someone help me understand how theses govt. bastards and b.p. can get away with this? Is the american people I know not strong enough to bring this to the forefront of a very serious capital crime???

What about " SYNTHIA" the man made monster

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
We all saw this coming....

I hope all of the members who claimed Corexit would not have an effect show up with their arguments well prepared for this one....

Depending on what is considered a toxic amount, I have to wonder if this contributed to all of the animal deaths throughout the world.

S&F

~Namaste

That would definitely make sense with migration being considered. I still think the animal deaths could be a precursor to all the seismic activity.

Originally posted by aoi3610
The article, written by Dr Soto & Wilma Subra, shows they are finding shocking levels of poisons in each individual they test.

They are testing for OIL & COREXIT.

There is nothing in this article to indicate that they are testing for the components of Corexit. None of the chemicals that they show results for are components of Corexit. I'm not even sure why Corexit is in the title of this thread. This article is about finding toxic components of crude oil in a small sampling of patients.

Seriously, scaremongering without looking at the facts is just going to erode your own credibility. Then, when you actually have something valid to say, no one will listen because of your previous incorrect statements.

Originally posted by aoi3610
I am not a CHEMIST, a bit of study but nothing special, however I have an intuitive way of looking at things.

Then maybe you should consult with one or do more research before posting things that are unequivocally wrong. Intuitive doesn't mean correct...

2-Butoxyethanol - (Ethylene Glycol) Organic Solvent, (Anti-Freeze) - Toxic.

Yes, ethylene glycol is moderately toxic. But 2-butoxyethanol (aka butyl cellosolve, the stuff that gives Windex its characteristic odor) isn't the same thing as ethylene glycol.

Propylene Glycol - Oil based Solvent, mixes with water at any ratio

"Oil-based solvent"... no, not really. I mean, sure you could make the argument that because it has a small hydrocarbon backbone, and crude oil is really just mixed hydrocarbons, that it's "oil-based". But I could make the same argument that you're oil-based. It has very minor solvent properties, and those properties are due to it being miscible in both organic solvents (like acetone) and water (by the way, water is a solvent too). In this application, it's used as a cosolvent to bring together polar molecules (like water) and nonpolar molecules (like long chain hydrocarbons found in oil) so that the nonpolar molecules can be dispersed in a dissimilar solvent.

Organic Sulfonate - Suplhur Based Organic Acid

Again, calling this sulfur-based is like calling you sulfur based. It's an organic molecule that's been derivatized with a sulfate moiety to give it some surfactant properties. Further, this was later revealed to be dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (aka DOSS), which is commonly used as a stool softener.

OK, if you've read my thread you'll understand my thinking, "what would I have done if I were TPTB".

What you would have done if you were the powers that be is based on some faulty reasoning and "intuition", as I'm about to show...

They have an Amino Acid, Sulphur Based, I look at Taurine, It's in Bile, in you, it's capable of eating oil.

They have a what now? An amino acid? This shows that you have absolutely no idea what an amino acid is. There is no nitrogen in any of the compounds in Corexit. No nitrogen means no amine group. No amine group means it can't possible be an amino acid. Only a very small number of organic acids are amino acids, and DOSS ain't one of them. And why are you invoking taurine? The only similarity between DOSS and taurine is the presence of a sulfonate group, which it also has in common with millions of other compounds. And taurine "eats" oil? I don't even know how to respond to that one... what do you mean "eats"? Do you have a reference that it's particularly reactive with oil?

They mix the "Oil" in the water from the spill with the propylene Glycol, they attract each other, the Ethylene Glycol is the catalyst for the sulfonate to convert the BP oil, into MORE Ethylene Glycol.

Well, since there's no ethylene glycol in Corexit, this is already false. Further, a mixture of DOSS and propylene glycol (or ethylene glycol for that matter) won't "convert" the oil into anything. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how surfactants/dispersants work. Maybe your confusion comes from the layman's term "breaking down", as it was commonly used in news coverage of the spill. The dispersants used break the large mass of oil down into smaller droplets, they don't initiate a chemical reaction that breaks down the molecular structures found in oil.

A substance, quite possibly alive, that converts OIL into ANTI-FREEZE.

Alive? Really? This is so completely fabricated out of thin air that I can't even respond adequately.

There are plenty of good and scientifically valid reasons why Corexit should never have been used in the Gulf spill. All your post does, with it's use of "intuition" and really bad science, is draw attention away from those good reasons. It ultimately does the people suffering from related health issues a disservice.