Fisherman's wife breaks the silence

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Sounds like low levels
Of o2.

I dont know a lot about the physics of oil.

but I know gas will evaporate rapidly. Could oil on the surface be getting into the air and enter peoples lungs, which i would assume, would rapidly enter the body?

anyone know enough to comment on this?

reply to post by icecold7

let me enlighten all u ignorant people

Thanks for enlightening us, "ignorant people". I feel so much better now...

www.inthesetimes.com...

oil cleanup workers getting sick due to lack of protective gear?

Didnt this happen with 9/11?

sometime our stupidity is SO stupid I have to believe its intentional

Originally posted by Nepenthic
reply to post by Stewie

 

Thats really strange a friend of mine was telling me about a similar dream that he was having that the BP gas stations were empty.

Strange for my first post I didn't think that it would have anything to do with that.

Might be something to this though.

welcome.

Nice to meet you.



OT:
Does anyone know if they used the same chemicals in the 70's when they had that big spill?

the similarities of that incident are uncanny. We might want to learn a bit from history.

I can't tell how many times some stupid boss tried to put me in a situation that would comprises my health or make me sick in my line of work.

when it comes down to it they just don't care, get the job done and thats it? don't want to do it well find someone that will and make him sick.


I was working on a job and I needed help, they sent out a eager guy that spoke little English but we got it done in a safe way, So that just make the boss think that the guy could do it on his own, they sent him out with another guy that also didn't know what he was doing. They gave him a torch and he needed to change a valve in a system under pressure. He didn't know to recover the system and he just started torching on the valve...

It exploded in his face! all the pressure about 150 PSIG and lots of oil, I never saw him again and I hope things came out ok for him!! After that I couldn't take it anymore. I quit and now being safe is all its about for me!

OH one more thing I found out he didn't have insurance because he was illegal and and no workers comp...

Originally posted by Gakus
America was founded on tobacco, so I say yes it is the American way.

first off, the US was founded on hemp, and secondly the US definitely was not founded on tobacco grown with radioactive fertilisers!
sorry to get off topic there, anyway I think MSM is doing a lot to not show us how sick everyone is down there.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by theuhstuf]

reply to post by JacKatMtn


S& F - BP continues to demonstrate their arrogance, and "too big to fail" attitude, which they have maintained for years. I am glad this fisherman's wife spoke up, and there will probably be others who find the courage. Relative to the topic, I think it is too late to help the wildlife in these photos released today:

www.boston.com...



[edit on 3-6-2010 by manta78]

www.iosc.org... Acute Aquatic Toxicity of three Corexit products.

this is disgusting...people are just trying to make a living and here bp has little to no remorse for people affected my the oil spill....this just makes me sick...

reply to post by Maxmars


From what I understood from other articles, the alternative dispersant Sea Brat 4 is more toxic than the Corexit they're using now. The EPA banned CorExit (even though it is coming from Illinois now?) but decided to allow it as Sea Brat has dramatic effects on the human endocrine system. The CorExit is toxic at 2.6 ppm and judging from the size of 'their' spill size, it's about an 8:1 ratio of oil to corexit. Seems a bit high at those levels to be safe
I also noticed they were 'chemtrailing' in the Cousteau (showed it twice)video which tells me thay have the technology to spray like that, even though they don't admit it.

Originally posted by silo13
I have a horrible feeling there's 'something in the air'.
'Something' put there intentionally, purposefully - in order to keep fishermen as far away from the scene of the crime (yes, scene of the crime = the spill) as possible.

I can believe TPTB might have implemented a "smoke screen," alright, to keep prying eyes away... But NOT from the "scene of a crime"; rather, they probably don't want prying eyes to discover THERE IS NO CRIME.

I mean, think about it — we're being inundated with all these news stories of the dreadful spill and how it's an environmental apocalypse. THAT is the propaganda.

Yet, there are no photos, no videos, no nothing to corroborate the catastrophic extent of the spill. I've heard and read that over a hundred miles of Louisiana coastline have been impacted; but, amazingly, the only photo I've scene associated with that claim shows a few tens of yards of darkened beach, with miles of clean beach beyond.

Where are the millions of dead fish and birds and other hapless marine life stacked like cord wood on the beaches? There ARE NONE.

In another story I posted, the best the eco-fear-mongers could produce was a single photograph of a dead porpoise and a handful of anecdotal descriptions of pelicans with stained feathers.

THAT is the propaganda.

There aren't any heart-wrenching photos of oil-drenched beaches with oily seagulls and puking otters because THERE'S NOTHING CATASTROPHIC about this situation. The Obama administration is sitting on its hands because they know THERE'S NOTHING CATASTROPHIC about this situation.

They're probably releasing respiratory toxins to keep fishermen from getting too close to the NON EVENT.

Remember the scene from the old movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind? The scene set in Wyoming, where a military train derailment had released "nerve gas" into the air, and the locals were fleeing like rats from a sinking ship? Remember how it turned out that THERE WAS NO train derailment, and THERE WAS NO nerve gas?

There were just a few props — a couple of dead animals deposited on the roadsides, and a media frenzy to spread the word of the catastrophe, and a little aerosol sleep-inducing agent applied at close range to scare away any prying eyes — which, taken together, convinced people to evacuate the area.

But there was NO CATASTROPHE.

I can imagine the same thing happening in the Gulf... A lot of hooey and hubbub and hysterical TALK, but very little in the way of hard evidence that the Gulf ecosystem is endangered.

I think we're being hornswoggled by a NON EVENT, another magnificent environmental HOAX (not unlike manmade global warming), designed to drive up our gas prices and food prices and taxes overall, and designed to serve as a springboard for worldwide ecological policy reforms. For which we, the consumers, will pay the cost, and pay dearly.

So... No "scene of the crime," but very definitely a "scene of the HOAX."

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Maxmars


When i head this today... i was just dumbfounded, although, i shouldn't have been.
The EPA told them to change the dispersant , and they say no. And they get away with it because they pretty much bribed their way into authority.
Makes me sick.

Maybe it's the natural gas that's also escaping.
Natural gas has no odor and the symptoms of poisoning a very flu like.

www.gasstationnearme.com...

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Sorry Doc. I respect your right to state your opinion, and enjoy reading/responding to some of your posts, but think it's the wrong call on this one, that is of course unless your are being sarcastic, with a clue being drawn from your avatar which says "embrace ignorance".



[edit on 4-6-2010 by manta78]

reply to post by JacKatMtn


I would be very surprised if this doesn't turn out to be some rough equivalent of Agent Orange health wise . When I first read that they were spraying the chemicals Agent Orange immediately sprang to mind because it had no real effect on the outcome of the Vietnam War and its lasting ill health effects . If I am right it will take at least twenty to thirty years for the US government to admit such a problem exists .

Cheers xpert11.

Here's another piece from this morning on the health issues being reported from the oil spill clean up:

health.usnews.com

...The Unified Command in Louisiana -- a coalition of government agencies that includes the U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of the Interior and the National Parks Service -- last week called back to shore 125 boats helping with the clean-up after medical complaints from crew members.

"The reports that we've heard from hospitals and doctors have been [that the symptoms are due to] inhaled irritant exposure, but they've not gone so far as to say what exactly they think the responsible agent might be," Solomon said. "The workers are widely blaming the dispersants."

Dispersants are chemicals used for the oil clean-up. The solvent used after the massive 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off the Alaska coast, for example, was limonene, which can cause skin inflammation and asthma, said Robert Emery, vice president for safety, health, environment and risk management at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston...

OSHA's take on the health risk at the moment:

OSHA Says Cleanup Workers Don't Need Respirators

WASHINGTON—The head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on Thursday said workers hired by BP PLC to clean up spilled oil don't need respirators, despite complaints from some employees and lawmakers about toxic fumes.

David Michaels, assistant secretary for the Department of Labor's OSHA, said in an interview Thursday that based on test results so far, cleanup workers are receiving "minimal" exposure to airborne toxins. OSHA will require that BP provide certain protective clothing, but not respirators.

Questions about widely publicized complaints from cleanup workers are likely to continue. Two members of Congress on Thursday demanded that BP provide respirators for workers.

Somewhat related to this since some members voiced concerns over the seafood coming from the gulf.

Officials Work Hard To Protect Gulf Seafood From Oil Spill

...Federal and state officials say they've taken steps to keep tainted seafood from the market.

The first line of defense is to close fishing areas. As of Thursday, federal officials had closed 88,522 square miles of federal Gulf waters.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is in charge of federal fishing water closures, deploys a 5-mile buffer around oil slicks, says Reid Cherlin, White House spokesman. About 30% of Louisiana and Mississippi state waters, which are closer to shore, are also closed to fishing.

The buffer zones are intended to keep potentially contaminated fish from moving from closed areas into open areas where they may be caught by fishermen. Whether that's far enough remains to be seen. The buffers "are a calculated, educated guess," says Rick Steiner, a marine biologist who was involved in the cleanup after the Exxon Valdez spill two decades ago.

So far, only a handful of people have been caught fishing closed areas, usually because areas got expanded and they weren't aware, says U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Commander Carmen DeGeorge. He also says the Coast Guard has enough boats and helicopters to adequately patrol closed areas.

The second line of defense is to test seafood. That includes lab and sniff tests. This week, 20 state officials from five states underwent training in Mississippi to brush up on sniff and taste skills to detect oil on seafood. While rudimentary, sniff tests are "the gold standard" to detect tainted seafood, says LuAnn White, a toxicologist and environmental health expert at Tulane University. The sniff tests can take minutes vs. days for laboratory tests...

Originally posted by grantbeed
reply to post by icecold7

 

let me enlighten all u ignorant people

Thanks for enlightening us, "ignorant people". I feel so much better now...

exxelent

reply to post by JacKatMtn


I saw on ABC news that the former head of the EPA during Valdez actually REFUSED to allow Exxon to use the dispersant, stating that they were poisonous and would kill fish like Salmon and were could be fatally harmful to humans.

Why the Government is allowing the vast, widespread usage of the chemicals now, in a much less condensed oil disaster (the oil spreads out in the gulf, unlike the crude in Valdez which was very thick) .. It makes no sense.. unless the Government simply doesn't give a damn and just wants to look like it's doing something.. I gotta say, they really dropped the ball on this one..

And BP's CEO says the shrimpers are not getting sick from the dispersants or the oil.. but food poisoning.

When asked at a news conference Sunday about people getting sick while out on the Gulf, BP CEO Tony Hayward had his own theory.

"Food poisoning is clearly a big issue," HE said. "It's something we've got to be very mindful of."

From OP's source.