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.


Toxicologist: Corexit Destroys Basic Biological Structure Of Life *Video*

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:23 AM
reply to post by Greensage

Again, none of you are seeing the big picture.

Obama, he is nothing but another corporate puppet. The PR Person, another patsy or frontman.

Bigger fish to fry.

The heads of these companies, the elite handful of the most rich and powerful people are the ones to blame and hold accountable.

Our governments (world wide now) have all sold their souls and their people to the large corporate owners.

Know who the real enemy is.

The owners of BP and Corexit are the ones who should be held more accountable than the government.

The government is simply a puppet on a string, go after the puppet master not the puppet.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by ofhumandescent]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:29 AM
double post

[edit on 9-7-2010 by ofhumandescent]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:54 AM
I'm far away enough to not feel fear over this.

But i feel for you people

Make lives right, with your friends and family and neighbours, if nothing else, pull together on this. Enough division!!

I said right at the start, take the bp board of directors, and their families, and drop them in the gulf. I was shouted at for being ... cruel, or unfair or something.

They're killing ot only you, but everything! This is not murder. This is not genocide. This is a crime inconceivably huge, against nature and the earth and heaven too.

SWCFAN .. you got it. How many bp (and secuity) staff can your neighbourhood dump in the gulf per hour?

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:13 AM
"There have been two dispersants used on the oil spill thus far: Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500.

Corexit 9527 was used first and then discontinued during this spill at the request of the EPA.

It is still on the EPA's approved list but Corexit 9500 has been used in its place. The manufacturers of Corexit 9500 admit that these are toxic but to what degree is uncertain. The problems lie mainly with test data; different types of oil (heavy vs light crude) react differently' different life forms react differently; they also react differently at different life stages; mkechanical action due to wind, waves, and storm affect the dispersants effectiveness in various ways."

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Alethea]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:41 AM
reply to post by burntheships

its about time....

good 2 see some people finaly getting how HUGE this is
to bad we cant do anything about it

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:49 AM
Food for thought, BP are untouchable as such can do what the hell they like. Something for you guys to see:

Scott West: The U.S. Government Has Taught BP That it Can Do Whatever it Wants

Wonder how much they will pay to get out this one

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:03 AM
Also to add a little about SEA BRAT4, info is from a news article dated May 20th but I feel the info is relevant and also begs the question - Why are they still using Corexit 9500?

EPA Orders BP to Change Chemical Dispersant in GOM

[edit on 9/7/10 by StarTraveller]

[edit on 9/7/10 by StarTraveller]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:34 AM
reply to post by ofhumandescent

There are bigger fish to fry and these big fish are so powerful you can't even put a name or face on many of them.

Eye, there's the rub. The ones who are most responsible are also the ones most hidden from public view. They are the least accessible; well protected from exposure to the peons they exploit and murder.

Or are they? Who are these people if not the owners of and major investors in these companies? The names of who is who on boards of directors is public information is it not?

When I received a proxy form to vote in a slate of people for a company I have a very small investment in, I decided to look the people up on the internet. Low and behold there was a ton of info out there; including the myriad other companies whose board some of those people also sat on. Some were on the boards of several major world wide companies with questionable practices and reputations. I did my little bit by voting "NO" for those persons.

To take this further, would an investigation of who has a major stake in these unscrupulous companies not produce a list of people to "target" with actions to make their lives difficult if not miserable, and certainly less profitable at the least?

EDIT to add: I know it is not as simple as making a list. I have a foggy sense of there being a "web" of individuals and corporations all tangled up with each other -- a web that might even extend to every single major corporation out there. In other words, the "guilt" is spread wide and thin and sorting out who deserves retribution and/or prosecution and who does not would be no easy task.

[edit on 7/9/2010 by wayno]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:35 AM

Originally posted by burntheships
Adding additional links to this video as it may dissapear like some of the others. I really hope someone who has the ability to download this and save it, please do. This one is damning to the use of Corexit!

I now have this video and can host on my webserver if needed

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:39 AM
reply to post by StarTraveller

maybe cuz bp owns it??
and they make money from it??
just 1 reason could give u a few more.

u still dont get it?

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by merkaba93

You make an astute observation, that it is easier and cheaper for them to just let people die where they are. Of course, who would want to go to a FEMA camp? They know they have the upper hand, and you are right, they dont care!

reply to post by Illuminati_2012

reply to post by ghaleon12

Yes, it is absorbed through the skin as well. It may take longer to do the damage, depending on the exposure it could still kill.

reply to post by Bonified Ween

Wow, you know it is exactly that! Especially for the ecosystem in the Gulf. I guess the humans are just bonus points.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by Wide-Eyes

I too did refrain for months, then it just got to me. It is horrific to see the Gulf literally smothering in oil, that is bad enough as you say.

Adding Corexit is the worst thing they could have done! They would have been better off with any other option, opens my eyes, and I had to speak out!

reply to post by whatsup

Thanks for the links! It seems that the most vocal protests are the ones on the internet. I guess we feel safe behind the key boards???

reply to post by pegasi51

I think this idea has merit, I am on it today! We do make a difference when we pull together!

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by burntheships

Protesting on the keybooards just won't cut it no matter how in synch we all feel. It's passive. If we are REALLY as upset about this situation as we say we are on this website, then we HAVE to put our money where our mouths are. It's over due that we step things up a notch...
I'll be at the London HQ of BP this Monday (have posted a thread about it)
I am absolutely going to tell them that thier dispersants are more lethal than the oil which is, at least, organic!
I saw a similar vid explaining the toxicity levels that have been found in the Gulf waters and my blood actually ran cold. The reality is we're in such deep s**t that going to BP in person feels like the only thing I can think of to do to stop the sense of helplessness and impotence. I seriously am going to appeal to stop the poisons - for the sake of mankind.
What are you gonna DO about your passionate feelings on your OP?

[edit on 9-7-2010 by 5senses]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by 5senses

Please, can you link your thread here so all may see and participate?

Your a brave soul, and I hope you are not employed by BP, will they tolerate that confrontation?

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:05 PM
Let me figure out how to get you the Greepeace web link - not very pc savvy... In the meantime check out the Greenpeace UK website. Should be info there and read my OP thread on the subject (don't know how to link!).
And no, I'm not a BP employee and I've not done a lot of protesting in my life BUt THIS has me fired up like nothing ever has and I'd just be all talk if I didn't do what ever I can. This opportunity sort ot presented itself and I jumped on it. Yes, I'm a bit nervous, but it must be done

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by 5senses

Please, be careful. I would try to have someone with you, as you know hte way that enforcement can least that way you have a witness. Do take care, and keep up posted.
I will find your thread, and link it here.

5Senses Going to BP thread:

[edit on 9-7-2010 by burntheships]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:16 PM
Thanks for your help and concern. I will be with a couple of other people and we'll be appealing to BP to make better choices environmentally. There will be cameras (even if just our own) to document proceedings but I want to go 'off piste,' as they say, and address the corexit issue. I'll be non threatening to avoid agro!
Will keep you posted.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:24 PM
New BP Data Show 20% of Gulf Spill Responders Exposed to Chemical That Sickened Valdez Workers

Natural Resources Defense Council Senior Scientist Gina Solomon described BP's continued offshore 2-butoxyethanol detection during the month of June as "worrisome."

"It suggests to me that there is still, clearly, a serious air-quality concern. ... [Gulf] air quality, if anything, seems to be deteriorating," Solomon said.

Hunter College toxicology professor Frank Mirer said it would be "implausible" that the ongoing detection of 2-butoxyethanol among workers could be attributable to only BP's early use of Corexit 9527.

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by burntheships

You know, burntheships, I had to do some digging to know more about this topic.

Thank you for presenting what you have and because of that I'm going to add a bit more.

So, here goes nothing, what I see as it stands about Corexit.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Corexit

Corexit is a product line of solvents primarily used as a dispersant for breaking up oil slicks.

It is produced by Nalco Holding Company which is associated with BP and Exxon.

Corexit is the most-used dispersant in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, with COREXIT 9527 having been replaced by COREXIT 9500 after the former was deemed too toxic.

Oil that would normally rise to the surface of the water is broken up by the dispersant into small globules that can then remain suspended in the water, potentially forming underwater plumes of oil.

So, having used COREXIT 9527, it was switched for COREXIT 9500, because of toxicity, in other words, they had no clue, or did not give a damn.

Until someone pointed it out to them.

How ignorant can these people possibly be?

Corexit Is Killing The Gulf (Part I)

Corexit Is Killing The Gulf Part II

This to me is about as ignorant as spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam.

Without knowing the toxicity of it, and then side-stepping responsibility, for those soldiers who waded through the jungles of South-East Asia, humping packs looking for Charlie.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Corexit : Toxicity

The relative toxicity of Corexit and other dispersants are difficult to determine due to a scarcity of scientific data.

The manufacturer's safety data sheet states "No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product," and later concludes "The potential human hazard is: Low."

According to the manufacturer's website, workers applying Corexit should wear breathing protection and work in a ventilated area.

Compared with 12 other dispersants listed by the EPA, Corexit 9500 and 9527 are either similarly toxic or 10 to 20 times more toxic.

In another preliminary EPA study of eight different dispersants, Corexit 9500 was found to be less toxic to some marine life than other dispersants and to break down within weeks, rather than settling to the bottom of the ocean or collecting in the water.

None of the eight products tested are "without toxicity", according to an EPA administrator, and the ecological effect of mixing the dispersants with oil is unknown, as is the toxicity of the breakdown products of the dispersant.

Corexit 9527, considered by the EPA to be an acute health hazard, is stated by its manufacturer to be potentially harmful to red blood cells, the kidneys and the liver, and may irritate eyes and skin.

The chemical 2-butoxyethanol, found in Corexit 9527, was identified as having caused lasting health problems in workers involved in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

According to the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the use of Corexit during the Exxon Valdez oil spill caused people "respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders".

Like 9527, 9500 can cause hemolysis (rupture of blood cells) and may also cause internal bleeding.

According to the EPA, Corexit is more toxic than dispersants made by several competitors and less effective in handling southern Louisiana crude.

On May 20, 2010, the EPA ordered BP to look for less toxic alternatives to Corexit, and later ordered BP to stop spraying dispersants, but BP responded that it thought that Corexit was the best alternative and continued to spray it.

Reportedly Corexit may be toxic to marine life and helps keep spilled oil submerged.

There is concern that the quantities used in the Gulf will create 'unprecedented underwater damage to organisms.'

Nalco spokesman Charlie Pajor said that oil mixed with Corexit is "more toxic to marine life, but less toxic to life along the shore and animals at the surface" because the dispersant allows the oil to stay submerged below the surface of the water.

Corexit 9500 causes oil to form into small droplets in the water; fish may be harmed when they eat these droplets.

According to its Material safety data sheet, Corexit may also bioaccumulate, remaining in the flesh and building up over time.

Thus predators who eat smaller fish with the toxin in their systems may end up with much higher levels in their flesh.

What the Hell?

Okay, so I understand ignorance, but criminal malfeasance?

No way.

Hostile Takeover : Is BP PLC Vulnerable Enough For A Corporate Raid?

Come on over to the above thread and tell me your thoughts on it please.

Whose SWAT Teams Went To ALL Gulf Of Mexico Oil Rigs & What The Hell Are They Doing?

Is S.W.A.T. going out there a bit too much, or are they at the wrong location?

Possibly they should be at the headquarters of BP PLC arresting the C.E.O.

The charge would be criminal malfeasance but they should not stop there.

They should storm the headquarters of Halliburton and anyone else connected.

The Deepwater Horizon incident has gone on for far too long and all corporate heads, connected to it, benefiting from it, profiting off this mess, should be locked away.

The Gulf of B.P. Oil Disaster : A National Emergency Situation and Smoke On the Water

Or is this political and corporate fiasco going much deeper than a bungled accident and clean-up?

Considering off the coast of Venezuela a Natural Gas platform went down in May, who really knows, this could be the start of something much more significant.

Quote from : BBC News : Venezuelan Natural Gas Platform Sinks In Caribbean : May 13, 2010

A gas platform has sunk in the Caribbean Sea off the coast of Venezuela, but the energy minister says it poses no risk to the environment.

President Hugo Chavez announced the incident via his account on the social networking site Twitter.

He said all 95 workers were evacuated from the Aban Pearl platform before it sank in the early hours of Thursday.

The rig was at the centre of Venezuela's efforts to develop its huge offshore gas deposits.

The Energy Report - 5/13/10


Is this just corporate greed manifesting itself through a lack of proper maintenance?

Or is something much more sinister going on that we have no clue about?

Will the US invade Chile to bring Freedom and US Values

Corexit, smoke screens, and the Fog of War, oh my.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Fog of War

The fog of war is a term used to describe the level of ambiguity in situational awareness experienced by participants in military operations.

The term seeks to capture the uncertainty regarding own capability, adversary capability, and adversary intent during an engagement, operation, or campaign.

The term is ascribed to the Prussian military analyst Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote:

"The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently—like the effect of a fog or moonshine—gives to things exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance."

The term may also be a reference to the use of black powder in warfare, which often produced clouds of thick "fog", obscuring the battlefield from observers.

Bolded by SKL

The crap is rising higher and I need hip-waders because Washington D.C. is not telling us everything going on, that is for sure, but what are they not telling us, and which lie is the real lie this week, and which liar is lying the most?

[edit on 9-7-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:50 PM
Just came across leaked Corexit 9500A label! Full story here!

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in