Nausea, vomiting, nosebleeds, headaches, and chest pain: these are just some of the identical symptoms reported by people working around BP’s oil in the Gulf Coast. More than 100 people in the Gulf have fallen ill from BP’s oil, and that doesn’t include untold numbers of workers hiding their symptoms for fear of being fired by BP.
Yet despite clear evidence of illness from exposure to oil and dispersants, BP refuses to provide respirators to people cleaning up its disaster. Why? Because BP is afraid of the PR impact from images of people wearing this critical safety equipment in pictures and on TV. BP even threatened to fire workers who choose to wear their own.
Firedoglake is joining with workers’ rights advocacy group American Rights at Work to petition BP – and government agencies like OSHA and the Department of Labor – to make BP provide respirators to protect cleanup workers in the Gulf of Mexico.
When we launched this petition to our email activists and posted it to Twitter this morning, we got a response from BP within minutes. Here’s what BP said in response to our action:
100 hygienists & technicians monitor exposure levels; all results to date within safe limits. More:http://bit.ly/daJBxh
Here’s the problem with that: exposure levels are inadequate to determine the array of exposures workers will encounter. And while most monitoring stations are inland, most workers are getting sick offshore, particularly on rigs. I’m sure the 100 people who are sick already will be happy to know 100 people are monitoring inadequate information.
To make matters worse, relying solely on exposure limits and not listening to workers who are clearly getting sick is exactly what happened in the cleanup effort at Ground Zero. And of the 60,000 people who helped after 9/11, more than half have respiratory problems, including some who died.
Just like after 9/11, we’re already seeing cleanup workers with serious health problems after exposure to toxic chemicals without adequate protection. If the government properly enforced its safety standards after 9/11, every person at Ground Zero would have worn a respirator that could have protected their health and saved their lives.
The government agency responsible for overseeing worker safety – the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) – says that their tests showed respirators aren’t yet required for cleanup workers in the Gulf. While OSHA is still studying the air quality in the Gulf, it should be no coincidence that dozens of people working around BP’s oil disaster are falling ill with symptoms of chemical exposure to oil.
Every worker needs access to the right respirators, training and safety equipment for protection from BP’s toxic stew in the Gulf. Join FDL and American Rights at Work to stand up for workers cleaning up BP’s toxic stew of oil and dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico and make BP pay for respirators – and the proper training to use them – immediately.
Add your name to our petition to BP to pay for respirators for cleanup workers now.




16 Comments








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Just more confirmation that the corps are in charge of everything and the citizens have become their slaves. Sound extreme? It is.
“Obviously a few random cases of food poisoning. We promise to look into it. In the meantime, another bottle of Dom for Mr. Hayward…”
Signed!!!
Senator Mary!!
Sound true? It is.
Those respirators cartridges only last for eight hours of exposure when dealing with VOCs.
Safety or profit that’s right, profits over people.
Thanks Michael.
Meanwhile back at the ranch……it is all so predictable.
THIS.IS.NOT.ROCKET.SCIENCE. The “point source” field monitoring/analysis equipment (super-duper compute power in a mobile 19″ rack-mount configuration) can be on the rig or anywhere in the gas cloud coming off the massive underwater oil plumes and the Corexit/dispersants. That way you see the PPMs of the VOCs (BTEX) and other petrochemical teratogenic/leukemigenic/carcinogenic nasties associated with “Oil Volcano of the Century” and the associated human-applied chemical treatments. The Best Available Technology (e.g., high-pressure liquid chromotographic equipment) could see and analyze pico grams of substance 20 years ago.
hey Michael – thanks for this
sent you PBS video via FB mail – filled with great stuff. including another flip flop from Dr David Michaels
apparently “lack of hard science” means only that pursued and published by US Govt. -
Can BP quantify safe levels they are referring to. Who is doing the quantitative and qualitative analysis. BP hired guns or independents?. The safe levels are within compliance with hourly or daily doses or still being compared with emergencies. Emergencies can not last more than two months. Please be honest.
I wish all the workers would tell BP to go f__k themselves and walk off.
I understand the awful spot they’re in, but what good will they be to their families when they’re six feet under?
Criminally tragic.
If BP was so concerned about its image, it shouldn’t have cut corners and caused this disaster in the first place. Now, they are compounding it by not protecting the workers that are cleaning up THEIR mess. These people are despicable!
It’s not that BP is afraid of the PR impact from images of people wearing this critical safety equipment. The reason BP’s attorneys have advised them not to allow cleanup workers to wear protective equipment is that to do so would be an acknowledgement BY BP that the work is hazardous, opening BP up to further liability suits.
On one hand, I am sure everyone at BP feels terrible about this disaster, including Tony Hayward. But on the other, the fact that they would rather see people die an agonizing death from cancer than admit that exposure to crude oil is hazardous makes me so angry. How can people make these decisions and still sleep at night?
I’m at the point where I’m thinking it’s no longer MY responsibility to sign petitions to help save these workers’ health. If they are unwilling to talk to reporters in area or to otherwise take a stand for right/wrong, why should I do it on their behalf? Maybe if these workers all refused to clean up BP’s mess and instead simply helped make the case against BP for their poor handling of the mess, we’d actually make some progress on this problem.
I guess I’m starting to view some of the workers as part of the problem… not part of the solution…
Excellent point. And guess what. BP has hired a contractor to cover this, the testing firm Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health (CTEH). Sadly for the workers and happily for BP CTEH has a history of finding “the least protective rules and regulations”
Elana Shor did a great story on this company and their role in certifying toxic environments “safe”
Here the whole story.
I tried to make sure someone in Lynn Woolsey’s office knows about this and can question their role in the air quality monitoring tomorrow at the hearing.
See my comment above it’s the Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health
Link to the story in the New York Times via Greenwire.
Also the whole “safe limits” issue doesn’t take into account exposure to several chemicals at once. Corexit and Crude might be deadlier than Crude alone, but since there are no tests on it they can say, “It’s safe”
Actually, a simple photo-ionization detector is sufficient to monitor VOC in the air for respiratory protection. There are a lot of simple, inexpensive methods that can and by law should be employed to monitor the safety of the workforce. What is always missing in these discussions on the use of respirators is any apparent understanding of either the science or the law (OSHA 1910.134) or preferably both.