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.

 

Radiation Emergency - Prepare Yourselves For Gulf Oil Syndrome

page: 2
82
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by hawaiinguy12
 


Let's give it some time and see if any real (ahem) investigative journalists pick up on this or any of the talking heads in the MSM read it on air with their particular spin. It's happened before.




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


In order for me to believe this, you have to explain to me how an unstable item like oil, which cannot even survive a match fire, can survive radiation, which is a whole lot more worse than fire for oil.

How can oil stay oil if it is being berated by sub atomic particles?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
The EPA states that there is radioactive waste created during the drilling process, especially in the Gulf states. Workers can be, "exposed to alpha and gamma radiation released during the decay of radium-226 and the low-energy gamma radiation and beta particles released by the decay of radium-228." However, there are safety regulations in place for these workers as far as protection gear and SOP's, etc.
Source
The levels of known radiation exposure would only be known to those working the rig and those closely involved in the cleanup. Which leads me into a justifiable reasoning for why they have barred anyone from coming near the areas affected by the spill, especially if the levels are high. Then again, they are hiring civilians to assist with the clean up and there have not been proper warnings given to the public still visiting coastal beach areas affected by the spill.
Does anyone have any information on BP issuing protective gear to these people? Or, would it be safe to assume that destructive levels of radiation would only be measured at the rig/ source?

Since another poster brought this up, I think it's important to note that the $40,000 fine and the 1-5 years of jail time that comes with the Class D Felony charge if someone is found to be in violation of this new rule, is a setup by the US Coast Guard, it is NOT an Executive Order signed by the PotUS. (For a list of Obama's EO's you can go here.) Both EO's signed in June have nothing to do with the Deepwater oil spill.
The Coast Guard Order also goes against Admiral Thad Allen's (National Incident Commander of the oil spill) order issued on June 6 to allow open acces to news media and reporters to the crisis. This seems to be an internal power struggle issue, as far as I can tell, but I don't see that it reaches as far up as the executive office.
I do agree that it is an infringement on First Amendment rights, but everyone was so happy and quiet when the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) was passed in 2001 to protect us from ~terrorists/ anyone the government suddenly doesn't like, so why the media is all up in arms now is simply laughable. Ugh. /End of rant.

Also, for the poster who wanted 'reliable' sourcing, the first source is from the EPA, the second is the .gov listing of EO's of every president of the U.S., and here Jason Linkins of HuffPo discusses the evolution of the media blackout on the Deepwater Spill.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Sink the oil, cap the well problem solved! The only real effect was to increase the temperature. It’s nice how the queen was in town to enjoy the blistering heat!



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I don't mean to burst your radioactive bubble, but if I read you correctly, the
amount of Methane is proportionate inversely to radioactive elements.
In other words, Lots of Methane, little radioactivity. Little Methane,Lots of
Helium=increased radioactive elements. It appears that this leak is leaking
lots of Methane with the crude. So according to your information, there would be little radiation. But without Independent lab testing, over a period of time,
it would be hard to get an accurate reading of just what is gushing out of the
well head. I wouldn't rely on BP Info as they seem to be cooking the Data and
lying about EVERYTHING. Also, you will notice that whatever is coming out of
the well is a ever changing mix. Changes in color are usually indicative of changes in gasses,crude,and other elements. It is not a constant. It is a cloudy
mix. All the same I could be wrong. I just hope for the folks down there that I'm right. Nice Thread.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by Wildmanimal]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


Nasty Stuff, but it does the job. Enemies beware, we would rather blast you with this stuff than dump it in OUR rivers.Unethical Yes. Immoral, yes.
But read Sun Tsu The art of war. Avoid war at all costs. But if need be,
be brutal and ruthless.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
The EPA related links in full.

Radioactive Wastes from Oil and Gas Drilling

So, it appears to me that the drilling releases the radiation, yes. And they're still drilling in the vicinity...two relief wells.

Oil and Gas Production Wastes

Was there waste on board at the time of the explosion?

Section on Well Logging sounds like radiation could leak even during non-drilling tasks. Guess someone should ask the question as to whether it was at the time of the Deepwater explosion?

So it also appears as thought there could be radiation that the oil is flowing through? Wish I knew more about this stuff.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
See I'm wondering if this is actually an attack by black water



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


First of all, stop demonizing radiation. The earth is naturally radioactive (i.e., natural uranium and thorium in the earths crust), radiation is all around us (cosmic sources, etc..).

They use 'helium' detectors in well logging in conjuction with a external neutron source; repeat, an external radiation source, which is used to measure porosity and other parameters. So don't say the oil itself is radioactive.

As stated in a previous post, the gulf war utilized depleted uranium shells, etc.., which detonate creating a cloud of radioactive particulate, thus posing an internal radiation hazard and external hazard. Do not link this to oil wells in iraq (unless of course you have proof).

I think you need to research more before you throw out theories....



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Oil IS NOT a renewable resource. Carbon dating proves the age of oil to be millions of years old, and takes millions of years to build up.

These wacko's spouting on about abiotic oil have some serious disappointments coming their way hahaha. There is no free lunch people. There is no free ride.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by Nomad451]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildmanimal
 

You are incorrect radiation is PROPORTIONAL to methane, ie; more methane more radioactivity. I wonder if NASA has any gamma source telescopes they can turn to the earth? Hell just a sample from near the rig in a lab with modern gear should tell how much exposure to expect and from which component.
I suspect some rather unusual extras in the discharge as it is, due to the depth and the fractured casing.At any rate the new felony restrictions on first amendment rights makes publishing the results of such a test a 40,000$ fine and the crippling stigma of a felony conviction.This alone tells me there is something much bigger than many suspect occurring that MUST be hidden to prevent a problem with the population rising up.
At any rate the methane fraction of this well is very high which equates to high radiation levels especially in the gulf where radioactivity is a known risk on the wells there.
I don't believe in the end of the world I do however believe we as a species have the capacity to render our environment toxic to our species. IMO this is just another nail in our coffin.
N.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by porky1981
 

Isn't some of this radon? There are a few types the EPA cited. One is prevalent on the Gulf of Mexico, but I forget which.


[edit on 6-7-2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I am going to back up to the video showing some radiation in the tar ball with the geiger counter. That is just one tar ball that made it to the beach, what about the rest of the ocean, near the well, etc.? I am not a scientist but have read what the rest of you have to say on the subject and I am thinking "cover up" big time. I wonder if there is any way to find out if those closer to the well, on the rig and ships have experienced any illness. If you get burns and your skin peels, your hair falls out along with other symptoms, its radiation sickness. These two things alone can distinguish radiation sickness from another type of illness. The hospitals should be able to give out some of this information if they are allowed to, which I doubt. The situation is looking worse every day. I thank all of you for your contribtions. Will keep a close eye on reports that might filter in.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Natural background radiation comes from two primary sources: cosmic radiation and terrestrial sources. The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 millisievert (mSv) per year.[1] This exposure is mostly from cosmic radiation and natural radionuclide in the environment. This is far greater than human-caused background radiation exposure, which in the year 2000 amounted to an average of about 5 μSv per year from historical nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power accidents and nuclear industry operation combined,[2] and is greater than the average exposure from medical tests, which ranges from 0.04 to 1 mSv per year. Older coal-fired power plants without effective fly ash capture are one of the largest sources of human-caused background radiation exposure.


en.wikipedia.org...

Doubt its anything to be worried about unless your on one of those ships. The sickness is just from the nasty toxic soup although large exposer to oil has been known to cause Cancer, then again what don't.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Interesting, a friend of mine said the exact same thing last week.

"Gulf Oil Syndrome." I guess great minds think alike. And yes, I believe everything in your thread. Good work.


Namaste and Love



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
in theory, no wonder that oil from overdeep well has different elements of Mendeleev's table here article with new info about oil .



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by N.of norml
 


Thanks for clearing that up for me N.of Normal. So, the science is "basically"
the MORE Methane, the More Radioactive elements present. Generally speaking. Well if that is the case, this whole issue could become a hotter potato
than it already is. Yes that gamma radiation is troublesome. Not like Alpha,etc.
which IF scrubbed off IMMEDIATELY ,can cause minimal contamination. But do
take the Potassium Iodide pills anyway. Gamma is like kryptonite, the thicker
the wall between you and it, the better. Preferably Lead. I wonder if Corexit
bonds with radioactive elements similar to the way Ocean sediment bonds with
Arsenic? That would explain their approach now wouldn't it.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSROT
 




If you are speaking of the "old" yellow Civil Defense units, you are mistaken. They work excellent if calibrated and they can be sent to an outfit that does those calibrations.


Excellent point, I picked one up at a gun show for $25.00, had it calibrated by a professional I worked with and it was as good as his $1500 unit. The only problem is getting the weird 22.5V batteries. Those detectors were meant to last, and were sealed against the elements.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Again, I'm left asking why we're left speculating about all this on Internet forums.

If it's a scientific matter, why so many fences? Math leaves no room for speculation. Why aren't there reports from the science and math nerds at hand spamming CNN's homepage or the WH's homepage with their findings?

Assuming no news is good news, why are we freaking out about this stuff?

Nearly 80 days into this fiasco, there should be data charts with expert analysis by now saying either how safe or unsafe things are in the gulf. What does that mean? Everything is peachy? Or everything is not so peachy?

Why are we left guessing? What the hell is our government doing? I came up with this last night:

"Leadership and urgency are firing a rather key military commander -- in 30 minutes -- while holding up a very large clean-up boat -- for days -- from assisting the GOM emergency."

I am sad that I [had to] came up with that.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawaiinguy12
Can we get a REAL news source please? I cant take some random website ive never heard of and believe it. Thats like taking everything on Alex Jones website and believing it without looking at a real news source

Do you make all your conclusions based on what the "real" mainstream news says? If so, I'm not so sure I can appreciate anything else you have to say. No offense.

Be very careful NOT to let the the "REAL" news sway your perception. Now more than ever, the "real" news will not be the credible source for oil spill details. It isn't in their best interest.

What IS in your best interest is to think for yourself. Don't automatically look to the talking head in your TV box for "real" information.


Originally posted by Nomad451
Oil IS NOT a renewable resource. Carbon dating proves the age of oil to be millions of years old, and takes millions of years to build up.

These wacko's spouting on about abiotic oil have some serious disappointments coming their way hahaha. There is no free lunch people. There is no free ride.

And I assume that you personally have the credibility and expertise to comment on this yourself? Or did you hear this on the "real" news?

Whether or not Abiotic Oil is a reality, you should be careful not to come across as though you know the answer when you clearly do not. No one does at this point, so please lay off the name calling. Makes you sound a lot like a disinfo agent.

"A wise man knows that he knows nothing at all."

ON TOPIC:
So do we know what the half-life of crude oil is? And I guess it would be nice to know if the water vapor rising into the clouds from the spill region could be radioactive as well.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by DamaSan]



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join