posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:46 PM
Congratulations on getting the site up and getting the testing arranged where it would be free for volunteers.
I do see some concerns with how the project has progressed, however.
Getting involved with academic researchers may gain you credibility but you lose the immediacy of timely results that could be obtained from a
commercial lab. Academics often don't even like to reveal results until they have their publication submitted and approved, which sometimes takes a
couple of years. For environmental contamination where there are potential health risks, that's too long.
This sample collection and testing should have started months ago. [That's just a comment, not a criticism, because I realize the difficulty
involved in getting any project going.] With much of the surface oil-dispersant mix now disappearing from the surface, the impact on contaminating
rain, if any, should be less now. If the well is sealed off, we've already missed the most crucial period. If the leak continues or gets worse, and
especially if they keep spraying dispersant, then the project could still be very important and timely.
Testing for VOCs just to show the rain is toxic is a bit of a disappointment for such an official, scientific testing procedure. That allows the
toxicity to be blamed on many causes other than the oil and dispersant pollution in the Gulf. Can't this lab give some indication of what's in the
rain that ain't supposed to be there? Even if the results can't be specific to Corexit, any indication of which elements are present and/or higher
than normal would be helpful.
A "quick and dirty," cheap homebrew test of some type (or several) would still be a valid and valuable addition to the project. If we have
something that would let us know the likelihood of rain being contaminated, we could take action immediately rather than waiting for academia to get
the job done. Anything you can do to get immediate results, regardless of lack of acceptance by the news media, academia, or the government, would be
in the best interest of the public.
Is there any coordination of this with air quality testing? Rainwater can pick up contaminants from the air as it condenses and falls. Private
citizens generally would not be able to do the higher altitude testing that would be the best indicator. The best we could do is test the air at our
ground level, ranging from sea level to the mountains. That could then be analysed for any correlation with data from the agencies that monitor air
The web site looks really nice, but IMO, substance is more important than looking pretty. I know you're just getting started - I'm just saying,
whenever possible, give priority to info and data more than the cutesy stuff.
[edit on 4-8-2010 by ttatw]