Jump to content




Photo
- - - - -

BP Oil Spill Disaster


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 biknut

  • Registered User
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 25 June 2010 - 03:08 PM


I think we're being lied to about the BP oil spill in the Gulf. The news is making it sound like an ordinary oil gusher that happens to be 1 mile under the ocean. What I've heard is it's not. This well is different because it's a lot deeper than any other well drilled in America. It's over 4 miles below the seafloor. They drilled through a strata we've never drilled through before, and hit pressure estimated to be between 70,000 and 100,000 psi. Pressure so great that they didn't have shut off valves strong enough to hold it back. The pressure blew the pipe, valves, and oil rig up, and also blew the cement encasement out of the hole. Now the oil and poison gas is blowing out of the hole with so much force that it's excavating the rock out of the hole.

There's now speculation that this could be Abiotic oil. If so the supply could be unlimited and this oil volcano could be gushing for the rest of our lives. More worrisome for the residents of the Gulf than the oil is the poison gas. If this can't be stopped the Gulf coast may become uninhabitable.



Toxic Oil Spill Rains Warned Could Destroy North America

http://www.eutimes.n...-north-america/


U.S. scientist warns impact of methane gas as result of Gulf oil spill

http://news.xinhuane.../c_13355795.htm
  • 1

#2 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,953 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 25 June 2010 - 04:37 PM

Hmmm...

Although there are many that think that Abiotic oil is not possible, I will assume for conversation sake that it is.

Let's also assume that BP can't stop the flow, which some estimates put it at 100,000 barrels a day.
  • 1 Barrel of Oil is 42 US Gallons
  • 4.2 million gallons of Oil a day if we multiply it by 100,000 barrels.

At 920 Days between today and December 31st, 2012 it's possible that a total of:

3,864,000,000 Gallons of oil would have escaped into the ocean.

1.0 acre foot = 325,851 gallons (1 acre foot is the amount of water needed to cover an acre, one foot deep in water.)
That comes out to... 11858 acres or so, which is...

18.52 Square Miles with one foot deep of oil if somehow we could gather it all in a big rectangle (which we can't). Obviously you only need a very thin amount to cover an animal for it to die. So if one foot is equivalent to 304.8 millimeters, and you probably only need 5 millimeter thick oil to cause damage for an animal or plant (probably less)...

We are then looking at 1129 square miles of floating muck as a worst case scenario by December of 2012. This could be killing of marine and plant life slowly... If the methane gas that is released does effect global temperature, then that is an added detriment to the floating mass of oil along the gulf and eastern seaboard due to the current. I am not sure if this would truly cause a global catastrophe by then... I get the feeling that the oil (if left unchecked) may not kill us all by then, at least not the oil alone.

Hmm, can someone check my math. It is a unparalleled catastrophe that will have political and socioeconomic ramifications for years to come... but not something to end it all in December 31st, 2012.

Of course, I am making too many assumptions.
All we need is some smarty pants to blow up a nuclear bomb to fuse the rock, and accidentally make the oil gush out much faster.

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 25 June 2010 - 04:49 PM.

  • 0

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#3 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 25 June 2010 - 08:44 PM

What we do know is that some people are getting sick:

Disease Affecting Law Enforcement Now Affecting BP Workers - Jobitous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbMr76NxiO4

Per Shell Oil ex-CEO: "It looks like we are facing an endless destruction of our, of our area here in North America -- this is going to keep going and going and going it looks like."

June 24, 2010 | 5:57
Former Shell CEO John Hofmeister, MSNBC, June 23, 2010:

1:00 Hofmeister: If you really want to stop a blowout the fastest way the most efficient way is you blow it in, you use explosives. ... Now the problem with that, that is risky... A geologist would tell you... that the fragility, the hardness of that salt dome, that sits on top of these reservoirs -- if you put lots ofinfantesimal number of cracks in that salt dome, you'd be creating a large seep, which you'd never stop, because nature finds a way to push oil and gas up through the seep.

3:00 Hofmeister: Matthew Simmons comments

3:30 MSNBC Host: It looks like we are facing an endless destruction of our, of our area here in North America -- this is going to keep going and going and going it looks like.

5:00 Hofmeister: The more oil we some coming out, the more it tells you that the whole casing system is deteriorating. The fact that more oil would be coming out rather than less oil, would suggest that the construction within the pipe is offering no resistance whatsoever, and we're just getting a gusher.

5:40 Hofmeister: Get the oil off the surface... but the problem with that is, they're still using so much dispersant that all you get is a little sheen on the ocean, but then you get these big globules rolling up from underneath that hit the beaches.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt70C35zLWc
  • 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 25 June 2010 - 08:56 PM

All we need is some smarty pants to blow up a nuclear bomb to fuse the rock, and accidentally make the oil gush out much faster.


Matt Simmons, NUCLEAR BOMB only way to STOP Gulf Oil Gusher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpfG3gPjQOI

Detonating nuclear bomb at BP oil spill site could end all life on EARTH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00GVHzZFM-s
  • 1

#5 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 25 June 2010 - 09:26 PM

There's now speculation that this could be Abiotic oil. If so the supply could be unlimited and this oil volcano could be gushing for the rest of our lives. More worrisome for the residents of the Gulf than the oil is the poison gas. If this can't be stopped the Gulf coast may become uninhabitable.


What we do know is that in addition to the water, the oil spill could be affecting the air quality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7xqggB-IUY
  • 0

#6 biknut

  • Registered User
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 25 June 2010 - 10:04 PM

Seems like all the news is bad.


Oil And Gas Leaks From Cracks In Seabed Confirmed – Videos Show Gulf Oil Spill Leaking From Seafloor

http://blog.alexande...-videos-photos/
  • 0

#7 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,953 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 25 June 2010 - 10:48 PM

You know bobdrake12,

thanks for the videos...I looked up the Nyos mentioned on the last video and found this in the Wiki and NY Times:

From Wiki

Nyos is one of only three known lakes to be saturated with carbon dioxide in this way, the others being Lake Monoun, 100 km (62 mi) away SSE, and Lake Kivu in Rwanda. On August 21, 1986, possibly triggered by a landslide, Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby villages.[2] Though not completely unprecedented, it was the first known large-scale asphyxiation caused by a natural event. To prevent a repetition, a degassing tube that syphons water from the bottom layers of water to the top allowing the carbon dioxide to leak in safe quantities was installed in 2001, though additional tubes are needed to make the lake safe.


From NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.c...xprod=permalink

================================
Some Time line on the Video:


================================

The Reserch Vessel Weatherbird II Notes the following (See Bold):
http://www.noaanews....eatherbird.html

* Hydrocarbons found in surface samples taken at the Slick 1 source, 40 nautical miles northeast from the well head, were consistent with the BP oil spill source;
* Hydrocarbons found in samples from Station 07—45* nautical miles northeast from the well head—at the surface, at 50 meters and at 400 meters are petroleum-derived but in concentrations too low to confirm the source; and
* Hydrocarbons found in samples taken from Station 01, 142 nautical miles southeast of the well head, at 100 meters and 300 meters were not consistent with the BP oil spill source.
* An additional analysis of samples taken from waters 1,250 meters deep and 1,000 deep at two stations closer to the well are consistent with the findings of the University of South Florida. Our preliminary results revealed petroleum hydrocarbons so highly fractionated that it was not possible to confirm the source of the oil.


So can there be another leak somewhere else that BP does not talk about, or know? I guess it is possible.
(EDIT: You beat me too it biknut! Good job on that one. Apparently the Seafloor is leaking... If one was found, probably more are around)

Ugly, ugly situation.

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 25 June 2010 - 10:52 PM.

  • 1

#8 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 25 June 2010 - 11:11 PM

So can there be another leak somewhere else that BP does not talk about, or know? I guess it is possible.

Ugly, ugly situation.


Anthony, I do not trust BP.

Here are a couple of examples:

King BP: Hardcore Gulf Fisherman Diseased & Afraid To Speak Out

Venice, Louisiana (CNN) -- Kindra Arnesen's husband often calls while he's out on a shrimping trip, so she wasn't surprised to hear her cell phone ring the night of April 29 while he was on an overnight fishing expedition.

However, this time, her husband, David, wasn't calling to tell her about the day's catch or to wish their children Aleena and David Jr. a good night. He was calling to tell her he was sick, and the strange thing about it, so were men on the seven other shrimping boats working near his.

"I received several calls from him saying, 'This one's hanging over the boat throwing up. This one says he's dizzy, and he's feeling faint. Everybody's loading up their stuff, tying up their rigs and going back to the docks,'" Arnesen remembers.

Arnesen believes it was vapors from the oil and the dispersants from the BP Gulf oil disaster that made her husband and the other shrimpers sick. She says they were downwind of it, and the smell was "so strong they could almost taste it."

For several weeks, she hesitated to talk publicly about it. Like many fishermen who can no longer fish in the Gulf, her husband has signed a contract to work with BP to clean up the oil, and she doesn't want to bite the hand that puts food on her family's table. But now Arnesen, a 32-year-old "uneducated housewife" -- her words -- is breaking her silence and is encouraging others in her community do the same. After attending a lecture by Rikki Ott, a toxicologist who's worked with families affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, Arnesen decided to organize other wives to ask questions about the safety of working near the oil.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maJRlKWnbeI

BP Cover Up of Sick Humans and Dead Animals

Day 59: Marine Biologist Riki Ott exposes BP's cover up of human illness, and how animals are being removed by the dark of night to hide the scale of disaster.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsViuQCO6vU
  • 0

#9 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 25 June 2010 - 11:57 PM

From NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.c...xprod=permalink

================================
Some Time line on the Video:


Anthony, a little more information on Matt Simmons per a June 15th, 2010 Barron's article:

http://blogs.barrons...-the-well-bore/

Last week, I cited an interview with Matt Simmons, noted energy pundit a founder of boutique investment house Simmons & Co., written by Fortune magazine’s Nin-Hai Tseng.

(Simmons is not working actively with the firm he founded, and the firm recently upgraded BP to “Outperform.” Simmons & Co. does not have a position in BP shares, long or short.)

Simmons in the piece predicted BP would be filing for Chapter 11 in a month. I caught up with Simmons this morning by phone to review his thoughts on the matter. He still thinks BP is headed for Chapter 11.

In response to calls for a $20 billion escrow to be set aside by BP, Simmons concludes the company’s as good as insolvent.

“They have $5 billion in cash, a $5 billion line of credit, and a $10B emergency line of credit,” says Simmons, “and they boast about how their operating cash flow is $17 billion per quarter. But that’s all consumed in capital expenditures. This outlay [the $20 billion] is going to consumer everything they have.”

When pressed about whether the company might not simply get other lines of credit, Simmons responded, “From whom? Who’s going to do that?” Perhaps Goldman Sachs (GS), which is apparently helping the company avoid a hostile takeover.

In any case, Simmons says a voluntary bankruptcy filing would allow the company to “stack claims” against it, to better manage how it has to pay.

Simmons has a 4,000-share short sale on BP that he picked up when the stock hit $37. That’s in addition to a prior 4,000-share short sale he made at $48 a couple weeks prior. “It’s going to zero,” he says of BP stock.

Mind you, Simmons has an interest and a deep investment in moving beyond fossil fuels.

Simmons called me from northern Maine, where he was at the University of Maine’s Ocean Energy Institute, a project to develop off-shore wind power facilities.


  • 0

#10 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 26 June 2010 - 01:45 PM

OLS - Toxic Gulf - Stay Out Of The Water - 2010


OLS - Oil Spill Cover up - Continuation of Silence - 2010

  • 0

#11 biknut

  • Registered User
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 26 June 2010 - 03:31 PM

It's amazing how little we're being told.
  • 1

#12 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,953 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 26 June 2010 - 06:07 PM

This post has some info on Air Monitoring and studies:
======================================================
I like data, it's my friend when trying to get down to the crux of the matter.
However, It appears some data is not complete regarding Air Quality here from the EPA: http://epa.gov/bpspill/air.html#data

I am looking at these three links and as I understand it each provides a location, and what was tested in that location. My main concern here was to check out PAH (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons like benzene, toulene, xylene, etc) and PM10 (ie. fine particles (PM2.5), are smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter; and coarse particles (PM10), are smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter.)

The links:
(Yes you will need a browser plugin to see the first one properly)

I was looking at June 19 data in all of these, as I could see an odd spike in PM10 in location C04 (3rd link), and wanted to know what the levels of PAH tested that day (2nd link)... I found that apparently the PAH testing stopped 1-2 days before and no data was taken for that day, or somehow was left out of the report.

1- unmht://www.epa.gov/http.5/bpspill/reports/mht/c04_pm.mht/ (this ones shows a Daily Average of PM10 for location C04 or Chalmette 04)
2- http://epa.gov/bpspi...ling_update.pdf (displays PAH's tested in a location, lets concentrate on C04)
3- http://epa.gov/bpspi...monitoring2.pdf (Again I was looking at C04 here as well)


Maybe I am looking at the data incorrectly, however anytime data is incomplete (intentional or not), it bugs me.


======================================================
Studies and possible accumulation:
======================================================
I then look at this Benzene study here and can see that accumulation over time of benzene can happen to workers:
http://www.springerl...a79m1m2rlugek9/

Here is another study for toulene:
http://www.springerl...55013847217614/

Of course what this stuff do if left unchecked?
In rats it produces Chemical-driven liver damage, here is a study:
http://en.cnki.com.c...WZ200003007.htm

But let's get back to Xylene as it looks to be a match for symptoms mentioned in various videos above. Simply read the abstract is below, and see if it might be a match:

From Study Here: http://www.informawo...tent=a739171326

Xylene is an aromatic hydrocarbon widely used in industry and medical technology as a solvent. Health and safety authorities in most countries, including Australia, recommend a threshold limit value (TLV) of 100 ppm in the working environment. Recently, the amount of the major metabolite of xylene, methylhippuric acid (MHA), in urine has been recommended as a better indicator of exposure. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has recommended an upper limit for this indicator, called a biological exposure index (BEI), of 2.0 g MHA/L urine (SG 1.016).

Xylene vapour is absorbed rapidly from the lungs, and xylene liquid and vapour are absorbed slowly through the skin. Of the xylene absorbed, about 95% is metabolised in the liver to MHA and 70 to 80% of metabolites are excreted in the urine within 24 hours. However, the many variables which affect the absorption, metabolism and clearance of xylene include exercise, alcohol intake, cigarette smoking, co-exposure to other solvents, gender, and gastrointestinal, hepatic and renal pathology.

Xylene in high concentrations acts as a narcotic, inducing neuropsychological and neurophysiological dysfunction. Respiratory tract symptoms are also frequent. More chronic, occupational exposure has been associated with anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, chest pain with ECG abnormalities, dyspnea and cyanosis, in addition to CNS symptoms. Concomitant exposure to xylene and other solvents, including toluene, affected hematological parameters, liver size, liver enzymes, auditory memory, visual abstraction, and vibration threshold in the toes. Normal metabolic pathways were altered and significant increases in some serum bile acids may reflect early liver damage. Skin contact has caused burning, erythema and dermatitis. In experimental studies, xylene at about 100 ppm had a deleterious effect on equilibrium, reaction time and manual coordination in non-adapted subjects. At higher concentrations some neurophysiological parameters were altered, particularly when xylene concentration fluctuated. Exercise and alcohol consumption increased blood xylene levels, but altered the neurophysiological effects of xylene in an inconsistent manner. Two reports associating exposure to solvents, including xylene, and increased risk of carcinoma were inconclusive, as were studies on reproduction.

While animal studies fail to provide convincing evidence that xylene is carcinogenic or has significant genetic or reproductive effects, they do confirm that xylene has effects on many organ systems, including the CNS, liver, kidney, hemopoietic tissues and respiratory tract. However, there are factors which require animal studies to be interpreted cautiously. Differences are suspected between animal species, and between animals and humans, in the metabolism of, and sensitivity to, xylene. Conditions of exposure to xylene in animal experiments and human studies, both occupational and experimental, are also usually very different.


Here is a good website regrding Xylene toxicity:
http://www.jomfp.in/...aulast=Kandyala

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 26 June 2010 - 06:12 PM.

  • 0

#13 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 26 June 2010 - 07:28 PM

Anthony,

Do you have an air purifier that will take the carcinogens out of the air?

Also a water purifier would be of worth.

Here are a couple more videos on the health impacts:


Oil Spill's Health Impacts on Gulf Residents


People Getting Sick GULF OIL SYNDROME

  • 0

#14 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 26 June 2010 - 07:29 PM

Gulf Oil Spill Hurricane Plans still Lacking Details
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFsiWfNVX28

Obama says "NO" to Skimmers for cleaning Oil Spill in Gulf

2,000 Skimmers available - 20 being used!!! OUTRAGEOUS!!!
Obama administration says that "We have to keep those other skimmers available in case there is an Oil Spill!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV5PCc5klq8

Edited by bobdrake12, 26 June 2010 - 07:36 PM.

  • 0

#15 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,953 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 26 June 2010 - 08:41 PM

Dutch Skimmers Approved:
http://www.sfgate.co...&entry_id=65647

Apparently it was the EPA who screwed up that one, and then backpedaled...


The data shows air issues, that maybe considered low... but because they are constant, and possibly accumulative over time. Health will likely be affected for many people.

Oh, and in my last post I thought that PAH were the culprits regarding health symptoms, well... it can also be the Dispersant being used and floating around in the water. See the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for the dispersant being used here: http://lmrk.org/core...cueg.539287.pdf

So, the 'soup' as some videos call it is pretty nasty.

Here are some quotes from the MSDS:

METHODS FOR CLEANING UP : SMALL SPILLS: Soak up spill with absorbent material. Place residues in a suitable, covered, properly labeled container. Wash affected area. LARGE SPILLS: Contain liquid using absorbent material, by digging trenches or by diking. Reclaim into recovery or salvage drums or tank truck for proper disposal. Clean contaminated surfaces with water or aqueous cleaning agents. Contact an approved waste hauler for disposal of contaminated recovered material. Dispose of material in compliance with regulations indicated in Section 13 (Disposal Considerations).

MATERIALS TO AVOID : Contact with strong oxidizers (e.g. chlorine, peroxides, chromates, nitric acid, perchlorate, concentrated oxygen, permanganate) may generate heat, fires, explosions and/or toxic vapors.

If this product becomes a waste, it could meet the criteria of a hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 40 CFR 261. Before disposal, it should be determined if the waste meets the criteria of a hazardous waste.

Hazardous wastes must be transported by a licensed hazardous waste transporter and disposed of or treated in a properly licensed hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal or recycling facility. Consult local, state, and federal regulations for specific requirements.


It also has a low lethal concentration per this article:
http://scienceblogs....ncentration.php

Note from article:
Crude oil has an LC50 of 4250 ppm. The "dispersed" oil has an LC50 of 317.7 ppm, making it more than 11 times more lethal in its effects.


Yeah... this is nasty stuff, specially if you don't use it with the appropriate protection.

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 26 June 2010 - 08:50 PM.

  • 0

#16 niner

  • Member, Moderator
  • 14,556 posts
  • 3,480
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 27 June 2010 - 04:30 AM

Crude oil has an LC50 of 4250 ppm. The "dispersed" oil has an LC50 of 317.7 ppm, making it more than 11 times more lethal in its effects.

At least that's the case if you are a tiny brine shrimp or fish that lives near the surface, and you are exposed to these concentrations for days. If you are a human, not so much. I think the toxicity of both the crude and the dispersant is getting a bit overhyped in this thread. It's an ecological disaster, but it's probably not going to turn North America into an uninhabitable dead zone.
  • 0

#17 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 27 June 2010 - 12:40 PM

COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf


Dr. Seth Forman on the Health Risks of Corexit, the BP Oil Disaster Dispersant

  • 0

#18 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,953 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 27 June 2010 - 12:57 PM


Crude oil has an LC50 of 4250 ppm. The "dispersed" oil has an LC50 of 317.7 ppm, making it more than 11 times more lethal in its effects.

At least that's the case if you are a tiny brine shrimp or fish that lives near the surface, and you are exposed to these concentrations for days. If you are a human, not so much. I think the toxicity of both the crude and the dispersant is getting a bit overhyped in this thread. It's an ecological disaster, but it's probably not going to turn North America into an uninhabitable dead zone.


Yes, you are right, the issue is exposure and accumulation over time. Although 4250 ppm or 317.7 ppm may not affect us at all, it's certainly possible some of the workers (not everyone) just the workers that are in direct contact with this muck (day in, and day out) will have issues. I don't think it will really affect others that are not working with the muck, or in the cleanup.

Personally I think the big deal, is that folks are complaining that they are being hired by BP and then not protected very well from such contaminants. The media, then does different pieces on it, and since no one appears to do anything about it... they start turning the volume up on the hype, possibly the ratings.

Regardless, this contamination and sickness issue for the workers should be addressed properly, in my opinion.
There are other issues, (such as BP taking over security and coast guard in the area apparently... which doesn't sit well with me) but, I will differ hype to the higher priority of health, for the workers.

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 27 June 2010 - 01:09 PM.

  • 0

#19 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 27 June 2010 - 12:59 PM

CNN: Almost All Exxon Valdez Cleanup Crew Dead


BP Oil Spill: Animals Struggling To Survive

  • 0

#20 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 2,953 posts
  • 510
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 27 June 2010 - 02:22 PM

Dutch news states oil may have reached Mexican shores:
http://translate.goo...tml&sl=nl&tl=en

Here is the apparent story from a Televisa, one of the larger Spanish news agencies:
http://translate.goo...77/&sl=es&tl=en

Not sure about that but it could be possible... take it with a grain of salt.

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 27 June 2010 - 02:23 PM.

  • 0

#21 niner

  • Member, Moderator
  • 14,556 posts
  • 3,480
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:47 AM

CNN: Almost All Exxon Valdez Cleanup Crew Dead

I find that a bit hard to believe. Who is the woman who made that claim, and what is her background? If there was really a significant health consequence from working on oil spill cleanup crews, wouldn't we have heard of it by now? Is there any independent source that can verify this woman's claims?
  • 0

#22 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 28 June 2010 - 04:01 AM


CNN: Almost All Exxon Valdez Cleanup Crew Dead

I find that a bit hard to believe. Who is the woman who made that claim, and what is her background? If there was really a significant health consequence from working on oil spill cleanup crews, wouldn't we have heard of it by now? Is there any independent source that can verify this woman's claims?


Hi niner!

Below are two mainstream media videos on COREXIT. Unfortunately, the CNN clips that I have found so far did not reveal the woman's name you are asking about.

COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLvNqlVNMh0&feature=related

Dr. Seth Forman on the Health Risks of Corexit, the BP Oil Disaster Dispersant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-NcBsZMDro
  • 0

#23 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 28 June 2010 - 04:18 AM


CNN: Almost All Exxon Valdez Cleanup Crew Dead

I find that a bit hard to believe. Who is the woman who made that claim, and what is her background? If there was really a significant health consequence from working on oil spill cleanup crews, wouldn't we have heard of it by now? Is there any independent source that can verify this woman's claims?


Niner,

Here is an article on the subject from the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

http://www.lvrj.com/...s-93258964.html

May. 10, 2010
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Exxon Valdez oil risks spur warning for gulf cleanup crews (excerpts)

By KEITH ROGERS


They called it the "Valdez crud," but it was more than a cough and diarrhea.

"We thought it was a flu that was going around and every­body kept getting it," said Merle Savage, who was general foreman of the cleanup crews of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound.

Instead, the stuff that was making cleanup workers sick was a toxic cocktail of oil droplets in mist they inhaled from spraying the shoreline with hot water and chemicals that were used to disperse the spill's massive black wave.

Now Savage wants today's workers to be aware of similar risks they might face in cleaning up the even bigger BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Savage, who wrote a book, "Silence in the Sound," about the Exxon Valdez cleanup, recounts those risks as she sits in the upstairs "Alaska Room" of the North Las Vegas home where she now lives with her son and daughter-in-law.

Many of the thousands of Exxon Valdez cleanup workers have died or have become seriously ill from inhaling the toxic mist and handling dispersants that contained benzene and other chemicals.

Of dozens of lawsuits that were filed by sick workers, seven were settled out of court and the records have been sealed.

One cleanup chemical, 2-Butoxyethanol, can be absorbed through the skin and cause blood and kidney damage resulting in headaches, respiratory problems and even death, according to the material safety data sheet for the dispersant, INIPOL, which was used in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez spill.


Any additional information would be appreciated. We are searching for the facts whether or not they support the mainstream media clips displayed in the posts shown above.
  • 0

#24 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 28 June 2010 - 05:02 AM


CNN: Almost All Exxon Valdez Cleanup Crew Dead

I find that a bit hard to believe. Who is the woman who made that claim, and what is her background? If there was really a significant health consequence from working on oil spill cleanup crews, wouldn't we have heard of it by now? Is there any independent source that can verify this woman's claims?


It looks like the person who made the claim is Kerry Kennedy from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Kerry_Kennedy

Kerry Kennedy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mary Kerry Kennedy (born September 8, 1959) is an American human rights activist and writer. She is the seventh of the eleven children of Robert F. Kennedy and Ethel Skakel Kennedy.

Kennedy was born in Washington, D.C. She is a graduate of Brown University and received her J.D. from Boston College Law School.




Here is the full video of her CNN interview:


Kerry Kennedy Discusses the BP Oil Drilling Disaster

Kerry Kennedy appeared on CNN's Campbell Brown to discuss how the oil spill is affecting the health and livelihood of local communities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPandikgBeo
  • 0

#25 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 29 June 2010 - 11:51 AM

BANNED BP Gulf Oil Spill Disaster - 60 Minutes Australia - Part 1 of 2


BANNED BP Gulf Oil Spill Disaster - 60 Minutes Australia - Part 2 of 2

  • 0

#26 Alex Libman

  • Registered User
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:48 PM

The BP oil spill is a great example of government failure:

(1) The government created this oil-based economy in the first place by subsidizing it, including all the trillion-dollar wars in the middle east, while a freer society would have probably switched to (post)nuclear, geothermal, and/or perhaps even space-solar by now.

(2) The government forced the tax-victims to pay for its crummy quality assurance monopoly, which failed miserably. Why worry about safety yourself when everyone knows Mommy Government needs to do all your thinking for you! The government inspectors rated the rig as exemplary, when they showed up at all.

(3) The government created a "tragedy of the commons", whereas all sea and ocean territory would be privately owned in a free society, not in any way differently from land, and even undersea X-depth access rights would be a commodity to be traded. When you get oil in other people's property, you'd typically pay out the wazoo!

(4) The government created corporate liability protections, whereas in a free society people starting or investing in an oil company would know they can lose the shirt off their back, and would thus only do so if they had sufficient industrial insurance, which in turn would have led to draconian safety standards all across the production process.

(5) Oil has been seeping into the oceans of millions of years, and the overwhelming majority of the oil seeping into the ocean today has nothing to do with acts of man. Nature, for the most part, simply cleans itself. This isn't to minimize BP's liabilities for its actions, but to point out that perhaps the greatest damage of this accident is psychological rather than environmental. There are eco-religious nuts out there who literally think the world is coming to an end! Most of them will not blow up any SUV dealerships, but a lot of them will live a different life than they otherwise would have, avoiding industry, avoiding having children, avoiding the very processes that propel the human civilization forward! There will always be stupid people who will find stupid reasons to sit on the couch all day and complain, but the current environmentalist hysteria was to a great part encouraged by government-controlled education, government influence over the media, and countless other examples of government force!


  • 0

#27 biknut

  • Registered User
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 29 June 2010 - 05:09 PM

5 million gallons of oil blowing into the gulf everyday apparently isn't news. The Al Gore sex scandal, now that's news.
  • 1

#28 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:32 PM

First Amendment Has been Suspended

As BP makes its latest attempt to plug its gushing oil well, news photographers are complaining that their efforts to document the slow-motion disaster in the Gulf of Mexico are being thwarted by local and federal officials—working with BP—who are blocking access to the sites where the effects of the spill are most visible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXsmLMV1CrM

BP Oil Spill- Is Corexit Having an Effect on Plants and Wildlife?

We have an oil spill that is being treated with a toxic agent Corexit.... This agent is able to be absorbed by the air... go to Nalco's website and look at Corexit's MSDS sheet to confirm. This catastrophe is getting worse and worse by the day....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgxppMyNsLQ
  • 0

#29 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 02 July 2010 - 03:51 PM

Countdown: RFK Jr.'s unvarnished critique of BP's conduct in the Gulf Oil Disaster


Gulf Oil Spill Cover Up-Sand Dumped To Cover Oil

  • 0

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#30 bobdrake12

  • Registered User
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 03 July 2010 - 03:50 PM

CNN Worlds Largest oil Skimmer, "A Whale."
Still hasn't been given clearance for use on the Gulf Oil Spill



CNN Anderson Cooper Jimmy Buffet's Anger About Oil Spill

  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users