Do not sip this poison *Updated*

Note: It turns out the HHS "action" banning the use of dispersants was actually a "Yes Men" prank which I fell for. I should point out, however that my source on this was the Gambit's Twitter feed which means... you know... they fell for it first. So there. The rest of the information cited in this post is not a prank, however, and only goes to further the hoaxters' point.


One year after BP turned the Macondo disaster into a massive chemistry experiment, the US Department of Health and Human Services has made a decision.

HHS also announced a ban on the use of dispersant in the U.S., similar to bans on dispersant in the United Kingdom and other countries.

Residents in the Gulf Coast region have reported a variety of health complaints associated with the oil spill, from coughs and respiratory problems to headaches, dizziness and skin rashes. Equally important are the mental health issues facing those affected by the oil spill in these underserved communities.

The plan, announced near the one-year mark of the oil spill, not only responds to the current health needs of the Gulf Coast region, but also the potential for future oil spills. The HHS Action Plan draws from the Coast Guard National Response Center’s 2009 data detailing more than 2,500 reported oil industry accidents in Louisiana’s coastal waters that year and spilling more than 50 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. On shore, oil industry facilities have averaged 10 accidents a week in recent years, according to reports filed with Louisiana authorities. These accidents released 21 million pounds of pollution and 22 million gallons of oil and associated waste in a 5-year period.

The HHS Action Plan also takes into account the effects of ongoing toxic exposure from industry. “Where people live, learn, work and play affects their health as much as their access to health care,” said Sebelius. “We have to confront the social, economic and environmental factors that have made people along the Gulf Coast so sick."

A year ago when Propublica reported on the potential hazards associated with the dispersants BP was using, one frustrating aspect of the story was the fact that the public's right to know exactly which chemicals were being sprayed onto their food supply was trumped by NALCO's right to keep that proprietary information secret.

But the dispersants contain harmful toxins of their own and can concentrate leftover oil toxins in the water, where they can kill fish and migrate great distances.

The exact makeup of the dispersants is kept secret under competitive trade laws, but a worker safety sheet for one product, called Corexit, says it includes 2-butoxyethanol, a compound associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses.

“There is a chemical toxicity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil,” said Richard Charter, a foremost expert on marine biology and oil spills who is a senior policy advisor for Marine Programs for Defenders of Wildlife and is chairman of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. “It’s a trade-off – you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t -- of trying to minimize the damage coming to shore, but in so doing you may be more seriously damaging the ecosystem offshore.”

A parallel example of this can be found in the increasingly controversial practice of extracting natural gas through the process of hydraulic fracturing.

As late as 2000, shale gas was just 1% of American natural-gas supplies. Today, it is about 25% and could rise to 50% within two decades. Estimates of the entire natural-gas resource base, taking shale gas into account, are now as high as 2,500 trillion cubic feet, with a further 500 trillion cubic feet in Canada. That amounts to a more than 100-year supply of natural gas, which is used for everything from home heating and cooking to electric generation, industrial processes and petrochemical feedstocks.

The effects of the "shale gale" are also being felt in the rest of the world, changing the economics of the liquefied-natural-gas business. Its impact on international energy relations could be significant. Some proponents believe that the U.S., once thought to be short of natural gas, could even become a natural-gas exporter.

It is a revolution that has progressed in stages. Hydraulic fracturing uses the concentrated pressure of water, sand and a small amount of chemicals to promote the flow of oil and gas in a reservoir. Mitchell Energy's breakthrough was to apply one particular approach—"light sand fracking"—to break up what had seemed impermeable: hard shale rock.

Last week, a Congressional investigation found that oil and gas companies involved in hydrofracking operations are introducing millions of gallons of hazardous chemicals into groundwater supplies.

Some ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were common and generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were unexpected, like instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report said. Many ingredients were “extremely toxic,” including benzene, a known human carcinogen, and lead.

Companies injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals, including 11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals — benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more carcinogens in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

But the picture remains incomplete because, as is the case with dispersants, some of this information is commercially sensitive.

The E.P.A. is conducting a national study on the drinking water risks associated with hydrofracking, but assessing these risks has been made more difficult by companies’ unwillingness to publicly disclose which chemicals and in what concentrations they are used, according to internal e-mails and draft notes of the study plan.

Some companies are moving toward more disclosure, and the industry will soon start a public database of these chemicals. But the Congressional report said that reporting to this database is strictly voluntary, that disclosure will not include the chemical identity of products labeled as proprietary, and that there is no way to determine if companies are accurately reporting information for all wells.

In the meantime, depending on where you live in the US, you may want to restrict your water intake for a while. You know, at least maybe for a year, maybe longer after which perhaps the feds, very quietly, of course, might take minor action.