Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Oil disappears...ha, ha, ha...or has it gone toxic underwater?
Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:15 PM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Back in May, BP's chief executive told a British newspaper that "the Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean," and the vast amounts of oil and chemical dispersants dumped into it were small by comparison. After he said that, BP's well leaked for two more months. Hayward's upbeat assessment was cast as one of many gaffes committed on his way to resignation. Now, 14 days after the well was closed and 100 days after the blowout, U.S. government scientists are working on calculations that could shed some light on Hayward's analysis (even if they can't shed light on why he said it). They are trying to figure out where all the oil went. Up to 4 million barrels (167 million gallons), the vast majority of the spill, remains unaccounted for in government statistics. Some of it has, most likely, been cleaned up by nature. Other amounts may be gone from the water, but they could have taken on a second life as contaminants in the air, or in landfills around the Gulf Coast. And some oil is still out there -- probably mixed with chemical dispersants. Some scientists have described it floating in underwater clouds, which one compared to a toxic fog. "That stuff's somewhere," said James H. Cowan Jr., a professor at Louisiana State University. His research has shown concentrations of oil still floating miles from the wellhead. "It's going to be with us for a while. I'm worried about some habitats being exposed chronically to low concentrations of toxins. . . . If the water's contaminated, the animals are going to be contaminated."
Quote:Hugh Kaufman, senior policy analyst at the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the US Environmental Protection Agency, says the EPA is covering up the toxic effects of the dispersant used to help combat the oil spill. Kaufman has never shirked from going public when he's found the EPA to be in the wrong, something that has made his career with the EPA rocky at times. Kaufman has been ringing the alarm bell over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill since it began. On Tuesday, Kaufman, told Democracy Now in an exclusive interview that the EPA is covering up the toxic effects of the dispersant used to help combat the oil spill, as well as misleading the public and the government. BP, he said, had tried to hide the true magnitude of the spill by using dispersants. While noting that BP couldn't hide the spill any longer due to having to make its live underwater camera available to the public, Kaufman said the use of dispersants had not slowed.Quote:"... Consequently, we have people, wildlife—we have dolphins that are hemorrhaging. People who work near it are hemorrhaging internally. And that’s what dispersants are supposed to do. EPA now is taking the position that they really don’t know how dangerous it is, even though if you read the label, it tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic—it’s an economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public."And that's not all. Kaufman alludes to possible collusion between one owner of BP, BlackRock, and the United States government to cover up the extent of the Deepwater Horizon spill. "Follow the money," Kaufman said, referring to an article in Vanity Fair about Larry Fink, a man who owns shares in a great deal of corporate America. Fink owns BlackRock, and BlackRock owns a significant interest in BP. The dispersant used in the Gulf oil spill, Corexit, is said to be safe according to its manufacturer. That company, Nalco, claims "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done, and continues to do, extensive monitoring and data collection in relation to the use of dispersants as a remediation tool in the Gulf oil spill. The results of the monitoring continue to show that COREXIT products are safe and effective." It should be no surprise to learn that BlackRock also owns a sizable portion of Nalco Holding Company, the maker of Corexit.
Quote:"... Consequently, we have people, wildlife—we have dolphins that are hemorrhaging. People who work near it are hemorrhaging internally. And that’s what dispersants are supposed to do. EPA now is taking the position that they really don’t know how dangerous it is, even though if you read the label, it tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic—it’s an economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public."
Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:38 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Quote: The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill — he calls it "the leak" — is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype. Well, Limbaugh has a point. The Deepwater Horizon explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no leak; it's the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It's also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far — while it's important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago — it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007202,00.html#ixzz0v7Ljguq7
Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:24 PM
Quote:The potential long-term damage that underwater oil plumes and an unprecedented amount of chemical dispersants that BP has spread in the area could have on the region's deep-water ecosystems and food chains might not be known for years.
Quote:BP's own air testing (not even the EPA's) from early July showed 20% of samples had 2-butoxyethanol [sp] levels above acceptable. this is the chemical from Corexit 9527 (or perhaps "derived" from some other chemical reactions of 9500 and the various oil states) that causes internal bleeding --and it's at toxic levels across a fifth of the spill area. new orleans breathes this if the wind is right.
Quote:Break down the oil slick, keep it off the shores: that's grounds for pumping toxic dispersant into the Gulf, say clean-up overseers. Susan Shaw shows evidence it's sparing some beaches only at devastating cost to the health of the deep sea. For two decades, Susan Shaw has investigated the effects of environmental chemicals in marine animals. She is credited as the first scientist to show that flame-retardant chemicals in consumer products have contaminated marine mammals and commercially important fish stocks in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. An outspoken and influential voice on ocean pollution, Shaw dove in the Gulf oil slick in May and observed first-hand how oil and dispersants are impacting life in the water column. The experience prompted her to call for a collaborative, Gulf-wide effort to track effects as the toxins ripple through the food web. She was instrumental in creating the Consensus Statement opposing further use of dispersants in the Gulf. Shaw serves on the International Panel on Chemical Pollution, a select group of scientists urging policymakers to improve management of toxic chemicals.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:31 PM
Quote: So you have no problem with toxic chemicals, apparently. Okay, you're entitled to your opinion.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:34 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote: The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill — he calls it "the leak" — is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype. Well, Limbaugh has a point. The Deepwater Horizon explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no leak; it's the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It's also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far — while it's important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago — it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007202,00.html#ixzz0v7Ljguq7 funny, now Time Mag. agrees with Rush ? Strange times indeed.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:36 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:37 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote: So you have no problem with toxic chemicals, apparently. Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. WTF are you even talking about ? Where in the hell have I even remotely made any sort of comment or indication of that position ,what so ever ? Oh, that's right.....I've made no such claim. Idiot.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:38 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Stalk much ? Of course you do.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:47 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:49 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:18 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2:Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote: So you have no problem with toxic chemicals, apparently. Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. WTF are you even talking about ? Where in the hell have I even remotely made any sort of comment or indication of that position ,what so ever ? Oh, that's right.....I've made no such claim. Idiot. Nope, but the article you put up, and what you said about it, indicated that you believe it's not as bad as it was expected to be.
Quote: Ergo, you must not mind the fact that there is 1 million gallons of toxic chemicals underwater which will take their toll for years to come. You were backing Rush saying "it's no big deal"; I was telling you that, despite what we can SEE, it IS a big deal and those chemicals will show us how big in the years to come.
Quote: NIKI2 Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 17:43 Raptor's right...and you can thank BP for our not seeing it on the surface anymore...it's underwater, they drove it there with their toxic "dispersants" (which didn't), and it will affect things for a long, long time to come.
Quote: GEEZER Rule 35: That which does not kill me has made a tactical error Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 18:44 Quote: Originally posted by Niki2: Crappy's right... Interesting how you can agree with someone and insult them at the same time. Does that seem right to you?
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:24 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: MAYBE the MSM is spinning the news of the " missing " oil as a means of helping their chosen on, Obama. If there's no REAL crisis, then there's no story. If there's no story, then the anger by the Gulf coasters can be written off as purely racial in nature, ( being Southern and mostly white, of course...it's an easy sell ). The MSM can then move on, ignore the issue entirely, and as other stories come up in the news cycle ( news never sleeps, ya know ) the public will soon forget about all those angry GOP governors and parish presidents and such.....
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:25 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Stalk much ? Of course you do. ... says the stalker...
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:27 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:38 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:40 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: "chosen on " = chosen one, typo nazi punk. Glad you're here to pick nits, while the rest of us adults are busy talking issues. Now, go play in traffic.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:43 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Those were YOU rules, brainless.
Quote: If I reply in a thread, it'll be to the original post, unlike you, who simply ducks in , which ever forum , just to tack on something after I've already posted.
Quote: And stop copying my ideas. Please.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:44 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: "chosen on " = chosen one, typo nazi punk. Glad you're here to pick nits, while the rest of us adults are busy talking issues. Now, go play in traffic. Sorry, you'll have to keep playing with yourself. And don't you dare go back and edit that post! Not after calling Niki out for it, and wrongly accusing me of it. You'd hate to be a hypocrite, right? Oh, no you wouldn't; you LOVE being a hypocrite!
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:57 PM
Quote:Funny, now Time Mag. agrees with Rush ?
Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:58 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: "chosen on " = chosen one, typo nazi punk. Glad you're here to pick nits, while the rest of us adults are busy talking issues. Now, go play in traffic. Sorry, you'll have to keep playing with yourself. And don't you dare go back and edit that post! Not after calling Niki out for it, and wrongly accusing me of it. You'd hate to be a hypocrite, right? Oh, no you wouldn't; you LOVE being a hypocrite! I'll do what ever the hell I want,with my post, so fuck you very much.
Quote: If I feel the need to self edit, or not, so be it. What you and your lady Douchbag friend do is completely different, and you know it...
Quote: There's nothing in the least bit hypocritical in correcting one's spelling, or refining a thought, but when you go back and " fix " a post , after the fact, to try to win an argument.... that's a punk move. You're changing the point that was previously made, not correcting a typo.
Quote: But you're too dense to understand the difference. GED certified, and all.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:04 PM
Quote:I'll do what ever the hell I want,with my post
Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:13 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:19 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Humorous. You accuse Mike of stalking you. So you're accusing RivKaneZit and Wulf of stalking ME (since they come in to do nothing but snark) and ignoring all the times you've joined a thread just to snark someone? That's pretty funny. There ARE no rules, Crappy, you know that; if there were, half the attacks and insults here wouldn't be allowed.Quote:I'll do what ever the hell I want,with my postAs can anyone else. And if YOU can go back and self-edit, why are you accusing me of doing so??? Especially given I did so out of COURTESY, which, again, blows my mind. So we're all agreed then; anyone can respond to anyone; anyone can do whatever the hell they want with their post; anyone can self-edit anything they want. That sounds fair.
Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:21 PM
Quote:Quote: Originally posted by Niki2:Funny, now Time Mag. agrees with Rush ?That clearly indicates your intention in posting what you did. Period.
Quote: Originally posted by Niki2:Funny, now Time Mag. agrees with Rush ?
Quote: I reject your conspiracy theory out of hand.
Quote: First you guys say Obama’s inflating it to use to pass his agenda, now this...you really need to get your theories straight. The one running statement is “Whatever it is, Obama’s behind it!” Doesn’t cut the mustard.
Quote: Add to that, if MSNBC is covering the story that the oil is invisible, but nonetheless toxic underwater and causing damage, doesn't that destroy your whole theory? Isn't that the most liberal of liberal MSM?
Quote: Yes, you posted that and I agreed. Which is part of why I found it so strange that you would put up an article in direct opposition to that earlier position.
Quote:If I misunderstood your purpose in putting up the article, I apologize.
Quote: On the other hand, you just reversed yourself, after saying the “Lord and Lady Douchebag” was just a funny about SNL, you called me Lady Douchebag. You ought to choose one or the other and stick to it.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL