Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

BP oil spill

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
We all knew that the fix was worse than the accident. The corexit was a coverup so we didn't see the oil. This is some new evidence that shows how coverups just make things worse. I thought it tripled the problem but it was much worse than that.

Hope this has not been posted before, if it has the mods can remove it. I know someone who works for a sewer plant and she told me that is bad stuff. Here is the link, I don't know how to post offsite stuff and am not sure how to legally do it. www.sciencedaily.com...




posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
This chemical was approved by our government. Isn't it the responsibility of our government to make sure something is safe before it is allowed to be used like this? What do we pay these people in the government to do? They take the word of these chemical companies as long as they are insured and the proceeds of the settlement go to Washington to support the system and not the people. I don't blame BP for this at all, I blame the system. I have used chemicals that were deemed as safe only to find they were no longer allowed to be sold. What about all of you, what have we been exposed to and what effects will it have on future generations.
edit on 30-11-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I believe the government knew of the toxicity but chose to assist BP in the cover up.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
BTW I read this yesterday:

TOMORROW: Obama Administration To Offer More Than 20 Million Acres in Western Gulf of Mexico for Oil and Natural Gas Exploration and Development

November Sale Will Offer All Available Unleased Areas in the Western Gulf of Mexico, Only Latest in a Series of Recent Major Offshore Oil and Gas Sales



Contact: Blake Androff (DOI) 202-208-6416
John Filostrat (BOEM) 504-731-7815


WASHINGTON – Tomorrow, as part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to continue to expand safe and responsible domestic energy production, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will hold an oil and gas lease sale that will make more than 20 million offshore acres available, and represents all unleased areas in the Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area. The Western Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale builds on two major Gulf of Mexico lease sales in the past year alone, a 21 million acre sale held last December and a 39 million acre sale held in June.

“At President Obama’s direction, his Administration continues to implement a comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy strategy, expanding domestic production, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and supporting jobs,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. “Developing public energy resources in the Gulf of Mexico continues to generate much needed revenue for local communities while helping to power our nation and fuel our economy.”


link


Seems they plan on selling the whole GOM anyway.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I might be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure the EPA said not to use Corexit due to toxicity back in 2010 but BP or who ever did the "clean-up" used it anyway. I'll to try and find the source.

- EDIT-




EPA believes BP should use as little dispersant as necessary and, on May 23, Administrator Jackson and then-Federal On-Scene Coordinator Rear Admiral Mary Landry directed BP to reduce dispersant usage by 75 percent from peak usage.


But BP reduced it by 68%

Source
edit on 30-11-2012 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
It's the most toxic dispersant ever made. It is illegal in other countries, but our government still insists it will get the jobs done even though so many people have become sick or died from it's affects. Just goes to show that MONEY>LIFE. sad but true

Also imagine what hurricane isaac and sandy have brought onto the land from all of that mess. It makes you wonder..
edit on 30-11-2012 by Unconditionaltruth because: Stuff



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Both the dispersants used by BP were preapproved by the EPA for this kind of disaster. These dispersants or similar ones would probably have been used by any company that would have had a disaster. I question if the government even tested the replacements, I find that they usually just switch to another product without testing. Under the existing structure, if there is no evidence proving something is unsafe, it has little liability attached to it. Don't test it for broadform results and you can't be held liable. Test for specific parameters and you are liable only for those parameters.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Unconditionaltruth
 


How many people?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Very true. The science behind it's effectiveness is so flawed it'll make you want to kick yourself.



So this 'scientist' is defending the effectiveness of this product, but any logical minded person would have to ask: "wouldn't it be better to leave the oil on top of the water? "

it's easier for the ships to skim it off the top of the water than to have to find a net big enough to get the oil that's settling on the bottom from this chemical, let alone poison the water and marine life in the process.

If they let it float and scooped as much as possible up and let the natural bacteria eat the rest of what's left, then this whole ordeal would have been avoided and nobody would have been poisoned or hurt in the process, but it only makes the situation look deliberate in my honest opinion.

Sorry broken link I guess. On a cell phone
edit on 30-11-2012 by Unconditionaltruth because: Link



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Unconditionaltruth
 


They could have skimmed the oil on the top and sent it somewhere to be cleaned and used. They should do preparation for things like that, not trying to cover things up. The oil on the surface is natural to a point, the chemicals mixed in it aren't. I'm sure there were vast natural oil slicks in the past but the earth recovered. Those were natural though, they don't happen that often. These kind of oil spills are not natural and would be a lot more common if we let them keep doing it without rules.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


I can not give you a correct count of life taken, as new stories are occurring everyday and bp would downplay it for fear of being sued, but evidence is there from personal family stories online trying to get people to help from anyone because its hard to prosecute when symptoms are hard to link with the chemical because 'science' deems there is no connection to corexit.

The clean-up crews have all posted stories online of becoming extremely Ill after going out to clean it up. The families of the victims have stated they also got sick from being around their spouses when returning. Sorry I can't link anything from my phone, but a simple search will reveal much evidence in no time.

The marine life is pretty much undeniable. Dolphins, fish etc. Washing up on shore and people making outrageous claims that supernatural forces or so to speak 'haarp' did it all when a logical answer would be chemical exposure. Don't get me wrong, haarp is real and animals die from it like the burned dolphins, but I feel the majority of the deaths were chemically induced. Im not claiming what I'm speaking is 100% truth, but an open mind and investigative research point towards what I am claiming to be correct



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Exactly. We are well aware of the consequences when adding a chemical to something natural. It is just a shame we have to be witness to this idiocracy we live in, but keeping people aware and informed is all we can do with the information that is present. Good observational skills, keep up the good work



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Unconditionaltruth
 


I wonder if hharp was created along with rumors to steer many people away from the truth. It seems like Hharp could be a coverup to split people up. It would be beneficial for a government to distract us from something else going on. They do it using the Media all the time. It could be a diversion as some say, but a lot of increase in our extreme weather has come since they started that Collider. Is this just a coincidence? I cannot tell, they need to shut it and all these colliders down for a while to know. Spin anything in a circle and it creates an effect. Doesn't matter if it is just electrons.






top topics



 
3

log in

join