We have previously discussed how the Obama Administration played down the environmental damage caused by the BP oil spill, including public statements by people like Carol Browner that the oil (which was later found) had miraculously disappeared. Now, documents have been disclosed suggesting that the Obama Administration blocked efforts by federal scientists to tell the public of how bad the oil spill was. Once again, there is relatively little attention to this story. The Bush Administration was accused of the same type of manipulation of scientific reports and was generally (and rightfully) savaged in the press.
The documents released Wednesday show that the White House budget office denied a request from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make public the worst-case discharge from the blown-out well.
The documents indicate that the decision to withhold the information may have been made at a “high level.” One staff report stated that withholding the information played into the view that the spill could easily be controlled.
What is most disturbing is how this withheld information dovetails with the later efforts to downplay the significance of the spill and public indications from officials that President Obama would likely resume his controversial plan to open up pristine areas of the East Coast to drilling.
Source: Miami Herald
“BP wouldn’t have used the dispersant if it wasn’t forced to by the EPA.”
BP wouldn’t have cleaned up a damn thing if they had their way.
“Well then hows that national health care working for them? The Feds ought to be paying for them. Why aren’t they?”
Because we don’t have national health care. We have insurance company welfare disguised as “health care reform”.
“Call me a fascist apologist all you want,”
Okay, I will, fascist apologist.
“it doesn’t change the fact that the EPA has a very large share of blame in those people’s health.”
Except the EPA didn’t maintain negligent business practices on a deep sea oil drilling platform. That would be BP and their business partners. Causation is key. Ideally, the EPA wouldn’t have had anything to do because BP, Halliburton and Transocean would have been doing the proper job on safety. As to the dispersant? The EPA was doing their job in telling BP to stop using them. It was only when BP starting bribing and threatening politicians that the EPA was called off. So it would be politicians that have “a very large share of blame in those people’s health.” Not the EPA.
Congressional puppet? ROFLOL
Yeah, I’m their puppet . . . that’s why I’m on their ass all the time for not doing their Constitutionally mandated job of representing all citizens interests instead of the profit motive interests of corporations like BP, Halliburton and Transocean.
Congratulations, Well Digger!
You’ve struck bullshit.
Fascist apologist.
Maybe they ought to talk to the Sierra Club. BP wouldn’t have used the dispersant if it wasn’t forced to by the EPA.
Well then hows that national health care working for them? The Feds ought to be paying for them. Why aren’t they?
Call me a fascist apologist all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that the EPA has a very large share of blame in those people’s health.
You a government apologist? Government apologist is as government apologist does, congressional puppet.
Again, tell it to the sick people.
Fascist apologist is as fascist apologist does, oil company puppet.
Again, tell it to the sick people.
Lottakatz:
did you even read the article to the end? The idea that the EPA could not shut down the use of dispersants is laughable at best. They were used for fear of environmental catastrophe. I stand by my assertion, they were not necessary and their use was pushed on BP out of environmental fears.
Troll is as troll does. What bridge do you, Otteray Scribe and Buddha is Laughing live under?
From your link:
“Government officials have justified both uses, saying that if oil reaches the shore, it would do more environmental harm than if it were dispersed off the coast.
Dispersants break oil into droplets that decompose more quickly. But scientists worry that extensive use of the chemicals in the BP spill is increasing marine life’s exposure to the toxins in oil.
“While the dispersant BP has been using is on the agency’s approved list, BP is using this dispersant in unprecedented volumes and, last week, began using it underwater at the source of the leak — a procedure that has never been tried before,” the EPA noted last week, acknowledging that “much is unknown about the underwater use of dispersants.”
In the company’s May 20 letter to the EPA and the Coast Guard, responding to the EPA’s directive, BP operations chief Doug Suttles wrote that only five products on the EPA’s approved list meet the agency’s toxicity criteria. And only one, besides Corexit, is available in sufficient quantities in the next 10 to 14 days, it said.”
well, driller, get your facts straight. The EPA told BP to stop using Corexit and switch to less toxic dispersants and they were ignored. At some later time, after massive political/lobby pressure was brought to bear on the administration the order to stop was downgraded to an order to report usage. BP has been driving the bus from day one and the blood is on their hands.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/23/nation/la-na-oil-spill-20100523
We haz troll. Well Driller has wandered into the wrong pond, methinks. Keeps mind in logic tight compartment and cannot be bothered by facts or actual, you know, scientific research. It is a lot more fun to call folks names. Sorry WD, this is not a fact-free zone. Try RedState, it is that way <<<<<<<<<.
Yep Alice in friggin Wonderland world.
You must be the Mad Hatter.