BP leaves its signature by MacMcKinney (from Photobucket commons)
An aerial view of the oil leaked from the Deepwater Horizon wellhead, 06 May 2010 by Mac McKinney (from Photobucket commons)
Democracy Now allows free dissemination of their daily videos, audios and transcripts. On Tuesday July 20, 2010 they held a shocking interview about the extent of BP-created toxicity and the resulting cover-up in the Gulf oil disaster that should be listened to by every man, woman and child in America, and beyond! I am providing the videos and transcript as a public health service and alert.
Amy Goodman interviewed an actual EPA official, and very courageous individual, Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst at the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. He charges that "the government--both EPA, NOAA, etc.--have been sock puppets for BP in this cover-up."
Amy also interviewed one of America's most honored independent investigative journalists, Dahr Jamail, about his recent investigations along the Gulf Coast:
Following are the YouTube videos of the interview with Hugh Kaufman, which then dovetail into a third video with Dahr Jamail. Below the videos is the original transcript. Go to Democracy Now here and here to see the original videos directly from there if you prefer:
July 20, 2010
transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help
us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV
broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
SHARIF ADBEL KOUDDOUS: The Obama administration has
given BP the go-ahead to keep its ruptured well sealed for another day
despite worries about the well leaking some oil and methane gas.
National Incident Commander Thad Allen said the seep was not cause for
Meanwhile, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
OSHA, has released its analysis of BP's data on the exposure of cleanup
workers to the chemical dispersants being used in the Gulf. OSHA chief
David Michaels told the environmental website Greenwire that, quote, "I
think you can say exposures are low for workers. Exposures of workers on
shore are virtually nonexistent. There are significant exposures near
the source, and that's to be expected given the work being done there.
Those workers are given respiratory protection," he said.
But with BP having poured nearly two million gallons of the
dispersant known as Corexit into the Gulf, many lawmakers and advocacy
groups say the Obama administration is not being candid about the lethal
effects of dispersants. At a Senate subcommittee hearing last week,
Maryland Democrat Barbara Mikulski grilled administrators from the EPA
about Corexit and said she didn't want dispersants to be the Agent
Orange of this oil spill.
SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI: I'm concerned because I feel
and I believe, and my reading verifies, that we don't know enough about
the impact of dispersants and dispersed oil on people, marine life and
water quality. I'm very concerned. And my question is, should we ban
them? Should we take a time out from using them? What are the short- and
long-term consequences of using them? I don't want dispersants to be
the Agent Orange of this oil spill. And I want to be assured, in behalf
of the American people, that this is OK to use and OK to use in the
amounts that we're talking about.
While concerns over the impact of chemical dispersants
to grow, Gulf Coast residents are outraged by a recent announcement that
the $20 billion government-administered claim fund will subtract money
cleanup workers earn by working for the cleanup effort from any future
claims. Fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg says the ruling will apply
to anyone who participates in the Vessels of Opportunity program, which
has employed hundreds of Gulf Coast residents left out of work because
of the spill. It's seen as an effort to limit the number of lawsuits
We're joined now by two guests on these two issues, on
and the workers. Independent journalist Dahr Jamail is joining us from
Tampa, Florida. He's been reporting from the Gulf Coast for three weeks.
His latest article
at Truthout is called "BP's Scheme to Swindle the 'Small People.'" And
from Washington, DC, we're joined by Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy
analyst at the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. He's
been a leading critic of the decision to use Corexit.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let's begin with
Hugh Kaufman. First of all, explain what Corexit is, the company that
makes it, what's in it, and your concerns.
HUGH KAUFMAN: Well, Corexit is one of a number of
dispersants, that are toxic, that are used to atomize the oil and force
it down the water column so that it's invisible to the eye. In this
case, these dispersants were used in massive quantities, almost two
million gallons so far, to hide the magnitude of the spill and save BP
money. And the government--both EPA, NOAA, etc.--have been sock puppets
for BP in this cover-up. Now, by hiding the amount of spill, BP is
saving hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in fines, and
so, from day one, there was tremendous economic incentive to use these
dispersants to hide the magnitude of the gusher that's been going on for
almost three months.
Congressman Markey and Nadler, as well as Senator Mikulski,
been heroes in this respect. Congressman Markey made the BP and
government put a camera down there to show the public the gusher. And
when they did that, experts saw that the amount of material, oil being
released, is orders of magnitudes greater than what BP and NOAA and EPA
were saying. And the cover-up started to evaporate.