Leaked!: Complete Assay Of The "Crude oil" & Corexit Warning Label

Originally posted by brokedown
This oil is highly radiaoactive and off gassing highly toxic fumes.

Yup, that's what I'm starting to suspect too. Who knows what kind of toxic fumes that oil may give off if left to wash ashore and decay out in the open, under the sun, in the heat. What they are trying to do is keep it below where it will remain essentially frozen and hopefully to rain down upon the gulf floor. A gaseous death cloud, frozen a mile under the water. Better than being on the shores I suppose. It won't matter either way though if that relief well bottom kill fails. If they can't stop that from flowing, it will eventually erode what's left of the well and then the party will be over and none of this will matter.

Bout time a MSDS found its way to the surface much like the oil... Does it really matter ? Does all the worlds media run with it ?? Imagine you or I out the front of our houses using this product to wash your car. And the people in the whole street vomiting and burning eyes. Would not a local council or EPA car turn up ? Mmm one asks ?? GOOD S***T KEEP IT UP !

reply to post by truthy-bird


My hope is that the people who need it the most will find it.

The Big Lie: BP, Governments Downplay Public Health Risk From Oil and Dispersants
by Riki Ott

PENSACOLA BEACH, Florida -- When Ryan Heffernan, a volunteer with Emerald Coastkeeper, noticed a bag of oily debris floating off in Santa Rosa Sound, she ran up to BP's HazMat-trained workers to ask if they would retrieve it.

"No, ma'am," one replied politely. "We can't go in the ocean. It's contaminated."

Ryan waded in and retrieved the bag. That was Wednesday, June 23, the first day visible oil hit Pensacola Beach. Ryan had been swimming off the beach the day before, as she said, "to get in my last swim before the oil hit." The trouble is that not all of the oil coming ashore is visible. Dispersed oil - tiny bubbles of oil encased in chemical dispersants - are in the water column. On Thursday Ryan was treated at a local doctor's office for skin rash on her legs.

Three days later on Pensacola Beach, I watched BP's HazMat-trained workers shovel surface oiled sand and oily debris into bags early in the morning. The workers followed the waterline like shorebirds, scurrying up the beach in front of breaking waves and moving back down with receding waters.

The late morning sun retired the workers to the shade of their tents and the job of "observing," while it brought out throngs of beach-goers -- children, parents, grandparents -- who happily plunged into the "contaminated" ocean without a second thought.

Riki Ott, PhD, is a marine toxicologist from Alaska, is volunteering in the Gulf. She has written two books on surviving the Exxon Valdez oil spill - Sound Truth and Corporate Myths on biological impact of oil to people and wildlife, and Not One Drop on emotional impact of disaster trauma and litigation to people and community. www.rikiott.com. Ott is working with Emerald Coastkeeper and others to petition the EPA to delist toxic chemical products in oil spill response.

www.ipetitions.com...

I was astounded. Why did people think the ocean was safe for swimming?www.commondreams.org...

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by burntheships

 

this is absolutely insane. can't the epa just put a stop to it, or are they in actuality as useless as i'm beginning to think?
do they need a congressional mandate to do anything?


if i remember it didn't take them long to basically outlaw ddt.

If this 'spill' was on land, the EPA would have jurisdiction. As it stands, out at sea, they don't. Which is why BP basically told them to kiss off when the EPA told BP to stop using corexitt. No jurisdiction means no enforcement. It'd be like your neighbor outlawing you from drinking.

This is all the repercussions of YEARS/DECADES of a complete lack of regulation of the industry.

The US Coast Gaurd is th eonly government agency with any legal jursidiction out there, and they dont make rules about things like corexitt, unfortunately.

In ot

reply to post by guavas


If you were using it at open sea, like BP is, the EPA would also have no authority, just like with BP.

reply to post by justadood


I dont know about your assertion. Can you provide some proof?

It seems that the EPA website indicates otherwise.

What is EPA’s role / process in the IATAP?
EPA has primary "jurisdiction" for submissions deemed by the USCG RDC as “Alternative Oil Spill Response Technologies". The category "Alternative Oil Spill Response Technologies" includes in situ burning; alternative chemical treatment; and innovative applications not commonly used for oil spill response.

www.epa.gov...

[edit on 9-7-2010 by burntheships]

Good find. Also, be sure to visit this popular website and use the form to demand action from the government..

BPMakesMeSick.com...

[edit on 9-7-2010 by whatsup]

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by justadood

 

I dont know about your assertion. Can you provide some proof?

It seems that the EAP website indicates otherwise.

What is EPA’s role / process in the IATAP?
EPA has primary "jurisdiction" for submissions deemed by the USCG RDC as “Alternative Oil Spill Response Technologies". The category "Alternative Oil Spill Response Technologies" includes in situ burning; alternative chemical treatment; and innovative applications not commonly used for oil spill response.

www.epa.gov...

You know, i have been furiously searching for the article i got that info from, but i have yet to find it... I meant to include it in my above post, but seem to have lost the link...

I'll update this post or post anew when i come across it...

Be careful.

TPTB want us to notice that the EPA 'kindly' asked BP not to use corexit and then get angry at how the EPA has no power to enforce BP to not use the corexit.

Then the Cap and Trade comes in.

Obama wants the EPA to have policing powers, nothing other than this could have us all blindly screaming create an environmental police force.


This is how ruthless the elite are.



Algore failed.

Climate Summit failed.

And this is the third attempt.

Originally posted by brokedown
Corexit is illegal to use in the US in this maner, however BP is dumping untold amounts into the Gulf under the watchful eye of our government. The question is why is this allowed. BP, the Government, and all of us know this will kill all life in the Gulf. WHY is it allowed?
Corexit keeps the oil below the surface.
Many think this is done to hide the scope of the disaster, this is not the answer.
Water is a great insulator against radiation and toxic substances. This oil is highly radiaoactive and off gassing highly toxic fumes.

To delay evacuations, which delays the complete failure of the economy the government has chosen greed over stewardship.

there's one possible answer right here......click me!!!

they've created a toxic soup sandwich and they want us to take a huge tasty bite!

it's no longer a matter of how they got away with it, but what americans will do to stop/ reverse this damage.

reply to post by justadood


Okay, still cant fidn the danged article i first came across two months ago, but from the EPA's website:

Why isn't EPA the lead for this environmental disaster? Typically for off shore environmental incidents the U.S. Coast Guard is the lead agency for a response. As this oil slick approaches and reaches the shoreline, EPA has been preparing to ramp up its efforts as necessary to respond to a broad range of environmental impacts.

www.epa.gov...

USCG responsibilities can be divided into two categories: (1) spill response and cleanup and (2) spill prevention/preparedness. As the primary response authority in maritime waters,7 the Coast Guard has the ultimate authority to ensure that a spill is effectively removed and that actions are taken to prevent further discharge from the source. During response operations, the Coast Guard coordinates the efforts of federal, state, and private parties.

pdf: www.fas.org...


www.admiraltylawguide.com...&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

Basically, from everything i've read, the EPA has no teeth beyond three miles out to sea. Beyond that, it is the Coast Guard's territory. Fro what I understand, the EPA was in charge of the exxon valdez spill because it fell within this jurisdiction.

It does seem to be a legally murky area, but that seems to be the gist of it, from what i can find. Can you find anything to the contrary? Something that states that the EPA doesn, indeed have jurisdiction in this instance?



[edit on 9-7-2010 by justadood]

[edit on 9-7-2010 by justadood]

Originally posted by hillbilly4rent
reply to post by burntheships

 

OK so the stuff they are pumping in to the water "Corextinct" 9500 has a concentration of arsenic at 0.16 ppm I know the EPAs limit is 10 ppm or 10 parts per gallon.

Ok i am no mathmecologist or whatever that type calls themselves but is
.16 less than 10?
If so that would put the PPM well below standards.
Help on my thinker as it is not as strong as it used to be.



(Edit) To save a double post.
Why would they not try to poison the fish?
They cannot put fluoride in them.
They cannot put High Fructose Corn Syrup in them
Etc.
This may tie into making gardens illegal.
Have an absolute control over poisoning the food supply.
Just a side thought is all.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by g146541]

Originally posted by g146541

Originally posted by hillbilly4rent
reply to post by burntheships

 

OK so the stuff they are pumping in to the water "Corextinct" 9500 has a concentration of arsenic at 0.16 ppm I know the EPAs limit is 10 ppm or 10 parts per gallon.

Ok i am no mathmecologist or whatever that type calls themselves but is
.16 less than 10?
If so that would put the PPM well below standards.
Help on my thinker as it is not as strong as it used to be.



(Edit) To save a double post.
Why would they not try to poison the fish?
They cannot put fluoride in them.
They cannot put High Fructose Corn Syrup in them
Etc.
This may tie into making gardens illegal.
Have an absolute control over poisoning the food supply.
Just a side thought is all.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by g146541]

Perhaps. But the vast majority of seafood consumed in the us (of US origin) comes from Alaska, not the Gulf Coast.

reply to post by justadood


Okay, I think I found some into that indicates that the EPA does have jurisdiction, and this actually opens a whole nother can of worms.

Why hasn't the government launched a criminal investigation into BP?
That's the question several former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials have been asking in the aftermath of the catastrophic explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig last month that killed 11 employees and ruptured a newly drilled well 5,000 feet below the surface and has spewed tens of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf if Mexico, which now stands as the largest spill in US history....

Jurisdiction

West said if he were the special agent-in-charge of the EPA's Dallas office, which has jurisdiction over the area of the Gulf where the Deepwater Horizon sank, he would have "dispatched criminal investigators immediately just as I did in March 2006, as the special agent-in-charge in Seattle when BP's negligence resulted in the dumping of crude onto the North Slope of Alaska."

www.truth-out.org...

[edit on 9-7-2010 by burntheships]

reply to post by burntheships


I'm not convinced (big surprise) the quote: "which has jurisdiction over the area of the Gulf where the Deepwater Horizon sank," isnt cited. And the EPA website says something completely different, as i've noted above. specifically outlining that they dont have authority in open sea beyond three miles, unless it is a very specific type of controlled dumping.


And his reference to the Alaska spill is still an example of an ON-Shore spill, right?

btw-ive started a thread to get to the bottom of this)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 9-7-2010 by justadood]

reply to post by justadood


I added a link there, a recent Congressional Document maybe will shed more light, and go ahead have an open mind.

A good bit of this stuff is detergent in a light hydrocarbon solvent. Imagine laundry detergent in kerosene.
Arsenic levels in the corexit are not important. The problem lies with the oil disrupting the ability of the ocean to clear arsenic from the water column.

Originally posted by justadood
Perhaps. But the vast majority of seafood consumed in the us (of US origin) comes from Alaska, not the Gulf Coast.

ok but given enough time could the Corexit infect all of the seas?

I'm just not sure how thick the soup would have to be to infect all like a cascade effect.
Either way, gulf fishermen aren't gonna be working anymore, in the gulf at least.
So we have effectively removed that industry all together.

Originally posted by g146541

Originally posted by justadood
Perhaps. But the vast majority of seafood consumed in the us (of US origin) comes from Alaska, not the Gulf Coast.

ok but given enough time could the Corexit infect all of the seas?

I'm just not sure how thick the soup would have to be to infect all like a cascade effect.
Either way, gulf fishermen aren't gonna be working anymore, in the gulf at least.

Actually, the fishing is reported to be quite good right now off the west coast of florida, and many gulf fisherman claim the shallow water is currently fine. Others say the opposite, depending on what government recovery funds they are applying for.

So we have effectively removed that industry all together.

Yes, but i'm saying that isnt really a very significant 'industry' at all, which implies, to me, that your theory has a whole in it.

Just my opinion. Take it or leave it.

Originally posted by BlubberyConspiracy
Be careful.

TPTB want us to notice that the EPA 'kindly' asked BP not to use corexit and then get angry at how the EPA has no power to enforce BP to not use the corexit.

Then the Cap and Trade comes in.

Obama wants the EPA to have policing powers, nothing other than this could have us all blindly screaming create an environmental police force.


This is how ruthless the elite are.



Algore failed.

Climate Summit failed.

And this is the third attempt.

You are definitely correct about this. My gut instinct says the same thing. Its the same way that they (the elite) are creating border problems to get Americans angry and agree to have the military patrol it and put up a fence which will inevitably lock us all inside. Yep, that border will serve two purposes. No one gets in, and NO ONE GETS OUT. Most people don't understand that there's a huge game of chess being played, and they (the elite) have thought of every option in every direction to ensure that they come out on top.

People need to understand the levels that these guys will drop in order to snare the American public by their own volition and vices. Believe me, if you beg for them to have more control over policing, eventually, they will gladly take it and politely say, "Well, this is what you asked for."

I hope more people saw your post. But hopefully, my reply to you will resurrect it, and give others the chance to see the brilliance in your statement and your ability to look ahead of the game. There's not many that have this sort of critical thinking skill. Its nice to see someone else who is awake.

Namaste and Love

[edit on 9-7-2010 by PsychoX42]