BP oil spill toxins from Gulf of Mexico found in eggs of pelicans nesting in Minnesota - IMPORTANT!

reply to post by thov420


No, unfortunately not. I meant to check around again to see if he had published, but havent had the time! Let me know if you hear back, thx!

I was waiting for this because so many of our summer birds ( in canada ) winter in the crap

Originally posted by Danbones
I was waiting for this because so many of our summer birds ( in canada ) winter in the crap

Yes! I havent checked, but i wonder how far the geese go... Do you think they go as far south as the gulf?

*added* animals.nationalgeographic.com...

Yea, they go down to the gulf, even into mexico sometimes.....

Well I got a response from him but he didn't mention which journal he would be publishing in.

Hi ****,
We are in the process of completing & submitting a manuscript to a peer-reviewed, scientific journal. This is a hectic time of year for me because of field work, and writing suffers especially during this period. The upper Midwest & Northern Plains are the main breeding areas for American White Pelicans (perhaps check out the Cornell Lab of Ornithology for good natural history information on them), and at times the Marsh Lake, MN colony has been the largest breeding colony in North America. Thank you for your interest in our research.

Regards,
Mark

I have always said, and continue to say, that the effects of the chemicals and the oil itself won't truly be seen in animals, humans and the environment for at least another 6-8 years. But instead of minimizing the true damage by stopping it's spread, they used chemicals which does absolutely nothing to "clean up" oil. Right now, 400 million some odd barrels of oil are sitting in the Gulf of Mexico between the ocean's surface and floor. The Gulf Stream will already have picked up that oil and you can bet it's been flowing slowly but surely right through it.

The government and big oil can only do so much to cover up the truth in a case like this. Soon enough it will be so bad that the truth will have to come out, but by then it will be too late. The chemicals they used to "clean up" the BP oil spill were dropped from the air, into an ecosystem, and the winds, rain, tide etc. carried those chemicals inland where it then covered homes, people cars, streets, everything. Anyone or anything that comes in contact with the chemicals and doesn't get violently ill or dies, spreads that chemical everywhere they go...just like radiation. Only way to stop it is to have yourself and everything else decontaminated...if there really is such a thing.

Most of us lived through the two single most worldwide disasters of the century. Japan Tsunami that destroyed Fukushima, and the BP oil spill. In a few words: we are all severely #ed. And all we can do now is wait.

reply to post by Nspekta


No way this is true.

#1. The only way they could know it was Corexit is if they had the proprietary ingredients of Corexit, but anyone with that list of ingredients has been sworn to secrecy before they were given permission to test. CloudsintheSky is an expert on that.

#2. If they are just finding petroleum and dispersant markers, then it can't be connected to the Gulf, it could come from any number of environmental pollutants.

#3. The only way the Pelicans could ingest it would be from the fish first ingesting it and concentrating it in their bodies, but petroleum and dispersant chemicals have not been found to concentrate in any species so far. So, if a fish ingested something it would pass it right out, but if it happened to get eaten immediately after ingesting it, then the Pelican would pass it right out.

I don't believe this article for a minute, but I'm off to do more research.

For the Record, CloudsintheSky will be thrilled to hear this news, and will expect it to be true, but he will also be able to tell you there is no way there were allowed to release these results and identify Corexit by name. No way.

reply to post by Nspekta


By the way, your source links to another source that links to This Blog that has since been removed.

I call HOAX.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Thats why we contacted the researcher... Apparently it appears to be true. I will await your research and the other ats members response

reply to post by Nspekta


A search on the Department of Natural Resources-Minnesota with the terms "pelican" and "egg" turns up no matches related to any oil contamination. I also searched many other combinations, but no search report exists. Here is a link.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Nspekta

 

A search on the Department of Natural Resources-Minnesota with the terms "pelican" and "egg" turns up no matches related to any oil contamination. I also searched many other combinations, but no search report exists. Here is a link.

Lol i know! I looked all over when i posted it... Thats why we had to resort to emailing the researcher. Possibly nothing shows up, as he is currently undergoing peer-review and publishing,,??

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Nspekta

 

A search on the Department of Natural Resources-Minnesota with the terms "pelican" and "egg" turns up no matches related to any oil contamination. I also searched many other combinations, but no search report exists. Here is a link.

Hoax or not, to suggest that nothing or no one is indirectly spreading these chemicals everywhere they go is ridiculous. I incredibly doubt that the entire gulf coast and a mile or so inland was totally and 100% decontaminated. Of course, the government and BP may still be using dispersants to this day...

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Nspekta

 

By the way, your source links to another source that links to This Blog that has since been removed.

I call HOAX.

Dont jump to hoax just yet! The guy is a real researcher AND he replied to emails regarding this research! Just because a blog is gone, doesnt automatically mean hoax.. The problem is, either its been supressed, which wouldnt suprise me OR we are having problems confirming due to the fact that the research isnt published yet

reply to post by Nspekta

Possibly nothing shows up, as he is currently undergoing peer-review and publishing,,??

Only if he wants to be fired from his university and sued into oblivion.

Another ATSer got involved with several universities and created a nationwide network of testing stations and put out considerable personal expense to test the rain (testtherain.com), and all that went for nothing because every university with the capability to do the detailed testing and identify Corexit was already under contract with BP and those contracts included non-disclosure agreements. They could test the rainwater, but they could not publish the results.

AND, on top of that, only a very few select researchers had access to the secret proprietary ingredients that distinguish Corexit from all the other dispersants.

There is just no way this researcher will be publishing the results claimed.

reply to post by DragonFire1024

Hoax or not, to suggest that nothing or no one is indirectly spreading these chemicals everywhere they go is ridiculous.

Spreading is one thing, being found in eggs is something entirely different. It would be nearly impossible for them to show up in Pelican eggs even on the Gulf Coast. The bird would die before they would pass it on to their offspring, and petroleums and dispersants just don't work that way.

Plus, as I said, even if it were true, it would be impossible to tie it directly to the specific brand name Corexit. They might be able to say "dispersants," but they wouldn't have the information needed to specifically call out Corexit.

reply to post by Nspekta

Mark Clark, an ecologist and faculty member of North Dakota State University, explained on Minnesota Public Radio that any contaminant in the bird is bad, especially when the egg is tampered with, “because that’s where the developing embryo and chick starts, and when things go wrong at that stage, there’s usually no recovery.”

From what I can tell, the "research" was done by DNR-MN, but it isn't on their website. The only thing Mark Clark added was that if any contaminant was found, it would be especially bad. He had no direct knowledge of the contaminant being found, he only provided an opinion on what it would mean if it was found.

This is how these types of bogus articles retain a little bit of credibility, they make illogical connections between respected authorities and bogus claims. The two things don't actually connect.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by DragonFire1024

 

Hoax or not, to suggest that nothing or no one is indirectly spreading these chemicals everywhere they go is ridiculous.

Spreading is one thing, being found in eggs is something entirely different. It would be nearly impossible for them to show up in Pelican eggs even on the Gulf Coast. The bird would die before they would pass it on to their offspring, and petroleums and dispersants just don't work that way.

Plus, as I said, even if it were true, it would be impossible to tie it directly to the specific brand name Corexit. They might be able to say "dispersants," but they wouldn't have the information needed to specifically call out Corexit.

Who cares about "brand names." This isn't about designer chemicals. This is about the destruction and current destruction of an entire ecosystem both in and out of water. Regardless of the chemicals "brand name" every agency responsible for using it or any other "dispersant" should be held 100% liable for every bit of damage they caused as well as BP for the spill. Any good lawyer would fight with that to the end.

Even if it couldn't be spread into eggs, it can be spread. And was spread from the second they started to use it right up until they allegedly stopped. Absolutely no effort was undertaken to decontaminate anything on land. Even if they started to decontaminate now, it would make no difference if they are still using "dispersants."

EDIT: Being responsible goes for any company or agency using any "dispersant" for any spills, BP/Deepwater aside.

reply to post by DragonFire1024

Even if they started to decontaminate now, it would make no difference if they are still using "dispersants."

This has been rehashed in many old threads when this disaster first came to light. Dispersants are not all that evil, and all the health effects associated with dispersants are also associated with every other soap on the market. Your local car wash puts out as many toxic chemicals every year as the oil spill did. A dispersant is really just a soap and an astringent.

The brand name is important for two reasons.
#1. it shows a hole in the original story. No researcher would have used that brand name without being 100% certain, and the only way to be certain was to have proprietary information, and the only way to have that information is to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so it proves the original source is a liar.
#2. It is important to distinguish if the dispersants came from the Gulf where Corexit was used, or the local car wash where a million other types of dispersants that are 99% the same formula as Corexit was used. The only way to attach it to the Gulf spill is to be certain it really was Corexit.

For the record, I live 15 minutes from the Gulf Coast, and I have a good friend that runs a Marine lab here, and there have not been any toxic effects detected in my area. Zero. Now Louisianna did have some bad effects in the marshland and breeding grounds, and it did impact the shrimp and fisheries, and I suspect it will still impact for awhile, but the point is that this particular article from the OP is FALSE.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Ok, assuming you are right, which im not sure of yet, why did he reply and reference the fact that the research is being peer reviewed and published soon??

Originally posted by Nspekta
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Ok, assuming you are right, which im not sure of yet, why did he reply and reference the fact that the research is being peer reviewed and published soon??

I hope there is some research peer-reviewed and published soon.

I know there were only about a dozen labs in the nation that can say definitively if something is actually Corexit, and I know all of those labs are under non-disclosure agreements with BP. Maybe the agreements expire at some point? Maybe someone was able to sneak the research in under some other auspice? I still think publishing it would be career suicide, but maybe it is worth it.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Nspekta
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Ok, assuming you are right, which im not sure of yet, why did he reply and reference the fact that the research is being peer reviewed and published soon??

I hope there is some research peer-reviewed and published soon.

I know there were only about a dozen labs in the nation that can say definitively if something is actually Corexit, and I know all of those labs are under non-disclosure agreements with BP. Maybe the agreements expire at some point? Maybe someone was able to sneak the research in under some other auspice? I still think publishing it would be career suicide, but maybe it is worth it.

Hell yea its worth it! The fact that they are under non-disclosure agreements with BP is CRIMINAL! this could affect the whole of N.A.! If it was me, i would ensure publication and risk the career.. Giving real and potentially vital information is worth the risk! If this is true, people NEED to know! Please let me know what else you find through your research travels! As will I