 because it failed the UK “Rocky shore test” which assures that the dispersant does not cause a “significant deleterious ecological change” – or to put that in layman’s terms it can kill off the entire food chain.

Corexit has also earned the highest EPA warning label for toxicity which means the effects of the toxic chemicals to the eye are corrosive resulting in irreversible destruction of ocular tissue and other tissue with corneal involvement along with an burning that can persist for more than 21 days and effects to human skin are corrosive resulting in tissue destruction into the dermis and/or scarring.

Corexit was widely used after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and according to a literature review performed by the group the Alaska Community Action on Toxics was later linked with widespread long lasting health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders.

The “Human Health Hazards” are said to be “Chronic” for Corexit EC9527A according to the EPA.

So What Are These Dispersants Made Of That Makes Them Such a Powerful Neurotoxin Pesticide?

The main ingredients of Corexit is 2-Butoxyethanol which can make up to 60% of the dispersant and is known to be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, and the central nervous system (CNS).

2-Butoxyethanol is also known to cause cancer, birth defects and has been found to cause genetic mutations and is a delayed chronic health hazard as well as an environmental hazardous material

Read The Rest
As that report revealed the main hazard in the more lethal version of Corexit, Corexit EC9527A was the neurotoxin pesticide 2-Butoxyethanol or 2-BE.

What are the Chronic Health effects of Corexit?

Here are some of the highlights from the MSDS for the active ingredient (2-butoxyethanol) – of Corexit (up to 60% by volume)
Severe over-exposure can result in death.
MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast.
The substance may be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, central nervous system (CNS).
Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.
Repeated exposure to highly (this) toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.
Hazardous in case of skin contact (permeator), of ingestion, of inhalation.
May cause adverse reproductive effects (maternal and paternal fertility, fetoxicity)
May cause birth defects (teratogenic)
May cause cancer (tumorigenic)
Penetrates intact skin easily and can cause systemic effects and central nervous system depression
Inhalation: May cause irritation of the respiratory tract. May affect behavior (analgesia), behavior/central nervous system (headache, drowsiness, dizzness, stuttering, coma, weakness, ataxia, slurred speech, loss of coordination and judgement, personality changes, analgesia, blurred vision, tremor, excitement, somnolence), sense organs, the gastrointestinal tract (nausea, vomiting), metabolism (metabolic acidosis), respiration (dyspnea), urinary system (kidneys – hematuria, albuminuria, polyuria, oliguria, renal failure), liver (liver damage).
Exposure to high vapor concentration may also cause corneal or lens opacity of the eyes.
Ingestion: Causes gastrointestinal tract irritation with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea. May affect behavior/central
nervous system (see inhalation), respiration (dyspnea), metabolism, cardiovascular system.
Chronic Potential Health Effects: Inhalation and Ingestion: Prolonged or repeated inhalation or ingestion may affect the liver, blood (changes in red blood cell count, pigmented or nucleated red blood cells, microcytosis with or without anemia, erythropenia, reticulocytosis, granulocytosis, leukocytosis), urinary system (kidneys -hematuria), metabolism (weight loss), endocrine system (spleen, thymus, pancreas). Prolonged or repeated inhalation of high concentrations may also cause lung hemmorrhage, congestion, bronchopneumonia.
Classified in Canada as CLASS D-1A: Material causing immediate and serious toxic effects (VERY TOXIC).
Classified in Canada as CLASS D-2B: Material causing other toxic effects (TOXIC)

I also just reported that taxpayers will now be footing the bill to develop a system to remove radiation contamination added into water supplies by natural gas drillers who dump their drilling mud into local waterways.

Taxpayers To Fund System To Remove Radiation In Water After Feds Fracking Cover Up Exposed

Feds Continue To Allow Nat Gas Drillers To Dump Radioactive Waste

The Feds allow natural gas drillers to continue dumping radioactive water into water supplies as taxpayers fund a new system to remove radiation from the water.

Gasland Documentary

-60 Minutes – Shaleionaires (November 14, 2010)
-Hydrofracked? One Man’s Mystery Leads to a Backlash Against Natural Gas Drilling
-Risks and Rewards: The Controversy About Shale Gas Production and Hydraulic Fracturing, Ground Water Pollution, Toxic and Carcinogenic Chemical Dangers, Marcellus Shale, Hydrofrac and Fracking
-21st Century Guide to Hydraulic Fracturing, Underground Injection, Fracking, Hydrofrac, -Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Production Controversy, Environmental and Safety Risks, Water Pollution
-The Intel Hub just reprinted a ProPublica article which is investigating if the feds knew about the cover up since 1987.

Does an Old EPA Fracking Study Provide Proof of Contamination?

By Abrahm Lustgarten
Aug. 4, 2011

For years the drilling industry has steadfastly insisted that there has never been a proven case in which fracking has led to contamination of drinking water.

Now Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization engaged in the debate over the safety of fracking, has unearthed a 24-year-old case study [1] by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that unequivocally says such contamination has occurred. The New York Times reported [2] on EWG’s year-long research effort and the EPA’s paper Wednesday.

The 1987 EPA report [3], which describes a dark, mysterious gel found in a water well in Jackson County, W.Va., states that gels were also used to hydraulically fracture a nearby natural gas well and that “the residual fracturing fluid migrated into (the resident’s) water well.”

The circumstances of this particular well are not unique [4]. There are several other cases across the country where evidence suggests similar contamination has occurred and many more where the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing have contaminated water supplies on the surface. ProPublica has written about many of them in the course of a three-year investigation [5] into the safety of drilling for natural gas.

But the language found in the EPA report made public Wednesday is the strongest articulation yet by federal officials that there is a direct causal connection between man-made fissures thousands of feet underground and contaminants found in well water gone bad.

The explanation, presented in the EPA’s own words, stands in stark contrast to recent statements made by EPA officials that they could not document a proven case of contamination and a 2004 EPA report [4] that concluded that fracturing was safe.

“This is our leading regulatory agency coming to the conclusion that hydraulic fracturing can and did contaminate underground sources of drinking water, which contradicts what industry has been saying for years,” said Dusty Horwitt, EWG’s senior counsel and the lead researcher on the report.

A spokesperson for the EPA would not directly address the apparent contradiction but said in an email that the agency is now reviewing the 1987 report and that “the agency has identified several circumstances where contamination of wells is alleged to have occurred and is reviewing those cases in depth.”

The contamination debate has intensified as tens of thousands more wells are being drilled in newly discovered shale gas deposits across the country. The EPA and some scientists have long warned that when rock is hydraulically fractured, there is an increased risk of contaminants traveling through underground cracks until they reach drinking water. Hopefully it won’t effect drinking water because otherwise I will have to find a new provider through Simply Switch, if you’re interested, read this.

Many geologists have countered, however, that migration over thousands of feet is virtually impossible.

Although the EPA, along with West Virginia officials, concluded that fracturing caused the contamination studied in its 1987 paper, the documents from the agency’s investigation contain many of the same ambiguities that have allowed the industry to continue to deny a link between water contamination and fracking.

In the West Virginia case, for example, officials did not collect chemical samples of the drilling fluids used for fracturing and therefore could not test the contaminated water for the presence of those chemicals. Officials noted that they did not have sufficient time to fully investigate that case.

“No one at the time tested the gel to see its chemical composition so you can’t know for sure where it came from,” said Horwitt.

Such scientific stumbling blocks have prevented regulators from reaching more definitive conclusions in several cases that have roused concern about fracturing.

In 2006 2014 according to a ProPublica report [4] 2014 a residential drinking water well in Garfield County, Colo., spewed gas and polluted water into the air after a nearby gas well was hydraulically fractured. Tests detected a chemical called 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE), commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, in the drinking water well. The EPA never studied the case, and Colorado officials did not pursue an in-depth investigation before the gas company reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with the homeowner that included nondisclosure agreements.

In 2009, when the EPA began investigating [6] a pattern of residential well water contamination in Pavillion, Wyo., the agency identified a close chemical relative of the 2-BE compound identified in the Colorado case.

It is also likely that 2-BE was used in fracking in Pavillion, but the EPA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency has not decided whether fracking was the cause.


Read The Rest…

Did you catch those last two paragraphs? I had to do a double take my self but indeed the main neurotoxin pesticide ingredient from Corexit 9527A is being used by Natural Gas drillers during the fracking process and making its way into the drinking water.

The EPA has know about this and has done nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Categories: OIL & FRACKING

About Author