Green Washing – Why British Petrolium turned into BP

It’s jam band Friday –http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkGE-kNRUN4

In the mid 90s British Petroleum decided to change its image. They “initialized” their name. Up dated their brand by changing their color schemes to yellow and green and they announced that their gas stations would be energy efficient and included solar panels. They infact set up a solar division and I believe make and sell solar panels. All that to cover up for the fact that they were one of the most dangerous businesses in the world. So when people say, why are you talking about greenwashing now?  It’s because it’s a problem that can lead to the oil spew in the gulf.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkLCRMT-sdE&feature=related

:}

http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/greenwashing-report-2009/

Greenwashing Report 2009

Greenwashing Report 2009 (French) Low-resolution PDF 2.9 MiB Greenwashing Report 2009 High-resolution PDF 9.5 MiB

Some Notable Findings from the 2009 Report…

worship_sm1A NEW Sin has emerged

98% of products committed at least one of the Sins of Greenwashing. Greenwashing is so rampant that a Seventh Sin has emerged.  The Sin of Worshiping False Labels is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement actually exists.

kids_productsKids (Toys and Baby Products), Cosmetics and Cleaning Products

Greenwashing is most common in three household categories: Kids (toys and baby products), Cosmetics (beauty and health), and Cleaning Products.

increaseMore products are claiming to be ‘green’

The average number of ‘green’ products per store almost doubled between 2007 and 2008.  Green advertising almost tripled between 2006 and 2008.

:}

What you say matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcKdNV2ep7I&feature=related

Oh and these people asked for links:

http://www.solarhotusa.com/

http://www.facebook.com/FoodIndependenceDay

:}

Gulf Of Mexico Oil Crisis Ends – The Oil Spew is over because BP is sucking on a straw.

That’s right besides the 40 million gallons of oil lurking in mats 1,500 feet above the ocean floor trapped by dispersants and getting ready to wash into the Atlantic and the continued wash of 40, 000 barrels of oil per day, the crisis is over and we here at CES are going to celebrate Norwegian Independence Day. Why? Because it is neither the day of the actual Norwegian Independence nor is it celebrated for the actual year of their Independence. We feel this is fitting.

http://open.salon.com/blog/norwonk/2009/05/17/independence_day_in_norway

Like Americans, Norwegians love to celebrate what is normally translated as Independence Day. Actually, though the day commemorates the events of May 17, 1814, Norway didn’t really achieve independence until 1905. In Norwegian it is sometimes called Constitution Day, which is more accurate – although there is a problem with that as well.
These confusing facts require some explanation. From 1380 to 1814, Norway was united with Denmark. However, as Denmark was an ally of Napoleon, the great powers of Europe decided that her punishment would be to lose Norway to Sweden (slippery as ever, the Swedes had joined the allies at the opportune moment). When the Norwegians were informed that they were now Swedes, they decided they didn’t like that one little bit. Rather than accepting the news, they elected a national assembly to work out a constitution for an independent Norway (at least, it was supposed to be national; the representatives from the northernmost province had such a long way to travel that they came too late to participate). On May 17, 1814 this first Norwegian parliament elected the Danish Crown Prince, Christian Frederick, as their king.

Unfortunately, that didn’t work out at all. The Swedes had the support of Russia, Britain, Austria and Prussia, and no one cared much for the opinion of the Norwegian people. Long story short: the Swedes invaded, and after a short campaign Christian Frederick renounced his throne and went back to Denmark, leaving Charles XIII the new king of Norway and Sweden. That union would last until the Norwegian parliament declared independence (again) in 1905.
All this made Christian Frederick a rather unpopular man in Norway, but in time it was realized that he had actually made a pretty good deal. In return for giving up the crown, he had convinced the Swedes to accept the new Norwegian constitution which parliament had adopted (confusingly enough on May 16, which really ought to have been our national day, but never mind). That was a huge bonus. The constitution, which is still in place, was among the most democratic in Europe at that time.

:}

So basically like the oil companies, these folks have 2 or 3 Independence Days (Yaaa we are free) every year and the first one lasts a month. It involves children with flags, students dressed in funny costumes according to their profession, and reenactors dressing up in very old clothes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Norway

The young king and Norwegian officials tried to find international backing for their bid for Norway as a sovereign state throughout spring and early summer of 1814. After failing to secure the support of Great Britain, war with Sweden became unavoidable. The Swedish Campaign against Norway was short and decisive. However, while badly trained and equipped, the Norwegian Army put up a determined fight, holding the Swedes back at Kongsvinger and securing a tactical victory at the battle of Langnes. This enabled the King to avoid an unconditional surrender as he was forced into negotiations with the Swedes, leading to the Convention of Moss.

Putting the strategic situation and his own abdication to good use, he persuaded the Swedish crown prince Carl Johan (the former Marshal Bernadotte of France) to let the Norwegians keep their constitution. The Swedish crown prince wanted to appease the Norwegians and avoid a bloody continuation of the war. Realizing that a forced union with himself as ruler of a conquered and hostile country would be very uneasy, he accepted the Norwegian proposition. Norway then entered into a personal union with Sweden with only such amendments to its constitution as were necessary to form the Union between Sweden and Norway. On October 7, an extraordinary session of the Storting convened, and king Christian Frederik delegated his powers to the parliament and abdicated on October 10. The Storting adopted the constitutional amendments on November 4 and on the same day unanimously elected Charles XIII king of Norway, rather than acknowledging him as such, thus reinforcing the concept a King by the will of the people.

Dissolution and the second King

The union amendments were revoked after the dissolution of the ninety-one-year-old union in 1905. The question of a King was again considered, and the Storting elected to offer the throne to the 33-year-old Prince Carl of Denmark, married to Maud of Wales, the daughter of King Edward VII. By bringing in a king with British royal ties, it was hoped that Norway could court Britain’s support. Prince Carl was however well aware of a surge of republicanism in Norway and of the constitutional situation of the Norwegian throne. He insisted that he would accept the crown only if the Norwegian people expressed their will for monarchy by referendum and if the parliament then elected him king. On November 13, the Norwegian votes decided on monarchy with a 74 percent majority, and Carl was elected King by the Storting, taking the name Haakon VII of Norway.

Several other amendments have been adopted since 1814, the most recent on February 20, 2006. After World War II and the restoration of peace and constitutional rule, there was much debate on how to handle the events of the previous five years. None of this led to any changes in the constitution; it had withstood the test of hard times.

:}

Of Course lots of drinking and eating herring also ensues. This guy gets to celebrate 4 Independence Days the US, Italy and 2 for Norway.

http://www.lawzone.com/half-nor/crispo.htm

First, by way of background, Norway was ruled by the kings of Denmark from the 12th century until early in the 19th century (1814).

In 1814, Denmark was penalized for its support of Napoleon by giving Norway to Sweden. Before the transition was carried out, Norway declared itself independent on May 17, 1814. A degree of independence was retained even after Norway became subject to the Swedish Crown.

In 1905, on May 17, Norway declared its complete independence.

In 1914, World War I began. Norway remained neutral, but many of its ships were sunk.

In 1940-1945: when World War II began, Norway again proclaimed its neutrality. However, on April 9, 1940, Nazi forces invaded the two neutral nations of Norway and Denmark under the guise of protecting them against an “Anglo-French Occupation” and “To Protect Their Freedom and Independence.”

Oslo wired Berlin:

“We will not submit voluntarily; the struggle is already underway.”

At the time of World War II, Norway was just beginning to realize its industrial potential when Germany invaded. Five years of German occupation and a burn-and-retreat strategy in the final weeks of the war, left the nation ravaged. But, after the war, the Norwegians, known for their determination and tenacity, returned to rebuild their homes and villages. Finally the flags of freedom were again flying over Europe and Trygve Lie of Norway was elected as the first secretary general of the United Nations.

It is no surprise that Norwegians eat, drink and make merry during the month of May in celebration of this most significant month in their history.

:}

So we say to BP. Job well done Brownie.

For the real scoop go to:  http://www.leanweb.org/

:}

Gulf Spew Could Be 40 Million Barrels – New estimates and a video are scary

It is Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udEDlOZJmCc

I have said for awhile that this could be the biggest manmade disaster of all time. I never believed the oil flow estimates and I never believed that they would be able to plug the hole. Now is a good time to pray.

So lets start with what the flow really looks like when they tried the the Big Siphon:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/new-footage-of-bps-failed_b_574350.html

Brendan DeMelle

Brendan DeMelle

Freelance writer and researcher

Posted: May 12, 2010 09:09 PM

New Footage of BP’s Failed Containment Dome Effort (VIDEO)

Update: BP just confirmed to us that the pipe in the 2nd video showing the main leak is 20″ in diameter (almost 2 feet). (Specifically, the outer is 21″; the inner is 20″.)

More footage was released today from the Deepwater Disaster, providing an indication of the powerful streams of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.

This video shows the failed attempt over the weekend to lower a 100-ton, 4-story “cofferdam” dome over the top of the main leak. As the dome is lowered onto the leak, you can see the oil gushing out on the sides, offering a better sense of the volume of oil pumping into the Gulf of Mexico.

:}

Please see the article and the 2 videos. So what happens if the natural gas, which looks to be half the spill catches on fire?  BOOM…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BruDTUvBClk&feature=related

:}

Ultimately why did this happen? Deregulation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html?hp

U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits

By IAN URBINA
Published: May 13, 2010

WASHINGTON — The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf

Those approvals, federal records show, include one for the well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers and resulting in thousands of barrels of oil spilling into the gulf each day.

The Minerals Management Service, or M.M.S., also routinely overruled its staff biologists and engineers who raised concerns about the safety and the environmental impact of certain drilling proposals in the gulf and in Alaska, according to a half-dozen current and former agency scientists.

Those scientists said they were also regularly pressured by agency officials to change the findings of their internal studies if they predicted that an accident was likely to occur or if wildlife might be harmed.

Under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Minerals Management Service is required to get permits to allow drilling where it might harm endangered species or marine mammals.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, is partly responsible for protecting endangered species and marine mammals. It has said on repeated occasions that drilling in the gulf affects these animals, but the minerals agency since January 2009 has approved at least three huge lease sales, 103 seismic blasting projects and 346 drilling plans. Agency records also show that permission for those projects and plans was granted without getting the permits required under federal law.

:}

Is there any hope?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S_OU3EBtRo&feature=related

:}

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gulf-oil-spill-supertankers-051310

The Secret, 700-Million-Gallon Oil Fix That Worked — and Might Save the Gulf

May 13, 2010 at 6:46AM by Mark Warren


Workers on the Arabian Gulf overlook a supertanker owned by Saudi Aramco, the oil company that used a suck-and-salvage American technology to recover 85 percent of its previously unreported spill in 1993 and ’94.

There’s a potential solution to the Gulf oil spill that neither BP, nor the federal government, nor anyone — save a couple intuitive engineers — seems willing to try. As The Politics Blog reported on Tuesday in an interview with former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, the untapped solution involves using empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface, treat and discharge the contaminated water, and either salvage or destroy the slick.

627diggsdigg

Hofmeister had been briefed on the strategy by a Houston-based environmental disaster expert named Nick Pozzi, who has used the same solution on several large spills during almost two decades of experience in the Middle East — who says that it could be deployed easily and should be, immediately, to protect the Gulf Coast. That it hasn’t even been considered yet is, Pozzi thinks, owing to cost considerations, or because there’s no clear chain of authority by which to get valuable ideas in the right hands. But with BP’s latest four-pronged plan remaining unproven, and estimates of company liability already reaching the tens of billions of dollars (and counting), supertankers start to look like a bargain.

The suck-and-salvage technique was developed in desperation across the Arabian Gulf following a spill of mammoth proportions — 700 million gallons — that has until now gone unreported, as Saudi Arabia is a closed society, and its oil company, Saudi Aramco, remains owned by the House of Saud. But in 1993 and into ’94, with four leaking tankers and two gushing wells, the royal family had an environmental disaster nearly sixty-five times the size of Exxon Valdez on its hands, and it desperately needed a solution.

Pozzi, an American engineer then in charge of Saudi Aramco’s east-west pipeline in the technical support and maintenance services division, was part of a team given cart blanche to control the blowout. Pozzi had dealt with numerous spills over the years without using chemicals, and had tried dumping flour into the oil, then scooping the resulting tar balls from the surface. “You ever cooked with flour? Absorbent, right?” Pozzi says. Next, he’d dumped straw into the spills; also highly absorbent, but then you’ve got a lot of straw to clean up. This spill was going to require a much larger, more sustained solution. And fast.

That’s when Pozzi and his team came up with the idea of having empty ships park near the Saudi spill and pull the oil off the water. This part of the operation went on for six months, with the mop-up operations lasting for several years more. Pozzi says that 85 percent of the spilled oil was recovered, and it is precisely this strategy that he wants to see deployed in the Gulf of Mexico.

:}

When they contacted BP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKQ5jhtFypg&feature=related

JON KING: Well, we went down to the BP headquarters in Houma, Louisiana, and we didn’t have an appointment so they wouldn’t let us in. Then I called the president of BP and I talked to his secretary and she put me in touch with somebody, but the somebody she put me in touch with didn’t know who we should talk to. Nick contacted a gentleman that he used to work with at BP, and he threatened to sue Nick for not going through channels. And I said, “Great. I’d love BP to sue us for trying to help them. That would be wonderful.”

While the Army Plays with itself.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/us-army-gulf-spill-oil-asphalt-experimental-chemical-video.php

US Army to Turn Gulf Spill Oil Into Asphalt With Experimental Chemical (Video)

by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 05.13.10

Science & Technology

hesco-barrier-oil-asphalt.jpg
Photos by Brian Merchant

In order to protect the coastline at Dauphin Island — a site where tar balls have made landfall and hundreds of fish are washing up dead on the beach — the US Army has launched a highly experimental plan to prevent any oil from reaching its shores. It plans on trapping the oil in Hesco baskets and then applying a chemical called CI Agent, turning the oil into a gelatinous solid. That solid, comprised from oil from the gulf spill, will then be collected and turned into asphalt. Here’s Dan Parker, the CEO of CI Agent Solutions, demonstrating how the chemical solution works:

(Please go to the site and see all the pretty video)

The chemical is contained in the boxes, which will be filled up with gelatin if and when the oil hits Dauphin’s coast.

Questions remain, of course: though both Parker and Captain Kelly affirm the chemical is safe for wildlife, it’s never been used or tested on such a large scale and in this manner. But considering that BP is dropping hundreds of thousands of experimental chemical dispersants in the Gulf as we speak, this is a drop in the bucket by comparison — and if cleaned and contained properly could be an interesting solution to watch for in the future.

I’m traveling around the Gulf of Mexico reporting on the continuing oil crisis. Stay tuned for the latest developments and breaking reports from the scene.

:}

See you Monday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvbA8FBd_Vo&feature=related

:}

Oil Spew In The Gulf – Day 23

Do you think PB or anyone else is really serious about cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico? They refuse to share information and if they were really serious about sealing the blow out they would have exploded it or suffocated it by now. But they haven’t so the only conclusion that can be reached is that all they have done so far is for show.

Anyway here are 40 photos of the damage to the Gulf…I am going to try to post one because of copy right laws. But please go to the site and see the rest…IT’s DISGUSTING

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/disaster_unfolds_slowly_in_the.html

May 12, 2010

Disaster unfolds slowly in the Gulf of Mexico

In the three weeks since the April 20th explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, and the start of the subsequent massive (and ongoing) oil leak, many attempts have been made to contain and control the scale of the environmental disaster. Oil dispersants are being sprayed, containment booms erected, protective barriers built, controlled burns undertaken, and devices are being lowered to the sea floor to try and cap the leaks, with little success to date. While tracking the volume of the continued flow of oil is difficult, an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil (possibly much more) continues to pour into the gulf every day. While visible damage to shorelines has been minimal to date as the oil has spread slowly, the scene remains, in the words of President Obama, a “potentially unprecedented environmental disaster.” (40 photos total)
Seawater covered with thick black oil splashes up in brown-stained whitecaps off the side of the supply vessel Joe Griffin at the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill containment efforts in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana Sunday, May 9, 2010. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

:}

Tomorrow is the last day. I can’t take it anymore.

:}

Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill – This is going to be real bad

As the oil pushes west towards Texas, east into the Apalachicola area and west towards the Gulf Jet, this oil rig blow out could literally kill off the Gulf and spread far beyond. But this head line I think sums it up nicely.

http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/05/the-gulf-appears-to-be-bleeding-video.html

‘The Gulf appears to be bleeding’

red_oil_slick.png
Hurricane Creekkeeper John Wathen of Alabama and volunteer pilot Tom Hutchings of SouthWings flew over the Gulf of Mexico on Friday to get a look at the massive oil slick spreading from the site of the BP disaster.

Share/Bookmark

At nine miles out, they began to smell the oil. At 11 miles, they saw a visible sheen on the water. And at mile 87 off the Alabama coast, they reached ground zero of the disaster — what Wathen described as a “red mass of floating goo” as far as the eye can see.

“The Gulf appears to be bleeding,” he said.

“For the first time in my environmental career, I find myself using the word ‘hopeless,'” Wathen continued. “We can’t stop this. There’s no way to prevent this from hitting our shorelines.”

Wathen and Hutchings had no trouble finding their way back to land: “All we had to do was follow the red,” Wathens said. “There was a perfect line of it leading from the rig to the shoreline.”

Here’s the video from that trip, which is also posted to Wathen’s blog dedicated to documenting the disaster:

user-pic

By Sue Sturgis on May 9, 2010 12:05 PM

:}

Please go to the website to view the video for yourself OR google “Gulf is Bleeding” and you can see it ALL over the web.

:}

Oil Spill In The Gulf Of Spewexico – How many times must this happen

This just in from Mobile Alabama:

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/gulf_of_mexico_has_plenty_of_f.html

Breaking News from the Press-Register
Local news updates from Mobile and surrounding communities

Gulf of Mexico has plenty of familiarity with oil spills

By Press-Register staff

May 04, 2010, 4:33PM

Oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico has led to a number of disasters and near disasters over the past 31 years. In some cases, authorities were unable to stamp out fires or stop spills for months; in others, quick action and good luck prevented disasters from becoming worse than they could have been.

ixtoc.jpgView full size(Courtesy NOAA)Stopping the oil from the IXTOC explosion took over nine months.IXTOC (1979)
The IXTOC I was an exploratory well that blew up in the Bay of Campeche on June 3, 1979, after oil and gas feeding from the well ignited. At its height the well may have pumped upwards of 30,000 barrels of oil (1.26 million gallons) into the Gulf a day; currents eventually brought the oil to the Texas shore that August.  Engineers were finally able to cap the well on March 23, 1980.  The spill is the second-largest in history, behind the deliberate oil spills created at the end of the 1991 Gulf War.  Total cleanup costs are estimated at $498 million (about $1.4 billion in 2010 dollars).Burmah Agate.jpgView full size(Courtesy NOAA)The Burmah Agate caught fire after a collision on November 1, 1979, killing 31 sailors.

Burmah Agate (1979)

As the Texas coastline struggled against the fallout from the IXTOC, a new disaster compounded the woes. The Burmah Agate collided with a freighter near Galveston, Texas on November 1, 1979, causing the ship to explode and killing 31 crew members. The ship spilled 2.6 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and burned for over two months. Megaborg.jpgView full size(Courtesy NOAA)The Megaborg caught fire while fueling a number of smaller ships.

:}

aaaak

Please read the whole article…I had to stop before I suffocated..

:}

Oil Spill In The Gulf Of Spew Mexico – Are we repeating 1979

What happened when the Ixtoc Drilling Rig Collapsed in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979. They brought in skimmers, booms, remotely operated vehicles, and dispersants. They drilled a second and third wells to take the pressure off. It took 8 months and parts of Texas and Mexico got slimed. Sound familiar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I

Ixtoc I was an exploratory oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, about 100 km north west from Ciudad del Carmen in Campeche. On June 3, 1979, the well suffered a blowout and is recognized as the second largest oil spill in history.

:}

http://leanweb.org/donate/donate/donate-join.html

Louisiana  Environmental Action NetworkLMRK logoLouisiana Environmental Action Network
&
Lower Mississippi RIVERKEEPER©

Helping to Make Louisiana Safe for Future Generations

E-ALERT
May 4, 2010
Oil Spill Dispersants Are Not A Magic Solution
Dispersants, a mixture of chemicals that break up the oil and send it into the water column, are being used as a remedy on oil that is leaking from the Deepwater Horizon disaster but we and many other environmental groups have serious concerns about their use.
Oil dIspersant being applied  by boat

From:
Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects (2005)
by Ocean Studies Board (OSB)

Dispersants are mixtures of solvents, surfactants, and other additives that are applied to oil slicks to reduce the oil-water interfacial tension (NRC, 1989; Clayton et al., 1993)… Reduction of the interfacial tension between oil and water by addition of a dispersant promotes the formation of a larger number of small oil droplets when surface waves entrain oil into the water column. These small submerged oil droplets are then subject to transport by subsurface currents…

In other words the dispersants act like mustard or egg yolk in salad dressing to break up the oil into little droplets that will mix with the water and allow those little droplets of oil to sink down into the water column and to the sea floor.

So once the oil sinks everything is fine right?

Well, no, not really. The oil is still in the marine environment and can still impact fish and bottom dwelling organisms and potentially allow toxic materials to move up the food chain as bottom dwelling organisms become contaminated and then are preyed upon by large organisms like crabs and shrimp and then the crabs and shrimp are preyed upon by fish, the fish by larger fish etc., this is called bio-accumulation.

More from:
Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects (2005)
by Ocean Studies Board (OSB)

One of the most difficult decisions that oil spill responders and natural resources managers face during a spill is evaluating the environmental trade-offs associated with dispersant use. The objective of dispersant use is to transfer oil from the water surface into the water column. When applied before spills reach the coastline, dispersants will potentially decrease exposure for surface dwelling organisms (e.g., seabirds) and intertidal species (e.g., mangroves, salt marshes), while increasing it for water-column (e.g., fish) and benthic species (e.g., corals, oysters).

In other words the dispersants may help to decrease shoreline impacts but will increase impacts to things that live under the water.

This is obviously a big concern to those of us who enjoy eating oysters, crabs, shrimp, speckle trout, redfish and all of the other wonderful seafood that comes from the Gulf and Louisiana’s coastal estuaries.

Another concern we have about the dispersants is that they themselves are toxic. We have learned from the Natural Resources Defense Council that the dispersant being used in the Deepwater Horizon disaster is Corexit 9500.

From the Corexit 9500 Materials Safety Data Sheet:

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
PRODUCT
COREXIT® 9500
APPLICATION :
OIL SPILL DISPERSANT
NFPA 704M/HMIS RATING
HEALTH : 1 / 1
FLAMMABILITY : 1 / 1
0 = Insignificant 1 = Slight 2 = Moderate 3 = High 4 = Extreme

COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
Our hazard evaluation has identified the following chemical substance(s) as hazardous.

Hazardous Substance(s)
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light
Propylene Glycol
Organic sulfonic acid salt
HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
**EMERGENCY OVERVIEW**
WARNING
Combustible.
Keep away from heat. Keep away from sources of ignition – No smoking. Keep container tightly closed. Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not take internally. Avoid breathing vapor. Use with adequate ventilation. In case
of contact with eyes, rinse immediately with plenty of water and seek medical advice. After contact with skin, wash immediately with plenty of soap and water.
Wear suitable protective clothing.
Clearly any workers handling this product need to be supplied with the proper protective gear.

Corexit 9500 is also known to be toxic to marine life. A report written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. entitled Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products states that, “Corexit 9500, Corexit 9527,  and Corexit 9580 have moderate toxicity to early life stages of fish, crustaceans and mollusks (LC50 or EC50 – 1.6 to 100 ppm*).”

We hope that the EPA and US Fish and Wildlife Service are closely monitoring the use of these products and monitoring for impacts to the environment.

A further area of concern is the unprecedented deployment of dispersants into the leaking oil at the site of the leaks almost 5,000 feet below the surface.

The oil spill Unified Command reported on May 1, 2010 that response crews worked through the night using an ROV to dispense 3,000 gallons of sub-surface dispersant at a rate of nine gallons per minute. BP and NOAA are evaluating the results of the test procedure to determine its feasability for continued use.

The Unified Command also reported that, as of May 1, 2010, 142,914 gallons of dispersant have been deployed and an additional 68,300 gallons are available.

If you see anything fishy happening on your waterways don’t hesitate to call the Lower Mississippi Riverkeerp hotline at 1-866-MSRIVER


Support this vital work today!

Yes! I want to help make Louisiana safe for us and for future generations!

LEAN is a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Organization Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) is a non-profit organization working to foster communication and cooperation among citizens and groups to address Louisiana’s environmental problems.

For More About LEAN:

:}

All I can say is this is gona be bad..

:}

Oil Spill In The Gulf – The tragedy continues

It is Jam Band Friday – but I am too sad for it today…:+{

I continue to support our sister group LEAN. According to the news the oil has reached the S. Louisiana Coast and the seas have kicked up making containment impossible. The Gulf is doomed.

http://leanweb.org/donate/donate/donate-join.html

Louisiana  Environmental Action NetworkLMRK logoLouisiana Environmental Action Network
&
Lower Mississippi RIVERKEEPER©

Helping to Make Louisiana Safe for Future Generations

E-ALERT
APRIL 29, 2010
Oil may already be impacting the Louisiana shoreline
Forecast location for oil for 6:00 p.m. on April 29, 2010
Forecast location for oil

From the Unified Command:

Forecast is for increasing SE winds today and then strong, persistant SE winds of 15-25 kts from tonight through saturday night. These winds will continue to bring the oil towards the shoreline. Satellite imagery from this morning indicates the western edge of the oil is 7-8 miles from the delta, but oil was observed during overflights yesterday afternoon several miles off SE pass in the Mississippi River Convergence – This could be the leading edge of the tarballs becoming concentrated in this region. Shoreline impacts could hence occur as early as this morning, if the onshore winds are strong enough for the oil to escape the convergence zone, Shoreline impacts become increasingly likely later in the day and into Friday with the strengthening onshore winds. Morning overflight observations will be critical in assessing the strength of the convergence zone.

A flyover on Wednesday, April 28 at 2:00 p.m. (CDT), continued to show a large, rainbow sheen with areas of emulsified crude, approximately 16 miles off the coast of Louisiana.

On April 28 at approximately 4:45 p.m. (CDT), the response team conducted a successful controlled burn and is evaluating conducting additional burns.

More than 174,060 feet of boom (barrier) has been assigned to contain the spill.  An additional 243,260 feet is available and 265,460 feet has been ordered.

To date, the oil spill response team has recovered 18,180 barrels (763,560 gallons) of an oil-water mix. Vessels are in place and continuing recovery operations.
76 response vessels are being used including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels.

98,361 gallons of dispersant have been deployed and an additional 75,000 gallons are available.

Five staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines.  These areas include:
Biloxi, Miss., Pensacola, Fla. Venice, La., Pascagoula, Miss., and Theodore, Ala.

Weather conditions for April 29 – Winds from the southeast at 5-15 mph, choppy rough seas.

To report oiled or injured wildlife, please call 1-800-557-1401.
To discuss spill related damage claims, please call 1-800-440-0858.
To report oil on land, or for general Community and Volunteer Information, please call 1-866-448-5816.


Support this vital work today!

Yes! I want to help make Louisiana safe for us and for future generations!

LEAN is a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Organization Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) is a non-profit organization working to foster communication and cooperation among citizens and groups to address Louisiana’s environmental problems.

For More About LEAN:

:}

Energy Consumption And Healthcare – What does treatment really cost.

The basic problem in the beginning of the conservation movement (energy) was no one knew how much energy was being used and thus how much could be saved. The same is true in spades for medicine. Think about it, how much does an xray cost? No one knows. So how much energy does an xray take? When you ask you get answers like this…

http://greenanswers.com/q/72578/science-technology/how-much-energy-does-it-take-make-x-ray

seanm (881) 3/10/10 10:37am

This is a good question and the answer varies depending on the type of X-ray machines you’re talking about. Traditionally X-rays have only been possible with a high voltage generation, which takes a lot of energy, anywhere from 30 to 150 kV. By comparison, high-voltage electric transmission lines operate at about 110 kV, so we’re talking about a lot of power. However, X-rays can be exposed in tiny fractions of seconds and since the 1980s technology has advanced to make X-rays even faster so as to reduce the exposure of operators and patients to radiation. I could not find specific energy consumption ratings on various X-ray machines, but there are efforts afoot to replace traditional X-ray machines with digital ones, which in addition to eliminating the need to keep film and developer on hand will reduce energy consumption by up to 78%.

Citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube
http://www.gereports.com/picturing-the-benefits-of-digital-x-rays/

:}

say what…

:}

or an mri (they routinely charge 2 to 3 thousand $$$)???

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080908210925AA26KhC

How electricity does an Xray or MRI machine use per scan? How much does it cost the Hospital?

My brother insists that it takes a LOT of electricity in order to power and Xray or MRI machine just for one scan. He thinks it uses more than a normal household uses per month. I doubt that. Does anyone know how much is used or how much it costs? No guesses please…my other brother loves to answer questions with guess-answers because he thinks he’s probably always right…conveniently nobody ever has a computer when he gives these questionable answers and nobody remembers what he said

answer1

Best Answer – Chosen by Voters

The amount of energy used will always be constant on the machines the only way to solve this problem is to determine where the machines are used to get kilowatt costs as they are more expensive in some areas of the country. Once you determine that factor it will be easy to solve the equation.

answer2

Here is a listing of a typical “open” MRI Model describing the power consumption:
Manufactured by Esaote S.p.A.; a low field open MRI scanner with permanent magnet for orthopedic use. The outstanding feature of this MRI system is a patient friendly design with 24 cm diameter, which allows the imaging of extremities and small body parts like shoulder MRI. The power consumption is around 1.3 kW and the needed minimum floor space is an area of 16 sq m.

So it uses about 1.3kW to run. The usual power outlet is 480 volts/3 phase/125 amps. It uses more power (up to 2kW) when the magnet is on. Keep in mind that this is considered a ‘small’ MRI machine. Larger units weigh up to 12 tons and are assembled on site in phases.

Typical US 3-prong outlet is 125 volts/15 amps.

A typical US household uses approximately 8900 kW per year. So one MRI scanner consumes approximately several dozen households worth per year depending on how often it’s used.

Source(s):

RN

answer3

X ray machines draw a lot of power for a very short time, a few seconds. So overall power consumption is low. MRI is no different.
Overall, the consumption would depend on how much it is used. If the X ray machine is being used for 1000 films, the consumption would be equal to a household consumption.

:}

The point being that we have no idea what our healthcare costs and doctors want to keep it that way.

:}

Energy Concerns And Healthcare

The medical and healthcare industries use energy like there was no tomorrow. I estimate that the US could save at least 20% on its healthcare bills. For those of you in small towns…how much do you waste on driving to your doctor? Why don’t the hospitals put a telecommunications computer in your city or town hall? That way you can call in, get an appointment, walk down to City Hall and talk to your doctor. Even show him where you hurt. To say the medical community is stodgy is wrong…it is too smart for its own britches.

http://www.matmanmag.com/matmanmag_app/jsp/articledisplay.jsp?dcrpath=MATMANMAG/Article/data/11NOV2008/0811MMH_FEA_Purchasing&domain=MATMANMAG

The bright side of energy conservation
Using renewable sources saves money, reduces emissions

By Gina Pugliese and Nick DeDominicis

QUICK TAKE>>>
Hospitals are behind other industries in employing energy conservation initiatives, including the use of renewable energy sources. But times are changing as they realize that wasted energy drains their bottom lines and that they have a responsibility to reduce their carbon footprint for the health of the environment and surrounding communities. Energy-saving initiatives require multidepartmental collaboration within a hospital; and materials managers need to ensure they are a part of that because their expertise can make a difference.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), every dollar a not-for-profit health care organization saves on energy is equivalent to generating $20 in new revenue for hospitals or $10 for medical offices. So why aren’t all hospitals jumping into energy conservation with both feet? There are many reasons. But this is certain: Most hospitals recognize that energy conservation is a priority and are gradually realizing the benefits, both to their bottom line and the environment.

On impact

Energy issues have an impact on virtually every aspect of health care. Demands for energy and the costs for providing it, are escalating rapidly. And those costs are not confined to higher utility, transportation and supply bills, but also the gradual destruction of the environment. Our nation’s dependence on fossil fuels has led to a documented rise in global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions, as well as potentially negative health consequences for patients and workers.

Demand for energy is soaring across all sectors of the American economy. In fact, a recent Department of Energy survey of 20 major companies concluded that global demand for energy resources will rise dramatically—nearly 60 percent—throughout the next 25 years.

Senior executives from 20 major companies attending a 2007 workshop hosted by the EPA and Global Business Network estimated that  electricity demand in the United States alone will grow by at least 40 percent throughout the next 25 years, requiring at least 300 power plants to be built over that time. Such demands have led to an unprecedented rise in energy costs, which have surged dramatically and put a significant financial strain on hospitals. In some areas of the United States, energy costs have grown by more than 60 percent in the past few years.

The Energy Information Administration’s data show that the health care industry spends an estimated $7.4 billion on energy ($5.3 billion for inpatient and $2.1 billion for outpatient facilities). More than 90 percent of hospitals surveyed recently by Healthcare Financial Management magazine reported higher energy costs over the previous year, and more than half cited double-digit increases.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions result from our nation’s reliance on nonrenewable sources of energy—fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas—that accelerate global warming and climate change; and there is much debate about how to curb such trends. GHG emissions, which include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, also are increasingly linked to a host of serious public health consequences such as depletion of our planet’s fresh water supply and respiratory ailments.

Conservation now

Health care is a veritable energy hog. Whether from heating and cooling air and water, lighting spaces or transporting goods and services, the industry is heavily reliant on energy from mostly conventional nonrenewable sources.

According to the EPA, inpatient health care is the second most energy intensive industry in the United States (second only to the food service industry), gobbling up more than twice as much energy per square foot as nonhealth care office buildings. Buildings alone are responsible for almost half of the energy consumed in the United States and 48 percent of all GHG emissions. Hospitals alone use 836 trillion British thermal units (BTUs) of energy annually, have more than 2.5 times the energy intensity and CO2 emissions of commercial office buildings and are consistently within the top 10 water users in their communities.

Second, the calls for change are based on economic survival. Energy costs are soaring in the health care industry. A recent Department of Energy report found that rising energy prices and hospitals’ increasing energy demands have escalated costs so much that hospitals’ energy bills consume up to 3 percent of their total operating budgets, and up to at least 15 percent of their annual profits. Such phenomena are exacerbated by the added cost of running outdated and energy inefficient building systems.

Third, calls for energy conservation in health care are becoming louder because of hospitals’ ethical duty to protect public health. Many observers believe that the health care industry contributes disproportionately to the detrimental public health consequences of climate change. To keep true to its mandate—first, do no harm—hospitals today increasingly are turning their attention to change practices that can potentially jeopardize patient and worker safety. Increasing public concerns about climate change and its potential health, economic and security consequences are helping to shape the industry’s attitude toward climate change.

:}

dot dot dot…as they say…the headlines say it all:

:}

Behind the times

Although hospitals lag behind other industries in implementing energy-efficient strategies, there are numerous national initiatives focusing on health care, including a two-year-old initiative called E2C (Energy Efficient Challenge) that was launched by the American Society for Healthcare Engineering (ASHE) to support the goals of EPA’s Energy Star Challenge Program, says Dale Woodin, ASHE executive director. Woodin explains that this lag is often due to the lack of available capital, expertise and resources, and a need for greater awareness and support from senior health care leaders.

Health care companies in general also spend a smaller portion of their total expenses on energy, meaning fewer dollars are available to make far-reaching improvements. Rising energy costs are squeezing operating margins and diverting money needed for critical health care quality and safety improvements.

In essence, the primary driver is saving money. According to the American College of Healthcare Executives, 67 percent of health care CEOs list financial challenges as their No. 1 concern. However, operating costs and competition for investment and capital improvement funds often restrict available funding for energy improvements.

In addition, alternative energy sources have traditionally been scarce and expensive. For example, only 7 percent of the entire U.S. energy consumption is from renewable energy sources, including biofuels such as ethanol, solar, hydroelectric and wind power.

The health care industry is less open than other industries to the use of renewable energy sources, and few health care organizations have publicly stated carbon reduction goals.

A recent Johnson Controls survey of various industries found that only 38 percent of health care organizations had either invested in or were exploring renewable technologies, compared with 68 percent across other industries.

Catching up

Recently, the health care sector has begun to transform its core practices in response to the scientific confirmation of the link between climate change and health. Health care organizations are placing a growing importance on initiatives such as energy management, and while they are less likely than other industries to achieve green certification, they are more likely to implement green features without pursuing formal certification.

:}

Physician heal thyself.