
Oil on Grand Isle, LA (Michael Whitney/Firedoglake)
According to BP’s records, only two workers in the oil disaster recovery effort have reported illnesses from chemical exposure while working with oil and dispersants. That’s great news! Except for Louisiana officials say that in reality, more than 70 workers have reported chemical exposure illnesses. The Miami Herald writes:
Although Louisiana state records indicate that at least 74 oil spill workers have complained of becoming sick after exposure to pollutants, BP’s own official recordkeeping notes just two such incidents.
BP reported a wide range of worker injuries in the period from April 22 to June 10, from the minor – a sprained ankle, a pinched finger and a cat bite – to the more serious – three instances of workers being struck by lightning and one worker who lost part of a finger.
Only two were related to coming in contact with potentially toxic substances: a worker who in May was sprayed in the face with dispersant as he took a nozzle off a boom and another who inhaled crude oil vapors in June.
In contrast, Louisiana reports that 38 workers have reported becoming ill from dispersant or emulsified oil. Most of those said their symptoms cleared up quickly.
According to this report, BP only recorded two clear instances of chemical exposure: one person got sprayed in the face with dispersants, and one person inhaled crude oil vapors this month. So uh, BP? What’s the deal? Why would Louisiana officials have radically different reports of exposure to chemicals than the company that put the chemicals there in the first place?

Since the Herald wrote its report, the numbers of people reporting chemical exposure illnesses has jumped to more than 100. This includes more than 70 workers, but also 35 people in the general public who said they got sick from pollutants.
There have been 109 reports of health complaints believed to be related to exposure to pollutants from the BP oil spill, according to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. That number is up from 71 complaints reported as of June 10.
Seventy-four reports came from among workers and 35 from among the general population. Most workers reported having had symptoms that cleared up quickly resulting from exposures attributed to a variety of chemicals. Nine had short hospitalizations.
No word on if BP’s number reported a similar hike; I’d bet good money that their reports are still in the single digits. But as the reports of sick workers are disturbing, reports of sick residents is cause for even more concern. Crude oil is a toxic substance, and its negative effects can be airborne, causing severe, lifelong respiratory problems. Just ask the residents of Valdez, Alaska.
This incident demonstrates that BP is not only incapable of adequately monitoring the health and safety of cleanup workers, but that it has a vested interest in hiding the true extent of illnesses from exposure to pollutants. With more than 27,000 people already hired, the onus should be on the federal government to be the primary entity responsible for monitoring and protecting every person both helping with the recovery effort and that of residents whose health is already suffering from BP’s toxic disaster.
I’m looking forward to hearing about these discrepancies at next week’s Congressional hearing on oil disaster worker safety.



20 Comments









Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Work in Progress
Nothing to worry about, it’s just food poisoning.
Ha! totally forgot about that already.
Workers in the U.S. are expendable. They are nothing more than sacrifices on the alter of unregulated free market corporate capitalism.
Well, if OSHA doesn’t think that there’s a problem, why should BP worry?
After all, aren’t our regulatory agencies all there to protect workers and the general public? So don’t they know best? (/snark)
Yet BP seems to be responsible for the implementation clean up efforts. Why hasn’t the administration given local authorities the control to local authorities?!
Top down command and control is a disaster.
To whom? The federal government that is ‘directing’ BP? How the administration can trust BP to anything ethical and responsible is beyond me. As for OSHA and the EPA… they are more in the business of looking to find new streams of revenue through fines rather than looking to look after the health and safety of American workers.
in my perfect world, next week’s hearings would include a Ott/Michaels Steel Cage Match
Mornin’ All
They are only “little people”..
who cares?
this is 9-11 ground zero workers all over again…
they were lied to by the government…
We do not have unregulated free market capitalism. EPA and OSHA were created to protect workers from the risky negligence of BP yet they say there is no risk.
How do you explain that?
And what about all the sick workers who are too afraid of losing their jobs to report their illnesses?
pros at 8 is right. It’s 9/11 all over again. OSHA guy was on Wash Journal yesterday morning & that’s the email I sent him. He, of course, was being all sanctimonious.
Let’s face it…anyone who has come to trust in or rely upon the federal government to look after our individual health and safety is foolish. Anyone who would engage in clean up work with out any and all available safety equipment is inviting risks to their health.
That’s the problem with having BP contract for the workers. The state and local commnities should hire workers and simply send BP the bill.
The administration is to blame for relegating the federal response to merely ‘directing’ BPs efforts….these efforts should be seized from BP by the federal government and immediately delegated to local authorities. Workers should not be feeling so desperate or intimidated as to be playing roulette with their health. Personal responsibility and community action are needed here. Not the feds.
This is only anecdotal but my experience is that exposure toxicity is correlated with length of exposure. It is an cumulative process and when the toxic exposure reaches a certain threshold, the symptoms begin to express themselves. If it was up to me I would recommend respirators and skin protection for all of these workers. Cutting brush and logging is safer than oil spill clean up. Avoid it if you can possibly do so.
And to think, this is the same bureaucracy with which we have entrusted the health care of all Americans.
What if we were to put BP execs and the Obama administration on the beaches for a day?
That worked out so well in NOLA. /s
Rand? Rand? Is that you?
BP Media Blackout: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/bp-media-blackout-campaign-endorsed-white-house
You are correct about the cumulative effect. I’ve been reading studies conducted on 2 butoxyethanol. Older people are much more susceptible to adverse reactions. In addition to respiratory conditions, 2 butoxyethanol damages the liver and kidneys. Here is one study about increases in hemangiosarcomas from chronic inhalation:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/toxic-article/2-butoxyethanol-may-contribute-liver-hemangiosarcomas
BP is failing to be completely honest about something?
I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you.