COREXIT and GM CROPS

posted by Tina Chen in The OtheЯ News:


COREXIT & GM CROPS


Corexit EC9527A is 30-60% 2-Butoxyethanol by weight. 2-B ( I will use the abbreviation 2-B ) is a main ingredient in many fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides ( especially Roundup ), insecticides, fuels, fungicides, cosmetics & leather treatment , and oddly enough, it is commonly used for " handling " oil spills .





The main argument for the use of COREXIT products, I have heard , is based on the studies of algae and microbial life in the Gulf . This logic is blind to the consideration of the 4 crucial things. The proliferation rate of oleophillic microbial life ( The specific bacteria to the deep-water Gulf, Deltaproteobacteria, and the powerhouse shallow water oil eater Alcanivorax borkumensis ) when faced with an overabundance of food, the specific hydrocarbons they actually eat, the depth and temperatures at which they thrive, and how 2-B can kill them all before they get a chance to eat. People presenting these arguments also don't understand how the food chain works. Microbes secrete their own surfactant molecules to break up the oil before consuming the hydrocarbons. Other microbes don't make surfactants but devour oil already broken into small enough globs—including those broken down by Alcanivorax. These microbes cannot proliferate until the Oxygen is depleted from the water. The colder temp loving microbes eat only short-chain hydrocarbons like gases, and the warmer clime-preferring ones are easily killed by 2-B. In order for these cold temp loving microbes to digest Hydrocarbon gases, these gases must first be produced. The gases they actually do eat are methane (CH4 ) ethane (C2H6), propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10). They gases they produce are Hydrogen Cyanide and Hydrogen Sulfide.



The breakdown products of COREXIT are CO2 and Carbon Monoxide, neither of which stay suspended in salt-water at 5k' +, nor do the indigenous bacteria in the Gulf eat them. What does stay suspended in water is 2-B.



So that argument is moot.





2-B has never been tested on any type of marine life for longer than 9 days, and the effects that are known, is that it's mutagenic , teragenic and carcinogenic. As far as the testing on humans or other mammals , there is plenty, it's all below. Of course if you don't care, then don't read it.



In the United States, the primary manufacturers of 2-B are : Eastman Chemical, Dow Chemical and Equistar. Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences LLC, a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, are in partnership to develop GM crops. Monsanto sales of GM seeds in the US cover 90% of the market.There are also projects being undertaken by Makhteshim Agan, an Israeli bio-engineering firm purchased by Cibus Global .













Here is Monsanto's sales report for the first 2 quarters of 2009, so you can see the scope of 2-B's use in the states.



2-B is the very same chemical used as an adjuvient in herbicides like Roundup. Most genetically modified crops like. Roundup-Ready Corn. as well as a majority of the cotton, oilseed and vegetable crops in the continental US. are engineered to resist Roundup. Monsanto also pushed for the passage of laws preventing farmers from saving their own seed without state regulations, thus forcing many to purchase Monsanto GM seedstock. The plants are also engineered to be sterile, forcing farmers to purchase expensive seedstock for every growing season. The official name for these seeds is the " Terminator ' series.



Throughout 2004 and 2005, Monsanto filed lawsuits against many farmers in Canada and the U.S. on the grounds of patent infringement, specifically the farmers' sale of seed containing Monsanto's patented genes. In some cases, farmers claimed the seed was unknowingly sown by wind carrying the seeds from neighboring crops, a claim rejected in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser. These instances began in the mid to late 1990s, with one of the most significant cases being decided in Monsanto's favor by the Canadian Supreme Court. By a 5-4 vote in late May 2004, that court ruled that "by cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants (canola farmer Percy Schmeiser) deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the patent." With this ruling, the Canadian courts followed the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on patent issues involving plants and genes.