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.

 

“COREXIT” Dispersants “ALERT”

page: 5
50
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Explain to me then why this chemical has been deemed illegal for use just about everywhere but, the US? (try deep water oxygen levels; this should help you learn what the impacts of these chemicals are) and then you finish up with the toxicology reports of the main chemicals but, according to you this stuff is great and wonderful people nothing to see here, move along; you are ignoring the chemical data and simply claiming it is ok people. Who do you work for I wonder?

I suppose the EPA is wrong as well; now they are in the process of considering Corexit highly toxic and placing a ban on its use; and have asked BP to quit using this product; BP has defied the EPA stating that the EPA does not currently have jurisdiction in the Gulf; the sad part of that is BP is right they do not; congress needs to give the EPA a mandate to take over this mess; along with the Military

If none of the above is true please please prove me wrong!

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

[edit on 29-5-2010 by MolecularPhD]




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
ATS members interested in the use of Corexit in the Gulf of Mexico may want to read the following:

www.iosc.org...

This is a report by two of the top Toxicologist in the Oil Industry; I guess all there studies on Corexit are wrong as well; by the way once Exxon read this report they sold Corexit to Nalco a sub of BP.

For the record, dispersant s do nothing to biodegrade oil; Bio-degradation happens with or without application of dispersant s. The only thing dispersant s do is help the oil lose cohesive bond with itself and the surface (the surface tension of it molecular structure), allowing it to sink beneath the water.

Toxicology expert Dr William Sawyer’s said "Corexit is also known as Deodorized Kerosene" wow that sounds safe for human contact; as anyone in the fuel industry knows that Kerosene is filtered out through your liver and lungs; that sounds like a safe thing to me.


Gone in 28 days you say! Well that sounds great except the gone in 28 days part is only 78% of the total chemical process of evaporation or Bio-degradation; "What about the other 22%?" that would mean there will be 182,600 gallons roughly give or take a few thousand gallons of chemicals we do not know the half life of; swirling around in the Gulf of Mexico for "Lord only knows how long?" "What is the half life of the other 22%, I wonder?"

On top of all that, I question Nalco's data at depths of 5000 feet; as nowhere in any of the literature that I have researched on Corexit; does it say anything about this measure or use of the chemical; in fact all of the MSDS and Safety Handling data states it is to be dispersed from planes or boats on the surface not below it.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


By dispersing the oil into smaller particles, the surface area is increased and mass transfer for biological processes is enhanced. This means that the bacteria can eat the oil faster.
Kerosine as part of the dispersant is just a light fraction of the oil and is more readily biodegraded than the crude. The other components are easily biodegraded. If the EPA has a problem with it, they can prohibit it.

If it is not working to disperse the oil, it would make sense to stop using it.

Don't get your panties in a knot over COREXIT. It is not the toxic end of life in the gulf.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Can the bacteria eat the oil without consuming Oxygen, a limited resource in deeper ocean waters?

It seems the oil consuming bacteria will be gearing up for a massive consumption of dissolved O2 in the deeper waters. It takes a while for new O2 to get down to lower levels of the ocean where the oil plumes are spreading.

Most people realize that fish, crustaceans, krill etc. need Oxygen, even though they get it from the water. Right?

Will it not be akin to a massive algal bloom, e.g. "red tide" that consumes oxygen and releases toxic by-products?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 1SawSomeThings
 


If the bacteria are aerobic, they will require oxygen and deplete the lower levels of oxygen. If they are facultative or anaerobes, they can metabolize the oil without oxygen but the products will be reduced, such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. These are toxic in higher concentrations.
The best solution would be to collect the oil or sink it as a monolith, much like the undersea asphalt deposits recently discovered off the coast of California. Unfortunately, the problem solvers decided to disperse it, hence, COREXIT.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


You have obviously decided to disregard the toxicology reports and scientific data and instead are forming your own hypothesis; nice. You are completely wrong about the Bio-degradation of both the hydrocarbons and the chemical dispersant; if that were not bad enough you are misleading ATS members with your obvious lack of chemical knowledge; I have cited several scientific studies performed by top toxicologist in their fields; yet you disregard them all together; I fail to see your personal opinion because it does not fit known studies on all of the chemicals so far that have been brought to light.

I have asked you to please cite scientific data that would refute the toxicology studies, scientific reports, or for that matter the fact that several scientists are working to get an injunction against the use of this Toxic chemical. Furthermore you have completely disregarded the fact that this chemical is banned for use in the majority of the countries around the world.

Last but, not least; you do not even acknowledge that there will be 186,000 gallons of chemicals that will not be Biodegraded as you keep pointing out that these chemicals will be; and no one knows the half life of these chemicals.

It has been stated by toxicologists that the plumes could stay together and be at 2.6ppm which constitutes a highly toxic concentration of these chemicals; as well as there have not been proper studies to show the lasting effects of these chemicals being dispersed at 5000 feet where the oxygen levels are already low.

I'm still waiting to hear under what authority that you are basing your opinions on? Please cite those documents; and mind you the MSDS has never been properly reviewed or tested by the NCCT; they have recommended that BP quit the use of Corexit; I suppose they are wrong as well.

And I will keep my "Panties in a bunch" as you put it until peoples lives are no longer at risk!

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

P.S. When are you making your trip to the Gulf to help in the support of BP's efforts to stop people from wearing proper safety equipment; or face being fired!!. I will be there helping make sure they are forced to provide fitted respirators to all the works in the Gulf. See you there!



[edit on 29-5-2010 by MolecularPhD]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 



Were all those tox reports for the concentrate or the dispersed phase? If for the concentrate, then maybe they should be redone for the 30ppb concentration. It would seem that 30ppb hydrocarbon in water might not be noticed next to gallons of crude oil. Like statistics, studies can be used to suit many purposes.

Your self-righteous Chicken Little pronouncements and implication of some sort of scientific oath in a previous post is amusing. I'd bet that PhD is shiny new. Can you remember what oath you took or was that a personal promise?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


From what I've read, marine ecologists think the oil-eating microbes will consume too much O2 for the rest of the species to have a chance.

The deep water anaerobic microbes that live near the sulfurous volcanic vents don't consume O2 as far as I know. But the microbes that consume oil do. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Please links sources, I really want to know.
Thanks



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by 1SawSomeThings
 


MolecularPhD claims serious knowledge on all of this so I defer to him to tell you about aerobic, facultative, and strict anaerobic bacteria in the oceans.
He has written that my allegiances are with BP, for some reason, and that I am not to be trusted because I don't accept his opinions.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


UPDATE! Water and beach in Pensacola were oil free, kind of. There was definitely a smell similar to WD40. There was a lot of seaweed
washing up. Seaweed is not unusual, but it typically follows a bad storm. It isn't normally as bad as today. Maybe the oil is killing the seaweed beds?

Drove down from Pensacola to Destin. Smell was worse, but seaweed wasn't so bad. The beautiful Emerald color was not as nice as usual. The water seems darker in some way.

This is certainly affecting the beaches, and I am sad to report that my beach experience today was significantly different than just 2 weeks ago!



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I keep hearing from the government ran media the downplay statements – such as, “ much of the oil will be eaten up naturally by bacteria or enzymes”. The NWO loves to brag about how smartly they are killing you! To me this is starting to sound like a huge bio-weapon attack implemented through the use of flesh eating oil dispersants &/or oil eating enzymes. The land dispersant mechanism would be any average hurricane & timing of the massive spill seems to fit nicely about 1 ½ months prior to hurricane season on June 1st, allowing plenty of time to culture, “natural enzymes” in the gulf. I have been reading older & newer articles on the Internet concerning flesh-eating enzymes originally designed to eat oil also articles on the heath issues caused by the known oil dispersant they have been using – nasty stuff. I as a diesel mechanic have experienced regular dermatitis caused by hydrocarbons on my hands & it is not pretty I won’t touch the stuff without gloves, I would hate to think they have engineered a weapon to get such an effect in the lungs!



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


My PhD is not shiny new as you wanted to point out; I received my PhD in Molecular Physics in 2001 and my second in Biomolecular Chemistry in 2003 both of which are from MIT.

The oath I was speaking of was an oath I took while serving twelve and half years in the US Army 18A USASFC at USASOC Fort Bragg, N.C.; I resigned in 2003; and I still stand by this oath today, and for the rest of my life.

Currently I am a lead research scientist for NOR working out of a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, N. California subdivision called Sun Labs/ Hydro-Sun Tech.; I guess these guys think my PhD is shiny new as well.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



I am sorry to hear that; truly sorry. The WD40 like smell that you where smelling while on the beach; is the evaporating chemical mixture of heptane, hexane, and pentane or the methylbutane if you prefer; these tend to condense out of crude oil when exposed to less ambient pressure, which by the way is the 40% that usually evaporates in to the atmosphere. Here is to you getting your beach back soon!

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Here you might want to read this article posted in the NY Times; enjoy the read.

www.nytimes.com...

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Let’s take a closer look at Corexit. According to the EPA’s dispersant comparison chart Corexit 9500, for instance, has the highest toxicity to Menindia fish of all 18 dispersants tested. Only 2.61 parts per million of Corexit 9500 (mixed with oil at a ratio of 1:1o) is required to kill 50% of fish exposed to the chemical within 96 hours. In other words, 1 gallon of the Corexit 9500/oil mixture is capable of rendering 383,141 gallons of water toxic to point of being lethal to 50% of Menindia fish within 96 hours of exposure.


oilspilltruth.wordpress.com...

You may want to read this one as well.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Here is another top toxicologist report and opinion on the use of Corexit; you might want to read this one as well.

blogs.edf.org... use-in-the-gulf/

Here you can find Dr. Richard Denison credentials; his PhD maybe shiny and new too you might want to check that out.

www.edf.org...

I could keep doing this all day, waiting for you to show these experts to be wrong.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



I am sorry to hear that; truly sorry. The WD40 like smell that you where smelling while on the beach; is the evaporating chemical mixture of heptane, hexane, and pentane or the methylbutane if you prefer; these tend to condense out of crude oil when exposed to less ambient pressure, which by the way is the 40% that usually evaporates in to the atmosphere. Here is to you getting your beach back soon!

Respectfully

MolecularPHD



Thanks PHD! I was thinkiing the same thing about the smell. I have been discounting all the rumors of evacuation, but if that smell were a few times worse, then I might start buying the evac rumors! Benzene has been mentioned plenty of times, and all the other aromatics that you list are surely present as well. We also have all the dissovled Methane in the sea water that nobody is talking about.

This could get very bad.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Suposedly using "dispersit" now instead of corexit? anybody confirm?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MolecularPhD
 


Well, Doctor Doctor, you certainly like to appeal to authority. I am responding to this post as your posts seem fragmented, at best, and this was the last.
If you had read my posts, you would have seen that I would have preferred a capture scheme rather than a dispersant. Should BP go bankrupt, I hope they spend their last dollar cleaning up the mess they made cutting corners to save some money. They did the same thing in the arctic, saving on maintenance, and still try to sell themselves as the environmental oil company. Everyone knew this was BS from the very first, but after the arctic spill, I no longer bought their gasoline. I won't drive them into receivership, but every little bit helps. This event may cause many others to vote on BP in the same way.

My comments to you were based on your emotional outburst. In your reality, the sky is always falling and you are warning the world of impending doom like a breathless ingenue. Yes, COREXIT has its problems; so does everything else. Yes, it isn't good for marine life. None of this spill and its remediation is good for marine life.

You have found what you believe to be the truth and now must proselytize. Calm down and shift out of Chicken Little mode and into the scientist mode. Provide detailed recommendations for cleanup of all aspects of the spill. What do you use on it? Where do you intercept it? Do you protect beaches and barrier ecosystems and let the open ocean spill alone or do you go after the spill as it surfaces? Do you attack the fraction that sinks or let it alone?
Surely we have many ATS experts that can educate us on the pros and cons of various schemes to remediate the spill and that will be far more productive than alarm sounding when no one we know of can do anything about the cause. Continued pointless arguing over which scientist claims what is not productive either.
I recommend that this thread or another be educational and not confrontational. A petro engineer has a nice thread started already and when I find it again, I'll post a link.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com... This thread is very informative and will help many readers understand the problem better.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join