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.

 

Doubts over safety tests on Gulf oil dispersants

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   



As arguments rage over how to clean up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, an examination of toxicity tests reveals flaws in the data used to determine the safety of dispersants.



The article goes on to say that, basically, using such large volumes of dispersants at such depths is unprecedented and uncharted territory, and that BP is kind of running blind with scissors.




So far BP has used a dispersant called Corexit EC9500A made by Nalco Energy Services of Sugar Land, Texas. But on 20 May, the EPA ordered BP to find a less toxic alternative. The company quickly responded, stating that only five dispersants met the EPA's requirements. Only one, called Sea Brat #4, made by Alabaster of Pasadena, Texas, was stockpiled by BP. This contained a chemical that would degrade into nonylphenol; this is a hormone disrupter likely to harm the reproductive systems of marine organisms. "BP continues to believe that Corexit EC9500A remains the best alternative," the company concluded. Since then, there has been an uneasy stand-off, with the EPA telling BP on 26 May to stop surface spraying, and limit its subsea use of dispersant to a maximum of some 57,000 litres on any given day.


My question is, and if it has already been discussed please enlighten, what are the negative effects of using microbes to break down the spill?

Why are we so hell bent on chemicals when we have tried and true proof that microbes seem to be the best solution?

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Mr Objectivity]

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Mr Objectivity]

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Mr Objectivity]




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
SOURCE

-_-



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Objectivity
 


You might want to check out this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com....

The dangers are numerous and many scientists have voiced concern, but money talks, unfortunately.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Apologies, feel free to close, mods.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I didn't know scientists could produce oil eating microbes... Why AREN'T they using this?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I have a question. I know someone who gathered some samples from the Gulf Shores, AL area. He gained access to a part of the beach in a remote area that was secluded and without security. How can we test these samples for toxins? We also found out that one of the clean up workers lives across the street from them. They are being paid $18.00/hr. and work 12 hours a day/7 days a week. We are hoping that maybe he will be willing to divulge some information about the secrecy surrounding their job.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join