Exploding Water of the Gulf

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by autopat51
they said in the video that about 5 parts per million would be normal.
so its quite a bit higher.

not exactly. the 'chemist' said he expected to see something at about 5 ppm, but didnt say why he would expect that number. And no background is given for what would be 'normal' or why.

and to head off the flames at the pass: I am not saying this isnt interesting information. I'm just wondering what the larger context of these results are.

He originally said the ppm would have been expected to be non-existent or untraceable. But given the situation with the spill, he implied 5 ppm was expected and not a good thing.

A child playing in 221 ppm compared to 5ppm is a large difference.. especially considering that's 221ppm more than should have been there before.. much less 5!

b


[edit on 18-7-2010 by Bspiracy]

reply to post by getreadyalready


Where does the figure of 10 ppm come from? I've searched the EPA site and can't find any numbers on this. All I've been able to find is that the EPA considers the oil/water mix a non-hazardous waste and it can be dumped in public landfill. If that's the case, I doubt 10 ppm is the safe levels.

Also, we need to take the figures in the correct context. Dangerous levels for humans can't be assumed from values for brine shrimp or fish larvae. The important figures for humans will be for either skin contact (swimming/bathing), inhalation (breathing) or ingestion (swallowing).

Originally posted by beansanmash

This is kind of off topic, but am I an idiot for just realizing that the name 'corexit' is is meant to sound like 'corrects it?'

yeah and to think the chemists spent two weeks in meeting trying to come up with a name for it

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by autopat51
they said in the video that about 5 parts per million would be normal.
so its quite a bit higher.

not exactly. the 'chemist' said he expected to see something at about 5 ppm, but didnt say why he would expect that number. And no background is given for what would be 'normal' or why.

and to head off the flames at the pass: I am not saying this isnt interesting information. I'm just wondering what the larger context of these results are.

HE said NONE would be normal as in " you shouldn't see any in there normally" when referring to oil...
there should be NONE !!!!!!

He said 5 because even that would be 500% more than normal.

But 221 ppm where kids are playing is dangerous..

I wonder what would happen if you took a tip then lit a lighter next to your skin ??

No. You clearly misunderstand. He said he 'expected' the ppm to be about five. He didnt say why (for example, by citing a study done to the same region prior to the spill).

The Gulf has oil in it from other wells, from passing ships, from motorboats and jet skis, and from the millions of gallons that seep into the water naturally.

so obviously no one would expect to find the level to be zero.

now, with that said, OF COURSE this is alarming.

but an experiment just isnt accurate if it doesnt have a control. Being incredulous is not a crime, and is NOT the same as saying this is ' no big deal'.

sheesh.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by justadood]

Originally posted by WeRpeons
I can't believe parents would be so unaware to allow their kids to be playing in that water after all the concern about chemical dispersants and oil contamination! Simple logic would tell you you're taking a chance swimming in contaminated water. Why would you put your kids in harms way of possibly affecting their health? Chemicals like these are absorbed easily by children and in the short term can cause illness and possible death. Think of how many times as a kid you accidentally swallowed water when playing in the ocean or a lake. It makes me angry to think that some parents are totally clueless!! I agree, the beaches should be quarantined and the government should be taking samples on a daily basis and informing the public it's findings on a daily basis. This reminds me of 9/11 when the government said the air down by ground zero wasn't hazardous. Years later, rescuers developed respiratory problems and some even died. The beaches where I live are tested on a daily basis for ecoli bacteria or any other possible contaminants. When there is a concern to the general public, lifeguards prohibit swimming until testing shows safe levels. People blindly believe what their government tells them. That's why this country is in the mess it's in.

peopel also put sunscreen on their kids (a known carcinogen) and feed their kids mcdonalds and corn syrup.

so you really shouldnt be shocked by people's stupidity when it comes to placing their children in harms way.

Originally posted by LightningStrom
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Where does the figure of 10 ppm come from? I've searched the EPA site and can't find any numbers on this. All I've been able to find is that the EPA considers the oil/water mix a non-hazardous waste and it can be dumped in public landfill. If that's the case, I doubt 10 ppm is the safe levels.

Also, we need to take the figures in the correct context. Dangerous levels for humans can't be assumed from values for brine shrimp or fish larvae. The important figures for humans will be for either skin contact (swimming/bathing), inhalation (breathing) or ingestion (swallowing).

The 10 ppm is on the MSDS and/or EPA site and I have posted it in other threads. I will go find it and be right back.

That news report was mostly useless since it doesn't tell us whether or not those increases in part per million are significant enough to be dangerous. The only thing I took away from this is that woman was engaging in some pretty irresponsible and sensational journalism.

reply to post by supyo


"irresponsible" You say.........Were we to wait until the gov test the waters? Oh yea I forgot they are........thay have trainned sniffers on duty!!

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]

reply to post by Cloudsinthesky


no, it's 'irresponsible' because it offers no context for the numbers, and the study was done with no real control to make sure there was a way to know what they were actually testing.

its nice the news service took the time to do the tests, and the certainly are a starting point, but if the numbers cant stand up to a little scrutiny, then they are useless to us.

This is how the scientific process works.

do you think when a scientist publishes a paper, he expects everyone do just blindly accept his conclusion?

i really dont comprehend how you guys turn a science-based question into 'oh, corexit is great for breakfast'.

reply to post by justadood


Your so easy to fish out Just......that post was just for you!!

Do you need some extra fishing line?

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Cloudsinthesky]

reply to post by LightningStrom


First we must define "oil." Crude Oil, or Petroleum is actually a compbination of many things, that is why it needs refining. So here goes:

Petroleum is a mixture of a very large number of different hydrocarbons; the most commonly found molecules are alkanes (linear or branched), cycloalkanes, aromatic hydrocarbons, or more complicated chemicals like asphaltenes. Each petroleum variety has a unique mix of molecules, which define its physical and chemical properties, like color and viscosity.

The alkanes, also known as paraffins, are saturated hydrocarbons with straight or branched chains which contain only carbon and hydrogen and have the general formula CnH2n+2. They generally have from 5 to 40 carbon atoms per molecule, although trace amounts of shorter or longer molecules may be present in the mixture.

The hydrocarbons in crude oil are mostly alkanes, cycloalkanes and various aromatic hydrocarbons while the other organic compounds contain nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, and trace amounts of metals such as iron, nickel, copper and vanadium. The exact molecular composition varies widely from formation to formation

So, lets focus on the most popular and well known component. The Hydrocarbons. Benzene is one of the most common Hydrocarbons, because all other more complex ones are formed with benzene as the basic structure.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), US EPA, and other entities have all agreed that benzene is a human carcinogen and can cause leukemia. Under these circumstances, EPA usually estimates a level of exposure that they consider to have "minimal" risk (e.g., one in one million chance). In the past, US EPA used the scientific studies of leukemia to calculate the level of benzene in air that they believed was likely to result in an increased risk of no greater than one in one million risk over a lifetime to be 0.13 - 0. 45 µg/m3 which is equivalent to 0.04 to 0.14 ppb (see

www.epa.gov... ).

Risk assessment guidance from US EPA that was finalized in 2005 now uses an adjustement to account for the much greater sensitivity of children to carcinogens. The "early life exposure" adjustement factor recommended by US EPA is usually approximately equal to three. Making that adjustment to the estimated values above results in an exposure level of:

0.01 ppb - 0.05 ppb is the benzene level in air that is expected to result in a cancer risk no greater than one in one million

That said parts per billion not million. Therefore 5 ppm is already 1000 times higher than allowable. 230 ppm is 50,000 times higher than allowable.


Another harmful component is the Poly Aromatic hydrocarbon or PAH.

CDC PDF with stats for PAH's

Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a limit of 0.2 milligrams of PAHs per cubic meter of air (0.2 mg/m3). The OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for mineral oil mist that contains PAHs is 5 mg/m3 averaged over an 8-hour exposure period.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that the average workplace air levels for coal tar products not exceed 0.1 mg/m3 for a 10-hour workday, within a 40-hour workweek. There are other limits for workplace exposure for things that contain PAHs, such as coal, coal tar, and mineral oil.

Once again 5 parts per billion over a 10 hour workday. Not 50,000 that amount immersing a kid building sandcastles?

Needless to say I am blown away by the OP video from News 5, Kudos to them for showing the strength and drive to bring this important information to the public.

There will be some trouble now if they dont close the beaches, these parents must be sick to discover the danger and long term cancer they exposed their families and children to.

"They" will get their pants sued off...

reply to post by justadood


Understood, however was it just yesterday Michelle Obama was on the beach herself telling people it was safe and to come on down for continuity of turism?

Yes. I did notice 'she' and her girls were not swimming, and she seemed in quite the rush...

thing that freak's me out is, this woman i once new who said she saw visions said the entire united states will be engulfed in flames due to trapped chambers of gas under the ground. as if it is not hot enough already

reply to post by antar


did she say to swim in the water?

or just encourage people to spend money down there?

thats really sad and scary

reply to post by getreadyalready


Hi getreadyalready,

You're quoting figures for contaminants in the air. The news were measuring what was in the water. The two are completely different.

Airborne pollutants can easily make their way into the human body via the lungs.

Waterborne pollutants have a much harder time of getting into the body. Getting through the skin is hard. Ingestion is more dangerous, but who drinks sea water?

Again, I'm not saying the water is safe (I wouldn't swim in it), I'm saying that the figures for oil are not high enough to be concerned about. I'd be more concerned about other chemicals such as Corexit.

Oh no, the water is perfect.

The democrats are in power now. They have said they control everything ecological, they are our saviors!

Really, they did NOT accept money from BP.

They did not allow BP to further the spill to actually allow the future collection of oil.

They are NOT lawyers and liars!

This is going to take years to clean up but if the clemicals well up sickness or even perhaps effect our food and water supply, fire in the water would be the least of our concern

reply to post by Lupin


I'm in Shreveport, 250 miles north of the gulf. I have a leaky sprinkler head, where water pools around it. Six weeks ago I replaced it. Still, the water pools. Yesterday I noticed an oily sheen on the water. This is odd, because I don't spray any chemicals in by back yard. I've also had a mild sore throat for three days, not associated with a cold. I'm thinking of having the water tested for corexit.