Something stinks down in the gulf, and it isn't the oil

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ThatDGgirl
 


I've only found the test results for Orange beach in a video, I took a screenshot for the OP.

And yes I was talking about Nolam's lab.




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


As far as the two statements..........

1) No member of the projects team performs any of the testing! We have several labs assigned that can test beyond the standard VOC's testing as the lab you are attempting to discredit. And "NO" they are not connected with BP and “YES” they have the capabilities to take the testing to the highest level with there chemical analysis.

“but he's hindering any proper investigation by falsely identifying corexit and adding to the fear mongering.”


2) Where did I identify the substance as being corexit in my short statement? There were three known dispersants used in the Gulf, one being corexit. Yes, we are looking for the markers in the testing but we are also looking at several other possibilities including a bacteria that has yet to be mentioned anywhere………

3) How do you know what our protocols are? Are you part of our project? “NO”

Adding to the fear mongering you say??

You want to challenge me on what we are doing………Bring it!

What are you doning? "NOTHING"

I am calling you out! This crap has to stop on ATS!

Lets see if you crawl out from behind your monitor……..and I am waiting………

I can be contacted on the projects website………And I will talk to you personally on the phone.

testtherain.com...




[edit on 1-9-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by N.of norml
 


too many people confuse incredulousness with derision. its not the same thing.

that 'test' was nonsense, and wouldn't stand up amongst anyone in academia, which is kinda the point, isnt it?

i mean, if all you want to do is prove things to the choir, then you dont need evidence at all. But if you want to prove something in the courts, then you might wanna actually follow the scientific process at least a little. which this test didn't do AT. All.

but if calling me a BP shill or whatever for pointing this out makes someone feel better, so be it.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by justadood]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Indeed, we are finding that oil is showing up all over the Gulf both underwater in the form of plumes and on our beaches and coastlines. Our research indicates that PAHs (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) are present in shrimp from the impacted areas. And the PAHs in the waters off Florida are at levels 43 times the levels of shrimp from inland, low-impact areas sampled in Louisiana. In our estimation, it may take eight months before the toxic soup BP left in the Gulf has had substantial enough biodegradation to announce an ‘all clear’ on seafood.


more labs agreeing with Naman



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


I must ask this. Do you have any proof that this test is nonsense and wouldn't stand up to anyone in academia? So I take it you have some evidence to back that statement up? My guess is you do not, so how can make a statement like that, but show nothing to support what you say.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kno22
 


Also you can't forget about this one. Wackenhut security was used to keep people from going to certain beaches while the clean up was being done.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
never mind

im just a bp shill for asking obvious questions

[edit on 1-9-2010 by justadood]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatDGgirl

Indeed, we are finding that oil is showing up all over the Gulf both underwater in the form of plumes and on our beaches and coastlines. Our research indicates that PAHs (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) are present in shrimp from the impacted areas. And the PAHs in the waters off Florida are at levels 43 times the levels of shrimp from inland, low-impact areas sampled in Louisiana. In our estimation, it may take eight months before the toxic soup BP left in the Gulf has had substantial enough biodegradation to announce an ‘all clear’ on seafood.


The amount of oil released into the gulf is approximately equivalent to the amount released naturally in the gulf in a four year period.

You need to show that less oil in inland shrip is an unusual occurence before you try to make something sinister out of it.

Shrimp in the gulf have always had these compounds in them.

Harte



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


Thats what you want thats fine. One last thing other than sending me to a different thread you really can't provide anything to back up your comments correct? Then if you want to make comments about things that you obviously do not know much about please be able to back them up. Last thing from me for tonight. I am out so enjoy the night.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by justadood
 


Thats what you want thats fine. One last thing other than sending me to a different thread you really can't provide anything to back up your comments correct? Then if you want to make comments about things that you obviously do not know much about please be able to back them up. Last thing from me for tonight. I am out so enjoy the night.


Actually I did. The point is that there are large holes in the theory. IF you wish to pretend that asking informed questions is the same thing as derision, that is certainly your prerogative, but it will keep you from coming to a more solid, informed conclusion.

as i already said, if you just want to get stars and flags from the choir, then proceed. but if you want to reach a larger audience, you might want to get used to people not just blindly accepting everything you present.

I find it humorous that you claim i cant provide evidence that much of the information presented is lacking and speculative (even though its been said in this thread and others), and yet you dont even ATTEMPT to counter any of the points brought up; You ask for proof, but have not provided any yourself. IF we were keeping score, i think id be ahead :0

I'm not sure why people like yourself like to attack the person as much as you seem to. I have nothing against you, and am only pointing out some obvious facts. re-read what i was originally responding to, and you will see it is all relevant.


'Deny Ignorance' doesnt mean 'believe blindly', no matter what the ZOMGer bully clique seems to think.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by justadood]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 




The Other name is Xe....I think?


( getreadyalready.) Sorry, I thought this would automatically come up in a little grey box. I hope this edit will take care of that. )

You're right. I just did a search for black water & found over 71,200,000 results. One listing is "Xe Services, LLC. Website HomeThe security company formerly known as Blackwater shed its aviation division ... CURRITUCK — The private security firm formerly known as Blackwater...Google.

Another Google search located 357,000 results for g4s.






[edit on 2-9-2010 by kno22]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by kno22
 


Also you can't forget about this one. Wackenhut security was used to keep people from going to certain beaches while the clean up was being done.


Who could anyone forget a name like that? Apparently I can! LOL Chaulk it up to a senior moment. :@ Thanks for reminding me. For some reason that name, Wackenhut sounds silly.:@



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
I really only feel certain about one thing- and that is that my very good friends visited Daulphin island and got very, very sick.

I reported this long before the beaker- really long before they tried to cap it or before much was known about it all.

My young friend is 16 and she went in the water. Her mother was walking on the beach. They were aware of the spill but this was before it was supposedly coming on shore. They didn't see anything and at first everything was fine.

Ok, my young friend got very ill - horrid headache, nausea, wretching, weak - she got out of the water and her mother saw her getting sick from a distance and started hurrying to her. OK, as my friend got winded, she ALSO got very ill. Both had a hard time getting back to the car, where they sat there for a while getting sick at their stomachs and then they went to leave the island.

The next day, the island was closed. That might help with when this happened if anyone cares.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Chad,

The www.testtherain.com... project that Clouds and Pax are running is the only outfit that I am aware of that can actually text definitively for Corexit and also release results. They worked diligently to obtain the proprietary ingredient list that is non-published, and to develop a "double-blind" study protocol that will protect the labs they are contracted with.

In short, you are wrong, they do have the capability, and as far as I know, they are probably the only ones in the nation capable 1. identifying, 2. testing, 3. releasing results having to do with Corexit.

BTW, because of Clouds website and influence, I have visited the beach and spent a lot of time with a Marine Biologist of 22 years that runs an Aquarium on the Gulf Coast. He helped me understand a lot of what was in my videos, and I was able to help him institute some new testing procedures for water that he pumps from the Gulf.

Without Clouds and Pax's work, that Gulf Coast Aquarium would be in more danger of losing their sea life. The work that is being done is cutting edge, and it is important, and it is unique!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Cloudsinthesky
 


I think you need to re-read what I said.

I wasn't having a go at your labs, or you.

I was asking the question as to why Noman would bother to test for corexit if he doesn't have the means to properly identify the markers.

That is all.

Whatever problem you have with me, leave it at the door as I actually have no problem with what you are doing and applaud it.

So to reiterate, since you seem to think I'm attacking you, I find it odd that Noman would test for corexit, when he doesn't have the means to identify the markers.

That is all.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Read above.

I was talking about Noman and I honestly didn't think what I said could be interpreted any other way.

My apologies.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Chad,

This I agree with you. Too many people are jumping on the "Corexit" bandwagon. It is a terminology/semantics issue. Very, very few labs can actually be sure if they are finding Corexit.

However, almost any lab can test for the "markers" for Dispersants. One of the dispersants they are using is Corexit. Therefore if an amateur lab finds the markers for dispersants, there is a good chance it means Corexit is present. It is not definitive, and they should be careful as to how they phrase their results. I am sure that Naman's lab can test for "markers" for dispersants. Once the markers are confirmed, then one can assume that some form of dispersant is present, and it is a worthwhile endeavour to have a more thorough and more definitive test for actual "Corexit" done.

In my opinion, that is what the amateur labs like Naman's lab are good for. They can identify high probabilities of where dispersants are present, and then we can zero in the more expensive testing on those areas based on their preliminary results.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


"And going by what cloudsinthesky says, he hasn't the means to properly identify corexit anyway, so why is he saying he has identified it?"

"His heart may be in the right place but he's hindering any proper investigation by falsely identifying corexit and adding to the fear mongering."

This is your quote about me above. If that is not attacking me and my project then I am crazy. Again, I mentioned nothing about corexit in my very short post.

As far as "I" don't have the proper means to identify corexit.......How do you know? Again, you are not part of our project and have "NO" idea who is doing our testing. Actually Paxnatus and I discovered one of the "main" key markers of corexit that has yet to be released by Nalco back in June from one of BP's main labs in California.

As far as fear mongering? I and a couple other members from ATS got off their A## and started a project that has gained national attention by many very well known scientist in their field.

And you call me out by stating "he's hindering any proper investigation by falsely identifying corexit and adding to the fear mongering."

Where did you read in my post that I mentioned corexit or that I could identify corexit?

So if you comments are not a personal attack then what are they?

This is the crap that ATS allows that drives members away………the good ones…….

So if you don't have a problem with me........What is your point?

Due to the seriousness of this issue I will confront anyone who discredits our efforts as you are doing with your statement.

You did not contact me through our website and I want to talk to you!

I will U2U my phone number and I expect to hear from you!!!!

If I do not hear from you, I will let everyone know on this thread..........

This type of crap ends here!!

This is my post that Chad decided to twist to create more diversion.



Originally posted by Cloudsinthesky
reply to post by ThatDGgirl
 


"But we will never REALLY know, will we? In that light it kinda makes me feel like talking to ANYONE online that I don't have a real-life personal relationship with is pretty pointless."

I have really reframed from posting a comment on this thread. It is “pointless” unless you do something.

And ThatDGigil you are doing something. Thank you for contacting testtherain.com...

Sitting behind the monitor (as most do here on ATS) speculating what is the truth does nothing.

You want to know the truth?

Then do something!

Call the chemist and do an interveiw.....Go to his lab....Call the news station.....

No, this lab is not one of the labs being used in our project nor does it have the equipment to perform the test needed.




[edit on 1-9-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]


[edit on 2-9-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Cloudsinthesky
 


For gods sake, don't you get it??


I WAS TALKING ABOUT NOMAN

NOT YOU




I've tried explaining it politely, I've apologised for not being clear enough.

WTF MORE DO YOU WANT?


And for the record, I clarified that I was talking about Noman's lab before you started slinging your mud (check the top of this page), so don't put words in my mouth, don't lie about what I said and stop carrying on like an idiot.

[edit on 2/9/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Still waiting for the phone call Chad........

Just came across this on youtube........I have already stated my opinion on this topic........Call the lab, visit the lab, Call the News station.......but this will give Chad something else to discuss.




[edit on 2-9-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]





 
24
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join