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.

 

Operation Truth: Toxic Rain Reality Check Testing

page: 7
60
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Well, we have had more than 2 inches of rain here (northeast Louisiana) this week. I caught some in a mason jar, but it didn't smell or taste funny. Yes, I tasted it! Not delicious, but not too bad, either. We have a huge garden and giant flowerbeds, plus a yard full of St. Augustine grass, and everything looks really happy and green after all the rain. I figured after that first rain, on Monday, I think, that I would start to see signs of damage to our plants, but none so far! Will keep everyone updated!




posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
OMG it's raining!!! We haven't had rain since may. All farmers here have been feeding livestock for weeks now. It's only a thunder storm but I placed a glass bowl outside on a t6able to catch what I can...will record exact address , date , time, & etc...

Please let me know if there is any thing specific you would like me to do...sorry I cannot video...only have cell phone & it's dark now. I am leaving town & will be back on Sunday...
QUESTION how to preserve sample? I will look & see if I have any sterile tubes w/o EDTA or anything else, but chances are slim...do I just let it sit Or refrigerate half & let half sit out (in house of course) until I get back? I may not get much...I have a few avian blood tubes (maybe) but if so they will contain EDTA in one & a clotting factor in the other. Thank You!!!

Ektar



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Cloudsinthesky
 

Excellent work here. More people need to see this.

Star and flag from me.

Namaste and Love



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
So let me get this straight you think that the oil you took crappy video of is oil from the gulf spill?

It couldn't possibly be oil rising to the surface of the road from the road itself?

its been awhile since it has rained in Joplin. most of the roads in joplin are either asphalt or concrete with several layers of slurry seal. both types of roads are made with oil products. not to mention all the cars leaking oil on the road as they travel down said roads.

Did you get a sample of the "Toxic Rain" to be analyzed? do you have those results to prove the rain had oil from the gulf?

Sorry my friend but i live in Joplin, i have lived here for 30+ years. and in those 30+ years every time it rains you see oil and the white "foam" on the road when it first starts raining!

Do us all a favor and stop fearmongering unless you have real proof that its actual oil from the gulf of mexico falling down on lil ol Joplin MO!

Edit to add. you also seem to forget that every house in Joplin has asphalt shingles on their roofs. the oil from those will mix with the rain water and it all eventually runs to the streets.

all your videos have proven is that oil mixes with rain water as it flows down your roof, and that oil mixes with water as it rises to the surface of a street.


[edit on 7/4/2010 by Mercenary2007]


How is this constructive or helpful? This kind of response is grade school at best especially when someone is attempting to inform you of what is in your air, water, or worse.

If you're not curious what comes down from the sky when it rains in your streets, then go elsewhere. This isn't even close to an intellectual or healthy response whatsoever.

What will happen if his results test positive for oil or corexit 9500? Are you going to swallow your very abrasive and intentionally aggressive words? Nope. That's when you'll finally remain silent like you probably should have in the first place.

Secondly, is this how you typically treat someone from your hometown? If it is, then I'm glad I'm separated from you by a healthy distance.



[edit on 9-7-2010 by PsychoX42]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

**UPDATE LAB**



I appreciate everyone's patience with this project. As Clouds and I have found out getting a simple sample of rainwater tested has proved to be a very arduous task.

Let me explain: As Clouds has said we want to obtain the most objective data as possible, free from any ties to the Government or the EPA.

After securing a lab earlier this week, we were both pretty sure we had done that. I spoke with the director of the lab in charge and ask very specific questions. I was told no we are not related to the Govt. or BP.

That this lab was the only lab that had the highly sophisticated instruments to perform LC/MS/MS, and that this method of testing was the only way to break down the dispersant Corexit into DSS or DOSS.

Based on the information I was given I ordered 30 sample bottles, to be delivered to Clouds at his business.

It was around 9:00pm on Thursday evening I discovered an article that forced me to re-think using this lab to test the samples.

It is actually authored by the gentleman I spoke with.



Analytical Testing for Corexit Dispersant's Used in the Gulf Spill
June 22nd, 2010

By Jeff Christian, Kelso, WA, updated July 2, 2010


link: www.caslab.com...-157

At this point I knew we could no longer use this lab. Frustrated and disappointed I informed Clouds of the new info.

I continued to call and search several other labs, but kept coming up empty handed. It was Friday afternoon when Clouds gave me the name of a lab on the West coast, that he thought could perform the test.

After speaking with a toxicologist and sharing our need, she informed me they were not a chemical lab per say but a toxicology lab. It was the information she gave me that took Clouds and I in a different direction.

I was told we could analyze the sample for toxicity first, and then perform chemistry breakdown next. She referred me to Cal state in Long beach, and Cal Sciences. I immediately learned Cal Sciences could perform the test however they were heavily linked to the Dod.

While on the phone with me Clouds received the vials from Columbia Analytic's. Which he promptly returned to sender.

10 minutes later he received a call from the Laboratory Director questioning the reason for the return. Clouds said it was a money issue. We both thought this was strange, it took several days and phone calls to finally speak to the man, however he calls Clouds within 10 mins.? Why him and not his secretary?

It was late in the day when I spoke with Clouds and he had a lab outside
of St. Louis I spoke to Geologist/chemist and explained what we were interested in doing and asked,did they have LC/MS/MS. He thoroughly explained to me that it was not necessary to perform LC even on a chemistry. That there were better methods for not only toxicology, but chemical analysis as well. The method is Gas chromatography/Mass Spectrocopy or GC/MS

After speaking with him for several moments it was determined testing for VOC's or Volatile Organic Compounds was the best way to go. At least a start. They will test for 80 compounds all being the most volatile.

I explained the color of the rainwater and he was the third chemist to suggest that yes the water is probably toxic. He was concerned about the foam, however, when I asked his opinion he explained it is the surfactants used in the detergents which are part of the dispersant's most likely creating the soap bubbles.

They are not related to the Government in anyway, and in fact he was on board and very supportive of what all of us are trying to do. Get to the truth.

At a little better price I ordered one sample bottle for Clouds. To be shipped on Monday.

Thanks Pax






[edit on 10-7-2010 by paxnatus]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
(continued)

It is very early here almost 2:30 AM but I need to get this information out.
I will post more on this today.

**WARNING** DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES HANDLE, INHALE OR TASTE THE SAMPLE YOU ARE COLLECTING



When you must handle sample, you should wear gloves, cover your nose and mouth and expose yourself to the water as little as possible.

I will post source and more info. why this is important later today.

**NEW GUIDELINES FOR COLLECTING SAMPLE**



When we spoke of original test we speaking of chemistry and told you to collect in a clean plastic bottle. Now we are talking about toxicology and the sample collected will need to be in a clean glass jar. You need to make sure the jar is large enough because when you transfer the water to the glass vial the lab provides, you will need to do this without exposing the sample to air.

To do this you will either submerge the lab vial completely under water and remove the cap. These bottles are pretty small so it shouldn't be too difficult to do. Or if you have a sterile syringe on hand you will be able to extract water from your sample bottle making sure you have no air in the syringe. To do this push all air out of the syringe so the stopper is at the 0 mark place the needle into the the sample and slowly pull back on the plunger, being extra careful not to draw up air. If you do see air or have a space between the stopper and the fluid, turn the syringe upside down with the plunger pointed toward the floor and carefully push the plunger until the stopper meets the fluid. Repeat the process until you have the required amount of fluid. Carefully place the needle through the top of the lab vial and slowly push down on the plunger until your water is in the lab vial.

I have given very detailed directions and I apologize for being so lengthy.

Clouds will be doing this on Monday evening, so he will be an excellent source if you have questions.

The rainwater samples should not be older than 7 days, and should be refrigerated. If they are older than 7 days they can still test, but the results may not be as accurate. The lab can also provide HCL to add to your water to keep it stable.

I will add more info. today.

Thank you for your patience.

Pax



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I want to thank Paxnatus for all her hard work in this project thus far. We have learned a lot about water analysis. Unfortunately testing for toxicity is a more expensive type test. The average price that we found for this testing was around $500.00 per sample. I think do to the interest in our project from this latest lab the price was brought down a little. This lab is charging $250.00 per sample.

Testing for the toxicity of the water is only the first step. Once the sample is “deemed” toxic a range of other test can be performed to pinpoint the cause of the toxicity. The more sophisticated the test the more $$ it cost.

To understand and reveal the truth I guess will cost some dollars. The team of Operation Truth all agrees that we are going to have to find a funding source and connect with someone that can help make this project launch.

But our first step is to show that we took a rain sample and it’s toxic. I will be sending off my sample since its coloration of urine yellow with a foamy head just doesn’t look right. It’s a starting point!!

So what is the project?

We need your help!

Our goal is to establish a network of volunteers across the Gulf States through the mid-west and over to the eastern states that can take rain samples as different systems move through the area.

We need to create a 20 to 30+ person team of collection takers. All of this needs to be accomplished prior to seeking the funding for this project. Due to the urgency of what is taking place I feel that someone or group will jump on board as a funding source.

We are also seeking out creditability within the scientific community and hopefully we will attract someone or group creditable who can publish the findings if warranted.

Several of the environmental labs that we have contacted have great interest in our findings. I feel this project will bring a lot of attention once it’s started as well as unwanted attention.

So as you can see there is a lot going on behind the keyboards of typing here on ATS.

We will start a “fresh” thread dedicated to these projects objectives in the days to come.

I have received many u2u messages and post here on the thread of your interest in participating in this project. I will personally contact each of you by u2u over the next couple of days to establish the network and give information concerning the protocols of the project.

I would like to stress that “NO” personal information will be required by you. You will be able to submit samples anonymously for testing.

More to come………

Thanks Clouds



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Clouds, Pax, Hx3! Thank you.

I wanted to add this new video taken in Texas.



www.youtube.com...#!

www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Dry leaves in the summer during a drought!! Oh no!

I will be tarred and feathered for this: But who are these people and why have they apparently never looked at a tree's leaves before?

Maybe it is from the Gulf, or maybe it is typical plant activity. Video of a tree with a few off-color leaves is not evidence whatsoever.

A lab TEST is proof.

www.science.oregonstate.edu...

www.science.oregonstate.edu...

One of MANY, MANY, MANY possible explanations for typical discoloring in a Maple:



Symptoms: The symptoms associated with anthracnose diseases vary with the species of maple and the fungus. Symptoms are often apparent from late spring to early summer but additional cycles of disease can result in damage that is visible later in the growing season. The range of symptoms includes leaf spots, blighted leaves and young shoots, cankers, and dieback of young twigs and branches. The most common symptoms are large, irregular, dead areas on the leaf that are often V-shaped or delineated by the veins. These areas can be tan and paper-thin. When infection is severe, the fungus enters the petioles and causes entire leaves to appear blighted, browned, and shriveled. These symptoms are often confused with drought and heat stress since they are very similar. Significant leaf drop and premature defoliation can occur. Samaras can also develop necrotic or dead spots and drop prematurely.


www.ct.gov...

[edit on 10-7-2010 by justadood]
And for the 30th time. I am NO saying that we will not see acid rain events from the incident in the Gulf. I am saying that these images are not proof of anything out of the ordinary WHATSOEVER.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by justadood]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


Well I can see that your very concerned about the Deepwater Horizon Gusher that is contaminating the Ocean with oil gushing into the gulf at the staggering rate of what a BP internal memo claimed could be 100,000 barrels per day, and that the Gulf marine life in the Gulf may never recover.

As you said, there is no proof that this is not toxic rain . I did not say this was, I just posted a video.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
let me ask some questions:

1...why isn't the main stream media running their own private tests? a few thousand dollars used for independant lab testing, for them would be inconsequential compared to the amount of publicity they would get for their network.
2...why aren't state governments running these tests and reporting it over their local channels?
3...you are warned to never inhale the fumes from gas, and yet even when the stench of a gas smell is in the air on the gulf coast, no warnings go out to wear masks.
4...are people being warned to not even touch the oil globs, due to the skin absorbing the toxic residue?
5...how many of the workers out on the ocean have been contaminated either through their lungs or skin that will cripple or possibly kill them in the next few years from various tumors and cancers?

[edit on 10-7-2010 by jimmyx]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 



It is very early here almost 2:30 AM but I need to get this information out.
I will post more on this today.


**WARNING** DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES HANDLE, INHALE OR TASTE THE SAMPLE YOU ARE COLLECTING



When you must handle sample, you should wear gloves, cover your nose and mouth and expose yourself to the water as little as possible.


Pax, with all due respect this is OVERKILL!

This rain is watering our crops, filling our pools, falling on us as we work, and getting into our drinking water.

I am a Gulf cost resident and a chemist. I have inhaled gasoline, I have immersed both hands in straight benzene, I have maced myself (both accidently and on purpose, lol), and I have inhaled chloroform and many other organic aromatics.

We need to test the water, we need to be aware, we need to be vigilant and hold people accountable, but we don't need to overreact.

There is no need for gloves or mouth coverage. I won't say that you "should" taste it, but it is a valid way to see if it is bitter. I won't say that you "should" inhale it, but it is a valid way to test for vapors. We even use it in the lab!!

The rain is not toxic, contaminated maybe, but not toxic.

Edit to add:

This rain is falling on my pears, tomatoes, peppers, oranges, onions, and watermelons. It is likely that most of the moisture in my tomatoes and melons is directly 100% derived from this rain, and so far they look great, and taste great, and I have made my best salsa ever this year!

[edit on 10-7-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 



you are warned to never inhale the fumes from gas, and yet even when the stench of a gas smell is in the air on the gulf coast, no warnings go out to wear masks.
4...are people being warned to not even touch the oil globs, due to the skin absorbing the toxic residue?
5...how many of the workers out on the ocean have been contaminated either through their lungs or skin that will cripple or possibly kill them in the next few years from various tumors and cancers?


Hello jimmyx,

You are asking the right questions. It was very late when I posted the warning regarding the possibility of "toxic rain". I posted this as a precautionary measure only.

However, I found this on Riki Orkutts site:



Many products are used on oil spills, including dispersants, surface washing and collecting agents, and bioremediation agents. This report discusses potential health effects of the dispersants used on the BP Gulf of Mexico spill through June 14, 2010.

Crude oil and dispersants contain chemicals that are hazardous individually and in combination. The likelihood of harm depends on dose and individual susceptibility.

Products discussed in this section include Dispersit 9527 and 9500, with the following chemical ingredients:

propylene glycol

polypropylene glycol butyl ether

dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (DSS)

2-butoxyethanol (2-BE)

hydrotreated light petroleum distillates (Norpar-13 and kerosene)

General Characteristics of Dispersants

Oil spill dispersants have many actions, including acting as solvents that can mix with the crude oil mass, and move through it.

The 2005 NRC report cites studies indicating that dispersants can increase the uptake of oil by organisms. This is scientifically plausible when you consider that cells of all animals, including humans, have walls made of lipids. Lipids are fats, very similar to simple oil hydrocarbons that are in crude oil. Detergents, surfactants, and solvents make it easier to move through the oil.



The properties that facilitate dispersants moving into an oil spill to disperse it, also make it easier for them to move through cell walls, skin barriers, and many other protective coatings we rely on to protect vital organs, underlying layers of skin, the surfaces of our eyes and other structures. In discussions of the potential health effects of individual chemical ingredients in dispersants below, evidence is provided regarding dispersant chemicals' ability to increase chemical uptake into people.



The dispersants Corexit 9500 and 9527A have been used, according to the federal Gulf spill website at www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com... A list of EPA-approved dispersants, with limited ingredient and chemical property information. is available at "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Product Schedule" at www.epa.gov... (dated March 2010).

Micelles: Crude Oil & Dispersants in a Bubble

To understand the potential health effects of dispersants, it is necessary to understand that exposure may involve a specialized structure, a micelle, that is described below. This structure impacts the behavior and toxicity of chemicals in oil and in the dispersants. The characteristics of micelles are important when considering how to protect the public and ecosystems.

Corexit dispersants are designed to form micelles, small bubble-like structures, to envelop crude oil droplets. The 2005 NRC book on dispersants illustrates micelles formed by dispersants interaction with oil and the processes that lead to their formation (image below from page 55).


Micelles have a portion of dispersant chemical on the outside, in contact with ocean water. Another portion is on the inside where the oil is located. Micelles range in size, but most are very small, in the 10 micrometer (um) range according the NRC report: www.nap.edu... Images and text in the this report show how dispersants act to break up oil masses into small dispersant-coated oil droplets.

The combination of detergent and hydrocarbons ingredients in dispersants with chemicals in crude oil is especially hazardous if someone inhales contaminated water spray. The dispersant-oil complex in micelles can coat lung surfaces causing lipoid pneumonia, hypersensitivity pneumanitis, asthma and other serious health problems.

Headaches and chest tightness may result from respiratory problems, which is why evaluations of lung function are a part of health evaluations for exposure to these chemicals, even if respiratory symptoms aren't immediately obvious. Failure to recognize this can have serious consequences.

Chemicals in dispersants, including surfactants, detergents and others, can damage the lungs of mammals and birds. The gills of fish can become covered with a film that prevents them from breathing. Crude oil chemical ingredients and dispersants both cause damage independently and in combination.

For additional information on micelles and the dispersant application process see a presentation by a scientist with Corexit's former manufacturer www.chemie.uni...- regensburg.de/Physikalische_Chemie/Kunz/student/Uebung_Formulierung/Clark_presentation.pdf

Characteristics of micelles may make it very difficult to identify oil in the water, since the oil-filled micelles do not appear as the standard oil sheen on the water. They may be below the surface and not be detectable by sight or smell. This can create an invisible hazard for the publi

Chemical Ingredient Issues

US EPA provided a list of two Corexit products' ingredients on June 8th that is provided at the end of this report. (EPA : www.epa.gov... )

Products used on spills typically have multiple chemical ingredients. Companies are not required to list all ingredients in their products, or to provide detailed information on those that they do list. They can claim ingredients are "proprietary" to avoid disclosure.
[


So you see we cannot even trust the MSDS to tell us all of the ingredients in Corexit.

PLEASE SEE HER SITE and this one: www.sciencecorps.org...

Thanks,
Pax



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



Pax, with all due respect this is OVERKILL!


Hi getready,

No worries not offended. Yes, I realize that some may think this. Call it the nurse in me. What would you say if I told you I made that post just for you?
lol. Read my last comments about the warning I posted.

While it may be overkill, could you be on the other end of the spectrum? Honestly, tasting the water is kind of crazy.


The truth is no one knows the long term effects the dispersants and other chemicals, gasses, etc. associated with the Gulf may have.

You may be super healthy and be fine, others might not. Only posted warning as precautionary. So use your best judgment.

Please let us know when you receive response from e-mail you sent.

Thank you for participation.

Pax



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by paxnatus
 


Thanks Pax! I will readily admit to being on the other end of the spectrum.


I am not encouraging people to drink it, but on the other hand, we all will eventually ingest it. Live anywhere East of the Mississippi and eat tomaotes this summer and fall, and you can bet that all that juicy goodness came from falling rainwater in Florida!!

My pool evaporates about 1 inch per week, but it is regularly refilled by rainwater. Occasionally I have to pump well water into it. You can bet that everyone swimming in pools along the Gulf Coast is swimming in mostly rain water. Sure it is filtered and chlorinated, but it is still rainwater.

I think the real problem here is long-term exposure. I can taste and swim in it for the next couple of months on the way to a solution, but I don't want it in my groundwater and fruits and vegetables for the next 2 to 20 years!!

[edit on 10-7-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 





2...why aren't state governments running these tests and reporting it over their local channels?



That one is easy. If they test, they have to disclose. If they disclose, the economy tanks!! Solution=don't test, put all the responsibility back on BP and maintain deniability while marketing your beaches as clean and safe!

As for the media, I can only speculate, but BP is spending a boatload of money in marketing. So are the State governments. If you run an expose, all that marketing money is down the tubes. Sure, some real investigative journalism would be nice, and it would bring in viewers, but how many, and how much revenue is a guess. I think they like their bird in hand better than than us birds in the marsh.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Hey Guys,

Burntheships just posted this in her thread, but I felt it was worthy enough to be here as well.

This was on MSNBC: The dangers of Corexit and the number of clean up workers ill.




posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by justadood
 




Well I can see that your very concerned about the Deepwater Horizon Gusher that is contaminating the Ocean with oil gushing into the gulf at the staggering rate of what a BP internal memo claimed could be 100,000 barrels per day, and that the Gulf marine life in the Gulf may never recover.


Oh, so we're going to play 'whos wringing their hands more'? Count me out of your macabre game.


As you said, there is no proof that this is not toxic rain . I did not say this was, I just posted a video.


you posted it in a thread about toxic rain, and the video is titled " MORE EVIDENCE (1 OF 6) OF BP COREXIT CHEMICAL RAIN BLOWN INTO FORT WORTH, TX JULY 3rd, 2010??? "

I am sorry you think my skepticism (based on years and years of experience with plants) means i am not concerned enough for the gulf. You clearly are my concerned than i. you win 3000 points.

Be well.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
PAX I have a good sample to submit. It rained all night Friday night so I place a glass bowl out on the table & covered the sample yesterday morning. I will now place it in the fridge. I need tubes for submission...I can't U2U cause I'm new.

Thanks for ALL your work!
Ektar



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Got first good rain in about a month. 0.65in from a pop-up thunderstorm. Unable to get a radar image in motion so far to tell where the general circulation is coming from. Water is clear as a bell, no discoloration, no foam, smells like good water. I know that doesn't prove anything, just an observation.



new topics




 
60
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join