"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."
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
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.
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!
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!
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?
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
Please, be careful. I would try to have someone with you, as you know hte way that enforcement can escalate...at least that way you have a witness. Do
take care, and keep up posted. I will find your thread, and link it here.
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.
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?
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
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
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?
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2014, The Above Network, LLC.