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.

 

Corexit 9500: What's there to hide!

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
The reason why BP are using Corexit can easily be seen in the following pictures. Ever since the start of the oil spill they knew that it was not stoppable immediately so the next best thing was to "sweep it under the rug" tactic and use Corexit.

The first pic shows the oil on the sea surface. The black streaks are easily visible however the sheen and scale of the sheen is harder to see. These i believe are areas that have been broken down with Corexit to hide the truth see below.




The second image using photoshop, shows that the area covered is much larger and that the scale of this disaster is obviously being hidden from the media and from the public.




The true extent of this spill will never be known and will never be recorded in history. The numbers will be fixed and like the Corexit masking the oil, this disaster im afraid to say will be spoke about but forgotten and the same mistake will be made again.



Image taken from the slideshow:
Slideshow


[edit on 9-7-2010 by StealthKix]




posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
No mistakes made here.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by StealthKix
 



I'm confused by where you are going with this. Are you saying they shouldnt use corexitt so more oil will hit the beaches and marshes so that it is a bigger media event that will then allow people to be EVEN MORE mad at BP?

I dont follow that logic, since it would mean even MORE crude hitting the beaches and marshes, which everyone agrees is a very bad thing, as well.

While I am NOT saying the corexit is harmless, and I am NOT arguing that BP doesnt benefit from 'hiding' the oil underneath the water, the corexit does more than just submerge the crude. It also allows it to break down faster, which, last time i checked, is a good thing.

The notion that BP can downplay this spill seems absurd to me. Anyone who bothers to be even mildly informed knows this equals an exxon valdez every week or so. Everyone knows that BP continues to use Corexit against the EPAs requests. Everyone knows this is already one of the largest 'spill's in history. This is all front page stuff in the MSM. So the idea that BP is solely using corexitt to 'hide' the oil from the media (the same media no longer allowed near the spill anyway) seems a bit off the mark.

In other words, yes corexitt is bad. But there is no perfect solution to such a funked up problem. If you remove corexitt from the situation, then you have even more oil on the surface that will end up in the oceans all around the world. Even more crude in wildlife marshes. Is that a good solution, just because it makes for worse PR for BP?

I'll check back later to see how many of you will say i am claiming corexitt is benign.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by StealthKix
 
I'll check back later to see how many of you will say i am claiming corexitt is benign.


I'm not quite sure what else you expect with the post you made. Corexit is more dangerous than the oil itself, yet you still think its best to use the corexit instead of just working to collect the oil, prevent it from hitting marshland. For that matter, maybe getting on top of fixing the leak?

It's obvious that you don't believe that corexit is benign, I just wonder how harmless you think it is in comparison to the oil.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


I'm saying that BP should try a little bit harder. For a company as big as BP, using "chemicals" to HIDE the extent of the spill is weak. In the end theres always a profit to be made somewhere out of somone.

We all known Corexit one way or another is dangerous to most organic bodies. Im just saying that BP are trying to HIDE the truth on exactly how much OIL covers the sea surface.

What was that adage again "A picture is worth a thousand words" .

E.g

Headline

Wildlife affected by the Gulf Oil Spill



OR






[edit on 9-7-2010 by StealthKix]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by StealthKix
 




Listen to that small voice telling you it's all planned 1000 steps ahead.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by StealthKix
 


Right, but you are also saying that you think they should stop using it, which would put that much more crude into the open ocean, onto the touristy beaches, and into the delicate marshes.

Now, i'm sure they could find a less toxic option (numerous ones appear to be available), but that would still be 'hiding' the oil, so you would still have a problem with that? You think it better to get it 'all out in the open', even if the environmental costs are even worse??

Talk about slicing off your nose to spite your face.

There is no magic bullet to get rid of 150 million gallons of oil and counting. I really dont follow your logic that we should actually make the spill WORSE just so you can see even more damning pictures of oil covering the gulf.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by justadood]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by StealthKix
 
I'll check back later to see how many of you will say i am claiming corexitt is benign.


I'm not quite sure what else you expect with the post you made. Corexit is more dangerous than the oil itself, yet you still think its best to use the corexit instead of just working to collect the oil, prevent it from hitting marshland. For that matter, maybe getting on top of fixing the leak?


Great question. My issue is I see no evidence to suggest there is any magic tool that will collect all the oil if it is 'merely' floating on the surface. There is much media hype about skimmers like "A Whale" and booms and whatnot, but the REALITY is, these things end up having very little practical impact. Oil ROUTINELY surges over booms, and the skimmers pick up very little oil. It will take all the skimmers available in the world DECADES to clean up all this oil (not to mention the more that is still coming) and in the meantime, it will make its way to the shores and open sea.

So, NO, i dont think corexitt is the best thing to use. It appear quite obvious BP is using it because they have financial connections to the company who provides it. But I ABSOLUTELY dont think that using a dispersant is inherently bad. In fact, if you'll do a little research about big spills around the world, you will discover dispersants clean it up faster than anything else.


It's obvious that you don't believe that corexit is benign, I just wonder how harmless you think it is in comparison to the oil.


Well, i would like to believe its obvious, but i have had some pretty crazy responses on this forum, so i have found it necessary to make numerous qualifications to avid being called a 'shill'.

As for your second sentence, i dont think it is harmless. All evidence available implies it is actually VERY VERY bad, and even worse when mixed with oil. But the evidence ALSO suggests that it does indeed break the crude down into smaller bits that allow microbes better access to it, greatly speeding up its decomposition. No one int he scientific community really seems to dispute that, from what ive seen.

So, my point, as i illustrated in my previous post, is that people who are claiming the "ONLY" reason BP is using it is to hide it may not be entirely accurate. it would also appear they are ALSO using it because it does indeed have some useful side effects.

So yes, i think they should be using dispersants on this oil. It is VERY effective. But, no, i dont think they should use corexit.

Also, how come every spell checker out there STILL doesnt recognize 'dispersants'?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join