It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


MSM NEWSCAST - Oil Dispersants have made BP disaster catastrophic

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:29 PM

Wow, I never knew that the use of dispersants were voted down during the Exxon spill.

And they actually say that marine life was sacrificed so more oil didn't end up on beaches.

I think the Gov knew this from the start, as they were there with Exxon, but they also wanted less oil on the beaches so they made a weak attempt at telling BP to stop and we all know how that turned out.

I think that attempt was made with both sides already knowing the use would continue.

Another thing is BP has to pay to clean up the beaches, but doesn't have to pay for ten million dead fish.

What's your ideas? Was it worth less oil on the beaches?

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Jeanius]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:56 PM
I'm pretty sure they shouldn't have used dispersants at all.

I mean, weren't there tons of the stuff that wasn't legal to use in the states just sitting around somewhere, waiting for daylight? Then WHAM! suddenly let's use it all up.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:04 PM
Funny how this just his the MSM now when we've known this for months.

Regardless, thank you for posting. Hopefully people start waking up.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by asianeko]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:18 PM
Interesting video but kind of sent a shiver down my spine during the closing sentance:

"Can Be Used By The Decision Makers During The Next Major Oil Spill"

Something planned or just relying on BP to mess things up again

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by Jeanius

I dont think it was worth the death of marine life. Also has anyone considered what the effects of the dead carcuses floating/ sinking in the ocean are causing, ARE THERE ANY SCAVANGERS FOR THIS as I do remember reading the beach scavangers are not touching the dead. Just a major thought, I meen it got to be smelling bad for the fish not to mention the decay effects on the total eco system.... Imagine if humans had to walk around dead bodies would that be a cause for disease to spread. Could their be infectious disease spread within ocean???????

[edit on 8/19/10 by Ophiuchus 13]

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Jeanius

What's your ideas? Was it worth less oil on the beaches?

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Jeanius]

Nope. If the oil had been allowed to stay un-'dispersed', it could have been collected off the beaches. It would have also broken down naturally, as raw crude tends to do.

I suspect it if for the reasons you list. BP can try and avoid fines, and the White House doesnt have to deal with an angry tourism industry.

And just look how MAD people are when they see this crude on 'their' 'pristine' beaches.

Is it better on the Beaches than in the Gulf?

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:10 PM
ugh, the oil spill was so last month. no methane gas explosion, no extinction event. stop hoping for the worst people. satiate your need for catastrophe elsewhere...

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:18 PM
corexit is being used all over the planet. nalco is a nest of vipers full of the usual
evil bastards. this is sabotage-it's chemical warfare- and it's them getting away with mass murder.. hand in hand with the other sociopathic corporations like monsanto,
dupont,dow,union carbide,- on down the line. yes they really mean to kill us-
we are in the way.

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:22 PM

Originally posted by p51mustang
corexit is being used all over the planet.


new topics

top topics


log in