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.

 

BP Begins Continuously Spraying Oil Dispersants

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

BP Begins Continuously Spraying Oil Dispersants


www.cbsnews.com

EPA Approves First-Ever Plan to Pump Chemical Deep Underwater Near Leak Site

(CBS/AP) A BP official is telling The Associated Press that the company has received federal approval to continuously spray chemicals underwater on the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP PLC spokesman Mark Proegler said the company received Environmental Protection Agency approval and began pumping dispersant on the site starting at 4:30 a.m. Monday. The company plans to continue spraying and taking tests.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
OK, so not only is the spill pumping thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf a day, but they are adding to it by pumping highly toxic Corexit 9500 on top of it.

Thing is, dispersant doesn't do anything but make it sink into the water, or emulsify.

So it's still there, mixed now with chemicals, and not floating on the surface so it can be skimmed. Who knows what the currents at 5000 ft are doing.

It's becoming more obvious that this pollution disaster of historic relevance is being done purposefully.

After all, TPTB have food, water stashes deep underground, all over the world. The Doomsday seed vault isn't built because they are expecting sunny days ahead.

www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com...

www.cbsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Ok thats not cool at all do they have any idea how toxic the rain will be during hurricane season the health impacts will be catastrophic as well to homes and people as well as the all ready damaged eco-systems.have they not thought that hurricanes evaporate water from the gulf




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Why don't just blow up the hole? WHY? They could drill another one.

The amount of time and money and oil that has been wasted over this is incredible. Any losses they would have taken from shutting the hole are simply dwarfed by the losses they're taking having to clean up the mess.

It hardly needs to be a nuke. Why can't they just torpedo the hole? Lower a MOAB into it?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Haha....are you kidding me...210,000 gallons of poison a day is gushing out into the sea and they want to go and pour more poison on top of it all...they have to be retarded right? This has to be the worste possible solution I've heard...it's not even a solution...it's more likely to make the problem worse...



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Corexit 9500 I had to look it up, I am sure there is alot more info on it but I don't have the time now, I will just paste a few pionts of interest.

www.sciencedirect.com... ocanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1329855578&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ccc769f54dc7c6f52e6ec5b10747c00a

which states that it is " these data indicate Corexit 9500 to be of similar toxicity to Corexit 9527 and 9554 "

Corexit 9527

"In the control, the hatching rate of the eggs was 95·55% ± 1·74%. However, it was reduced drastically with increasing concentrations of Corexit 9527. A 100% inhibition of egg hatchability was found."

"The toxicity of Corexit 9527 to ciliate protozoa was determined on the basis of growth rate. Chemically dispersed oil was more toxic than either the dispersant or crude oil alone."

Will have to look into this more but Corexit does not sound like nice stuff!
What really got me was the last statement that chemically dispersed oil is more toxic than the dispersant or oil alone!!!

cheers



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by belial259
 


Hmm, I just came across something interesting that may answer your question, as many have posed it.

Here are some pics of the oil.





I'm surprised that more people are not asking, why is the oil red? Well, I did a little searching. I found this for red oil



Red oil is defined as a substance of varying composition formed when an organic solution, typically tri-n-butyl phosphate (TBP, an agent used for extracting heavy metals in nuclear reprocessing plants) and its diluent, comes in contact with concentrated nitric acid at a temperature above 120 °C.

Red oil is relatively stable below 130 °C, but it can decompose explosively when its temperature is raised above 130 °C. Three red oil events have occurred in the United States: at the Hanford Site in 1953, and at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in 1953 and 1975. A red oil explosion also occurred in 1993 at the Tomsk-7 site at Seversk, Russia.

en.wikipedia.org...

Tri-n-butyl phosphate. Where have I seen that before?


Experts say the problem of toxic "bleed air" on airplanes has been known to the airline industry since the 1950s, but "air carriers and aircraft manufacturers have turned a blind eye to this problem and failed to equip their planes with sensors or filters to keep toxic chemicals out of the cabin." As a result, "the only things filtering this stuff out of the cabin are the lungs of the passengers and crew," they add.

The bleed air can be laced with a chemical, tricresyl phosphate (TCP), an organophosphate, or other toxic mixtures of chemicals that have been linked to serious respiratory problems, memory loss, neurological illnesses and even brain damage.

www.aviationtoday.com...

Organophosphate are highly toxic to anything that breaths. VX nerve gas in an organophosphate compound.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
BRILLIANT!

2nd line



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
This is terrible. We humans can be a bunch of butt holes sometimes (I want to use another term). So let's fight one ecological disaster by creating another one? Good gawd, people are stupid.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


No, I think people are smart. Too smart. Just like the tower of Babylon, or Atlantis, people thought they were too smart, and their civilization was wiped out.

The Mayan were smart. The Egyptians, the Romans, all societies run by people who were smart, or at least they thought.

This oil spill is no accident.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911stinks

This oil spill is no accident.


Chilling thought. What exactly do you mean by this? I've heard many say something to this effect but I'm not sure I quite get it. Unless you're simply saying "they" want to destroy our precious planet to wipe us "undesirables" off the face of the Earth.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Hi!!!! I was seamans for 18 years, once we had an pollution event inside the harbour meantime with refuelling the deposits tanks of the ship. We had dispersed this kind of chemical to the surface of the water and in front of our eyes a big fish popped up from deepwater turned backside down obviousely poisoned. I remember that was told me that chemical was oil disperser. It was quite disturbing.
What I have to mention is , the oil it is not what you see at TV, red islands of crude oil in middle of ocean, it is more than that what you don't see, a kind of mollecular film on surface of the water[ you can see in second photo of 911stinks post ], dangerous for the lifeform of the ocean, and you can see like a rainbow when the light have the right angle. This oil can extend the entire surface ocean, depends of the wind.
I belive that is a big big problem wich regard everyone us.
S&F



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Why are they saying just now that they have authorized the use of dispersants.

Am I in a time warp or something?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
One thing that's interesting about BP's handling of the oil spill is that their solutions involve pumping the oil into tanker boats on the surface. So even after this huge disaster, they're still worried about getting that oil. They're still worried about making money off that well. No one seems outraged about that.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I just found this article about hundreds of dead fish on Alabama coast



Here's the article. Pretty disturbing.

www.treehugger.com...



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by belial259
Why don't just blow up the hole? WHY? They could drill another one.

The amount of time and money and oil that has been wasted over this is incredible. Any losses they would have taken from shutting the hole are simply dwarfed by the losses they're taking having to clean up the mess.

It hardly needs to be a nuke. Why can't they just torpedo the hole? Lower a MOAB into it?



Just like they did in There Will Be Blood when the derrick set on fire. They blew it up, and everything was fine. The owner wasn't worried one bit. The was still a sea of oil below them yet to be extracted. I guess they didn't see that movie.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I dont understand why all the big oil companies are not competing to stop the gusher. Whoever caps it can keep it. Competition forces results, if the US was truly a capitalist country with a free market this would happen.

With the oil dispersants, I do not see the logic in flooding the gulf with an even more toxic chemical than what is already out there. It almost seems like the want to kill off all life in the gulf so they can drill without woory of destroying an already destroyed eco-system.

This makes me sick. I'm ready to trade my car for something that does not enable big oil to profit.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
They need to blow up the hole and nuke the seabed.

A low yield tactical nuke placed on the seabed could effectivly plug the leak.



Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily, reports that in Soviet times such leaks were plugged with controlled nuclear blasts underground.

It’s so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union, a major oil exporter, used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities. The first happened in Uzbekistan, on September 30, 1966 with a blast 1.5 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb and at a depth of 1.5 kilometers. KP also notes that subterranean nuclear blasts were used as much as 169 times in the Soviet Union to accomplish fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals.

trueslant.com...





[edit on 15-5-2010 by In nothing we trust]



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join