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.


Exploding Water of the Gulf

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:34 PM
Well...that can't be good.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:23 PM
Why would BP pay people to come on
ATS to debunk the idea of oil in the water? Oh, I dunno, why would they hire mercenaries to keep the press off the beaches and away from clean up workers? Why would they be donating large sums of money to universities around the country to buy off marine biologists for their future lawsuits? Why did they donate a huge amount of money to UCB a while back over the protest of many faculty that it would compromise science at the university? Why did Stephen Chu defend BP's donation then and why is he secretary of energy now under Obama? All just coincidence and of no import no doubt. By the way, the CIA and DoD pay professional posters on sites like ATS so why not BP/

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by ghostpigeon

Ah, but see, the problem with your theory is, no one has denied oil being in the water. Go ahead, go back in the thread and see for yourself.

All that has been done is people asking informed questions about the methodology displayed in the video.

That is NOT denial, WHATSOEVER. It is science.

try it some time.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by justadood]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:49 PM
I would not call those informed questions. It seems like the early posts in this forum were trying to downplay the seriousness of this issue.

Here we finallyhave a local news team reporting this story (I have not seen any other reports by local news teams) and all these posters jump in trying to debunk the story. I just do not understand their reactions.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:53 PM
Awesome post.
'Bout time somebody came up with an idea to test the water AND report the results, eh?

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:56 PM
Our Government has failed to do the "proper" scientific tests and neglected to go on MSM with their results - AFAIK.

This type of testing should be done daily (by independent scientists) with the results given in the Thad Allen Briefings.

Where are all the scientists and skeptics (at ATS) condemning the governments handling of this serious need for true data? They condemn the "amateur" testing process but they should be bitching at the EPA for sloughing off.

IMHO - yeah I know opinions are like...

[edit on 18-7-2010 by FearNoEvil]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:01 PM
reply to post by justadood

It's science, not "rocket science". It is not difficult to test for oil in seawater. It's not hard to find a constant content in the Gulf either, to concede a point to you, but University of South Florida has confirmed that the oil on Florida beaches is consistent with the Deep Well Horizon mix.

Now, Benzene along is a serious health hazard at very low levels and (less than 5ppm and numbers along the gulf coast are 20-100 times more concentrated than that. Methane is also toxic to human life in large concentrations, but that probably isn't a factor in these samples.

Corectix, however, was not tested for and that may be the most toxic element of all. Testing for that really can't yield many results because BP has consistently refused to test Corectix for human toxicity and the EPA is only now engaging in comprehensive tests. One of the early results has shown
Corectix changes when mixed with Sea water and with oil, do it's a completely or substantially different toxic agent at that point.

Apocryphal evidence is overwhelming though. People are getting sick. Up to a quarter of clean-up workers have checked into the BP clinic. BP refuses to allow them to go to local hospitals. you might want to read this article:

Dahr Jamail has done a lot of good work on the plight of US Vets from Iraq and Afghanistan in getting VA funds and care, so he is not a one trick pony.
Check it out. This is a very emotional article but lest you think he's weak, he was the ONLY US unembedded reporter who worked outside the Green Zone in Iraq and the only US reporter at the front line in Falujiah.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:03 PM
I am a person of logic and common sense. I try to put myself in somebody else's shoes.

Some people are claiming that the explosion was caused by Corexit. I can't argue that. The problem is, the makers of Corexit are tied to the makers of Agent Orange. A cancer causing agent from the Viet Nam era.

In hindsight, they seemed too gung ho about using Corexit. They were spraying it like there was not tomorrow and when questioned whether or not it was safe, they promptly said, "oh yea, it's safe". Even the EPA didn't say much. Now, lets be real, the EPA files lawsuits if you so much as pi55 in a river. But this, nothing! Keep spraying.

Now, thinking about this logically, why in the hell would you want to disperse the oil?!! If you want to collect it, wouldn't you want it to stay together? If you were truly interested in "cleaning up the mess", why would you want it to separate? Or sink? Would that not make clean up more difficult? By leaving water and oil in their natural state, they naturally separate thereby facilitating clean up. When you spray "dispersants" you don't make clean up any easier if you are causing the oil to disperse, you are making it more difficult. As near as I can tell, the dispersants don't "neutralize" the oil or "get rid of it", they just break it down so it will mix with the water rather than separate from it.

I just don't see the reasoning behind that. You are simply taking a problem that is virtually isolated to the surface of the water and spreading it out over a much larger area. Smoke and mirrors!

The other reason they might have been so gung ho about that crap is because it is a cancer causing agent and they wanted to poison as many people as possible in a bid for population control. Just a thought.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by General.Lee]

[edit on 18-7-2010 by General.Lee]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by autopat51
they said in the video that about 5 parts per million would be normal.
so its quite a bit higher.

not exactly. the 'chemist' said he expected to see something at about 5 ppm, but didnt say why he would expect that number. And no background is given for what would be 'normal' or why.

and to head off the flames at the pass: I am not saying this isnt interesting information. I'm just wondering what the larger context of these results are.

HE said NONE would be normal as in " you shouldn't see any in there normally" when referring to oil...

there should be NONE !!!!!!

He said 5 because even that would be 500% more than normal.

But 221 ppm where kids are playing is dangerous..

I wonder what would happen if you took a tip then lit a lighter next to your skin ??

F the leaders at BP who covered this up .....which in turns mean F all leaders who cover stuff up

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by Starbug3MY

starbug... good point also dont forget that after the 1st family told us the gulf waters, beaches and food is fine, they promptly went to maine for vacation and lobster, and I guess clean water... I think it was the very next day

F us like the stupid sheep we are right?

If it was so safe, then why not spend your days of fun in the gulf and lead by example?

S thats almost as bad as calling the Tea party racist

[edit on 18-7-2010 by lunchmanstan]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by General.Lee

Good train of logic. One of the reasons (the financial one) is that BP owns NALCO along with Goldman Sachs - at least they are major shareholders. The second is they want to the oil to sink (not just disperse) and Corectix binds to the oil in such away that disperses it down and not just out. Check out the articles I have posted a few posts back and you can see what else Corctix is doing. It's a truly dangerous chemical and is all about PR for BP>

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:40 PM
I can't believe parents would be so unaware to allow their kids to be playing in that water after all the concern about chemical dispersants and oil contamination! Simple logic would tell you you're taking a chance swimming in contaminated water. Why would you put your kids in harms way of possibly affecting their health? Chemicals like these are absorbed easily by children and in the short term can cause illness and possible death. Think of how many times as a kid you accidentally swallowed water when playing in the ocean or a lake. It makes me angry to think that some parents are totally clueless!! I agree, the beaches should be quarantined and the government should be taking samples on a daily basis and informing the public it's findings on a daily basis. This reminds me of 9/11 when the government said the air down by ground zero wasn't hazardous. Years later, rescuers developed respiratory problems and some even died. The beaches where I live are tested on a daily basis for ecoli bacteria or any other possible contaminants. When there is a concern to the general public, lifeguards prohibit swimming until testing shows safe levels. People blindly believe what their government tells them. That's why this country is in the mess it's in.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
I would not call those informed questions. It seems like the early posts in this forum were trying to downplay the seriousness of this issue.

Here we finallyhave a local news team reporting this story (I have not seen any other reports by local news teams) and all these posters jump in trying to debunk the story. I just do not understand their reactions.

Some people can't take the TRUTH...The TRUTH is a HARD thing and many flee from it, especially these days....

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:15 PM
one might also make the observation that this reporter is collecting what appear to be full size mason jars of sea water. not sure the chemist would use the entire thing in one test. seems like an awful big sample. anyone else think thats a bit much? kinda fishy.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:23 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

Don't be silly, all is well keep swimming enjoy the day!
Nothing here to see, keep moving.
So look at it from the Mafia standpoint.
If I kill a man, his children may come for me later when they grow strong enough. So the idea is to kill the target plus his family.
Now to avoid law suits, if you can get someone to kill off their children for you, it makes the job that much easier.
What I'm saying is some people think rationally, this is all well and good but, if you wanna catch a predator you must think like a predator.
Personally I would love to put some Corexit in the water pitcher at the next BP board meeting.
Then ask them if the stuff is toxic.
As long as Men in suits are unharmed none of this will stop.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:44 PM
This is kind of off topic, but am I an idiot for just realizing that the name 'corexit' is is meant to sound like 'corrects it?'

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:48 PM
A lot of people are making the assumption that the safe levels of oil in water is 5 ppm. That is incorrect - that is just the number that the chemist threw out as his guess of what he would expect before he started testing.

If you do some research and look at some of the papers on toxicity of oil in water you'll find that toxic levels are much, much higher.

For example, fish larvae have problems at levels around 2-10 ppm. I see 11 ppm thrown around a lot as a dangerous (not toxic) level for fish (who live and breed in the water).

However, there are studies that show fish can surive in water with concentrations of crude oil in the thousands of PPM.

To now assume that 220 ppm (that's 0.022%) is dangerous for a kid swimming in the water is ludicrous. Perhaps if he drank the water, that might be different, but then he's probably got more to worry about the salt in the water and the effects of dehydration.

So the levels of oil that they are reporting in the water is not something to get too excited about.

Just think about it - you wash you hair with shampoo. Many shampoos contain oil. If you're having a bath, you'll probably end up swimming in bath water with concetrations of oil higher than on these beaches.

On the other had, Corexit is known to be many times more lethal than oil in water and the media would be better off testing this.

So I'm not saying it's safe to swim in the water. I'm just saying that oil is one of the last things I'd be worried about.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:50 PM
reply to post by beansanmash

May I suggest please that a mod give this one an applause if only just for this comment!
I have often thought that same thing, this stuff is the answer to our problem it Corexit.
Star on ya Beans.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by LightningStrom

To now assume that 220 ppm (that's 0.022%) is dangerous for a kid swimming in the water is ludicrous. Perhaps if he drank the water, that might be different, but then he's probably got more to worry about the salt in the water and the effects of dehydration.

it isn't toxic to the kid, because he is playing in it today, and he will be back in michigan or somewhere else by the end of the week. The Gulf is perfectly safe for tourists. But for those of us that live here and drink, breathe, eat, swim here day in and day out. The toxic limit set by the EPA is 10 ppm for prolonged exposure. 200 or 300 ppm on our coasts, in our air, in our rain, and in our seafood is rediculously high! Toxic!!

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 08:51 PM
The water and beach are toxic...make no mistake about that. Are TPTB
going to go up and down the beach with pa systems announcing this?
NO WAY!! Too much $$ at stake. If it is safe...then why are clean-up
workers in long pants,rubber boots, and gloves? Why not let them work in shorts and flip-flops?
It is truly bizarre to see the contrast between the workers all covered, and
people hanging out on the beach in swim suits playing in the water.

We are under a swim advisory issued by the State Department of Health.
It states clearly for your own health DO NOT ENTER THE GULF......

Double red flags flying everywhere....this means THE BEACH IS CLOSED..
Normally this is only used during Hurricane/Tropical Storm warning...

I see this as a CYA move on their part..when people start getting sick, or
God forbid DIE...They'll say WELL, WE WARNED YOU!! We had the flags flying, and the advisory ones fault but your own..he he he..

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in