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.

 

Why international help was refused for so long

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
It occurs to me that the reason international help was refused for so long is that BP and the US wouldn't be able to prevent the crews from wearing proper HAZMAT gear.

The contrast between international crews outfitted in proper safety gear would be too sharp a contrast with the unprotected crews sent out by BP, creating yet another PR and legal nightmare for them they wished to avoid for as long as possible.


What do you guys think?




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
great thread mate
i ccu2 u about this link,which is a clip from a comedy movie
glad some of us are on the same page
www.youtube.com...

ohh well i pointed this out from the beggining,since i live in holland we are the experts on this with ou neighbour belgium who both offered help along with 14 other countries witch usa all turned down
they even said belgium coul have cleaned it up and shut the whole within 2 months or so
there is even suppose 2 be a criminal investigation about this
source is infowars but ithink its still legit


[edit on 1-7-2010 by icecold7]

[edit on 1-7-2010 by icecold7]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
i think it is a VERY GOOD possibility!

with all the news coming out in the last day or two about how toxic corexit is as well as the bad outcome for all the cleanup workers from 1989 Valdez....it's highly likely, friend.

one thing is sure: we can not trust BP



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
The "reason" no foreign ships were allowed to assist in the cleanup was, officially, due to the jones act

For whatever reason, the Act wasn't lifted, as it was by Bush in the aftermath of Katrina.

views.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
This could be true. But in regards to hazmat suits, there may have also been some liability issues as well as local regulations (almost ironic to even use that word) to work out. If this was a primary consideration, it would have been a very foolish one. It's hard to comment without knowing exactly how many "crews" this entails too.

Hazmat gear, as I've been understanding it through all the confusion, has to do with more than just personal safety. There is site safety to consider. And then there are liability issues that could surface if the hazmat gear fails, especially if not fitted properly or of the proper type.

Some people are saying BP won't allow them to wear hazmat gear at all. Some phrase it this way, "They're telling us we'll be fired if we wear respirators." There are anecdotal stories that run the gamut. And with sound bites, and people grabbing on to them and running with them, it's hard to tell what the case really is sometimes.

BP countered at one point saying cleanup workers were now allowed to wear their OWN respirators but only those provided by BP, which were properly fitted, and which as it happened were in short supply at the time. I don't know if they still are. It almost might seem like a moot point when there appear to be so few people working on the cleanup to begin with and with it being delayed due to the storm now.

I don't know if this helps the discussion...this discusses the procedures as it relates to the oil spill. Whether it was written as CYA or to actually help people understand, well you have to decide that I guess.

Worker Health and Safety Information from DHH

Voluntary Use of Respirators: Respiratory protection may be worn by employees voluntarily as permitted by the OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR Section 1910.134). An employer may provide respirators at employees’ requests or permit employees to use their own respirators if the employer determines that use, in itself, will not create a hazard (29 CFR Section 1910.134(c)(2)(i)).


There are a few other items relating to respirators on the page. Yes, it seems odd. I wish BP would come out and clarify this once and for all. There are enough rumors flying around as it is, and people get more concerned and suspicious when there's not clear and logical explanation given.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 

There's a story today on RawStory (here) calling this an urban myth. Have you seen it? I don't know enough about this to even comment, but you might be interested.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


thank you for all that.

the thing that bothers me most, and i think you've mentioned it more than once, as well, is the crazy enigmatic silence coming from BP in regard to any sort of detail whatsoever!!!

i don't think they'd be so out of favor if they would just COMMUNICATE!

it would do everybody some good.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
They're answering questions live right NOW. Someone just posted a thread...here's the link.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


great idea
keep lstening to these liars untill u drown get blown upm or die of cancer
they have been lying since day one
but go ahead listen 2 their lies ,why not?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by icecold7
 


Excuse me? Of course I listen to what they say. And how they say it. And what they don't say. What is your point here?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
The "reason" no foreign ships were allowed to assist in the cleanup was, officially, due to the jones act

For whatever reason, the Act wasn't lifted, as it was by Bush in the aftermath of Katrina.

views.washingtonpost.com...




If this was the reason, then why are they now allowing aid, yet the Jones Act is still in place?

oops...

I mean, laws are passed for a reason (supposed to be!). If this one was causing unreasonable interference with the way government should be handled atm, doesn't it make sense to rescind the act? Doesn't it make sense to change the law, asap?

I call bs.



*Please note* I'm not saying Crakeur is full of anything. He obviously put "reason" in quotations for a reason


This is just a bad scapegoat. It's very easy to poke a hole in it.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Interesting point about the jones act.

Little off-topic, but this really goes to show how admiralty law is still in full effect, despite the ignorance most have about what it really is. Thats obviously the point, I'm sure.

On-topic, when it comes to getting fitted for an OSHA aprroved respirator like the kind that the workers would desire, that requires a 4 hour "class" and test. It also requires a "fit test" that ensures that the respirator does in fact "fit". It isn't a free program either.

Bureaucratic mumbojumbo if you ask me.

Still, a bandana or rag over your mouth and nose would go pretty far to protect one's lungs. If they did in fact ban or restrict that, that would be insane. I think its the money and so-called "training" that needs to be implemented that is hurting those involved. I went through that little 'class' before, and they gave us all the answers to the test that was like 20 questions long. It didn't matter if we knew what was going on, it only mattered that we passed the certification process as a whole. This was only for 9 guys and it cost like $4K. Imagine several thousand guys>>>

I think we can all safely agree that BP is using deceptive practices in order to minimize liability, this particular one included. Controlled release of info is rather key to that end.

In the corporate world, profits and liability are the masters. Anyone and everything is replaceable once the bottom line becomes threatened. Sad yes, but very real.

My suggestion to everyone helping physically with this mess, bring some extra bandanas. Its not that great a defense, but just think, you can protect from nuclear fallout by wearing a sheet with eyeholes cut out. It says so right in the US Army survival manual.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


as I said, it was the excuse they were using.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
please pardon my itchy trigger finger


[edit on 1-7-2010 by Crakeur]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Obviously the Jones Act doesn't apply, and even if it did, it simply means that companies are required by law to do what they should be doing ethically anyway.

And no foreign company that I'm aware of has expressed any concern other than the need to speed up the cleanup.

I've worked as a shrimper on theGulf and while I wouldn't recommend full HAZMAT gear, gloves and respirators are a minimum necessity. Each of the cleanup boats should also have fresh water showers available with enough water to allow crews to shower every few hours.

The cleanup needs to be quicker, but cleanup worker safety should factor in. Unfortunately, to do the cleanup as it should be done will require more workers per boat and lots of safety gear, which would drive expenses up toohigh for corporate types to accept. They'd rather pay survivors a lump sum than invest in safety.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Cool. We're on the same page.

I personally think this has to do with not letting a good disaster go to waste type of thinking, ie an agenda waiting to be pushed.

Carbon Tax, Cap and Trade . ..

I think the relief wells will fail, and this mess will continue on after the November elections, then they'll get their agenda passed. Lastly, it'll either run dry or we'll nuke it, or something else which has not been thought of.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
apacheman, I didn't say it applied here, or that it made sense. I simply answered the question posed in the opening post.


reply to post by unityemissions
 


see, I think there's more to it than that. I think that the Obama administration wanted to give BP a chance to save the leaking oil, rather than plug and clean the leak as quickly as possible. I think BP was given a green light to risk destroying the entire ecosystem in the gulf in order to protect the precious black goo pouring out of that leak.

If you think about it, it would be incredible if the gulf died and we could drill without worrying about those pesky living creatures



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 



Yes, and when it comes to the lump sum part, it'll be many years later, so tied up in litigation that it will be a fund rather than individual payments. The value of our money now will only decrease, thats an historical fact in the US. If they can buy? 20-30 years, they may never have to pay up.

BP is the faceman so far, yet all involved are carefully calculating their options. Tiny little pockets inside these factions may actually care, yet their voices will inevitably fall on deaf ears.

Eventually someone is going to sort this mess out. My bet is Mother Nature herself. By no means do I think our corporatocracy will respond in a favorable fashion to the population on the whole. It will become our fault somehow.

Reagan espoused 'trickle down economics'. I submit that this will be the true trickle-down effect. Its all false, yet its been pounded into the public's psyche, and many believe it. IMO, it should all flow uphill.

Everyone wants accountability from the lowest on the totem pole, yet when it comes to questioning our masters, we hear the crickets chirp.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


It makes sense, except if they could have capped it from the get-go (before the BOP blew off) , then they could still have drilled another well and tapped into that oil. So if anything, it was to save the well, and all the time and $$$ they invested. Perhaps they brought the notion to Obama as it being strictly about the quantity of oil down there, but they were probably thinking about the well, and the money they'd lose from scrapping it.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
So.. some countries are now being allowed to help?

Who? and who is in charge of them?

Will they answer directly to BP?

I want to see some of these countries/companies get the inside scoop and tell the world what BP is really up to.

I want them to put BP to shame.

I want angry mobs with pitchforks at Tony Hayward's doorstep. Yes I do!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join