It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:13 AM
So uhh.. isn't there anyone out there with a geiger counter that could just go test the little blobs? I'm too far away... helas..


posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 09:07 AM
reply to post by LurkerMan

well there is always the netherlands butterfly man hemp being legal in the netherlands and well its the biggest formation ever and the most denied and un publiciesd and should you understand its interpretation well then you why for the last thing it is is man made perhaps if we all overcame our egos we would get to go to nevernetherland but in order to to do that we must achieve harmonic balance in mind body and soul

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Wildmanimal
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.

Maybe, but the problem is still the problem.

Kuwait sent the US a shipment of sand to go to Ohio (i believe), when it arrived they found it to be radioactive.

They are still finding live ordnance to this day, troops are still being killed by rounds from desert storm.

Radioactivity is live still in certain parts of Kuwait, and we have close to 50,000 troops there I am guessing, and probably 5-20,000 American contractors that live off base.

I am curious to know how many Kuwaitis suffer from this gulf war syndrome as well.

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:18 AM

Originally posted by indigothefish
is there any way to test for this kind of thing?

anyone know where you can buy a cheap, yet reliable, radioactivity meter?

This is why they are using

Corexit in such quantities

is this implying that they are ttrying to use corexit to break down the crude, in order to speed up the natural break down process of it's radioactivity?

[edit on 7/6/2010 by indigothefish]

[edit on 7/6/2010 by indigothefish]

You don't "speed up" the natural breakdown process of radioactivity. Radioactivity in uranium results in decay by the emission of alpha particles, which are helium nucleii. If the nucleus grabs two electrons from its surroundings, it becomes a helium atom. In any event, it takes about 4.46 billion years for half the uranium 238 to decay to Thorium 234 and only 21 days for half of that to decay, by beta decay, to Protactinium 234 which decays with a half life of about a minute to Uranium 234. In about 300,000 years what is left goes through another 10 decay processes to end up as stable non-radioactive Lead 206. See,
Corexit is used not to make all traces of crude go away but to make it less obvious under the theory that several billion little globules of oil is less pernicious than a huge slick floating on the surface. It causes faster evaporation of the lighter components of crude since evaporation, which happens at the surface of a substance, as opposed to boiling which happens throughout, is dependent to a large degree on surface area. The more surface area, the faster the evaporation. In any event, Corexit, whatever else it may or may not do, would not have any effect on the speed or manner of alpha or beta decay.

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91
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?

OK, I can explain it but first I need you to take 2 semesters of General Chemistry, at least 2 of Organic, a course in Physical Chemistry, and a full selection of Physics courses including Nuclear Physics, General Mechanics and the full complement of Calculus and Statistical Methods courses.
First, in what sense are you using the term "unstable. Oil, comprised of the aromatics, paraffins, alcanes and heavier compounds, is a relatively stable hydrocarbon chain. Carbon bonds are strong, particularly when saturated. And you seem to think that surviving radiation is very difficult. My popcorn is still popcorn after the radiation from the microwave. Yup, it's radiation - electromagnetic radiation just like the stuff that lights up your TV screen - just a different frequency/wavelength. When Uranium decays, it emits an alpha particle (a helium nucleus) and gamma radiation. That is the stuff that makes it dangerous for humans. Gamma radiation is energetic enough to break the fairly weak molecular bonds in DNA. However, gamma radiation would pass right through most oils without hitting anything. It is the shortest wavelenth of all EMR. And therefore the highest frequency and therefore the highest energy. After all, E=hv.
And I'm at a total loss by what you mean by "berated by sub atomic particles." I get this mental image of a helium nucleus standing on a soapbox with its little quarky chest puffed out screaming at a pentane molecule, "Lemme at him, lemme at him! I could take him with my p orbitals tied behind my back!!!" Did you maybe mean "bombarded?
Anyway, to try and answer your question, there are huge differences between burning an irradiating. Burning is chemical, an oxidation-reduction reaction between oil and oxygen. Irradiation is a physical process involving mechanics.
Oh, and it isn't the oil that is radioactive. It is the particles of uranium and thorium and their decay chain products in suspension in the oil and the water connected to the drilling operation that are radioactive.

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:03 PM
Ok, so I didn't even read this whole threat. I read the first post, and let me clear this up right away.

When drilling, they typically read gamma so they "know" where they are drilling. They read the Naturally Occurring Radiation in the formations. Every rock emits radiation. EVERY rock. Sand puts out low levels around 1-50 counts, anything up to 500 counts can be assumed to be shale.

Shale is made up of quartz, uranium (in such minimal amounts that if you wanted to over expose yourself you'd probably have to eat, inhale, and inject it non-stop to the point where you would die from stupidity than exposure.), and all kinds of other materials.

You don't need a geiger counter because the levels are so much lower than what you'd actually get from the sun, that it doesn't even count for anything. A banana reads a higher level of radiation than the formations underground due to the potassium content. The gravel in your driveway? That typically would read around 50 counts, just sitting there. My point is, unless you drill directly into uranium... you're going to read such MINIMAL amounts that don't even compare to turning on a light bulb.

If what you're saying was true... then we'd have a whole lot of dead farmers and gardeners from exposure.

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:08 PM

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

In case you weren't aware of this....

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:16 PM
reply to post by Shikamaru

Oil is the Earth's Blood... Human's are misquitos... Like the human body, the earth's body creates it's own white blood cell that mix in with the regular blood to fight off infectious foreign materials /infections... Humans are an infection... Parasitic to say the least. Nothing wrong with the statement... every microscopic-to-large form of life has the right to fight for it's own survival... But sooner or later.. Earth is gonna use the bug spray.

There is only one problem with this; The bug spray kills EVERYTHING and even ruins the house. Surely nature can do better?

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:16 PM
reply to post by dyvfd

I fear you are talking sense in a thread full of nonsense. The amount of stars and flags given already suggest that people want to believe this claptrap.
star from me.


posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by Alxandro

That's possibly a bit of a straw man. Just because someone calls into credibility the reliability of information posted on an unknown blog does not necessarily mean they are claiming that the MSM is the only reliable source. There is a LOT of gray area in between those two extremes.

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:18 PM
You think the dispersant isn't harmful? WATCH THIS!

Video from Project Gulf Impact. I guess they could be faking, buy why would they?

Video from Grand Isle - Today

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:59 PM
heh, don't panic:-) very high toxic danger is YeZ_z, radioactive danger is No

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:27 PM

Originally posted by justadood

BP obviously drilled into something big, something that continues to gush out in full force even after 70 plus days.
This can only mean that that the oil is coming from some continuous source deep within the Earth's surface.

I'm not sure that is worded accurately. Some estimates for that specific reserve are 5-10 BILLION barrels of crude, so obviously it will take a VERY long time to see it lose pressure. I mean, perhaps you are correct, but it is hardly a forgone conclusion based on your first sentence .

May I suggest re-wording it to say "This MAY mean "?

Or maybe it should be suggested that the reserves are under pressure from the great depth of the sea-water pressing atop of the sea-floor,which itself weighs even more,and then consider the fact that the earth's crust is thinner at the sea floor............

Maybe just a big old deposit of petroleum,which will equalize in pressure eventually,as long as the thinner crust of the sea floor itself does not collapse.........radiation?,hmmmmmmmmph...

water pressure and oil pressure may equalize,but is the pressure from downward force on the sea-floor?,if this is the case,and there is no equalization,radiation will be the least of things to worry about...

[edit on 7-7-2010 by chiponbothshoulders]

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 08:07 PM
If the crude oil is that radioactive when it emerges , then why isnt it still radioactive when it is broken down into its components when refined ?process takes a few months max not enough time for natural decay,so petrol should be radioactive too, etc , or the refineries filter the isotopes/particles out ....I think not.....

I do not feel there is any evidence for harmfull radiation from the oil.

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 08:11 PM

Originally posted by b.jim
You think the dispersant isn't harmful? WATCH THIS!

Video from Grand Isle - Today

You know, I have been reading these threads for a few weeks now, and i have yet to see ONE person say "corexitt isnt harmful".

So why do these kinds of posts keep appearing? Who are you referring to??

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 09:41 PM

Originally posted by xstealth

Originally posted by Alxandro

During the Gulf War the Gulf Syndrome is speculated to be caused by the expulsion of Uranium and Thorium from the wells opened up by Saddam Hussein.

That isn't true...

Bullets, shells and missiles tipped with radioactive depleted uranium made every weapon in Iraq's arsenal obsolete. The higher weight of DU shells allows American tanks to shoot twice as far, giving them a range of two miles.

During the [1991] Desert Storm terror campaign at least 944,000 rounds of DU ammo were fired from American A-10 Warthogs all over Iraq and Kuwait. The A-10 is an aircraft built around a 30mm, 7-barrel gattling gun that can spew 3900 rounds per minute.

When a depleted uranium tipped shell strikes a tank or armored personnel carrier it easily penetrates the armor and burns the crew alive. The impact also vaporizes the depleted uranium, creating an aerosol of radioactive heavy-metal particles which can spread as far as 190 miles on the wind

[edit on 6/7/10 by xstealth]

And to add...

Combustion products from depleted uranium munitions are being considered as one of the potential causes by the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, as DU was used in 30 mm and smaller caliber machine-gun bullets on a large scale for the first time in the Gulf War. Veterans of the conflicts in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo have been found to have up to 14 times the usual level of chromosome abnormalities in their genes.[83][84] Serum-soluble genotoxic teratogens produce congenital disorders, and in white blood cells causes immune system damage.[85] Human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in the offspring of persons exposed to DU.[9] A 2001 study of 15,000 February 1991 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times more likely to have children with birth defects.[86] After examination of children's medical records two years later, the birth defect rate increased by more than 20%:Wiki

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 09:44 PM
reply to post by Alxandro

This may support the assertion:

Red flags and black flags

[edit on 7-7-2010 by loam]

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:55 PM
Did you guys also see the video on today about this guy who cleaned up the Exxon Valdez spill? (Video from Anderson Cooper 360).

Critics call Valdez cleanup a warning for Gulf workers

"Clams and mussels, to fish and otters, to ducks and eagles, and even deer and bears," said Anchorage lawyer Dennis Mestas, who represented another worker who was involved in the cleanup. "But they never studied what this oil was doing to the workers -- to the human beings in Prince William Sound."

Mestas warns history may be repeating itself thousands of miles away in the Gulf of Mexico, with evidence of workers getting sick, and their medical records being controlled by BP.

Dalthorp never filed a workers compensation claim or had a doctor determine the cause of his illness. But Mestas said the man he represented -- Gary Stubblefield, who he said "still struggles for each breath" as a result of the cleanup -- sued Exxon over his illness. The oil company settled for a reported $2 million, without admitting any blame, after Mestas went to an Exxon office in Houston, Texas, and viewed medical records of cleanup workers.

And here's another Fox News video I just noticed called:
Gulf Oil Syndrome .


posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by Alxandro

That would explain many things. One, one worker who wasn't getting paid in a timely manner was interviewed but his face wasn't shown (you may be able to find it on making reference to the workers working 10 or 20 minutes on and 50 minutes off. And on top of that he called the oil area a hot zone (which more than likely he got that phrase from the ones in charge). And that wasn't the only reference of workers working very very short times in the oil contaminated areas, there reasoning was that it had to do with having them not work to long in the heat. Which is bogus as hell. If 40% of the stuff coming out of the well is methane, then that says it must be radioactive as hell. I truly believe that we are going to see major sickness from much of the population that is out in the gulf and on the shore.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:39 AM
Reading the oil threads does make me wonder
has any of the US or the rest of the world done
the distillation of crude into all its parts?

do they even no what i am talking about?

this is 1st grade science for god sake.
if not or they dont know the contents of
raw crude after it has been distilled they
should look it up.some stupid people here.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in