A timeline of health horrors caused by the BP oil well blow out

Posted on Jun 28, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, MCS, Susie Collins, Worker's Rights

Clean up workers are already visiting their doctors with symptoms of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

A still from the BP oil well blow out live cam taken June 28.

Have you been as crazed as I’ve been watching the images of people without respirators working on the so-called “clean up” in the Gulf? We all knew it was only a matter of time before cases of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity were reported. Take a look at the timeline: reports of MCS started fairly soon after the blow out.

5/03: MSNBC reports that the oil spill has little impact on human health: gunk spreading across Gulf a disaster for ecosystem, but not the public. Yeah, right.

5/23: Gina Solomon at the Natural Resources Defense Council Staff Blog, called Switchboard, reports Oil Spill Clean-Up Workers Getting Sick.

5/27: The Washington Post reports that illnesses among workers highlight concerns about health risks of oil cleanup.

6/03: CNN reports on a gutsy fisherman’s wife who breaks the silence about her husband’s deteriorating health since he worked on clean up efforts in the Gulf. “After attending a lecture by Rikki Ott [sic], a toxicologist who’s worked with families affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, [fisherman's wife Kindra] Arnesen decided to organize other wives to ask questions about the safety of working near the oil.” (See next entry for more info on Riki Ott.) Here’s the CNN vid about Kindra and her husband:

Here’s a couple of asides from our Timeline– Here’s Riki Ott in the documentary film Black Wave about the Exxon Valdez spill:

Here’s more from Riki Ott on 20 years after the Exxon Valdez spill:

Back to our current disaster:

6/03: The Huffington Post reports Gulf Oil Spill Sickness: Cleanup Workers Experience Health Problems, Complain Of Flulike Symptoms.

6/07: I contacted Alison Johnson, author of Amputated Lives: Coping with Chemical Sensitivity, a book about the development of chemical sensitivity in Exxon Valdez cleanup workers, Gulf War veterans, 9/11 First Responders, and FEMA trailer residents. I spoke to Alison on the phone and she expressed concern for the people in the Gulf region that had lived through the toxic soup of hurricane Katrina, including the toxic FEMA trailers, and were now experiencing the fumes from this BP disaster. Given that MCS can be initiated by repeated exposures to toxic chemicals, people in the region should take note of Alison’s concern.

6/08: Ariel Schwartz at Fast Company warns clean up crews to Read This Before You Volunteer to Clean Up the BP Oil Disaster.

Merle Savage has a wheezy, guttural smoker’s cough. But the 71-year-old former Alaska resident and author of Silence in the Sound never smoked a day in her life. She did, however, spend four months as a general foreman during the Exxon Valdez oil spill recovery project in 1989. And she has a message for anyone working at the BP oil disaster sites: “You’ve got to use your common sense. Breathing crude oil is toxic.”

6/11: The Raw Story reports that a human rights group says BP is discouraging crews from using respirators. “BP’s logic seems to be that if the oil cleanup doesn’t look dangerous then it must not be. The oil company has told workers not to wear respirators because it’s bad for public relations, according to one human rights group.” [Emphasis added.]

AND HERE’S THE REPORT WE KNEW WAS COMING:

6/15: Janet Kwak at WOAI TV reports that a mysterious illness plagues Gulf oil disaster workers. Clean up workers are visiting their doctors with symptoms of Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance or TILT, which is another name for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

“What makes it challenging is that patients show up with non-specific symptoms. Headaches, fatigue, problems with memory and concentration, upset stomach,” lists Dr. Claudia Miller at UT Health Science Center.

The illness is called “TILT,” or Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance. Patients lose tolerance to household products, medication, or even food after being exposed to chemicals, like burning oil, toxic fumes, or dispersants from the spill.

“Things like diesel fuel, exposure to fragrances, cleaning agents that never bothered them before suddenly bother them,” adds Dr. Miller.

6/18: Politics AP reports BP’s records on ill workers tell only part of the story.

This is about the time I discover the Louisiana Environmental Action Network report on the Health Impacts Associated with Dispersants and Louisiana Sweet Crude. I felt from the beginning of the disaster that the dispersant Corexit was going to cause as much if not more damage to people, animals and the environment as the crude oil. Take a look at the lists on that page for health impacts of both the dispersant and the oil.

And yesterday I found a report in the New York Times about how Cleanup Hiring Feeds Frustration in Fishing Town. Don’t you just love how BP has managed to destroy the environment, livelihoods and probably the health of most workers and many others in the affected regions while at the same time remaining the main employer with “clean up” efforts?

If you enjoyed this post, please read these related stories:

Anatomy of a toxic chemical spill By guestblogger Steph. On February 17, 2010, in Alameda, CA, a garbage or recycle truck...
Gas well drilling operation impacts health of an entire neighborhood Woman with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is the first in her neighborhood to detect toxic emissions...
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues indoor air quality policy for all CDC offices nationwide This is arguably the strongest and most important chemical-free and fragrance-free policy in existence for...
Government to improve regulation of toxic chemicals EPA director presents new guidelines to improve regulation of toxic chemicals....
CNN investigative report Toxic America with Dr. Sanjay Gupta to rebroadcast tonight and tomorrow The two-part CNN investigation "Toxic America" with Dr. Sanjay Gupta will rebroadcast tonight and tomorrow...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: Air, Environment, EPA, Pollution, Products, Toxic, Video, Work

15 Responses to “A timeline of health horrors caused by the BP oil well blow out”

Angelique

28. Jun, 2010

Another article you might like to add: 400 people sought medical care for respiratory problems, headaches, & nausea after trips to Florida beaches http://bit.ly/bAU3in

Reply to this comment
- Susie Collins
  
  28. Jun, 2010
  
  That’s a good report, Angelique. It shows the conflict the government is entering now with having to give full disclosure of the toxicity in the environment and not wanting to disrupt things. Eventually there will be no denying that entire stretches of the coastline cannot be fished or used for recreation activities– and who know what will happen after the first storm.
  
  Also, the article quotes someone as saying that small amounts are harmless, except as people get sensitized due to the steady onslaught of fumes, that will no longer be the case.
  
  The scope of the coming impact of this incident is unfathomable to comprehend. I find my analytical skills shutting down when playing it out in my head: the amount of the Exxon Valdez released into the water EVERY FOUR DAYS.
  
  Reply to this comment
Jeanne

28. Jun, 2010

Angelique,

That was an interesting link. It boggles my mind that they are setting up “decontamination stations” at beaches for people to remove tar balls from their feet and hands. It seems like it would make much more sense not to go near the tar balls in the first place! I don’t think I even want to know what the “cleaning material” these “decontamination stations” will have. It also boggles my mind that with 400 people seeking medical care after trips to Florida beaches that one of them could just randomly re-open rather than waiting for the test results to come back! How many people need to get sick? 400 wasn’t enough to get their attention?

Susie,

What a loaded, sad, upsetting timeline about a truly horrific situation. Yes, “crazed” is a good word for the feeling one gets watching this mess unfold… knowing that many people will become/are becoming sick from this disaster.

It’s hard to know where to even begin when commenting on this post. There’s so much to say.

First, thank you for compiling such a comprehensive timeline that gives context – for what has happened in the past and what is happening now.

You have quite a collection of links and videos all accessible from this one post. While I had seen several of them before, I hadn’t seen all of them and the ones I’d seen were scattered here and there. You have nicely pulled the information together into a timeline. I would imagine it took a fair amount of time to construct the timeline the way you did when you wrote this post.

I was really saddened when I got to the part about Alison Johnson’s very valid concerns for people in the gulf region (“she expressed concern for the people in the Gulf region that had lived through the toxic soup of hurricane Katrina, including the toxic FEMA trailers, and were now experiencing the fumes from this BP disaster. Given that MCS can be initiated by repeated exposures to toxic chemicals, people in the region should take note of Alison’s concern”). It saddens me greatly that people who have already been through so much (with hurricane Katrina) are now being exposed to this disaster in the gulf.

I have certainly heard about the issues with people not wearing respirators but I had not seen this Kerry Kennedy interview. Thank you for sharing this.

All of that business about BP workers going to BP doctors is very troubling…

I once worked for a large company (which I won’t name) and there was a discrepancy between the company’s doctor and my doctor about whether the work environment I was in was “safe”. To make a long story short, many workers were getting sick. I was one of several workers who complained to management. Air quality testing was done. The results were not what they should have been. My manager emailed us upon receiving the test results. (He ended up getting in huge trouble from his manager for sharing the truth with us). Thank goodness he did, though, because it enabled me to tell my doctor the facts! My doctor then told me not to work in that area in those conditions under any circumstances. The company’s doctor (who I never even met) “overruled” what my doctor said and insisted it was safe. My manager’s manager ordered him to order me back to that area to work. (Oh, by the way, I was pregnant at the time)! I refused. That was the end of that job. (I was a contractor. That company had the right to terminate me at any time and for any reason with no notice). So, my manager’s manager ordered my manager to end my contract. As upsetting as it was to get booted out of a job mid-pregnancy (when I had been working very hard and getting awards left and right) over an air quality dispute, I absolutely positively did NOT care because health was more important than anything else… So, that was the end of that job! Anytime workers are at the mercy of “company doctors”, it’s not good!

Is this TILT naming convention one of those attempts to get the word “chemical” out of the diagnosis name? Are there chemical company lobbyist groups that are pushing the TILT name versus calling it multiple chemical sensitivity? Just curious what your thoughts were on that. I’ve been hearing plenty online about TILT (since what happened in the gulf) but I hadn’t heard of TILT before that.

It makes me sad and angry that people are developing these symptoms when protective gear could have (possibly) prevented it. (As Kerry Kennedy noted, even with respirators people were having symptoms from exposure for a brief amount of time).

Oh Susie! Those health impacts associated with dispersants… it’s just awful!

The fact that BP is bringing in/hiring out of state workers to do the cleanup when local fishermen/women are out of work (thanks to BP) and awaiting word on their application for those very jobs is just outrageous. That article about the way that cleanup hiring is being handled is just heartbreaking.

I saw a video on Facebook the other day with people walking around (and sunbathing) on a beach full of oil and tar balls. There were children walking right through the oil. One little girl got it on her feet and started screaming for her mother to get it off her feet. (I would give you the link to this video but I can’t access Facebook right now. I think I got the video from Linda Sepp’s wall, though).

In any event, I was flabbergasted that people are taking their young children to beaches like this! Just because no one has stepped in and closed a particular beach or told people to leave doesn’t mean it’s safe to be there!

I was stunned at the lack of common sense displayed by the people in this video. One of my Facebook friends then posted a comment on my wall (for that video) to the effect that a friend of hers is currently on vacation at that very beach with her two month old baby. She was shocked that her friend didn’t seem fazed by what was happening at the beach. I’ve heard of denial… but taking a baby to a beach with oil and tar balls as far as the eye can see?!

It’s all very upsetting and disturbing… on so many levels. It makes me sick to my stomach.

Jeanne

P.S. I was noticing that LuAnn White’s comments were “interesting” in both the 5/3 and 6/3 links you listed.

From MSNBC/LiveScience on 5/03/2010:
“…a 2005 U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry report concluded. (LuAnn) White corroborated that assessment, noting that the oil was no more toxic than many cosmetics” (emphasis added).

OK. 1) We all know how toxic cosmetics are. So that’s not at all reassuring. Also, I’m guessing anyone trying to suggest that oil isn’t toxic must be on the payroll of an oil company (or some sort of related business) or must be getting kickbacks… or something. 2) Check out her language below…

From Huffington Post on 6/03/2010:

“If they’re out there getting lightheaded and dizzy every day then obviously they ought to come in, and there should be respirators and other equipment provided,” said LuAnn White, director of the Tulane Center for Applied Environmental Public Health.

OK. So, a month later the same person from the 5/3 link, LuAnn White, mentions respirators and other equipment should be provided (a bit different than what she said in May). In this link, her proposal is that people ought to come in “if they’re out there getting lightheaded and dizzy”. Gee. Really? People who have already been sickened shouldn’t just stay out there? Is this woman for real?!

Granted, the fact that she even talks about respirators is improvement over what she said in May… but must people be reactive instead of proactive?

Must human beings go “out there” and get sick to “qualify” for wearing respirators? Would it not make sense for anyone working on trying to clean up to automatically be wearing appropriate protective gear? If someone has the misfortune of getting ill from exposure to oil, they should GET AWAY from it… not change what they’re wearing after the fact!

First she blows off the danger and then she later acknowledges that there are times “respirators and other equipment” should be provided… while stating the obvious that “if they’re out there getting lightheaded and dizzy every day then obviously they ought to come in”.

How about this: obviously people who are ill need to get away from the toxins making them ill!!

The thing is that looking at her entire sentence, “if they’re out there getting lightheaded and dizzy every day then obviously they ought to come in, and there should be respirators and other equipment provided”, isn’t she implying that those already sickened by going out without protective equipment should just throw some equipment on and head back out to do more cleanup work? Is that what she was suggesting? It sounds to me like she’s saying that those who are working (unprotected) and getting sick should just, you know, take a break to come in and suit up before getting back to work. Yeah right.

Reply to this comment
- Susie Collins
  
  29. Jun, 2010
  
  All good points, Jeanne. About TILT: I don’t think this particular alternative name has conspiratorial origins (whereas Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances or IEI does).
  
  Reply to this comment
Airy

28. Jun, 2010

Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals – Oil Spill Resources.

http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/?ID=378

As of today, 162 health complaints related to oil spill.

There are hotline numbers on the left to call for various problems.

Reply to this comment
- Susie Collins
  
  29. Jun, 2010
  
  Thanks for the link, Airy. The Exxon Valdez made over 6,000 people seriously ill– there’s a documented number. This BP blow out is gushing an Exxon Valdez every four days in a region that’s spreading it farther and involving more people than Exxon Valdez ever came close to. It won’t be for many years hence until we learn about the true impacts of this disaster.
  
  Reply to this comment
Suzanne

29. Jun, 2010

Thank you for the comprehensive and well thought out article Susie!

This was just sent to me by Medscape (a very conservative website)

From Medscape Medical News
CDC and IOM Warn of Adverse Psychosocial, Cancer Effects From Gulf Oil Spill
Emma Hitt, PhD

Authors and Disclosures

Physician Rating: ( 1 Vote ) Rate This Article:

Print This Email this Share
Twitter Facebook
processing….

Information from Industry
Adults with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on a sulfonylurea alone
- Multinational study of add-on therapy-Primary endpoint: A1C change from baseline at 6 months.
View study findings June 28, 2010 — Psychosocial, as well as medical, effects will be important consequences of the Gulf oil spill, according to experts from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico took place on April 20, 2010. At the time, the explosion killed 11 workers and injured 17 others, but the long-term effects of the resulting oil spill remain unclear. As of June 25, 2010, 453 oil exposure complaints had been reported to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. Of these, 174 calls came from Louisiana, 111 from Florida, 95 from Alabama, and 38 from Mississippi. Callers reported symptoms including headaches, throat irritation, nausea, vomiting, eye pain, and dizziness.

Crude oil contains a mixture of volatile hydrocarbon compounds — polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that typically include the carcinogens benzene, toluene, and xylene. According to the CDC, symptoms of exposure to these compounds include drowsiness, dizziness, rapid or irregular heartbeat, headaches, tremors, confusion, and unconsciousness

On June 22 and 23, the IOM, part of the US National Academies in Washington, DC, held a workshop in New Orleans, Louisiana, at the request of the US Department of Health and Human Services to discuss health concerns related to the spill.

Exposure Effects May Follow a Latent Period

Scott Barnhart, MD, MPH, from the University of Washington, in Seattle, noted during his presentation that exposure effects from the oil spill may follow a latent period. “Crude oil contains a complex mixture of heavy metals and volatile and nonvolatile polyaromatic hydrocarbons, with the possibility of carcinogens,” he said.

According to Dr. Barnhart, exposure can occur through dermal and inhalational routes and possibly through ingesting oil-contaminated foods. Toxicities are dose-dependent and may include neurologic, renal, hepatic, dermatologic, and hematologic effects.

Levels of Carcinogens Unclear

Gina Solomon, MD, a senior scientist with the National Resources Defense Council, noted in her blog that British Petroleum (BP) is claiming that “because the air concentrations of carcinogens such as benzene are below [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] limits, the workers involved in cleaning up the Gulf oil spill are not at risk of health effects.”

However, she adds that “BP is dismissing the fact that its own data have shown levels of hydrocarbons above BP’s ‘action level’, and have shown levels of benzene and 2-butoxyethanol (the dispersant chemical) above the Recommended Exposure Limit set by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.”

Psychosocial Issues From Spill Are Important

According to Maureen Lichtveld, MD, MPH, professor and chair of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at Tulane University, in New Orleans, Louisiana, the number one effect that clinicians should look for are the psychosocial consequences.

“Clinically, the immediate effects are irritation and respiratory effects caused by volatile organics,” Dr. Lichtveld told Medscape Medical News, “but during the IOM meeting we agreed that the psychosocial aspect needs to have a much higher priority than currently is apparent, and often clinicians don’t think about that,” she said. “It was clear for us, after Katrina, in New Orleans, in fact, that those adverse psychosocial effects are still there.” Dr. Lichtveld was a participant at the IOM workshop.

Dr. Solomon noted that follow-up studies after the Exxon Valdez oil spill showed significant increases in mental health disorders in the local population for years after the spill. “There were increases in depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other anxiety disorders, as well as generally poorer scores on mental health assessments,” she told Medscape Medical News. She added that currently there are not enough data to predict whether there could be future elevations in cancer risks, reproductive issues, or neurological sequelae from this oil spill. “Prospective health monitoring will be very important in this population,” she added.

Guidance for Healthcare Professionals

According to Dr. Solomon, clinicians play an important role in providing anticipatory guidance to help protect their patients. “Community residents should not fish in any areas that have been declared off-limits or where they see evidence of oil contamination, and fish or shellfish that has an oily odor should be discarded and not eaten.”

In addition, Dr. Solomon said, direct skin contact with contaminated water, oil, or tar balls should be avoided. “If community residents at any time notice a strong odor of oil or chemicals, and are concerned about health effects, they should seek refuge in an air conditioned environment, preferably with the air conditioner on recirculation mode to avoid intake of polluted air.

“Overall, residents can be reassured that the air quality has been generally good on the Gulf coast, and that long-term health effects are unlikely,” she said.

The CDC is monitoring potential health threats or conditions that may result human exposure to the oil spill. At this time, 242 CDC and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry staff members are involved in the response to the oil spill. As of last week, 21 staff members had been deployed to Gulf Coast states.

Information about the oil spill for health professionals is available on the CDC’s Web site. Topics include fuel oil toxicity frequently asked questions, recommendations for taking an exposure history, health surveillance, and fact sheets about dispersants and light crude oil.

The CDC encourages clinicians to email them with any questions about the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Reply to this comment
- Susie Collins
  
  29. Jun, 2010
  
  Thanks much for this, Suzanne.
  
  It’s very good but there is still a lot of contradictory info in there, don’t you think? You can still see the struggle between knowing what’s coming and trying not to cause a lot of alarm in the public. And of course what’s not taken into account is the triggering of chemical sensitivities, which results in disability far sooner than, say, cancer or other illnesses with a latent period.
  
  A very interesting point made above is about the psychosocial problems that arise AFTER this sort of disaster involving crude oil and dispersant. It shows that psychosocial problems arise AFTER chemical exposure; it’s not that people who have psychological problems then dream up MCS and other related illnesses caused by toxic chemicals.
  
  One of things I’m concerned about is the fact that BP is using fisherman to clean up the spill. So BP has not only endangered the livelihood of the fishing industry workforce as a whole, but also the health of each individual worker within that workforce. I haven’ heard anyone talking about that layer of economic instability.
  
  Susie
  
  Reply to this comment
  - Suzanne
    
    01. Jul, 2010
    
    Excellent points and I agree with you completely.
    
    Reply to this comment
Sandra Lee

29. Jun, 2010

Excellent reporting, Susie! I’ve been inspired by how many people are waking up and realizing that we are all complicit in the oil spill as long as we continue to heavily use petroleum based products. That’s quite a long list as anyone with MCS knows. It’s good to see people taking personal responsibility and positive steps to reduce their oil use.

Reply to this comment
Cheryl Wiley-Thomas

29. Jun, 2010

Hi Susie and all Canaries,

I posted a discussion on The Canary Report on June 4, 2010 asking:

“Any Ideas on Getting Respirators to Gulf oil spill cleanup workers?”

I will include that post below, but I’d like to ask how we might get Pres. Obama, or OSHA, or other governmental departments to overrule BP’s requirement that oil spill clean-up workers NOT wear respirators. If they do wear respirators, BP has said they will lose their oil spill cleanup job.

Secondly, what organizations could help with an effort to supply respirators to clean up workers?

The answers may be in the various links you have provided about the health problems of oil spill cleanup workers, and I have not read all those yet. But I’d still like to through this issue out to The Canary Report community.

The following was Posted by Cheryl Wiley-Thomas on June 4, 2010 at 9:17pm in Health:

Dear fellow Canaries,

I’ve posted versions of the following comment on several websites tonight…NOLA.com, Democracy Now, AllVoices.com, and will post a comment on CNN.com when I find the right place.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta is doing a special series on TOXIC AMERICA…with 2 episodes this week. I hope to contact him with this respirators suggestion, and perhaps he would know of a way to get respirators to workers. (NB: I still can’t find a direct email address for Sanjay Gupta. If you find one, please let me know at: cwileythomas@gmail.com)

My comment posted on those websites:

I have been giving a lot of thought to the possible illness of those doing the Gulf oil spill cleanup. Many are reporting illness and some have been hospitalized.

Because of my own condition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and my high level of sensitivity, I’m pretty familiar with 3-M Respirators especially with VOC filters.

I was thinking that the 3M Company might be willing to donate respirators with VOC Filters for those doing the “hands on” oil clean-up.

BP has told those hourly-paid workers that they are not to wear respirators. BP is concerned of the bad publicity it would
provide. If they wear a respirator, they will be fired.

(Note to TCR: I have emailed Amy Goodman at Democracy Now asking if she might lead an effort to get President Obama to overrule BP’s decree that oil spill cleanup workers cannot wear respirators. The health of these workers is at stake.)

At this point, I don’t think BP can improve their public image. And to let them overrule the use of respirators is immoral, in my mind.

But the KEY ISSUE is to get respirators to those workers who do not realize the high toxicity of the oil and sludge. Their exposures can have life-long consequences. I expect there to be a lot of new cases of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (also known as
Chemical Injury and Environmental Illness).

I have asked a friend, whose son–a PhD chemist– works for 3M, to ask if he might inquire about 3M donating respirators with VOC filters for the Gulf oil cleanup.

Perhaps someone in a New Orleans church or other community
organization could help suggest how to distribute respirators.

Last night after the showing of his investigative documentary called
TOXIC CHILDHOOD, Sanjay Gupta was on Live on CNN from Louisiana with a couple other CNN reporters discussing the spill and showing the sludge itself…on a paper plate. Hopefully Dr. Gupta could be involved in clearing the way for those cleanup workers to receive respirators with VOC filters.

Any ideas?”

Reply to this comment
- Susie Collins
  
  29. Jun, 2010
  
  Cheryl, The nonprofit Advocates for Environmental Human Rights is administering grants to local groups to purchase respirators for clean up crew. You might like to contact them to find out more about their efforts. http://www.ehumanrights.org/
  
  Reply to this comment
  - Cheryl Wiley-Thomas
    
    30. Jun, 2010
    
    Thanks, Susie,
    
    I will check in with the Environmental Human Rights group.
    
    Reply to this comment
Vickie Fowles

29. Jun, 2010

There’s no way they can do a cover up on this one! That Sucky Guck is everywhere in the Gulf.

How can we get MCS info to the people who are suffering?

Reply to this comment