Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

COREXIT - Shocking Human POISON levels in LATEST gulf tests.

page: 4
82
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero

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


I agree, HENCE THE COMMENT.

I ready through your post, it reads like you don't like me? I guess you've not read my other thread?

Anyway I am going to TRY and SMASH your post if I can, with my feeble Chemistry Knowledge.
I am sorry it took a while to respond, it took some time to type this.


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


Yes, ethylene glycol is moderately toxic.

Moderately Toxic. 30-100ml KILL adults. How much do you think it may take for a 3 YEAR OLD

That is HIGHLY TOXIC in MY BOOK.


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


LINK 1 - Wikipedia - 2-Butoxyethanl

AND I QUOTE


2-Butoxyethanol is an organic solvent with the formula BuOC2H4OH (Bu = CH3CH2CH2CH2). It is a colorless liquid with a sweet, ether-like odour. It is a butyl ether of ethylene glycol.


LINK 2 - Wikipedia - Ethylene Glycol

AND I QUOTE


Ethylene glycol is toxic, and ingestion can result in DEATH.


See how I capitalised the word DEATH.


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,


Yes, I could and I AM.

LINK 3 - Wikipedia - Propylene Glycol


C3H8O2 or HO-CH2-CHOH-CH3


SMALL BACKBONE - Look at the Chemical Formula? I see a little more than a "small" hydrocarbon BACKBONE.


and crude oil is really just mixed hydrocarbons, that it's "oil-based".


I am happy you agree that OIL from the Deep Water Horizon Spill is OIL BASED.


But I could make the same argument that you're oil-based.


A VERY good POINT, if you see my thinking, HYDROCARBON based "compounds" have no problem "ABSORBING" other HYDROCARBON based compounds. That is what makes this such a perfect delivery mechanism.


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).


See the perfection in this?


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.


BINGO, Now, the OPPOSITES attract.

See the perfection in this NOW?


Organic Sulfonate - Suplhur Based Organic Acid



Again, calling this sulfur-based is like calling you sulfur based.


No, I am NOT suplhur based, I am CARBON based.

To be fair, they DO NOT give much away do they?

"ORGANIC SULFONATE"

LINK 4 - Wikipedia - Organic Compound


An organic compound is any member of a large class of gaseous, liquid, or solid chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon.


LINK 5 - Wikipedia - Taurine


Taurine, or 2-aminoethanesulfonic acid, is an organic acid. It is a major constituent of bile and can be found in the lower intestine and, in small amounts, in the tissues of many animals, including humans.[1][2] Taurine is a derivative of the sulfur-containing (sulfhydryl) amino acid cysteine. Taurine is one of the few known naturally occurring sulfonic acids.


I went through all the "known" compounds, THIS is the one that best FITS the description of what they SAY it is?

SUPLHUR BASED - ORGANIC ACID

YOU have a better choice?


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...


Oh.... Dear... I BET YOU CAN'T

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


That is what I see from "THEIR" poor description.


? This shows that you have absolutely no idea what an amino acid is.


Perhaps, but I can READ. (See answers above)


There is no nitrogen in any of the compounds in Corexit.


NITROGEN? Eh, I have not mentioned the stuff, I must admit though, there is plenty in our ATMOSPHERE if you feel the "process" I describe NEEDS any.


No nitrogen means no amine group. No amine group means it can't possible be an amino acid.


OK, from, "THEIR" poor description;


Taurine is one of the few known naturally occurring sulfonic acids.



And why are you invoking taurine?


From, "THEIR" Poor description. (See above)


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?


From Wikipedia again: (See Link 5 above)

It is a major constituent of bile and can be found in the lower intestine and, in small amounts, in the tissues of many animals, including humans.


LINK 6 - Wikipedia - Bile

Which Leads onto:

From Wikipedia again:

Bile or gall is a bitter-tasting, dark green to yellowish brown fluid, produced by the liver of most vertebrates, that aids the process of digestion of lipids in the small intestine.


Which Leads onto:

From Wikipedia again:

Lipids are a broad group of naturally occurring molecules which includes fats, waxes, sterols, fat-soluble vitamins (such as vitamins A, D, E and K), monoglycerides, diglycerides, phospholipids, and others.


LINK 7 - Wikipedia - Lipids


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.


YES, I see from above I have given the conditions for it too happen?


Well, since there's no ethylene glycol in Corexit, this is already false.


Please REFER to points ABOVE


Further, a mixture of DOSS and propylene glycol (or ethylene glycol for that matter) won't "convert" the oil into anything.


From your arguement I cannot see how YOU could possibly know.


I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how surfactants/dispersants work.


Oh, do I? I do not like the word "SURFACE" dispersant either. Becasue I have a distint feeling this "EVAPORATES" with the WATER. So it is probably in the AIR too.


Maybe your confusion comes from the layman's term "breaking down", as it was commonly used in news coverage of the spill.


I think I understand it quite well.


The dispersants used break the large mass of oil down into smaller droplets,


Smaller Droplets, WOW, that means that the droplets will each end up with greater surface areas from which to evaporate.... You understand about surface area?

This is sounding WORSE and WORSE.


they don't initiate a chemical reaction that breaks down the molecular structures found in oil.


So YOU say.


A substance, quite possibly alive,


Supposition, you understand the word?


that converts OIL into ANTI-FREEZE.


Looks VERY possible to me and I AM NOT a chemist.


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


I just don't like those words. "ORGANIC COMPOUND" - DO YOU?


There are plenty of good and scientifically valid reasons why Corexit should never have been used in the Gulf spill.


Hundreds.


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.


I'd like to hear EVERYONE else's views PLEASE.

The DEFENCE rests.




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I forgot to mention, I looked at a lot more than just those links too.

Google is your friend. (must check who owns it though)

I did exactly the same with the companies involved, backgrounds, CEO's, Long Term History, Aquisitions etc.

BP
Transocean
Halliburton
Anadarko
Mitsui
Nalco Holdings
Lloyds Of London
Authur Anderson
Price-Water house
Hyundai
Schlumberger

Plus more.

YOU just have to READ.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by thegoodearth
 


I had no idea about Hydraulic fracturing until I came across the movie Gasland, I was shocked at what was going on. Anyone who has not seen this movie should definitely check it out. Gasland 2010

This is crazy I wonder whats next?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by aoi3610
 



Does anyone know whay David Letterman was joking about too many people being on the planet yesterday during his Top Ten list? Kinda spooky to me.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by windwaker
 
WAS he joking?

I look, I see his Mentor, Johnny Carson, almost certainly of the Jewish faith, all his scripts written by "Jewish" writers?
He spoke on several occasions at Jewish festivals and meetings
He was a true promoter of the Jewish Faith.

Mr Letterman, not sure, His mother Dorothy, then back again, and again you end up at:

Strietelmeier

I could dig more, I think we get the idea from Mr Carson.

I guess you can do that with most of the people we see on tv?

I ask again, WAS he JOKING?


edit on 15-1-2011 by aoi3610 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by aoi3610
 
I don't doubt that the corexit is some bad stuff and has effected a lot of people and the eco system as well,my question is if tptb are to be so bold by poisoning us with the corexit,what is stopping them from just going out and spraying it on the population at large and really having a good go at depopulation,or spraying us with poison of any kind period.why use the excuse of the oil spill?I think they are trying to get the people of the gulf coast off their land(for their own purposes),again I believe they use the back door to achieve their goal and don't feel necessairly its the depopulation plan that they are after in this instance.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TWILITE22
 


spraying it on the population at large and really having a good go at depopulation


hmmm



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TWILITE22
 


No, it would be much easier and more inconspicuous to disperse the Corexit in the ocean, this way when the Corexit gets into the main ocean currents it would spread around the world, and the resulting sea animal deaths would be enough to throw off the food chain balance and cause extinction...without being able to point the blame at the actual dispersal event.

It's sort of like bad fart. If a person farts in a room of many people, the fart disperses into the air and travels. It offends the whole room, but no one can really be sure who supplied it, so everyone is innocent.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Of course there is thats why they didnt use sea Bratt www.abovetopsecret.com... If you care to read it all you will see exactly what im talking about.

Enjoy its proof, if you would only care to read it all. It provides compelling evidence that your thread is part of something a little more


You may also want to involve my thread and also the reasons as to why Corexit was used? It was used deliberately imo because they had a cleaner more efficient alternative. Sea Brat. You will also see a blog where someone within the business is convinced theres a conspiracy involving all the main players.


You will also see yet another connection to Iridium but like i say only if you can be bothered to read it all. The evidence is there? just maybe



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Check EPA site, look for links to test and compare to outside source info, some of the test done are posted,



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
You people should get so worked up over an article before checking out the source.

This article is moot. Not even worth reading, never mind getting up in arms over.

But, i guess any excuse to dump on the ominous "powers that be"



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger

LOL

I am blind.

They are Ominous though

edit on 15-1-2011 by aoi3610 because: Mistake.
edit on 15-1-2011 by aoi3610 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
EXAMINER IS TABLOID

Notice how everything the article links to is also from EXAMINER.COM.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 

You are a total idiot; Do you not understand DEATH, NWO; b. p. OIL kills KILLS ; GET IT!!!! do not dare undermine people's integrity here with your moron responseWHO and I mean WHO can deny the POISON that has killed and GOD knows where this will end!!!!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rufusthestuntbum
 


hi..im new in here...how do i post a toping on the site

thanks



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
What's up with the government sucking at investigating things? First, the 9/11 commission poorly concludes that all of the buildings fell completely on their own, then they conclude that Corexit is as toxic as dish soap? You would think with the billions of dollars at their disposal, they could do a little better job of investigatory work. "Oh yeah, this stuff's fine. It takes like a whole few tablespoons to kill an adult male, so if we just dump thousands of gallons of it into the ocean, nothing bad can come of it". Even if the Corexit they were casually putting into our oceans was completely non-toxic to all life on the planet, the oil itself in the water can't be good for people or animals of all sorts at all. Sure, they can toss some chemicals into the already damaged oceans in hopes of getting rid of the oil, but there's still going to be leftover oil. And won't making the oil into small little pellets that sink only make it easier for animals to eat it? (That is what Corexit does, right?) I bet we could give some random scientist $20,000 dollars, and he could buy all the supplies and tests he needs to to decide whether or not the water in the Gulf is toxic. He would probably have enough left over to buy a gun to shoot himself in the head with after being struck with the realization that the US government does not even remotely care about the people.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by condition9
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 

You are a total idiot; Do you not understand DEATH, NWO; b. p. OIL kills KILLS ; GET IT!!!! do not dare undermine people's integrity here with your moron responseWHO and I mean WHO can deny the POISON that has killed and GOD knows where this will end!!!!


Im an idiot?

Im guessing your the one getting all up in arms over the examiner article....

you have no integrity. listen to you freak out over an examiner article.

Maybe there is poison in the gulf... but to react as you are is both immature and completely unwarrented.

Tell me how this article does anything but reinforce your empty, baseless beliefs?

Its giving you an excuse to freak out over something you know nothing about, and furiously type moronic rhetoric about how the power that be are ruining your life.

Chances are you havent even been to the gulf since the oil spill... or ever.... so keep your mouth shut and have a bit of dignity



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
WTF : Gov. Report Blames Anderson Cooper For Public Outrage Over BP Oil Spill


Was Anderson Cooper digging too deep while reporting on the BP oil spill? According to a government report on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Yes. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...


www.businessinsider.com...
edit on 15-1-2011 by infomaster because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-1-2011 by infomaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by aoi3610
 


Hi aoi3610,

S&F!!! Nitrogen huh?
Hmmmm.

Break time.







new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join