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.

 

Chemical Dispersants REAL PURPOSE!

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Don't be disheartened too much by the oil spill, mother nature and BP can fix it.

Billions of hydrocarbon-chewing microbes, such as Alcanivorax borkumensis, will break down the oil moreover the dispersants speed up this process by breaking the oil into smaller droplets, which increases the surface area of the oil thus providing a larger 'chewing' area for the microbes.

And... "The dispersants can also stimulate microbial growth. Bacteria will chew on the dispersants as well as the oil.". Therefore it's win win by using these chemical dispersants.

BUT

Microbes use up oxygen in the breaking down of oil thus oxygen levels will be depleted underwater, "Oil-hungry microbes can be expected to consume more oxygen from the water as they feast on hydrocarbons.".

So if your going to speed up microbe growth and digestion then your essentially speeding up hypoxia (oxygen deprived waters).

Here are my sources.

The oxygen problem

The oil 'chewing' microbe

"Ultimately, it is only microbes that can remove the oil from the ocean."




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
so in that case the oil is the least of our worries? What we should be taking note of is the o2 thats starving everything in the ocean?
Would that also explain why those turtles had no sign of oil related deaths?

What i also find interesting is the containers that were found containing chemicals. (theres a thread here on ATS somewhere)
Does anyone here know off the top of their head what chemical compositions the oil+ detergents+ containers+volcanic ash=?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
So why don't we just put huge bubble stones in the gulf, just like a fish tank!?
I mean if it works in a fish tank why not the ocean???



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DJM8507
 

Yeah if we can get something that can do that on a massive scale, then we wouldn't have any problem using the chemical dispersants.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I dragged this from another thread..

The name of the stuff is COREX 9500

What a mashed up mess this will be if I put it in EX... so forget it here are quotes:

QUOTE

PRODUCT NAME : COREXIT® 9500
APPLICATION : OIL SPILL DISPERSANT
COMPANY IDENTIFICATION : Nalco Energy Services, L.P.
P.O. Box 87
Sugar Land, Texas
77487-0087
EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER(S) : (800) 424-9300 (24 Hours) CHEMTREC
NFPA 704M/HMIS RATING
HEALTH : 1/1 FLAMMABILITY : 1/1 INSTABILITY : 0/0 OTHER :
0 = Insignificant 1 = Slight 2 = Moderate 3 = High 4 = Extreme

ENDQUOTE
-------------
says SLIGHT and that you should avoid breathing the pure mist..and if you get too much on you. You might remove fat from your skin... I can see the ebay weight loss ads now...

type COREX 9500 into your browser window.. hit enter you get the PDF.
lmrk.org...

This stuff doesnt look so bad... basically some shampoo and some penetrating oil to allow the soap to get into a glob..and go further...
The reason this stuff is getting such a bad rap is likely the smell.
I bet this stuff has the same "aromatic hydrocarbons" as bug spray has.
(The smell of bug spray isnt what kills the bugs.. that is the smell of the solvent ~97 percent light aromatic oil used to carry the pyrethrins or organophosphates...and - the aromatic oils that smelled nice were sold for other uses...to flavor chewing gum or whatever, geddit? I bet BP had a pile of stinky aromatics in storage)
And most of these same hydrocarbons exist in "organic" fresh oil..
So any toxicity effects will be from the crude oil itself



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJM8507
So why don't we just put huge bubble stones in the gulf, just like a fish tank!?
I mean if it works in a fish tank why not the ocean???


Thats called a hurricane

[edit on 9-6-2010 by seataka]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DJM8507
 


Maybe a good idea to put forward now, before even that becomes out of reach.
Very good idea actually.
Shouldnt be too hard really they make plenty of fugups only this time the holes are oxygen.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jazz10
reply to post by DJM8507
 


Maybe a good idea to put forward now, before even that becomes out of reach.
Very good idea actually.
Shouldnt be too hard really they make plenty of fugups only this time the holes are oxygen.


I appreciate it! I just figure they have aerators hooked up to lakes that have low oxygen content that actually ensures that the fish stay alive and grew big, as well as sustains the food chain.

I am guessing we would need this but on a much larger scale, and probably have hundreds, or even thousands of them, depending on the size and capacity.

I propose buoy like devices that are solar powered so that during the day they float on the surface, and have huge pumps built into the buoy that force air down a tube a hundreds of feet down to force air out of the "bubble stones" while the sun is out. If we can get these things pumping air into the ocean at least 10 hours per day, and we had thousands of these, I think it could help the situation somewhat.

We could even have ships whose sole job would be to drive around aerating the ocean with massive pumps. Another option may be to find some chemical reaction that would release massive amounts of oxygen into the water. Perhaps ultra large "alka-seltzer" like tablets, that are encased in a membrane that would let it sink into the ocean, thousands of feet before the encasing is penetrating. From there the "alka-seltzer" would react and release tons of oxygen, or the oxygen would bind with the water, etc.

Who knows, but hopefully we find some solution soon. I just find it sad that it is the year 2010 and we don't have technologies to fix all this easily.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by DJM8507]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
This is a good read!



When compared to another EPA approved dispersant, Nokomis 3-F4, Corexit 9500 is 38 times more toxic to Menindia fish and 17 times more toxic to Mysdopsis “fairy” shrimp.


oilspilltruth.wordpress.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
My question is - what impact will deoxygenating the water have on a grander scale? Killing sea life is bad enough, but would this de-oxygination mess with the currents? cause more hurricanes? I am not familiar with that aspect of science, but if anyone knows, please explain. The most interesting thing of relevance that I could find was at

en.wikipedia.org...


oceanic anoxic events may have been characterized by upwelling of water rich in highly toxic hydrogen sulfide gas which was then injected into the atmosphere. This phenomenon would likely have poisoned plants and animals and caused mass extinctions. Furthermore, it has been proposed that the hydrogen sulfide rose to the upper atmosphere and attacked the ozone layer, which normally blocks the deadly ultraviolet radiation of the Sun. The increased UV radiation caused by this ozone depletion would have amplified the destruction of plant and animal life. Fossil spores from strata recording the Permian extinction show deformities consistent with UV radiation. This evidence, combined with fossil biomarkers of green sulfur bacteria, indicates that this process could have played a role in that mass extinction event, and possibly other extinction events. The trigger for these mass extinctions appears to be a warming of the ocean caused by a rise of carbon dioxide levels to about 1000 parts per million.




top topics



 
5

log in

join