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.

 

Gulf toxicologist: Shrimpers exposed to Corexit "bleeding from the rectum"

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   



Watch this video....


It's going to be interesting to see what else comes out soon.




posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth



It's going to be interesting to see what else comes out soon.


pun intended?


Or not?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Destroyed from the inside out.

Got pesky useless eaters? Do you need to destroy livelihoods, the environments that allow those useless eaters to provide for themselves, and just living things in general?

Corexit corrects it!



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 


Well, those pesky eaters also provide a very hefty tax base for those dubious 'PTB'.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


Not as much as the corexit costs I bet.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 


So you're saying the corexit costs more than they would gain from keeping them alive?

How is that profitable? You spend all your money on corexitt so you can kill off your tax/consumer base?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Corexit Physical Effects and Decision To Use It





TextCorexit is an EPA approved oil dispersant[1] that is banned in the U.K. but used extensively by BP its 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. [2] Corexit was also used in the Exxon Valdez spill and was later linked to health problems including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney, and blood disorders. [3] One Corexit product contains a compound that in high doses is associated with headaches, vomiting, and reproductive illnesses. Id.[4] Clean-up workers in the Exxon Valdez disaster reported blood in their urine and kidney and liver disorders.[5] EPA data also shows that Corexit is far more toxic and far less effective than other approved dispersants.[6]
BP has defended its use of Corexit, spokesman Jon Pack claiming it is "pretty effective."[7] Pack has also said, "I'm not sure about the others." Id.[8] BP's defense of Corexit breaks down when scrutinized, as shown by U.S. Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York's questioning of BP's dispersant use. He questioned BP American Chairman Lamar MacKay regarding Corexit at a congressional hearing on May 19th, 2010:

Nadler asked why Corexit was chosen when it is clearly less effective and more toxic than other dispersants available, other than BP's corporate relations with the manufacturer.[Id.] MacKay's answer did not allay concerns. BP's main reason for continuing to use Corexit appears to be its close ties to the manufacturer.[1]


www.sourcewatch.org...



The Environmental Protection Agency ordered BP to cut back by 50 to 75% of the oil dispersant Corexit Monday because they don’t believe the oil company’s word that it does not effect sea life.
The 800,000 gallons of Corexit (EC9527A) BP said it has dumped on the Gulf oil slick is manufactured by Nalco Co. of Naperville, Illinois. On its website, Nalco reports it has tested its product on much smaller surfaces than the Gulf. Its findings based on EPA models is that the product is “not expected” to bioaccumulate and its environmental hazard and exposure characterization is “moderate.”
It reports its hazardous properties of butoxyethanol, organic sulfonic acid salt and propylene glycol. On humans, excessive exposure may cause injury to red blood cells, kidney or the liver. It is harmful by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed which would include some sea life although the anecdote is flushing with clean water.





Even our own EPA data ranks Corexit as being 20 times more toxic, and far less effective in handling southern Louisiana crude than some other dispersants.
Historically, workers who have cleaned up after the use of Corexit have suffered with health problems, including blood in their urine.
Carys Mitchelmore, a professor at the University of Maryland’s Environmental Science asked, “Why wouldn’t you go for the lesser toxic formulation?”

themoderatevoice.com...


Yes, it's that bad.....

[edit on 9-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


Someone is getting paid to supply the corexit, specifically Nalco. Now I don't know any ties or anything but I would be willing to bet that this money is ending right back in the pockets of those who generated this string of events.

You have to break eggs to make an omelet, and I know there is legislation on it's way, just more BS in general for the people to deal with, for the sake of some "thing", some goodness.

Based on your personal interpretation of worldly events you could come up with any number of reasons to explain why they would kill their own.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Is this why the name of this stuff is "core exit"

Ironic, maybe?

maybe not...



[edit on 9-7-2010 by Kevinquisitor]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
This stuff is very friendly to organics. This video is from the supplier of corexit.

at 17 seconds it shows corexit being used in a small container of oil.

Imagine an aerosol of this






[edit on 9-7-2010 by depth om]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
reply to post by justadood
 


Someone is getting paid to supply the corexit, specifically Nalco. Now I don't know any ties or anything but I would be willing to bet that this money is ending right back in the pockets of those who generated this string of events.



Right, but that 'someone' getting paid is getting their money from BP, right? So, your theory is that the "PTB" are taking money out of their left pocket and putting it into their right pocket, and killing people who provide a tax base in the process, and this is somehow profitable?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 


Interesting video. Stunning how fast it works on the oil.

What's more interesting, is how all the people using that environmentally safe, harmless Corexit... are wearing gloves.




posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Grief.... this sounds serious.... This is sounding more and more like a chemical weapons attack than an oil spill. It has been suggested by some that the gusher is actually a asphalt volcano that was intentionally tapped to mimic an oil gusher as an excuse to use the chemical corexit to poison the Gulf coast population in order to clear them out of there.

Must keep an open mind at all times when dealing with these clever, evil bastards.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by soleprobe]

[edit on 9-7-2010 by soleprobe]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


I don't have a theory I'm comfortable with. Though evidence can show it was allowed to happen and corexit was chosen in lieu of safer more efficient dispersants.

Also all the money business, I think is merely to keep up appearances.. lmao they spent almost a trillion for security at g20.. why not teleconference if this is the "green" revolution?

Anyways I guess to me, this was an engineered chess move, everything's according to plan. They don't need those measly tax dollars if something greater is at stake. Since when did human life mean anything..

[edit on 9-7-2010 by depth om]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
reply to post by depth om
 


Interesting video. Stunning how fast it works on the oil.

What's more interesting, is how all the people using that environmentally safe, harmless Corexit... are wearing gloves.



YES, that technician in the video is probably in light hazmat gear. respirator..
BP didn't allow workers to wear their own masks.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
When all is said and done, the entire Gulf and likely the whole lower easter seaboard will be bleeding from their rectum... and it won't all be because of Corexit.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kevinquisitor
Is this why the name of this stuff is "core exit"

Ironic, maybe?

maybe not...



[edit on 9-7-2010 by Kevinquisitor]


I really hope that these people are not being harmed like this. But if this stuff is toxic then the effects could vary from person to person. Some in the lungs, or on the skin, or the digestive tract.


Personally I don't think this is safe.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
reply to post by depth om
 


Interesting video. Stunning how fast it works on the oil.

What's more interesting, is how all the people using that environmentally safe, harmless Corexit... are wearing gloves.



Is anyone saying that the undiluted corexitt straight from the can is "environmentally safe, harmless"?

Or are those claims being made about it once it is diluted by the ocean water?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I have a thought and after doing so thinking on this, here is what I can come up with:
It is not the Corexit that is causing the medical problems. If you read the MSDS on the chemical, the symptoms for exposure do not match.
But cholorine gas will cause the medical problems that are stated in the video. Here is what I believe is going on.
They are using the Corexit to clean up the oil, pouring it on. The low flash point combined with the reactive nature of this chemical, is not only bonding with the oil, but also the water. As this is done in a body of salt water, my guess it is removing the bond between the water, sodium and choline atoms, creating chlorine gas, that these people are being exposed to, thus causing the rash, breathing problems and the rectal bleeding.
When you mix the corexit with the oil, there is bound to be a reaction, and that reaction is going to have an effect on the salt water.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join