What are you doing to test for that, just so I understand?

And the reason we were told for that is because the damage to the cells is so immediate and so acute that you can't pick up endocrine disruption.

And the reason that that acute toxicity is not showing up in your field studies is because the concentration that you are testing at is below the level that would cause it, or is it because the creatures you are testing are fundamentally…

However, it is unclear if this will limit the damage from the spill or cause even greater harm.

I think the notion that these are uncharted waters, we need to make sure that we apply adequate science to it.

We owe this to the communities along the Gulf Coast, but we also owe it to all Americans to assure them that we are prepared the next time such a disaster strikes.

To go back to what we do know about the dispersant that Chairman Boxer referred to, which has these characteristics of hazard to humans of liver damage, internal bleeding, and all those sorts of things, how does that transpire?

But what a lay person would consider to be an approval, that this particular chemical is safe for use in these circumstances, never anywhere in this process that I can see actually gets done.

I am not suggesting that we have perfect knowledge, I am not suggesting that we don't need more information and more monitoring.

That is why the National Contingency Plan explicitly states that having a product on the product schedule does not constitute approval by the EPA.

But there is no testing of any kind that is done about its toxicity or its health effects at that time by EPA?

But would you expect to yet? I mean, is this even the feeding season for some of the species?

I think another good closing word is a phrase that Ms. Savitz used, that we are continually asking our oceans to take one for the team.

Well, these two witnesses have been very helpful and very informative.

Particularly when you have what the Administrator referred to as a real emergency going on, the time at that point for the RRT process to go through a scientific evaluative process of determining what the toxicity consequences are off of…

And you are comfortable that that is a viable indicator?

So reforming that administrative process is something that is underway within EPA?

You found indication of endocrine disruption, but not scientifically significant endocrine disruption, or not a scientifically significant signal of endocrine disruption?

If a dispersant cannot meet minimum toxicity standards, then the dispersant should not be used on an oil spill.

If there are no adequate technologies or no safe chemicals to respond to spills, then drilling simply should not be allowed.

I can't think of another circumstance in which a regulatory agency approved something for use without actually coming to a formal decision that it is safe to be used and without any process other than that the manufacturer provides some…

It may be appropriate to differentiate within that list, and it may be important to have somebody other than the manufacturer in a basically unreviewed disclosure of certain toxicity data come to a decision about the safety or not of the…

And bioaccumulation can be a very powerful and concentrating force if the ultimate animal to which the human is exposed is at the top of the food chain.

We could be the Saudi Arabia of clean energy technology.

It could be as toxic as all get-out, and it still goes on the list as long as it meets the 45 percent effectiveness threshold.