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.

 

James Fox reports test results of water from Grand Isle

page: 2
39
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sizzlean
reply to post by darkelf
 


Yeah you're probably right, the fish and sharks and whales are going to evolve back into microbes right? Give me a break with your bs philosophy, you will be dead and still telling people in the grave next to you that you're going to evolve. Well I'll tell you what evolutionists, now you have the scenario to prove/disprove your false doctrine, so when it's over and not one species has devolved back into microbes, then please shut the hell up and take on some common sense.


Too bad evolution takes generations to occur. It doesn't spontaneously happen in living creatures or their immediate offspring.

Since you have an apparent ignorance of the theory, let me explain:

1. A creature has a child with some mutation.
2. The mutation makes it difficult to survive, so it dies, fails to reproduce, or its offspring don't survive.
OR
2. The mutation gives the offspring an advantage (food, survival, etc).
3. This mutation is passed on to future generations, who also have a better chance of survival and reproduction.




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Corexit is specifically designed to PREVENT the formation of 'clods' of oil and instead break it down to tiny suspended droplets. The theory being increasaed surface area promotes more rapid breakdown.

I think you are missing the point being made regarding propylene glycol. It is one known component of Corexit. So, if the concentration of PG is 430ppm then the concnetration of Corexit HAS to be something higher than that. The toxicity information he was relaying was related to Corexit, not PG.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sizzlean
 


what hapens to cock roaches when you poison them?
some live
then the next generation more live
then the next generation more live
untill several generations later
none of the cockroaches die from that particular poison.
this is an indisputable fact

oooops
what was it you were saying again?

I know God created evolution just so Christians could call him a lier


[edit on 7-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
I think you are missing the point being made regarding propylene glycol. It is one known component of Corexit. So, if the concentration of PG is 430ppm then the concnetration of Corexit HAS to be something higher than that. The toxicity information he was relaying was related to Corexit, not PG.


Propylene glycol is a component of crude oil. Sampling the water that the crude oil clod was resting in would naturally result in higher PG content. Drawing a conclusion that the PG is present from Corexit is assumptive.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


But he specifically said he sampled this from the '20 mile' sample away from the oil 'booger', sampling just the water.

And despite my best effort I have searched several university and EPA papers on crude oil assays and have been unable to find any mention of glycols or even alcohols in any paper. Would you have a link to a paper that shows the glycol concentration in crude oil?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


You are right, I wikipedia it. It's in: massage oils, hand sanitizers, antibacterial lotions, and saline solutions, cooling agent for beer and wine glycol jacketed fermentation tanks, a carrier in fragrance oils, a solvent for food colors and flavorings, main ingredient in deodorant sticks, emulsification agent in Angostura and orange bitters, and etc....

Wikipedia Link For Propylene glyol

I also saw it was also for UV or blacklight tattoo ink, which I know have it's own drama as being possibly cancerous, probably from other ingredients included in the ink.

On the wikipedia page, for humans it reads: Propylene glycol does not cause sensitization and it shows no evidence of being a carcinogen or of being genotoxic.

It is a additive in dog food, but "propylene glycol may be toxic to cats in ways not seen in other animals". It doesn't say anything about marine animals or any other animal is may effect.

The Propylene Glyol Material Safety Data Sheet: Material Data Sheet

Very interesting read...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Pacal Votan
 


Exactly, right. What's up with all of these people that have been replying sceptically to the posts that are in regard to the oil leak? What more proof do you want?
I am obviously a supporter of our first amendment right to free speech. I just don't understand these people that are making these negative remearks to the OP's. These people aren't fear mongering, they're reporting the full news that the msm won't fully report on. They have sources and even their sources have links to their sources!!
So, to all of you out there that are trying to debate for...fun (?) I say this: If you find a subject on ATS that you don't agree with or think is bogus, research the topic and source. Then, if you still think that the OP has their info. wrong or misguiding- only then, post your findings to the contrary to make others aware. Don't just hop around on diffrent threads and be like "You're wrong, no wait you're wrong!" because no one on here wants to read about your negative opinoins.
There are enough real negative things happening all around us, please don't add the unnecessary melodrama.

To the OP: thank you for taking the time to put this thread together!



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Pacal Votan
 


Exactly, right. What's up with all of these people that have been replying sceptically to the posts that are in regard to the oil leak? What more proof do you want?
I am obviously a supporter of our first amendment right to free speech. I just don't understand these people that are making these negative remearks to the OP's. These people aren't fear mongering, they're reporting the full news that the msm won't fully report on. They have sources and even their sources have links to their sources!!
So, to all of you out there that are trying to debate for...fun (?) I say this: If you find a subject on ATS that you don't agree with or think is bogus, research the topic and source. Then, if you still think that the OP has their info. wrong or misguiding- only then, post your findings to the contrary to make others aware. Don't just hop around on diffrent threads and be like "You're wrong, no wait you're wrong!" because no one on here wants to read about your negative opinoins.
There are enough real negative things happening all around us, please don't add the unnecessary melodrama.

To the OP: thank you for taking the time to put this thread together!



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


You do bring a valid point to the discussion ............

Not to take anything away from James Fox and his efforts because I too had been following his reports from the gulf......and still will follow......

Many of you here on this thread already know that we have launched a project in getting "rain" water tested hopefully from systems formed out of the gulf.

The biggest problem we have found in looking for a lab is that most labs “DO NOT” have the testing parameters for testing for dispersants and oil compounds. From watching the video it looks like the testing parameters did include a test for propylene glycol which is only one of many of the compounds that make up Corexit. He did mention from the test that there were a lot of “other” compounds there……I can only assume that his testing parameters could not identify the other compounds.

Although the video is very good and does expose the contamination…..the results are not conclusive to that being 100% Corexit.

And that is what we need! You know how the Gov / MSM / BP will spin all news………………

The lab we are attempting to finalize our testing program does have the parameters for testing for corexit and other oil dispersants.

James Fox and the lab he used does open the door that more testing needs to be done. Good thread OP S&F…………….

We are seeking rain samples……………If you would like to participate u2u me or leave a comment on the Operation Truth thread……..


[edit on 7-7-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I smell a rat, as there aren't any sea otters off the coast of Louisiana. He could have been seeing nutria rats but not in the Gulf of Mexico. Was he lying abot the sea otters? I think so because I can't think of anything in the gulf that would resemble a sea otter. Unfortunately, it throws his hole premise in question, IMO.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508

But he specifically said he sampled this from the '20 mile' sample away from the oil 'booger', sampling just the water.


It's still the same principal. The lab tech said he only tested the water present in the sample. The water would have been present with crude oil in each of the samples.



And despite my best effort I have searched several university and EPA papers on crude oil assays and have been unable to find any mention of glycols or even alcohols in any paper. Would you have a link to a paper that shows the glycol concentration in crude oil?


I'm not certain of content. It could vary based on the nature of the base stock.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Just a little info.........

"The analysis of various sample matrices (seawater, sediment, tissue) to determine concentrations of Corexit dispersants used in the Gulf spill requires the use of one or more of the components in the dispersant as a tracer. The primary active ingredient (i.e. the primary surfactant) in the Corexit products is Dioctyl Sulfosuccinate Sodium Salt (DOSS). The other primary ingredients function as carriers until the dispersant is applied. At that point, the lighter fractions evaporate and the water soluble component(s) dissolve in the seawater and rapidly dissipate."

www.caslab.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I've only watched the first 3min of the video where he was sampling at the beach (assuming that's the same one), and I didn't see the part you're referring to. But, maybe he meant river otter - people often make that mistake. They're not normally out in the ocean, but I've seen them in salt marsh tidal creeks.
Here's one reference (range map on the right midway down):
www.defenders.org...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm not certain of content. It could vary based on the nature of the base stock.


I'm not necessarily doubting you and I'm certain it would vary from well-to-well if it was present, but I cannot find a single mention of gycols, diols or even alcohols in any of the papers I've been able to find. Given the rather exhaustive assays published in these papers one would expect to find SOME mention of it if it was, indeed, present in any meaningful concentration. You stated categorically that it was. I'm trying to determine what the source of that 430ppm is. If PG isn't foiund in crude in any meaningful concentration then this becomes significant. I hope you can see why.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
To be fair though, he collected a sample from a clod of coagulated oil presumably formed by the Corexit. One should expect that the water present from that sample would be extremely high in chemical content.

He also listed "propylene glycol" concentrations. Propylene glycol is not toxic to humans and most animals and is found commonly in household products and foods.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by traditionaldrummer]


I am sure you are trying to provide some balance to the thread...but my question is...Would you going swimming and eat fish from that water? Just curious...

What foods contain "propylene glycol?" I am not very educated about that aspect of my food so a few examples would be helpful. Thanks in advance.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ttatw
 


I grew up in that area and fished those waters (for recreation) and I have never seen an otter in ocean. I have seen nutria and other weasels in the brackish wetlands but usually not that far towards the Gulf, which is where Grand Isle is. I especially couldn't see them swimming down there with the oil as heavy as it is. I could be wrong, maybe the oil attracts them but it's hard for me to believe that they would go out of their habitat towards the oil.

Maybe he just saw them in the marshes on the drive down to Grand Isle but I don't see why he would call them sea otters unless what he saw was in the actual sea.

In the first part of the video, he mentions something to the affect that he couldn't imagine this mess on his beach, which leads me to believe that he lives on the coast, outside of the projected oil. This coupled with his accent and demeanor, I am assuming that he is from the West Coast, where sea otters are prevalent. He should know what a sea otter looks like so I couldn't imagine him seeing a beaver or nutria in the marshes and call it a sea otter.

I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into this but other things make me not trust this video either. Things such as the lab staying anonymous. Could it be innocent? Absolutely, however, the guy on the phone seemed to only talk about the levels of one minor chemical in the samples found. He would go into detail about that chemical, yet only say that the other chemicals were much higher without going into detail. He also said at one point, something to the affect that he only tested for that one minor chemical.

If this is true, then why say that the other chemicals are much higher, if you haven't tested for them so don't know? Also, why not test for the other chemicals too? This little tid-bit leads me to believe that this either was not a real lab or it was not an authorized lab tech or scientist conducting this test. In other words, it wasn't someone qualified to conduct such a test.

I have no doubt that this spill is huge, bigger than what they are telling us, however, this particular video just isn't sitting right with me and I call BS. The last thing we need are hoax reports or disinformation coming out discrediting the real researchers and whistle blowers.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I believe it said he was from an 'academic laboratory'. So it's entirely possible the lab work is being done on the down low. He said he's using GC so what specific chemicals he can ID depends on the specific column installed in the GC at the time and the software he's running. If they're doing this work 'unofficially' at a university lab it's entirely likely that the tech would not be free to use whatever columns he'd like. Or also possible, depending on the nature of the lab and the manner in which the GC is used they may not even have the columns needed to separate and ID the other peaks. You tend to have the columns on-hand for the kinds of work you normally do.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


I understand that, however the guy was saying that the other major chemicals in corexit were even higher, yet he didn't test for them.

You know what this sounds like to me? It sounds like a student (most likely undergrad) is using his school laboratory and that he is unqualified to conduct such a test. When you couple this with the guy on film who mentions oil draped sea otters of the coast of Louisiana, in a ply for sympathy. Sea otters? Is that just a line from the Valdez spill? Is he reading from a script left over from the Exxon Valdez tragedy?

Why would these guys not send the samples to a real lab, that would step out of the shadows or at least give thorough results? This whole video just smells fishy to me and the more I watch it, the more I find that makes me believe they are playing on emotions instead of facts. This is too bad because it is only going to discredit the real damning info when and if it comes out.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Before calling it a fraud (my word, but meaning the same) on what seems somewhat weak evidence to me, why not just contact him and ask? If nothing else, I seem to recall you-tube has a comments section where a submitter can respond to questions. Not many people would put out the effort or take the risk, so let's give the ones who do the benefit of any doubt.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


You clearly didn't read what I said. I believe that it is very likely that these guys are dealing with a university student who is doing these tests without the permission of the university. If that is the case, he would have limited availability of the columns needed to do the testing. You have to use specific columns to run specific ranges of tests. It's highly likely the ones he needs to test for 'all the other stuff' are simply not available to him. They do provide an email and are willing to provide the samples to any laboratory willing to do the tests and publish them.

Why not just go to a commercial lab? Probably because it would be outrageously expensive to run a full LC/GC assay of the samples.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join