It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

COREXIT - Shocking Human POISON levels in LATEST gulf tests.

page: 5
82
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by aoi3610
I agree, HENCE THE COMMENT.

It doesn't matter how you qualify it, wrong is wrong.


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

Has nothing to do with you or your other thread. What I dislike is when people try and make their point using an incredibly skewed version of science. It does two things: it makes our jobs as scientists much harder and it draws attention away from the facts. I've said it twice before, hopefully the third time it'll take - all you're doing by posting your conclusions based on what is, at best, bad science is draw attention away from the legitimate and scientifically valid reasons why Corexit should never have been used in the Gulf.


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.

Your book doesn't count for much when classifying the relative toxicity of compounds. An LDLO of 786mg/kg is classified as moderately toxic. But of course, we're not talking about a kid grabbing a container of antifreeze and chugging it down are we? We're talking about something being used at ppm levels in application. Do the calculation and determine how much Corexit in water at even 1000 ppm someone would have to ingest in order to achieve a level of ethylene glycol sufficient to cause death.


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.

There is a huge difference between something being ethylene glycol and something being a derivatized version of ethylene glycol or having a glycol moiety as part of the molecule. Maybe this would be a better example: if you take nothing but ethylene glycol and right catalyst, you can make polyethylene glycol (PEG). That molecule is literally nothing but ethylene glycol molecules strung together. Not only does PEG have even lower toxicity than ethylene glycol, but it actually had medicinal uses. It's the basis of laxatives, it's being investigated for treatment in spinal cord injuries, and it's being used in gene therapy. But according to your "logic" and "intuition", PEG must be just as toxic as ethylene glycol because ethylene glycol is part of the molecule.


See how I capitalised the word DEATH.

Yes, and I'm sorry to tell you this but your caps lock key doesn't double as an, "I'M AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT" key.


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.

Really? I guess you haven't really looked at too many organic compounds because propylene glycol is one of the smallest organics out there. You can only reduce the number of carbons in the backbone by two before it ceases to exist. Let's talk about that in comparison to some of the lower viscosity distillates that are taken from crude oil - they have backbones that are 30-50 carbon atoms in length. So, yes, by comparison, I'd say that propylene glycol isn't oil based and it is a small hydrocarbon backbone.


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 would be one thing if all hydrocarbon based compounds had the same rates of absorption relative to all others, or if the human body were made up of true hydrocarbons, but they aren't. Further, you're talking about trying to get something that's been emulsified with DOSS to pass directly through the skin. There are several orders of magnitude difference between what will pass through the skin, even with help, and the particle size that's achievable in this application.


BINGO, Now, the OPPOSITES attract.

See the perfection in this NOW?

No, there is no perfection in this. Why? Because you're completely ignoring the DOSS in the formation of an emulsion. The DOSS essentially encapsulates the oil droplets. If it acted as a transport agent instead, DOSS would have very poor applicability as an orally introduced stool softener.


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.

So now you're claiming that you don't have sulfur in you? Very interesting. You are primarily carbon with a small amount of sulfur, and you're carbon based. DOSS is primarily carbon with a small amount of sulfur, but (according to your intuition) it's sulfur based. Weird.

And no, MSDS don't usually get into immense amounts of detail regarding chemical components. But Nalco came out and revealed it after they came under fire from all sides. The information is out there, you just have to look for it.


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?

Yes. DOSS would be a much better choice to look up information for, since that's what's actually in Corexit. Plus, you're totally ignoring half of what taurine is and what you called it before - an amino acid. Trying to base your conclusions on finding what you think are analogous molecules, even though they aren't, because of "logic" and "intuition" is bad science.


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

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

Then you read it wrong and should have done some fact-checking instead of jumping to conclusions. Again, your mistake is incredibly fundamental and immediately calls into question the validity of the rest of your "intuition". You said that DOSS is an amino acid because it shares a sulfonate moiety with taurine. Not only is DOSS not an amino acid, it doesn't even have nitrogen in it. So comparing it to taurine based solely on the presence of a sulfonate moiety is wrong.


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.

Again, another really basic, fundamental mistake. Atmospheric nitrogen isn't going to be readily available, if it's even available at, to suddenly functionalize DOSS into an amino acid.


OK, from, "THEIR" poor description;


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

Yes, and again, taurine is (sort of...) an amino acid. DOSS is not. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp here. You can sit there and call a dog a horse all day just because they both have four legs, but that doesn't make a dog a horse.


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

Given the number of misconceptions stemming from this, is it the description or the understanding of the description that's poor?


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

All that quoting and copying and pasting only to hit the wall of another fundamental misunderstanding on your part. Lipids and crude oil are two completely different things chemically. Lipids are primarily fatty acids and fatty acid derivatives, with some sterols mixed in. Sterols are the alcohol derivative of steroidal compounds. Crude oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons. No fatty acids, no sterols. Two totally different things. Again.


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

No, you haven't. Sorry.


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

Because I've actually used DOSS to emulsify hydrocarbon oils, fatty acids, fatty acid derivatives, vegetable oils...


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.

This statement doesn't do anything to show that you have good insight into how surfactants work.


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.

Only you don't get vapor phase transition of molecules as large as those found in crude oil after it has been emulsified. If anything, emulsification helps prevent it. If there's any volatilization going on, it's from the unemulsified crude. And this goes right to the heart of the real problem with your post - there are scientifically valid reasons why Corexit should never have been used, but all you're doing is drawing attention away from them instead of to them. One reason is that Corexit is incredibly inefficient at what it's supposed to be doing, so it takes much more Corexit than other dispersants to do the same job. Another reason is the inherent health effects of 2-butoxyethanol, especially in an application like this. There's no reason to make up a fairy tale about how propylene glycol, DOSS, and 2-butoxyethanol turn crude oil spills into an ethylene glycol factory when the truth is just as damning.


So YOU say.

So chemistry says, I'm just a messenger.


Supposition, you understand the word?

Bad supposition that has no grounding in fact. Again, it would not have been hard to actually fact check anything you're saying here. But you chose not to.


that converts OIL into ANTI-FREEZE.

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

Looks very impossible to me under the conditions and with the chemicals that are present. And I am a chemist.


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

Quite the contrary, I love organic compounds. Why would the bother me? We're made of organic compounds. They are my professional career. But organic compounds aren't alive.


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

The DEFENCE rests.

Science isn't a popularity contest. It relies on what's delightfully referred to as a tyranny of evidence. All that matters is the evidence, not what you're gleaning from "logic" and "intuition". You either have the evidence or you don't. And, in this case, you don't.

You can quote Wikipedia at me all day long. It doesn't mean you understand the information presented there or that you're using it in the right context.

"Apes don't read philosophy!"

"Yes they do, Otto! They just don't understand it!"

- Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline, A Fish Called Wanda

edit on 15/1/2011 by iterationzero because: fixed tags




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by infomaster
 


I have no doubt that the gulf oil spill happened

Obviously there will be consequences for the environment.

Its just.... stupid... to use this article as an excuse to spew a bunch of hateful rhetoric towards government officials.

Yes, the oil spill is bad. Yes, it happened, and there are probably people to blame.

But, to make unintelligent comments based on hearsay, blaming congressmen of all people for whats happened, and pretending that you have some sort of moral and ethical high ground over all these people you have decided to blame for life and its problems is childish.

Your not stimulating discussion. Your not denying ignorance. your just being an ass, conspiracy9
edit on 15-1-2011 by SPACEYstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
What's up with the government sucking at investigating things?


Well basically to sum that up Government and efficiency are about the equivalent of military and intelligence. They just don't go hand in hand. The government are experts at screwing things up. I can't think of anything that they actually fixed to be honest. I am sure there was something they have done to appease the masses. When the economy comes back up they always get the credit, but are they really responsible. Does borrowing money from China to give us tax breaks to make you and I shop more make the economy better? I mean do I truly have a choice but to put my money back into the economy for my gasoline, food, electricity, etc. Yea I might not be able to go out and buy that new television, but I do put my money right back into someone's pocket. But never fear if the Best Buy starts to lose to much money the government will just bail em out to fix the economy again......

Soon we will be working, thanking, and listening to everything the Chinese say because soon they will own more of our country then we own

Now to get back to the topic at hand so this isn't flagged for being off-topic lol and I do really have a comment on it. I have been trying to dig a bit on this and I have only found a bunch of links to independent articles. I haven't looked through all the posts but is there any mainstream links for this info as well? I am a bit hesitant to trust sources like Examiner etc, as a lot of the time they seem to only find ways to fuel the fires of conspiracy rather then report hard facts.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the fish were poisoned by all the crap BP threw in there. There is a reason I haven't eaten fish since it happened!! I did have a flounder filet about 2 months ago, but after the first bite it literally tasted funny. I don't know what the deal was there. I mean it wasn't bad it was bought the same day, so yea I would buy it. Thanks for the info and I am going to look through the rest of the posts now.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 
First off, do not: I repeat do not think you can tell me to shut my mouth; that must be easy for a keyboard troll such as you; However I am very aware of the gulf situation and have been studying it since day one one. I challenge YOU with the mouth to go fill it with all that yummy speculated ummm so good, gulf seafood and report back to us! What can't do that? Dam isn,t that a shame", considering you are a mouthpiece for trying to subdue the real agenda and proof of the gulf ; people like you really anger me , such arrogance in the face of DEADLY extremes right in your face yet, have the cowards reply of oh, what are you reading the examiner!!! Kiss my##@@@##$$$$



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
This is my first post on here but ive been a reader for quite some time. This topic is really interesting. I live in California and have witnessed at least 5 people in the last month come down with serious flu type symptoms. A girl from my work hasnt been seen in weeks by close friends and peers, as she went to the hospital with symptoms of an pneumonia. Recently the singer of the band Broadcast died from an pneumonia or something similar. Im not really medically inclined and have no insight on the effects of corexit but was wondering if this epidemic could have any correlation?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by condition9
 


Splendid. More immaturely, poorly worded rhetoric based on hearsay. Complete with, yet again, an ad homenim argument.

Do you have anything to say that isnt offensive or stupid?

i advise you to "shut your mouth"




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 

It is so very obvious what your position is however, a wide majority including the Jesse Ventura show completely SLAPS you in your Lt,s kiss the govts. ass" attitude, down hardcore, you are pathetic; it is o.k. to destroy life , kill and all in the name of what ??? WHO do you work for?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 

I am more of a in-person kind of man it would be so much better to say "in-person!! However I alrteady know what you are so YOU shut your pie; and again kiss my@@@@@@



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 
I wonder from the answers, what we all believe, Faith?

I have not professed to being so Great Chemist, I speak what I see.

Yet, ALONG comes a CHEMIST to says it's all wrong.

Brings me back to Faith.

I was born Christian, Christened in a UK Church and Married in a UK Church.
(I had little choice to be fair)

I have read a lot of the Bible, It carries a lot of truth, it tells the future.
I have read a lot of the Qu'ran, it carries more truth than all the other books. (They Knew)
You cannot believe how you've been lied to.

I have read a lot of the Torah, it contains what the Jewish faith will do to the world.

If it wasn't so politically incorrect, I'd have asked which faith "you" follow and "who" you learnt from.

Would you like a list of the Worlds "Founding" Chemists, By Faith?...



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



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by condition9
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 

It is so very obvious what your position is however, a wide majority including the Jesse Ventura show completely SLAPS you in your Lt,s kiss the govts. ass" attitude, down hardcore, you are pathetic; it is o.k. to destroy life , kill and all in the name of what ??? WHO do you work for?


These people upon whome you have decided to lay the blame deserve it about as much as you deserve it.

They are powerless to act, just as they were powerless to prevent the spill. It is not their responsibility to clean up the oil spill. They are stuck in the middle of all of this about as much as you are.

So when you decided to arbitrarily dump the blame on this group of 70 year old policy makers and bureaucrats, based solely on things you have heard or read through these highly contestable sources, you might as well have reserved your judgement and held onto whatever shred of dignity you still had.

But instead, you blame the big bad government for decisions made in a crux, amidst a major crisis and major public scrutiny.

why perpetuate disinformation?
who are you working for?
and would they approve of your knickers getting all in a twist?




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by aoi3610
 

See this quite a lot on this site...why when someone is proven wrong does it always turn to a question of faith? cause no one has any answers to that question.

Also, why attack the guy like that? wikipedia + unknowledgable peruser = gobbledygook the guy was just trying to put you on the right track



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 
Star from me, you understand.

The Powers That Be are "NOT" your politicians.

Well, not ALL of them.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by connelly4245
 
His comments deserved the attack.

We will see how the thread pans out.

eh?

You're in Scotland yes, COLD in Scotland?

Wanna know WHY it's COLD in Scotland.

(I do love the Scots Too.)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by aoi3610
 

Cause its winter? lol



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
and with bp to blame, are you honestly saying the gov doesnt own bp? without one, you wouldnt have the other, and thats about as close to the gov deciding to poison rather than use an actual solution. if tey didnt want to use all that corexit they wouldve let the volunteershelp to sweep up the oil, but they forced us to stay on land so that they could spray with the density they want

if all of this is just hateful rhetoric towards the ptb, where is the govs condemnation of bp? where is the mountain of evidence that bp is still taking blame, and still writing settlements every day? you guys can bicker like little children all you want, but how does that change what is happening

after everything was capped and all said and done, everything was just ignored.
if this company didnt fit into the ptb's plan, they would be nonexistant as of right now.

if corexit was so "safe" why the hell didnt they use it at the very beggining? why not capture the oil as its pumping out without having to see so much of it destroy the gulf?

simple, their view is..oh shiz, we are screwed anyway, might as well make it to where nobody will see all the toxic junk till its too late

to the chemist...you talk about all the reasons corexit should not have been used. i want to hear a few from your perspective. if they shouldnt have used it, why did they? why did they keep people from helping with the spill when it could lower the amount of the chem (they werent supposed to use in the first place) thwy spray, lowering the chance of "side effects" that they still havnt fully tested

i agree that dissecting parts of atoms, seeing the way they funtion, and then adding that trait to the atom as a whole is flawed, but i still need your take on it


and to the ptb rhetoric being so wrong. if they will defend bp, they are either a part of it, or deserve to get dragged down with them.

my prediction: although bp should be scrapped, with a safer more effective replacement, that wont happen unless the governments drops the shield they have been holding over bp

intuition goes a long way as long as we arent talking quantum physics/mechanics. i believe even the chemist would believe me on that one.

intuition does have a place in conspiracy sites as its another option, another possibility.
the problem is that it should be used only if you are trying to intuit peoples actions. even then people are the one thing on this planet that would never surprise me.

say they find a race of bigfoot 20km underground. wouldnt be nearly surprised as i was seeing some ways people will knowingly destroy eachother so that they can live more selfishly, however its done



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I am appalled that this ridiculous slanging match above has been allowed to go on with no Mod intervening...
Stick to the point of the thread please.

S & F!
CorExit is lethal. I confronted a BP employer about their use of it last summer when I went to BP's headquarters in London. Soft soap all the way. Also posted Nalco's (the maker and distributer of CorExit) list of ingredients used to make the dispersent. The stuff of nightmares. Sorry I don't know how to insert link to appropriate part of thread...
We're dealing with big, scary stuff here folks, in all manner of ways. And my own family member just got back from a little vacation on the G of M - sitting on the beach and enjoying the sea food...
Heaven help us



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 

It is amazing at best to see someone such as yourself come on here and try to defend and deny FACTS! such as we don't have agovt. responsible for preventing this? and we dont have people responsible for not dumping poison 'GET THAT"? POISON in the ocean? I know you are living in your own fairytale world or are the type that loves the elites and nwo, but I along with millions of people do not agree with extermination and murder and genocide to our people,At any rate I ask you before and I will again how about you doing some fine dining on your beloved govt. approved obama-certified seafood I want results from you!! And as I thought can't mustard the backbone can you?I am through with you and your mentality!!!! You are far from the real thoughts and realization of others as well that it why you have your twisted logic,and I am curious where the hell did 70 year old politicians have any thing to do with this?? It is B.P. obamaanation, HALIBURTON, and more !!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Bottom Line. We should be asking our government officials to check for levels of this chemical all throughout the country. If we spend billions of dollars bailing out corrupt bankers then we could spend a couple million on testing for these chemicals to make sure it is not harming our people and causing trillions of dollars damage to our economy. It is not really even a conspiracy theory that it could contaminate areas outside the Gulf of Mexico. This is not HAARP or planet x or a comet that might come from space. This is a real event that really happened and our facts point to the possibility it is spreading to the mainland and possibly causing people to die and get sick. Why not test and make public the results? I would rather know and move to North Dakota then to sit here being poisoned. Even if there is a one in a 1000 chance that this is really happening they need to test and make results public.
edit on 15-1-2011 by ProfATS because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by connelly4245
 
In all fairness my question wasnt "REALLY" about faith.

comprend a?....



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join