NIOSH wanted to do more, but...
"They couldn't get Exxon to release its clinical data,
and Exxon controlled access to workers at remote locations." *
http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/T99032316.html
- Anchorage Daily News, May 13, 1999
| A bigger catastrophe than the oil spill itself: What has happened to the workers! ... And to think that we let EXXON run the show.... | |
Regarding the lauded use of bioremediation
... in particular Inipol EAP 22
... It's not much of a fertilizer considering it has a C:N:P ratio of 62:5:1 *
The key: This was an Exxon product: per Exxon's MSDS for it 7-28-89
(Yes, then it was an Exxon product with MSDS produced by Exxon),
It may really be a "surfactant", * Phosphorus? really... *
but, by calling it a "fertilizer"
(which technically it could be considered to be),
there would be far greater public acceptance of it being sprayed onto a beach.
"I am amazed that a Biochemist did not (apparently) have the opportunity of evaluating your Inipol product, before approving it for general use." - field & lab tested simultaneously * "In regard to C:N:P:S ratios, these are not appropriate. Further there are molecular "Keys", catalysts, micro nutrients to be considered as well. Surely, almost any Biochemist/Bacteriologist would know that" - per a Specialist in the bioremediation field. |
'Twas an Experiment. Putting it nicely *
Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup Photo Story
| 
| 
| Rosa Margesin, Silvia Gander, Gabriele Zacke, Anne Monique Gounot, and Franz Schinner of Institute of Microbiology, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstrasse 25, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Hydrocarbon degradation and enzyme activities of cold-adapted bacteria and yeasts. - an Abstract
 Extremophiles, August 26, 2003 "Only four yeast strains but none of the bacterial strains could grow with all hydrocarbons tested." at 10 degrees C (source) "HighWire Press, Internet Imprint of the Stanford University Libraries" |
Avoid Chemicals, if you can
2002
9-3-03
http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/pages/run.htm
