It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Potential Disaster Looming: Stop the pumps in New Orleans Now!

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   
In case I have not driven this point home, the EPA is as DEPRAVED as is humanly possible! Have you any doubt?



Exceptions in new EPA rules would allow testing pesticides on children

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency's new rules on human testing, which the agency said last week would "categorically" protect children and pregnant women from pesticide testing, include numerous exemptions - including one that specifically allows testing of children who have been "abused and neglected."


This disgusts me beyond anything else I have read in a very long time. DOES THIS SOUND LIKE AMERICA TO YOU????

I have been following this issue for over a year. You can see that thread here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

HERE is an example where they have no problems lying!!! They hope people wont notice....WHY would anyone assume they are telling the truth about the waters in New Orleans?!?




posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   
loam awesome thread now if only I could find a merge button I think I should have posted here from the start yikes!



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Just found this: immediately prior to Katrina


Corps starts chemical testing in canal


"Based on their own tests and information in the corps' environmental statement, the groups contend a variety of toxic materials are in sediments that would be dug up when the lock is deepened and expanded. Their tests found polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; heavy metals, including lead, arsenic and mercury; and a high concentration of the chemical napthalene"



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   
lol Loam and I must be soulmates we've been looking at the same stuff and one the same track for days ~ scary!



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
In case I have not driven this point home, the EPA is as DEPRAVED as is


Exceptions in new EPA rules would allow testing pesticides on children

SHUT UP! WHAT



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
On September 8, 2005, the EPA said they had taken water samples in 6 locations.

On September 8, 2005, the EPA said they had taken water samples from 12 locations during the time period of September 3-5, 2005. But when reviewing the table information, we see that there were only 12 "biologically tested" samples from 6 locations and not 12 locations as indicated in the press release. ( Table. ) Adding to the confusion, the EPA published a map showing 19 "biologically tested" samples in 9 locations. ( Map.) On the same date, the EPA published a map showing only 6 "chemically tested" loactions conducted on September 3, 2005. ( Map.)

Then, yesterday, September 14, 2005, the EPA issues a press release indicating that they had posted flood water sampling data for chemicals from Sept. 4 and 6, 2005. ( EPA Reslease.)

Now remember, the EPA said on September 8, 2005, they had taken water samples in 6 locations and supported that with a map and hyperlinks, complete with addresses. But when we look at the newly published data on Spetember 14, 2005, we see a map clearly detailing 87 sites!

www.epa.gov..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


Analyzing the test data....

The EPA indicates 6 sites were chemically tested on September 3, 2005.( Here. )
The EPA indicates 10 additional sites were chemically tested on Spetember 4, 2005.( Here. )
The EPA indicates 13 additional sites were chemically tested on Spetember 6, 2005.( Here. )

Data for September 5 yet remains to be released.

So what does this all mean??? Sound confusing? It's meant to be.... They WANT it that way.

Let me point a few things out.

1) Why does the data released on September 14, 2005, show there were actually at a minimum of 29 sites that were chemically tested between September 3-6, 2005, when the September 8, 2005, press release clearly said there were only 6 sites??? Even if you consider the September 9, 2005 press release, it still fell short of 17 locations. Don't forget that the earlier data also provided yet another number- 9 locations....Either the EPA was lying then or is lying now....or do they have summer interns working on this stuff for them???

2) Why was address information released for the sites sampled on September 3, 2005, but for none of the other sites collected on later dates???

3) Why did the sample numbers appear sequential, but have obvious gaps? The September 4, 2005 samples begin with site numbers 16264-16285. Since data was released for only ten sites for that day, why were 11 numbers skipped in this series???

4) Same question as number 4, only we start with site numbers 8587-8858, with 258 numbers in the series missing.

5) Based on all the above, should we be expecting in the EPA's next release a minimum of test results from an additional 58 sites?

Look, folks, this isn't brain surgery. These contradictions are meant to be here. Like I said, they want it to be confusing in hopes a lazy media and lazy public wont notice they aren't really doing their job or might discover that they are hiding something.

I would trust NOTHING the EPA says at this point. It looks like complete BS to me.


[edit on 15-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
In case I have not driven this point home, the EPA is as DEPRAVED as is humanly possible! Have you any doubt?



Exceptions in new EPA rules would allow testing pesticides on children

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency's new rules on human testing, which the agency said last week would "categorically" protect children and pregnant women from pesticide testing, include numerous exemptions - including one that specifically allows testing of children who have been "abused and neglected."


This disgusts me beyond anything else I have read in a very long time. DOES THIS SOUND LIKE AMERICA TO YOU????

I have been following this issue for over a year. You can see that thread here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

HERE is an example where they have no problems lying!!! They hope people wont notice....WHY would anyone assume they are telling the truth about the waters in New Orleans?!?



Actually, that isn't what the proposed regulation state.

www.regulations.gov...

The issue is that in cases or studies involving children the requirement for parental assent may be waived and other, just as stringent requirements, subsituted, if the parents or guarinas are not fit.

In otherwords, the requirment is to protect children from being enrolled in testing programs by abusive parents.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

So what does this all mean??? Sound confusing? It's meant to be.... They WANT it that way.



Dude, give them a chance.

It takes time to put together and QA/QC the data, let alone publishing it on a web site.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

3) Why did the sample numbers appear sequential, but have obvious gaps? The September 4, 2005 samples begin with site numbers 16264-16285. Since data was released for only ten sites for that day, why were 11 numbers skipped in this series???

4) Same question as number 4, only we start with site numbers 8587-8858, with 258 numbers in the series missing.



From my own experience in collectin environmental samples there can be any number of reasons for that.

If the sample lables were preprinted, then it is easy for a batch of lables to get lost or out of sequence.

Sometimes the sample jars can get inadvertently cross contaminated in the field and can not be used. (Given the logistics of the sampling opperation, I suspect that this was an issue).

You are reading way to much into this.




posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
HowardRoark:

Even though this is off thread, I feel compelled to respond:

You said, with emphasis supplied:


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Actually, that isn't what the proposed regulation state.

www.regulations.gov...

The issue is that in cases or studies involving children the requirement for parental assent may be waived and other, just as stringent requirements, subsituted, if the parents or guarinas are not fit.

In otherwords, the requirment is to protect children from being enrolled in testing programs by abusive parents.


You are dead wrong. I don't know where you got that. For clarity, section 26.408(c), in its entirety, states:



(c) In addition to the provisions for waiver contained in § 26.116, if the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children),it may waive the consent requirements in subpart A of this part and paragraph (b) of this section, provided an appropriate mechanism for protecting the children who will participate as subjects in the research is substituted, and provided further that the waiver is not inconsistent with Federal, State or local law. The choice of an appropriate mechanism would depend upon the nature and purpose of the activities described in the protocol, the risk and anticipated benefit to the research subjects, and their age, maturity, status,and condition.


What this paragraph means is NOT that it "protects children from being enrolled in testing programs by abusive parents," as you state, but rather, the IRB may waive the requirement for parental or guardian permission if that requirement is not reasonable in the face of the IRB's determination under the additional conditions described in that paragraph. In other words, this is designed to cover children in the state's protective custody where termination of parental rights have not been effected. Moreover, there is nothing in that paragraph that suggests that such additional conditions are "just as stringent." The language merely requires an "appropriate mechanism" for protecting the child subjects, consistent with federal, state and local law. THAT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGAL STANDARD.

Back on thread....


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Dude, give them a chance.

It takes time to put together and QA/QC the data, let alone publishing it on a web site.



What does time have to do with what I maintain are willful inconsistencies in the EPA's statements and data? Either by September 8, 2005, they had sampled from 6 sites or a minimum of 29 sites. Given the importance of that information, is that the kind of quality you are prepared to accept from the EPA?



Originally posted by HowardRoark
From my own experience in collectin environmental samples there can be any number of reasons for that.

If the sample lables were preprinted, then it is easy for a batch of lables to get lost or out of sequence.

Sometimes the sample jars can get inadvertently cross contaminated in the field and can not be used. (Given the logistics of the sampling opperation, I suspect that this was an issue).

You are reading way to much into this.



"If" the samples were preprinted and "if" they were lost and "if" samples were cross contaminated...

And you say I'm reading too much into this??? Like I asked previously, do they have student interns running this effort? Give me a break...


[edit on 15-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

"If" the samples were preprinted and "if" they were lost and "if" samples were cross contaminated...

And you say I'm reading too much into this??? Like I asked previously, do they have student interns running this effort? Give me a break...


[edit on 15-9-2005 by loam]


Have you ever collected water samples?

I have. many many times. I know how the EPA does it.

As for the pesticide regs, I'll conceed that it is poorly writen so that it can be misconstrued. read the whole PDF.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Have you ever collected water samples?[/url]


I have. many many times. I know how the EPA does it.


Then you should know that collection methods are governed by the EPA under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

I fail to understand your point. How they collect has nothing to do with the fact that they consistently failed to disclose the correct number of sites in their press releases and continue to provide inconsistent data results on their site with regard to those locations. Moreover, there appears to be no rational basis for their selection of sites to test. THAT IS DELIBERATE!



Originally posted by HowardRoark
As for the pesticide regs, I'll conceed that it is poorly writen so that it can be misconstrued.


Lay people "misconstrue". Lawyers, judges and bureaucrats read the plain language of the rule. Moreover, the rule also allows for consideration of "ethically deficient" research under certain conditions. Yeah, that sounds like we have removed opportunities for abuse.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
read the whole PDF.


I have...and much more...



[edit on 16-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   



Toxic Threat Still Vague but Ominous, EPA Says Health risks are many but the measurements are inconclusive, agency chief says. Some contend the tests are inadequate.

By Marla Cone, Times Staff Writer


Calling Hurricane Katrina the largest disaster that the Environmental Protection Agency has ever encountered, the nation's top environmental official said Wednesday that the Gulf Coast was still facing an array of serious health threats, including lack of clean drinking water, astronomically high bacteria counts and unsafe levels of several toxic metals in floodwaters.

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said it was impossible to estimate how long the cleanup would take because no one knows the magnitude of the problems.


Mr. Johnson, isn't that your job?




Signs are emerging that there could be widespread hazardous waste in New Orleans that could delay rebuilding efforts, although the EPA so far says it has detected just three chemicals in the floodwaters at unsafe levels.

...

Some environmental researchers are suspicious of the reliability of the EPA's tests because they have reported no detectable amounts of benzene or several other substances in petroleum products, even though oily sheens are visible on the floodwaters.


You don't say?




But Johnson said petroleum residue has been absorbed into the dirt. He said the soil and other sediment contain so much petroleum-based material that it is hard to isolate specific compounds in the tests.


Huh? Does this look like soil?



We are talking about water samples, Mr. Johnson, not soil. You did test the water for petroleum-based material, did you not? If you couldn't find that, even in the face of every photograph taken of the waters in New Orleans and every first hand account of the obvious quality of the water, are you sure you were even in New Orleans??? Should we send you a map?




Johnson said the EPA has requested assistance from a panel of scientific experts on how to analyze the samples.


Huh? Aren't you supposed to have those kind of scientists with that kind of expertise? After all, isn't it the EPA's job to enforce the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act?

Wait, I remember. You have no competent scientists left, do you? You ran them out of your agency because their science was inconsistent with your political agenda. How unfortunate for you.....and us!




The visible oily waste in the sediments could mean massive amounts of soil may have to be excavated or treated, and perhaps taken to special landfills. Chemicals left in the soil can leach into groundwater and contaminate the air and drinking-water supplies, as well as crops and gardens.


Show me one Superfund site that the EPA has successfully reclamated, and people think we are going to be able to do that for an entire city? Oh, wait, I mean the entire Gulf region....We are still pumping this mess out into Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River, aren't we?




Johnson would not speculate on whether the contamination will delay rebuilding parts of the city.


No, becasue that isn't really your political decision to make, is it?




...

Some experts have questioned whether the tests can adequately assess the hazards.

John Froines, director of UCLA's Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, said just comparing the chemicals to drinking-water standards may not be enough to protect public health. Some, such as toxic ingredients in petroleum products and pesticides, can be absorbed through the skin and others can cause allergic reactions.

"There must be over 100,000 volunteers and National Guardsmen and other officials there," Froines said. "These people are likely to be wading in water, and they may have some of the most significant exposures.

"We know you can get massive uptake [of some chemicals] through the skin in certain occupational settings. I don't have a sense that anybody is thinking about that," Froines said.

Because the highest concentrations found so far are metals, the region "may have been spared" exposures similar to the World Trade Center disaster, where smoke and dust were toxic, he said.

"The question is what is going to happen to those metals?" Froines said. "There are long-term issues with respect to hazardous waste and plants taking up sediments, and people with gardens."

Federal and state officials, he said, should assemble a group of scientists and regulatory officials to determine which people may have been highly exposed and then consider testing their bodies for chemicals.

Although the nation has suffered other large floods, "this is not comparable at all, because of the scope and how high the water was and for how long, and the size of the population. We didn't have people wading in 25 feet of water for five days" after floods in the Midwest, said Roger Lewis, director of the St. Louis University School of Public Health's Environmental Health Research Lab.


Anyone doubt we will still be discussing this issue ten, twenty, thirty years from now?




Johnson acknowledged Wednesday that the EPA's floodwater tests offer "just a snapshot."


You don't say. Yes, it's like taking a picture of a few trees along the highway with a thirty car pile-up.




Environmental officials are also concerned that chemicals might be flowing off five Superfund sites — among the nation's most hazardous dumpsites — near New Orleans. One Superfund site, the Agriculture Street landfill, remains underwater. A cleanup occurred there in 2000, but some residue remains and the EPA has not tried to assess whether contaminants have flowed off the site.


Why???? According to this, you were within a half mile to two miles of the site on at least four seperate occassions.



Are you kidding????




Katrina leaves a toxic nightmare

Hurricane Katrina is rapidly becoming the worst environmental calamity in U.S. history, with oil spills rivaling the Exxon Valdez, hundreds of toxic sites still uncontrolled, and waterborne poisons soaking 160,000 homes.

New Orleans' flooded neighborhoods are awash with dangerous levels of bacteria and lead, and with lower but still potentially harmful amounts of mercury, pesticides and other chemicals. Much will wind up in the soil as the water drains, or in Lake Pontchartrain, hammering its already battered ecosystem.

Across southern Louisiana, the Coast Guard reported seven major oil spills from refineries or tank farms that totaled 6.7 million gallons, or 61 percent as much as the 11 million gallons that leaked into Alaska's Prince William Sound from the Exxon Valdez in 1989.

The total does not count the gasoline from gas stations and the more than 300,000 flooded cars, which was likely to add another 1 million to 2 million gallons. Nor does it count the oil from hundreds of smaller or undiscovered spills. Altogether, 396 calls had come in to the Coast Guard's national oil-spill hotline by Wednesday afternoon.

More than three-quarters of the oil from the Katrina spills had not been recovered by Wednesday, the Coast Guard said.

...

Besides the water, the city must deal with a mass of hazardous debris that Mr. Johnson could describe only as "enormous."

Thomas W. LaPoint, an aquatic biologist who heads the Institute for Applied Sciences at the University of North Texas, said history's infamous toxic sites might prove simple by comparison.

"This is pretty much unprecedented," said Dr. LaPoint. "At other toxic sites, such as Love Canal and Times Beach, there was a point source. Here, the potential for contamination is pretty widely spread throughout the area.

...

At the EPA's request, the Army Corps of Engineers put out floating barriers to try to stop some oil and gasoline before it enters the lake. But they won't stop the two most immediate threats in the water, high levels of bacteria and lead.

One site sampled Sept. 3, an Interstate 10 interchange north of the French Quarter, had lead 56 times higher than the amount that would be allowed in drinking water. Other samples taken days later across a much wider area were also high, but not near that mark.

Officials haven't pinpointed a source, but a likely suspect is the lead paint that for decades covered the city's huge stock of old houses.

...

So far the EPA has called the most attention to test results that exceeded safe drinking water limits, which are generally the strictest that the government enforces. But that approach obscures dozens of instances in which the water contained lesser amounts of pesticides, metals or other harmful substances that could still cause problems.

For example, at several test sites, the floodwater contained 2,4-D, a widely used weed killer. All were around 3 micrograms per liter, well below the 70-microgram limit for that chemical in drinking water.

However, that federal limit was set not because it's the safest level for people, but because current water treatment technology can't "reasonably" be required to achieve lower levels, the EPA says.

For many of the chemicals in the New Orleans floodwater, the agency hasn't established how much should be allowed in drinking water, so there's no way for the public to tell easily if the measured amounts might hurt people.

Tests also show that toxic substances in the floodwater will enter the coastal food chain.

Several water samples had mercury, a powerful nerve poison, above the amount allowed in saltwater environments in order to protect the long-term health of people eating fish or shellfish.

The results also show gaps in the current knowledge. Tests so far did not look at TCCD, the most widely studied form of dioxin.

Dr. Arnold Schecter, one of the world's foremost authorities on dioxin, said the tissues of fish or people, not floodwater, would be the best place to look for dioxin.

"These are fat-soluble compounds, so you're not going to see much in water or soil or air," said Dr. Schecter, professor of environmental science at the University of Texas School of Public Health at Houston's Dallas campus

Serious dioxin levels have been found in the southwest Louisiana town of Lake Charles, and Dr. Schecter said he'd be surprised if biological monitoring did not reveal a similar problem in New Orleans.

Another concern, he said, is that long-lasting pollutants will remain in higher concentrations and higher toxicity when the water dries up. "The question will be how much will get into people by the three routes: respiratory, gastrointestinal, and dermal or skin."

Blood tests might be necessary, he said.

...



Yeah, I want to live there.....



[edit on 16-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   
You go, loam!

Great compilation of research and relevant news coverage. ...Do you have any thoughts on the evacuation-and-rebuilding plans?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Let me point a few things out.

1) Why does the data released on September 14, 2005, show there were actually at a minimum of 29 sites that were chemically tested between September 3-6, 2005, when the September 8, 2005, press release clearly said there were only 6 sites??? Even if you consider the September 9, 2005 press release, it still fell short of 17 locations. Don't forget that the earlier data also provided yet another number- 9 locations....Either the EPA was lying then or is lying now....or do they have summer interns working on this stuff for them???





Loam, I really think you are putting way to much importance on this issue of when specific sample data was released.

For instance


Flood Water Analysis - At a news conference with CDC on 9/7, Administrator Johnson released initial sampling results of New Orleans flood waters from six locations. Preliminary information indicates that counts for E. Coli in sampled areas greatly exceed EPA's recommended levels for contact. Also lead concentrations exceeded drinking water action levels which would be a concern if the flood water was a child's source of drinking water. Given these preliminary results, emergency response personnel and the public should avoid direct contact with standing water when possible. Collection of flood water samples began 9/3 in downtown New Orleans . Samples were shipped to a Houston lab and a local lab in Lafayette, LA for analysis. Daily sampling is ongoing.
(Emphasis added)

www.epa.gov...

So these early press conferences released preliminary data.

So what if they later released a more complete set of data with additional sampling locations?

It takes time to analyze these samples. Furthermore, it takes time to QC/QC the samples and go through a rigorous validation procedure.

The fact that each press release only talks about the sample data that is being released at that time makes sense to me. It would be a lot more confusing if they talked about samples that they hadn’t even gotten the results for yet.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
quote:
Signs are emerging that there could be widespread hazardous waste in New Orleans that could delay rebuilding efforts, although the EPA so far says it has detected just three chemicals in the floodwaters at unsafe levels.

...

Some environmental researchers are suspicious of the reliability of the EPA's tests because they have reported no detectable amounts of benzene or several other substances in petroleum products, even though oily sheens are visible on the floodwaters.
_______________________________________________________________

Yea. Let's see how the above can be "misconstrued". We can always pretend that everything's alright and get the rebuilding effort underway pronto. 200,000 people are supposed to move back into their affluent non-flooded neighborhood next week. Let's see how well that goes.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Hey, Loam

EPA press briefing, confrence call

At 2:00 pm (not sure what time zone)


Call in



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I fail to understand your continued willingness to defend the actions (or inaction) of the EPA in this matter.

You state:


Originally posted by HowardRoark
So these early press conferences released preliminary data.

So what if they later released a more complete set of data with additional sampling locations?

It takes time to analyze these samples. Furthermore, it takes time to QC/QC the samples and go through a rigorous validation procedure.

The fact that each press release only talks about the sample data that is being released at that time makes sense to me. It would be a lot more confusing if they talked about samples that they hadn’t even gotten the results for yet.



What's your point?

This isn't just about the *results* of the samples, this is about their lack of initiative in the sampling process! Why are references to the number of sites sampled inconsistent?

Why have they only sampled residential areas and not industrial ones, where it is most logical one would find a problem? (This is analogous to fishing in the rain puddle next to a fully stocked lake!)

Why have they not tested the known HAZMAT and SUPERFUND sites within the city?

Why was significant sampling not conducted in all of those areas prior to the decision to pump the flood waters out of New Orleans?

Who made that decision, and by what process was that decision made that it would be sufficient to suspend federal law?


[edit on 16-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Hey, Loam

EPA press briefing, confrence call

At 2:00 pm (not sure what time zone)


Call in




Thanks, I'll be there.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Loam, I don’t want to keep hammering you on this, but you have an obvious bias that is preventing you from realistically evaluating the situation.

There are environmental issues in New Orleans, no one is denying that. The problem is, it is still too early to fully access the extent of the problem, yet you keep harping on trivialities.

For instance:

Originally posted by loam





But Johnson said petroleum residue has been absorbed into the dirt. He said the soil and other sediment contain so much petroleum-based material that it is hard to isolate specific compounds in the tests.


Huh? Does this look like soil?





The comment from Johnson was in relation to sample analysis of the sediment left behind after the flood waters had receded. Please try to keep everything in its proper context.

The issue for the residents of the city is how to clean up what was left behind.

Yes there are some major issues like oil spills, especially in the areas outside of the city itself.

I suspect that as more information comes in it will become clear that there are areas that were harder hit with contaminants than others.

Given the sheer size of the areas impacted, it will take a while to map out where the worst problems are.

I do suspect that many areas will turn out to be only moderately or lightly impacted by chemical contaminants.

Furthermore, the biggest long term issue will be the heavy metals. Lead, Cadmium and mercury mostly. These compounds will not biodegrade like most of the petroleum compounds will and can potentially cause long term problems in the fisheries of the gulf.

Unfortunately stopping the pumps is not an option.




top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join