http://www.sciencecorps.org/crudeoilhazards.htm

Dr. Michael Harbut, Karmanos Cancer Institute

Dr. Kathleen Burns, Sciencecorps

June 10, 2010   Version 2.0

Many people will be exposed to airborne and waterborne chemicals as a result of the BP Gulf of Mexico spill.  It is important to understand the potential toxic effects and take appropriate steps to reduce exposure and harm.   

This page contains information, primarily from federal sources, on health effects that can result from exposure to crude oil.  A tandem webpage that discusses potential heatlh effects of dispersants can be accessed at: www.sciencecorps.org/gulfspillchemicals.html

These webpages should not be relied upon for diagnosis or medical treatment and do not provide specific medical guidance, which must be obtained from an individual’s personal medical care provider. 

____________________________________

 Crude Oil Health Hazards

Crude oil contains hundreds of chemicals, many of them well established as being toxic to people.  Many of the crude oil chemicals are comprised hydrogen and carbon (e.g., simple straight chain paraffins, aromatic ring structures, naphthenes), and some also contain sulfur, nitrogen, heavy metals, and oxygen compounds. 

A list of common chemicals in crude oil is listed in Table D-1 of   the U.S. Centers for Disease Control “Toxicological Profile for Petroleum Hydrocarbons” at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp123.pdf  (CDC, 1999).

Crude oil composition varies slightly by its source, but its toxic properties are fairly consistent. Chemicals such as benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are very toxic components of crude oil and of high concern.  These and many other chemicals in crude oil are volatile, moving from the oil into the air.  Once airborne, they can blow over the ocean for miles, reaching communities far from the spill.  They may be noticed as petroleum odors. Consequently, both those working on the spill and people who are far from it can be exposed to crude oil chemicals in air.

To provide brief summaries of crude oil health hazards for the public, we prepared the following handouts that can be downloaded and printed.

www.sciencecorps.org/crudeoilhazards-public.pdf

www.sciencecorps.org/crudeoilhazards-workers.pdf

With respect to public policy, an emphasis on protection and prevention of disease is an appropriate public health strategy when faced with the potential for widespread contamination and public exposure to toxic chemicals.  

Exposure

Exposure can occur through skin contact, inhalation of contaminated air or soil, and ingestion of contaminated water or food. These can occur simultaneously.  Exposure pathways may result in localized toxicity (e.g., irritation of the skin following contact), but most health effects are systemic because ingredients can move throughout the body.  Exposure varies based on the duration and concentrations in contaminated media. Differences may result from location, work and personal activities, age, diet, use of protective equipment, and other factors. 

Concurrent exposure to other toxic chemicals at work and home must be considered when evaluating the potential toxic effects of crude oil chemicals.

Reassurances that crude oil reaching the shore is all “weathered” are contradicted in many locations where shoreline oil is not weathered.  When possible, obtain accurate local information from an objective source with the means to evaluate the oil’s composition. Unweathered crude oil contains the volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), including benzene, that are listed in the CDC document linked under “sources” below (see Table D-1).   Claims that weathered crude oil is safe are incorrect, although it is less toxic than unweathered crude oil with respect to the presence of VOCs.

Some chemicals in crude oil are volatile, moving into air easily, and these can often be detectable by smell.  Not all airborne chemicals have a detectable odor, so the absence of oil odors does not mean that there are no crude oil chemicals in the air.  Some information on the locations and amounts of chemicals is at: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/index.html  Unfortunately, the information is very limited and not readily accessible, as discussed on our tandem webpage at: www.sciencecorps.org/gulfspillchemicals.html under the heading: “Failure of the Federal Government to Fully Disclose Test Results”. 

Reducing exposure will invariably reduce harm. OSHA guidance on protective strategies for oil spill response workers is available at: http://www.osha.gov/Publications/3172/3172.html  A protective approach requires minimizing the amount of exposure to crude oil chemicals.

 

Basic Physiological Effects

Crude oil is a complex mixture of chemicals that have varying abilities to be absorbed into the body through the skin, lungs, and during digestion of food and water. Most components of crude oil enter the bloodstream rapidly when they are inhaled or swallowed. Crude oil contains chemicals that readily penetrate cell walls, damage cell structures, including DNA, and alter the function of the cells and the organs where they are located. Crude oil is toxic, and ingredients can damage every system in the body:

respiratory                                                  nervous system, including the brain

liver                                                             reproductive/urogenital system

kidneys                                                       endocrine system

circulatory system                                       gastrointestinal system

immune system                                           sensory systems

musculoskeletal system                              hematopoietic system (blood forming)

skin and integumentary system                  disruption of normal metabolism

Damaging or altering these systems causes a wide range of diseases and conditions. In addition, interference with normal growth and development through endocrine disruption and direct damage to fetal tissue is caused by many crude oil ingredients (CDC, 1999). DNA damage can cause cancer and multi-generational birth defects.

 

 

Acute Exposure Hazards – brief exposure at relatively high levels[1]

Crude oil contains many chemicals that can irritate the skin and mucous membranes on contact.  Irritant effects can range from slight reddening to burning, swelling (edema), pain, and permanent skin damage.   Commonly reported effects of acute exposure to crude oil through inhalation or ingestion include difficulty breathing, headaches, dizziness, nausea, confusion, and other central nervous system effects. These are more likely to be noticed than potentially more serious effects that don’t have obvious signs and symptoms: lung, liver and kidney damage, infertility, immune system suppression, disruption of hormone levels, blood disorders, mutations, and cancer. 

Chronic Exposure Hazards – long-term exposure at relatively low levels

This type of exposure should be avoided, if at all possible, because the potential for serious health damage is substantial.  Chronic health effects are typically evaluated for specific crude oil components (see CDC, 1999), and vary from cancer to permanent neurological damage.  They cover a range of diseases affecting all the organ systems listed above.

Susceptible Subgroups

Children are vulnerable to toxic chemicals in crude oil that disrupt normal growth and development.  Their brains are highly susceptible to many neurotoxic ingredients. Endocrine disruptors in crude oil can cause abnormal growth, infertility, and other health conditions. Children’s exposures may be higher than adults and can include contaminated soil or sand. Newborns are especially vulnerable due to incompletely formed immune and detoxification systems.

Many people with medical conditions are more susceptible to crude oil toxicity because chemical ingredients can damage organ systems that are already impaired. Specific susceptibilities depend on the medical condition (e.g., inhalation poses risks for those with asthma and other respiratory conditions).

People taking medications that reduce their detoxification ability, and those taking acetaminophen, aspirin, haloperidol, who have nutritional deficiencies or who concurrently drink alcohol may be more susceptible. Some inherited enzyme deficiencies also increase susceptibility (listed in CDC, 1999).

People exposed to other toxic chemicals at work or home may be at higher risk.

Pregnancy places increased stress on many organ systems, including the liver, kidneys, and cardiovascular system. Chemicals in crude oil that are toxic to these same systems can pose serious health risks. Pregnancy also requires a careful balance of hormones to maintain a health pregnancy and healthy baby. Endocrine disruptors in crude oil can jeopardize the hormone balance.

The developing fetus is susceptible to the toxic effects of many chemicals in crude oil. Many cause mutations, endocrine disruption, skeletal deformities, and other types of birth defects.

Personal and Public Protection

It is critical that people who work with or around crude oil wear appropriate personal protective equipment such as gloves, masks, respirators, and water repellant clothing, to minimize exposure.  The necessary equipment will depend on the kind of exposure that can occur (dermal, inhalation, ingestion). See OSHA guidance at the OSHA, 2010 link below. 

Susceptible members of the public require notice when exposure may occur (e.g., when contaminated air masses move inland) so they can take protective actions.

Sources

CDC, 1999:  http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp123.pdf

OSHA, 2010: http://www.osha.gov/Publications/3172/3172.html

NLM: http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/dimrc/oilspills.html – very limited information on human health

The National Toxicology Program (NIEHS-NIH) provides information on carcinogenic crude oil ingredients (e.g., benzene) & limited information on reproductive hazards http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/

California’s EPA provides a list of chemicals know to cause cancer and/or reproductive harm: http://www.oehha.org/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single040210.pdf

Children’s Health – International pediatric consensus statement regarding children’s susceptibility to toxic chemicals: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119425377/HTMLSTART  This contains a link to 120 scientific papers presented at the Conference on Children’s Susceptibility to Environmental Hazards.

Federal focus on children’s environmental health including policies designed to protect children: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/homepage.htm 

The medical literature can be consulted via the National Library of Medicine to obtain the most current information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&TabCmd=Limits 

Authors

Michael R. Harbut, MD, MPH, FCCP
Professor, Internal Medicine, Wayne State University
Chief, Center for Occupational & Environmental Medicine

Director,  Environmental Cancer Initiative
Karmanos Cancer Institute
118 N. Washington,

Royal Oak, Michigan 48067-1751
248.547.9100

e-mail: harbutm@karmanos.org

Kathleen Burns, Ph.D.

Director

Sciencecorps

Lexington, Massachusetts

www.sciencecorps.org

---

[1] The exposure of susceptible individuals, such as newborns and people with specific health problems, may result in acute exposure health effects at levels that would not result in observable harm in healthy adults.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.sciencecorps.org/gulfspillchemicals.html

June 10, 2010     

 

Many products are used on oil spills, including dispersants, surface washing and collecting agents, and bioremediation agents. This webpage discusses potential health effects of the dispersants used on the BP Gulf of Mexico spill through June 10, 2010. 

 

Potential health effects that are discussed on this webpage were determined based on a review of peer reviewed medical science obtained primarily from federal sources.  This webpage offers information to the health community and the public to improve access to relevant medical science, inform protective actions, and assist in identifying susceptible populations.  A discussion of the toxicity of dispersant chemicals used to date and harm they can cause in combination with crude oil should be used with a tandem webpage on crude oil hazards. Crude oil and dispersants contain chemicals that are hazardous individually and in combination. The likelihood of harm depends on dose and individual susceptibility.

This webpage should not be relied upon for diagnosis or medical treatment and does not provide specific medical guidance, which must be obtained from an individual’s personal medical care provider. 

____________________________________

The following information is provided on this webpage:

General characteristics of dispersants

Micelles

Chemical ingredient issues

Information on the two products in use: Corexit 9527A and 9500A

Crude oil and dispersants combined with summary of health hazards

Failure of the government to fully disclose testing results

Essential information list provided to Congress

EPA ingredient list matched to chemicals on this website

Chemical ingredients that are discussed include the following:

propylene glycol

polypropylene glycol butyl ether

DSS

2-butoxyethanol (2-BE)

hydrotreated light petroleum distillates

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/06/support-for-oil-drilling-.html

A Run at the Latest Data from ABC’s Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer

June 09, 2010 1:00 PM
Public support for oil drilling has declined in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill, with little backing specifically for the increased offshore drilling President Obama proposed barely a month before the spill began. The broadest interest, instead, is in renewable energy sources.

Fifty-two percent of Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll continue to support federal action to increase oil drilling in general as a way to address the country’s energy needs. But that’s down from 64 percent last summer and 67 percent in 2001.

In another question, just 25 percent specifically favor increased drilling offshore, as Obama had proposed but subsequently put on hold pending a safety review. A plurality (41 percent) would hold offshore drilling steady, rather than decrease it (31 percent).

There’s a range of factors behind these views. The public divides about evenly on whether the spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an isolated incident or a sign of broader problems with offshore drilling. More blame is placed on inadequate enforcement than on too-weak regulations, but majorities see both as involved (63 and 55 percent, respectively). And the greatest blame, as reported Monday, is on the oil company BP and its drilling partners, for taking unnecessary risks.

Such views matter. Among people who see the Deepwater Horizon spill as an isolated incident, 69 percent support more oil drilling overall. That plummets to 36 percent among those who see the spill as a sign of broader problems. Support for drilling also is nearly 20 points higher among the relatively few who don’t see the current spill as a major environmental disaster.

The trend isn’t a surprise  – as reported previously, concern about offshore drilling spiked after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989.

The Obama administration on Tuesday moved to resume shallow-water offshore drilling, with toughened safety rules, a subject on which Interior Secretary Ken Salazar testifies before Congress today. New deep-water drilling remains on hold pending further review.

ALTERNATIVES/GROUPS – Americans divide on another energy option, increased federal support for the construction of nuclear power plants, with 49 percent in favor, 46 percent opposed. The far more popular option, as in past years, is development of solar and wind power, with 87 percent support – including 80 percent who feel strongly about it.
There are differences among groups. Increased oil drilling is more popular among men than women, 58 percent vs. 46 percent, and, as in the past, there’s a much bigger gap on nuclear power – 63 percent support from men, just 37 percent among women.
Drilling gets much less support among young adults than their elders, and there are partisan and ideological gaps as well, with conservatives and Republicans more supportive, liberals and Democrats less so. Specifically on offshore drilling, support peaks, at 44 percent, among conservative Republicans, compared with a low of just 12 percent among liberals.

Click here for questions and overall results.
June 9, 2010 | Permalink | User Comments (3)
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he’s covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years – conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division’s standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC’s reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored last year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/08/uk.rig.inspections/?hpt=Sbin

By the CNN Wire Staff
June 8, 2010 7:21 a.m. EDT
London, England (CNN) — Britain will step up its inspection of North Sea drilling rigs following the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the government announced Tuesday.

The government will also increase monitoring of offshore drilling compliance and has asked a new oil industry group to report on Britain’s ability to prevent and respond to oil spills, Energy Secretary Chris Huhne said.

“The events unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico are devastating and will be enduring,” Huhne said in a statement. “What we are seeing will transform the regulation of deep water drilling worldwide. It’s my responsibility to make sure that the oil and gas industry maintains the highest practices here in U.K. waters.”
Current measures are up to standards but must be strengthened in light of the Gulf of Mexico spill, Huhne said.

“It’s clear that our safety and environmental regulatory regime is fit for purpose,” he said. “It is already among the most robust in the world and the industry’s record in the North Sea is strong. For example, we already separate regulation of operations and safety.

“But the Deepwater Horizon gives us pause for thought and, given the beginning of exploration in deeper waters West of Shetland, there is every reason to increase our vigilance.”

Tougher steps are already being taken, Huhne said.

They include doubling the number of drilling rig inspections by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), which is responsible for licensing, exploration, and regulation of oil and gas developments on the U.K. Continental Shelf, he said.

The DECC is also reviewing the indemnity and insurance requirements for operators on the U.K. Continental Shelf.

Huhne said Britain’s stringent safety regulations came into force after the Piper Alpha disaster in July 1988, when a gas leak led to a major fire that engulfed the platform in the North Sea. Of the 229 people aboard the rig, 167 died.
Operators of oil rigs must now analyze the potential dangers on an installation, the consequences of any incident, and their methods to control the risks.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.truth-out.org/plan-burn-excess-oil-from-bp-well-raises-health-questions60389
Sunday 13 June 2010
by: Renee Schoof and Marisa Taylor  |  McClatchy Newspapers

Gas is burned at the site of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. (Photo: Petty Officer 3rd Class Patrick Kelley / DVIDSHUB)

Washington – Plans to burn hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil from BP’s blown-out well are raising new questions about the health and safety of the thousands of workers on rigs and vessels near the spill site.

BP and the federal government are in new territory once again in dealing with the nation’s worst environmental disaster: There’s never been such a huge flaring of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, or possibly anywhere.

The incineration of such huge amounts of oil combined with the black clouds of smoke already wafting over the Gulf waters from controlled burns of surface oil create pollution hazards for the estimated 2,000 people working in the area.

Dozens of rigs and ships are clustered in the area around the spill site.

The Discoverer Enterprise, the main recovery ship, is recovering as much as 15,000 barrels of oil a day through a pipe from the wellhead. A second vessel, the Q4000, is being prepared to pull up more oil and burn it. Experts say it could be burning 10,000 barrels, or 420,000 gallons, a day.

Dr. Phil Harber, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the burning oil could expose workers to toxins that might cause severe respiratory irritation, asthma attacks and inflamed airways depending on how the burns are handled. Burning oil is a fairly common method of relieving pressure in refinery operations, he said.

“But the magnitude is a concern,” said Harber, who’s also the chief of UCLA’s division of occupational and environmental medicine.

The other worry, he said, is if the wind carries off the thick clouds, “there are hundreds of ships in the area, and those workers could have significant exposures and perhaps less protection because the exposures would be unanticipated,” he said.

Harmful byproducts of burning the light crude flowing into the Gulf include fine particles; toxic gases such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which result from the incomplete burning of carbon-containing materials such as oil; and volatile organic compounds such as benzene toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene.

EPA’s stationary monitors and mobile laboratories are checking for pollutants from the spill, but have found that air quality levels for ozone and particulates that are normal on the coast for this time of year. The agency has reported that it’s also found low levels of chemicals from the oil that produce odors and can cause short-term effects such as headaches or nausea.

Diane Bailey, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, questioned why the Coast Guard decided to allow the oil to be burned.

“It seems like a no-brainer that you wouldn’t want to do this,” she said. “Maybe there’s just such a logistical challenge in getting it onshore and getting it processed that they decided this is the cheapest, easiest thing to do. But the possible acute health problems should be of a greater concern.”

The Q4000 is expected to begin operations at the end of next week, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government’s coordinator on the spill, said Friday on MSNBC. The Q4000 has a crew of 122.

In addition, there are two rigs digging relief wells that eventually will attempt to shut off the gushing oil. More than a dozen remotely operated vehicles are at work at the spill, a mile below the surface, and each requires its own platform where its controllers work.

Allen said at a briefing on Friday that typically there are 25 to 30 vessels working within two square miles around the wellhead.

Allen said that once BP makes improvements and increases its capacity to capture the oil, it no longer would burn oil from the Q4000. However, those improvements aren’t expected until July.
BP then will install a floating pipe to extract the oil and bring in a larger production facility.
The new burning comes as BP’s plan to protect workers fighting the massive oil spill has come under criticism for exposing them to higher levels of toxic chemicals than generally accepted practices permit.

Moreover, BP isn’t required to give workers respirators, to evacuate them from danger zones, or to take other precautions until conditions are more dangerous.

Critics are questioning the quality of the company’s plan as dozens of oil spill workers are becoming sick.

BP and government health and safety officials are monitoring air pollutants offshore and haven’t found toxins that exceed federal standards. However, outside experts say the current levels still could pose health risks, and health and safety officials acknowledge that they are struggling with whether to require certain workers to wear respirators.

Residents in the coastal communities – especially babies and people with asthma or serious heart problems – also could be vulnerable to any possible toxins from the burn-off.

The EPA also monitors air quality from the air when burns are set off, said spokeswoman Adora Andy. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration P-3 “Hurricane Hunter” aircraft, configured as a chemistry lab, also measured pollutants from 200 feet to 1,000 feet above the surface.

“We’re taking every step we can to ensure the health and safety of Gulf Coast residents and oil spill responders,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said in a statement Tuesday when NOAA announced the P-3 air check flights.

Richard Haut, a senior research scientist at the Houston Advanced Research Center, a nonprofit group that studies economic and environmental issues, said the flare that will burn the oil will be more controlled and burn more cleanly the fires set on the surface to get rid of oil. The surface fires are the main concern in terms of the health of workers in the area, he said.

Allen Friday said that about 90,000 barrels of oil have been burned so far on the surface in the 53 days since the Deepwater Horizon exploded.

Stephen Harris of Schlumberger Limited, the company that makes the equipment that will burn the oil, called the EverGreen, said that excess oil and gas have been burned off around the world for the past 40 years.

Kent Wells, a BP vice president, said the burner hasn’t been used before in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil and gas will be burned separately. Wells said air would be injected into the oil so it would burn more cleanly.
_________________________

(Mark Seibel contributed to this article.)   Special thanks to Richard Charter