Saturday, December 31, 2011

What Happens in a Disaster SO Large...?

What happens in a human-caused disaster so large, that no preparation exists, and no willingness to expend exists either, on the part of government and industry?

What happens when worst-case scenarios become real?

What happens? We are going to find out...

BP in the Gulf of Mexico was a bad precedent.

It is not looking good for those of us most directly impacted by Fukushima in areas of Japan, Russia, China, Canada, the US and whoever else is immediately downwind...

Epidemic of Police Brutality

 The Epidemic of Police Brutality By Michael E. Ross, The Root 29 December 11

A good complementary piece to this article can be found here:



WSJ: "Court Delays EPA Smog Rule"

Dec 31 - Jan 1 2011 weekend edition Wall Street Journal p. A2.

Legal challenges to new EPA rules led the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit "to stay the rule pending the outcome of legal challenges to the case.

The rule under challenge involved cross-state pollution and stipulated reductions were to be implemented in 2012.

The article does state that a separate rule limiting mercury emissions and other toxins was finalized and will start requiring emissions cuts, in 2015!

Meanwhile we will choke on mercury and other toxins--now including even more radionuclides from Fukushima--in our air...

Nuclear Decontamination Law in Japan

The article at Mainichi is strategically vague about who is going to conduct and pay for clean-up

"The central government will be responsible for the cleanup efforts in a no-go zone around the crippled plant and other evacuation areas in the seaside prefecture also heavily hit by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami"

The article continues on, explaining that decontamination plans will be created by 102 municipalities in 8 impacted prefectures wherein radiation doses exceed 1 millisievert a year, over background radiation and radiation from medical treatment.

The article states that the clean up costs will be covered by the central government. 

The article states that this nuclear decontamination law was actually proposed in August.
I sincerely hope the central government is going to cover all the costs; however, based on previous coverage of this law, I am not sure that is the case. 

On October 11, I posted a link to a NHK article that explained that the prefectures were responsible for covering much of the clean up:
"The government will be responsible for the decontamination of no-entry zones and government-designated evacuation zones. Local governments will clean up the rest of the affected areas..."

Perhaps the law has been revised since October.

Another important question that arises when reading today's Mainichi article about the decontamination law concerns disposal of debris.

Today's Mainichi article states that the law stipulates that the state will dispose of radioactive ashes from incinerated waste and sludge if they are found to have "more than 8,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium per kilogram."

Does that mean that the only radionuclide that will be tested and covered will be cesium? 

What about strontium and plutonium, as well as a host of other radionuclides?

Also, does the wording of the law suggest that the prefectures will each be responsible for incinerating debris before the central government will dispose of them?

And where exactly does the government plan on disposing of those radioactive ashes/sludge? 

The article states that landfills with plastic liners will be built in each prefecture except Fukushima. I cannot imagine that will go over well with citizens concerned about contamination of their water supplies.

Arnie Gunderson recently claimed radioactive debris are being dumped in Tokyo Bay.
In April, the Japanese government claimed that dumping radioactive debris in the ocean does not violate the law

And I recall Tepco claiming that the radioactive debris are not their responsibility: "TEPCO: Radioactive substances belong to landowners, not us"

Safely containing radioactive debris is not going to be an easy task.
In November, Mainichi ran an article explaining that decontamination efforts were not proceeding well

A more positive development is heralded by Japan Today:Toshiba invents device it claims can decontaminate radioactive soil 

One can only hope this last headline is true.

Fukushima Diary: Radioactive Debris Map

Friday, December 30, 2011

How Many Causalties in Iraq?

Iraq Body Count

How Many US Casualties in Iraq? Guess Again
War is a Crime Waged by Elites, for Elite Interests, and the People are the Victims

Chris Busby Video

WSJ: "French Train China Nuclear Experts"

Wall Street Journal Dec 29 2011 p. B3 

France is a major nuclear power and exporter of nuclear technology. 

This article examines how a French state-owned power company, Electricite de France SA, is training Chinese citizens in nuclear technology and safety. There are a few telling quotes from the article:

"The opening of the school underscores the lengths France is going to ensure [sic] its four-decade-long, 250 billion investment in nuclear energy continues to pay off. It also shows how the fate of France's nuclear industry is becoming increasingly entwined with China's."

The French academy's "24 million six-year budget is provided by a consortium of business including EDF, Areva and China Guandong Nuclear Power Holding Co..."

I believe this article demonstrates how entrenched institutionally the nuclear power industry is in many western economies.

Corporate self-interest and greed will prevail, even while millions and millions of people sicken and die from Fukushima.

Japanese Corporate Exodus?

From "Japan's SMFG Eyeing Deals" Wall Street Journal Dec 30 p. C3

The article examines Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, which is considering going abroad.

There is one quote in the article that is particularly noteworthy:

"'A lot of Japanese companies are going abroad and I see it as a chance [for SMFG to increase lending] given the country's overbanking situation,' Mr Miyata said."

Majia here: this is the second recent article in the WSJ about Japanese companies moving abroad.

My concern is that rather than properly clean up areas contaminated by Fukushima, Japan's elite will simply leave, abandoning the rest of their countrymen to the radiation...

Thursday, December 29, 2011

News From Japan: How Bad Can Fukushima Get?


Gov't wants to buy abandoned Fukushima land to store radioactive waste

 Japan starts operating new centrifuges for enriching uranium

 NUCLEAR ACCIDENT INTERIM REPORT / Without water, reactor cores heated up

 Fukushima hospitals in financial strife / Services being cut as medical facilities' losses top 12 billion yen due to nuclear crisis

[Excerpted] "Hospitals in Fukushima Prefecture are facing financial strain--and cutting services--due to the ongoing impact of the crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

The prefecture's hospital association, to which about 90 percent of its hospitals belong, recently estimated that the hospitals' combined losses would reach at least 12.6 billion yen for the first year after the outbreak of the nuclear crisis in March.The hospitals demanded TEPCO pay compensation for the first six months." [end quote]


There is considerable speculation at Enenews on the webcam discussion forum that fires are burning at the plant in the spent fuel pools of units 2 and 3.

Radnet readings for many areas of the US still reporting are extremely high, indicating rising levels of radiation in Japan

Yuma was just at 800 CPM beta 

Fresno was at 450 CPM beta

Bakersfield CA was off the charts (which reach 1000CPM) on Dec 11 and was recently (yesterday) at 850 CPM beta.

Burning spent fuel pools, or simply fissioning of melted coriums, could explain these high levels. Some commentators have suggested that what we have are open China syndrome pits of burning, fissioning corium.

How much fuel is at the plant? Bobby1 at Enenews posted this link:

[Excerpted] "The Daiichi complex had a total of 1760 metric tons of fresh and used nuclear fuel on site last year, according to a presentation by its owners, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco). The most damaged Daiichi reactor, number 3, contains about 90 tons of fuel, and the storage pool above reactor 4, which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Gregory Jaczko reported yesterday had lost its cooling water, contains 135 tons of spent fuel. The amount of fuel lost in the core melt at Three Mile Island in 1979 was about 30 tons; the Chernobyl reactors had about 180 tons when the accident occurred in 1986…." 

Majia Here: Commentators at Enenews are suggesting ELE if this disaster is not contained.

I don't know how accurate a description that is, but I am becoming very worried that no apparent, collective, collaborative response has been forthcoming for the largest nuclear disaster ever. 

I am worried that radiation levels are increasing in Japan and the US and I am worried that governments are doing nothing to protect their citizens.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Interesting Job Opportunity

[excerpt]: Internment/Resettlement (I/R) Specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility. I/R Specialists provide rehabilitative, health, welfare, and security to U.S. military prisoners within a confinement or correctional facility; conduct inspections; prepare written reports; and coordinate activities of prisoners/internees and staff personnel.

New Cold War Enriches Industries of Death, Leaving the Rest Impoverished and Threatening the Planet

Might Canada's enriched uranium, currently being imported into the US, be used for nuclear weapons production?

The Obama administration has vastly increased nuclear arms production:

We seem to be on the verge of nuclear brinkmanship once again.
The growing militarization of the globe was illustrated by the recent decision to build US bases in Australia.

US imperial strategy is confronting China and Russia in the war over control of global resources, including rare earths (controlled by China), oil, fresh water, farm land, etc. 

Control over the Middle East is being established as the US wages endless wars in the region.

Asia is also entering the new cold war. See Michael Klare's "A New Cold War in Asia?"

The only winners in this new cold/hot war are the defense contractors and other corporate parasites feeding off of the industries of death.

Japan's new PM Noda is happy to play the role of the Asian merchant of death.

I think it instructive to examine this headline found in today's Wall Street Journal: "Japan Lifts Decadeslong Ban on Export of Weapons" p. A8

The article states that the Japanese ban on exports of advanced military technology was introduced in 1967 and tightened in 1976. The ban is now being lifted.

"Japan's leading big-business lobby, the Keidanren,which has been one of the strongest proponents of easing the arms-export ban, welcomed the move."

Japan also plans to purchase 42 of Lockheed Martin's "pricey F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter planes to replace its Air Self Defense Force's aging fleet of 1960s era F-4 jets. Japan said it plans to spend Y1.6 trillion ($20.8 billion) on the program over the next 20 years..."

Japan hopes to reduce some of the cost by building and exporting components to other F-35 buyers.
So, while Japan's central government fails to decontaminate, or even contain Fukushima, it has no compunctions about spending billions on a new arms race...


Washington's Blog: Cold Shutdown is Politics, NOT Science

Announcement of “Cold Shutdown” of Fukushima Reactors Is Based On a Political Decision, Not Science

This is a very good summary.

Canada Shipping Bomb-Grade Uranium to US

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

The BP Gulf Oil Spill Was the Rehearsal for Tepco's Fukushima

Majia on The BP Gulf Oil Spill

On April 20, 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, producing the largest oil spill in American history. The blow-out occurred 5,000 feet below the surface, complicating efforts to contain the mega-disaster that followed. At least 4.9 million barrels of oil were released into the Gulf of Mexico before the well was capped 87 days after the initial explosion.[i] This figure does not include releases of methane and other gasses, which are estimated to have constituted at least a third of the petroleum hydrocarbons released by the well.[ii]
BP sprayed at least 1.9 million gallons of toxic dispersants to break the oil up into small molecules.[iii] Corexit 9527A and 9500A, manufactured by Nalco, were the primary dispersants used.[iv] The EPA asked BP to stop spraying this dispersant after concerns were raised about its toxicity, but the EPA subsequently waived its ban when BP claimed no other dispersant was available in adequate quantity.[v] In point of fact, the EPA actually had limited control over BP’s use of these dispersants, as reported by Wendy Sheppard in Mother Jones
In the case of dispersants, companies must ask the EPA for permission to use specific products—but the only basis for approval is whether those products are effective at breaking up oil. Companies are required to test the short-term toxicity of the dispersant and the oil-dispersant mixture on shrimp and fish, but those results have no bearing on approval, and there's no requirement to assess the long-term impact. In fact, it's the EPA that must prove an "unreasonable risk" if it wants companies to disclose what is in the dispersant—hard to do when the agency, you know, doesn't know what's in it.[vi]
Sheppard quotes Richard Denison, senior scientists with the Environmental Defense Fund, who remarks that "We have a chemical policy that essentially has required very little testing and very little evidence of safety for pretty much all chemicals on the market, and that covers dispersants." The Toxic Substances Control Act, passed in 1976, grandfathered in 84,000 chemicals whose risks have yet to be tested or disclosed.[vii]
Corexit 9527A and 9500A have acute neurotoxic effects, according to a 1987 report published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health titled “Organic Solvent Neurotoxicity.”[viii] The Materials Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Corexit 9527A states that “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." Furthermore, both forms of Corexit are acknowledged in their MSDS to bio-accumulate in marine life.[ix]  Marine biologist, Dr. Riki Ott, who had studied the health aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, publicly warned that Corexit is toxic for humans during its application in the Gulf over the summer of 2010.[x]  Susan Shaw, a marine toxicologist and Director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute summarized the dangers of Corexit in a New York Times editorial: 
Though all dispersants are potentially dangerous when applied in such volumes, Corexit is particularly toxic. It contains petroleum solvents and a chemical that, when ingested, ruptures red blood cells and causes internal bleeding. It is also bioaccumulative, meaning its concentration intensifies as it moves up the food chain.[xi]
This deliberate cover-up of health risks was discussed in a Democracy Now interview with Environmental Activist Jerry Cope titled "The Crime of the Century: What BP and US Government Don’t Want You to Know" and in another interview with Democracy Now, EPA whistleblower Hugh Kaufman accused the EPA of deliberately hiding the dangers of the dispersant Corexit, which the EPA authorized BP to spray directly on the submerged oil leak and which the U.S. Coast Guard sprayed from airplanes upon the Gulf’s surface.[xii]
Although warnings abounded about the health dangers of the oil and Corexit, little action was taken to warn and protect residents and tourists in the region. Beach-goers in the Gulf region risked exposure to oil and Corexit at popular beaches the government refused to close. A television station, WKRG in Alabama, conducted independent testing of the oil levels found in sand and water at popular beaches.[xiii]  While 11 parts per million of oil is considered toxic, their samples all showed readings in the toxic level, ranging from 16 ppm to 221 ppm. Tragically, one child was playing in water at Orange Beach that registered 221 ppm.
By the spring of 2011, scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and various universities were concluding that the Corexit actually increased the toxicity of the oil while failing to actually eliminate it.  Accordingly, Dr. Susan Laramore, an assistant professor at Florida’s Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, claimed that her research results were “backwards of what the oil companies are reporting."[xiv] Furthermore, researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts concluded in January of 2011 that 800,000 gallons of Corexit applied underwater at the well-head did nothing to break up the oil and polluted the ecosystem, persisting far longer than expected.[xv]
The dispersants did accomplish one significant goal for BP and the U.S. government. They “hid” surface slicks, allowing BP to claim victory over the spill. Indeed, the Obama administration and a team led by the Interior Department and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration claimed that the oil had largely disappeared by August, 2010.[xvi] Many scientists publicly disputed this claim, including UGA marine scientist Charles Hopkinson:  “One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into the water is gone and therefore harmless . . . the oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade.”[xvii] Likewise, Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University, told the a U.S. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee in August of 2010 that the administration’s findings were misleading, particularly with respect to unrealistically optimistic government forecasts of the oil’s projected rate for biodegrading.[xviii] Dr. Joye, along with marine researchers from the University of Georgia and the Georgia Sea Grant program, publicly challenged the government’s overly-optimistic approximation of the oil remaining in the gulf in August, claiming that as much as 79% of the oil remained, threatening fisheries and marine life.[xix]
By December of 2010, enough evidence had accumulated to support these scientists’ challenges to the government’s claims. Marine scientists found strong evidence of BP oil on the seafloor, as reported by The Wall Street Journal in December of 2010, and concluded that the dispersants likely caused the oil to sink: “Layers of residue up to several centimeters thick from what they suspect is BP oil. The material appears in spots across several thousand square miles of seafloor…in many of those spots, they said, worms and other marine life that craw along the sediment appear dead.”[xx]  Oil substance was continuing to wash ashore the Louisiana coast in the spring and summer of 2011 and massive animal deaths were reported during the same period, including dolphins, sharks, turtles, and various fish.[xxi]  Oil found on dead dolphins, for example, was definitely linked to the BP spill by scientists.[xxii] In the spring of 2011, reports of began surfacing of sick fish in the Gulf, the levels of which were alarming scientists, as noted by Richard Synder, Director of the West Florida Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation: "It's a huge red flag…It seems abnormal, and anything we see out of the ordinary we'll try to investigate."[xxiii]
Evidence of the biological toll of the gulf oil spill was not restricted to marine life. People living along the Gulf coast and working in the clean-up have fallen ill as well. In April, the state of Louisiana had 417 reported cases of illnesses linked to exposure to the gulf oil and Corexit.[xxiv] Although the CDC developed a system to track the health of cleanup workers, no similar program was developed for the civilian population.[xxv] Data about the full scale impact of the oil spill on human health are unlikely to be generated because medical physicians are not trained to recognize symptoms of chemical poisonings.[xxvi]
Riki Ott, a marine toxicologist with previous experience working with oil spill clean-up crews, describes her findings on the public health aftermath of the Gulf oil spill:
I have been in the Gulf since May 3 and have witnessed the outbreak of a public-health epidemic as the oil and dispersant came ashore. Every day now, former workers, Gulf coast residents, and visitors share similar stories with me of respiratory problems, central nervous system problems, chemical sensitivities, or bad skin rashes after exposure to air or water in the Gulf -- predictable illnesses from chemical exposure, all of which were avoidable given adequate warning and protection.
Stories of illnesses persist despite assurances from four federal agencies -- the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the U.S. Coast Guard -- that no levels of oil or dispersant measured in Gulf water or air were found to be unsafe.
But government officials have no credibility in communities across the Gulf because the official story does not match the reality of what people are seeing and smelling. The community stories that string together across the Gulf coast paint a picture quite different from what BP, its contractors, and our government report.[xxvii]
A Louisiana chemist and MacArthur Fellow, Wilma Subra, tested the blood of spill workers and fisherman working with the Gulf cleanup and found volatile solvents and high levels of benzene, at levels up to 36 times that of the general population.[xxviii]
The contamination of gulf seafood is a public safety risk not limited to gulf residents since the seafood is exported to other states. The government conspired to hide the scope of the disaster by engaging in token sampling and testing of seafood contamination. Taste and smell testing were initially the only means used to evaluate petroleum concentrations in seafood. For months, the government required no test for Corexit in the seafood. Lax testing for safety was designed to guarantee the seafood industry against collapse, even when public health was at issue. Hugh Kaufman, a whistleblower and senior policy analyst at the EPA, went on the record condoning the laxity and insufficient sampling of seafood:
They say it perfectly clear: the purpose of the test they developed is to make the public confident, not whether the seafood was safe or not…They selected the one compound that doesn’t bio-accumulate, as opposed to testing for the toxic ingredients that have a low safety threshold and do build up in tissue. They are not looking for those…They want to be able to tell the public the seafood is safe. But if you are going to test seafood to see if it’s safe or not, you want to test for the ingredients of Corexit that have a low safety threshold and do bio-accumulate in tissue….However, if you want the public to think everything is fine, then you do what they said in their press release they are doing, which is to look for an ingredient with a high safety threshold that doesn’t build up in tissue….They told you they are doing a cover up, how they are doing the cover up, and notwithstanding that, they still have some positive results for chemicals."[xxix]
Kaufman was not alone in his concerns. Chemist Bob Naman of Analytical Testing Lab took issue with the government’s 500 ppm threshold for safety. Naman argued that this figure is probably 100 times too high for safety, pointing out that the EPA prohibits levels over 15 ppm in drainage water from sites containing salvaged cars.[xxx]
The evidence discussed so far suggests a deliberate cover-up of the scope of the disaster and the extent of contamination. BP’s control over funding of research on the spill allowed alternative data and interpretations to be suppressed, as documented by a Linda Hooper-Bui, a professor of entomology at Louisiana State University.[xxxi] Whistleblowers have spoken out about outright censorship of research data by federal authorities. For instance, University of South Florida and University of Southern Mississippi oceanographers were reportedly told by the NOAA and Coast Guard officials to stop “speculating” when they reported on underwater oil plumes in the Gulf of Mexico containing BP oil. University of South Florida chemical oceanographer, David Hollander, publicly challenged official assertions that oil was gone: "What we learned completely changes the idea of what an oil spill is. It has gone from a two-dimensional disaster to a three-dimensional catastrophe."[xxxii] Estimates from the true scope of the contamination ranged from 44,000 square miles of ocean to 80,000.[xxxiii]
In April of 2011, The Guardian published emails obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act documenting how BP officials sought to control scientists and their research on the oil spill.[xxxiv] Furthermore, the emails revealed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confronted the White House on August 4 2010 and demanded it issue a correction to its claim that the “vast majority” of oil was gone from the gulf. Documents also indicated that Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, and Bob Perciasepe, deputy director, had objected to the White House estimates. Together, these documents demonstrate that the White House acted deliberately to deceive the public about the effectiveness of the clean-up and suppressed agency dissent over the cover-up.[xxxv]
Punitive damages were at issue in the research over the scope of the spill’s effects. BP would be required to pay for the oil spilled and the marine animals killed. BP was also responsible for some compensation to the fisherman whose livelihoods had been disrupted. However, all allegations had to be proven and BP and the government conspired to hide the scope of the disaster in a variety of ways. The use of Corexit to “hide” the oil was perhaps the most extreme example of duplicity in this regard. Second, BP allegedly sought out and destroyed dead marine animals including dolphins in whales without tallying the death toll.[xxxvi] Third, the U.S. Presidential Commission 2011 report on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill “reduces the likelihood that BP PLC will be found guilty of gross negligence, legal experts and industry analysts said.”[xxxvii]
A decision against a ruling of gross negligence would be difficult to understand given BP’s safety record. Even the mainstream press has acknowledged openly that BP’s corporate culture has promoted deal-making over safety[xxxviii] Government regulators were understaffed and many were corrupted by a revolving door, close ties and gifts even when regulators knew BP relied on cheaper wells with fewer safety mechanisms.[xxxix] BP’s Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field in N. America, has for years been critiqued for its aging infrastructure, its lengthy backlogs of needed maintenance work, numerous worker safety risks, and poor work conditions.[xl] In the Gulf of Mexico, BP relied on a well design described as “risky” by Congressional investigations in over one third of its deepwater wells and, additionally, failed to use a blow-out preventer.[xli]
Over a year after the start of the Gulf oil disaster, oil still washes up on the shores of Louisiana shores and clogs marshes. A year after the tragedy, BP and other oil companies are pushing to open more areas off the East and West coasts and Alaska to expand drilling while reducing safety reviews.[xlii] A year after the tragedy “Offshore oil companies still shielded by liability limits” reports ProPublica.[xliii] Furthermore, no investigation has occurred of the stock sell off by BP executives. Indeed, Tony Hayward, CEO of BP at the time of the disaster, sold off a full one third of his stock before the disaster.[xliv] BP had reportedly had trouble with its Deepwater Horizon cite prior to the explosion in April.
Large oil slicks of 6 miles in length continue to appear in the Gulf at the time this chapter has been written.[xlv] In July of 2011 BP argued that victims of last year's Gulf oil spill should be denied any future claims on losses because the areas affected by the spill oil had recovered and the economy was improving.[xlvi]

[i]              Robert Lee Hotz “Oil Still in Gulf Study Estimates,” The Wall Street Journal (2010, August 17): A5.

[ii]             Siobhan Hughes and Robert Lee Hotz “Oil-Cleanup Estimates Draw New Fire,” The Wall Street Journal (2010, August 8): p. A3.

[iii]             Dahr Jamail “BP anniversary: Toxicity, Suffering and Death,” Al Jazeera (2011, April 19): and Dahr, Jamail “Is the Gulf of Mexico Safe? Experts, Fishermen, and Residents Disagree with Federal Agencies’ Claims that the Gulf and its Seafood Are Safe,” Al Jazeera (2010, November 5):

[iv]            Wendy Sheppard “BP’s Bad Break: How Toxic is Corexit? Mother Jones (2010, September/October):

[v]             Kate Spinner “Did BP's oil-dissolving chemical make the spill worse?” Herald Tribune (2011, May 30):

[vi]            Sheppard “BP’s Bad Break: How Toxic is Corexit?”

[vii]            “Swimming in Chemicals: An Excerpt from 'Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products,” PBS (2008, March 21):

[viii]           Cited in Tom Philpott “Chemical Dispersants Being Used in Gulf Clean-Up Are Potentially Toxic,” Grist (2010, May 6):

[ix]             Philpott “Chemical Dispersants Being,”

[x]             Jamail “Is the Gulf of Mexico Safe,”
[xi]             Susan Shaw “Swimming Through the Spill,” The New York Times (2010, May 30):
[xii]            Democracy Now “EPA Whistleblower Accuses Agency of Covering Up Effects of Dispersant in BP Oil Spill Cleanup [with Hugh Kaufman],” Democracy Now (2010, July 20): and Democracy Now “Environmental Activist Jerry Cope on The Crime of the Century: What BP and US Government Don’t Want You to Know" Democracy Now (2010, August 4):

[xiii]           See Jessica Taloney “News Five Investigates: Oil Hiding in the Sand,” WKRG (2010, July 29): and Jessica Taloney “News 5 Investigates: Testing the Water,” WKRG (2010, July 16):

[xiv]           Cited in Spinner “Did BP's oil-dissolving,”

[xv]            Cited in Spinner Did BP's oil-dissolving,”

[xvi]           Hughes Hotz “Oil-Cleanup Estimates Draw New Fire,” p. A3.

[xvii]          Robert Lee Hotz “Oil Still in Gulf Study Estimates,” The Wall Street Journal (2010, August 17): A5.

[xviii]          Hughes and Hotz “Oil-Cleanup,” A3.

[xix]           Hughes and Hotz “Oil-Cleanup,” A3.

[xx]            Jeffrey Ball “Strong Evidence Emerges of BP Oil on Seafloor,” The Wall Street Journal (2010, December 9): A20.

[xxi]           Washington’s Blog “Photos Show Oil at BP’s Deepwater Horizon Gulf Spill Site,” Naked Capitalism (2011, August 21): and Leigh Coleman “Government Tightens Lid on Dolphin Death Probe,” Reuters (2011, March 25):

[xxii]           Leigh Coleman “Oil On Dead Dolphins In Gulf Linked To BP Spill, Scientists Say,” Reuters (2011, April 7):

[xxiii]          Kimberly Blair “Sick fish in Gulf are Alarming Scientists: Unusual Number a 'Huge Red Flag' to Scientists, Fishermen,” Pensacola News Journal (2011, May 7):|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE.

[xxiv]          Agence France Presse “Mystery Illness Plague Louisiana Oil Spill Crews: The State of Louisiana Has Reported 415 Cases of Health Problems Linked to the Spill,” Alternet (2011, April 17):

[xxv]          Stephen Bradberry “A Developing Health Crisis Across the Gulf Coast,” Common Dreams (2011, April 20):

[xxvi]          Riki Ott “Seafood Safety and Politics Don’t Mix,” The Huffington Press (2010, August 11):

[xxix]          Cited in Jamail “Is the Gulf of Mexico Safe?

[xxx]           Cited in Jamail “Is the Gulf of Mexico Safe?

[xxxi]          Linda Hooper-Bui “A Gulf Science Blackout,” The New York Times (2010, August 24):

[xxxii]         Cited in Stephen Lendman “America’s Gulf: A Toxic Crime Scene,” OpEdNews.Com (2010, August 11):

[xxxiii]         Lendman “America’s Gulf: A Toxic Crime Scene,”

[xxxiv]        Suzanne Goldenberg “Emails expose BP's attempts to control research into impact of Gulf oil spill,” The Guardian (2011, April 15):

[xxxv]         See also Tom Dickinson “The Spill, The Scandal and the President,” The Rolling Stone (2010, June 8):

[xxxvi]       Jeff Goodell “The Poisoning. It's the Biggest Environmental Disaster in American History — and BP is Making it Worse,” The Rolling Stone (2010, July 21):

[xxxvii]        Guy Chazan “Oil spill Report Could Limit BP Payout,” The Wall Street Journal (2011, January 7): B3.

[xxxviii]       Guy Chazan “BP’s Safety Drive Faces Rough Road,” The Wall Street Journal (2011, February 1): A1, A11.
[xxxix]         Stephen Power “Off-Shore Oil Regulators Are Ordered to Cut Their Oft-Deep Industry Ties,” The Wall Street Journal (2010, September 1): A4.
[xl]             Chazan “BP’s Safety Drive Faces Rough Road,” A1, A11.

[xli]            Russell Gold and Tom McGinty (2010, June 19-20). “BP Relied on Cheaper Wells,” The Wall Street Journal (2010, June 19-20): A1, A5.

[xlii]           Ed Markey “One Year After the BP Oil Spill, Dangers Remain,” Grist (2011, April 20):

[xliii]           Marian Wang “A Year After Gulf Tragedy, Offshore Oil Companies Still Shielded by Liability Limits,” ProPublica (2011, April 19):

[xliv]          Jon Swaine and Robert Winnett “BP Chief BP chief Tony Hayward Sold Shares Weeks Before Oil Spill,” The Telegraph (2010, June 5):

[xlv]           Louisiana: Coast Guard Investigates Origin of Oil Slick in Gulf of Mexico,” The New York Times (2011, June 8):

[xlvi]          “BP Pressing to Head Off Future Claims From Oil Spill," The Arizona Republic (2011, July 9): 2.