Your name or email adress:
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up


    Results 1 to 4 of 4
    1. #1
      Pragmatic's Avatar
      Pragmatic is offline Moderator

      Join Date
      Nov 2005
      Location
      San Diego
      Posts
      2,814
      Blog Entries
      13
      Thumbs Up/Down
      Received: 22/0
      Given: 9/0
      Rep Power
      297

      Icon Offtheair Oil spills are being done on purpose...


      0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
      What is Used Oil ? (Definition)

      According to Federal Government agency - the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) as well as most State agencies, Used Oil is defined as follows:

      Any oil that has been refined from crude oil and has been used is "Used Oil."

      The term "Used Oil" also applies to any oil that is no longer useful to the original purchaser as a consequence of extended storage, spillage or contamination with non-hazardous impurities such as dirt and water.
      In California, used oil is a "Hazardous Waste".

      Why is Used Oil:
      "Hazardous Waste"?

      Crude oil straight out of the ground is processed into numerous products like gasoline, lubricating oils and asphalt. Uncontaminated Crude Oil is generally fully bio-degradable. Some products derived from Crude Oil through extensive refining and purification (White Oil) are actually so "pure" that they are used as Baby Oil, Petroleum Jelly, or Lamp Oil.
      However these "pure" products are generally too expensive to produce and are unsuitable for use as lubricants in modern high speed engines.
      To make some of these products, an "additive package" is mixed with the crude oil for better performance.

      To manufacture lubricating oil for automobiles, some additives include detergents, corrosion inhibitors, and rust inhibitors.

      While automobile engine is running, the motor oil collects heavy metal (lead, cadmium, zinc, and barium), iron steel particles, and copper. Several of these contaminants are toxic and harmful to the environment.
      The hazards associated with used oil result from the various additives used in its manufacture and from the heavy metal contaminants picked up from use in the internal combustion engine.

      Oil poured down household drains, or directly onto the ground, can work its way into the waterways and ground waters.

      Illegally disposed of oil can pollute the groundwater with contaminants such as lead, magnesium, copper, zinc, chromium, arsenic, chlorides, cadmium and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

      One quart of oil can pollute 250,000 gallons of drinking water.


      Used oil from a single oil change can ruin a million Gallons of fresh water –

      a one year’s supply for 50 people!

      One Quart of Used Motor Oil will pollute up to 40,730 Square Feet of Soil!

      Making it non-productive for farming or plant growth –for up to 100 years!


      Crankcase oil drainings have been reported to account for more than 40 percent of the total oil pollution of our nation's harbors and waterways.
      Used Motor Oil, if handled improperly and without proper personal protection and hygiene is proven to be cancer causing.

      Look at any back label of Petroleum or Synthetic Motor Oil made after 1985, and you will find following statement:

      "CAUTION: Avoid prolonged or repeated skin contact with used motor oil. Used motor oil has been shown to cause skin cancer in laboratory animals. Thoroughly wash exposed areas with soap and water."

      Where does Used Oil come from ?

      Used Oil sources:
      Automotive70%
      Industrial15%
      Mixed (Other)15%

      What happens to Used Oil ?

      Used Oil destiny:
      Improper Disposal40%
      Collected for Re-cycling55%
      Mixed (Other)5%



      Can Used Oil be Recycled?

      Used motor oil is usually not recognized as a recyclable material and generally is not viewed as a significant problem. But let's look at the facts:

      Alabama:
      There are 4.4 million vehicles registered in Alabama. If each vehicle contains 5 quarts of oil and is changed three times a year, what happens to all that used oil? About 60% is recycled; the remaining 40% is improperly disposed of through dumping onto the ground or being poured into our rivers and lakes.







      California:
      Unfortunately, not enough recycling is occurring.
      In 1990, 290 million gallons (mgal) of oil were sold in California, of which 165 mgal became potentially available for collection. Only 113 mgal were collected, and of this amount only 77.5 mgal were recycled, just 47 percent of the used oil that was available.







      How is Used Oil Recycled ?

      The illustration below shows typical sequence that Used Oil undergoes during it's Recycling process:


      Reality

      The oil is realeased (emphasis added) into marine enviroments better known as marine oil spills, where oil is released into the ocean or coastal waters.

      The oil may be a variety of materials, including crude oil, refined petroleum products (such as gasoline or diesel fuel) or by-products, ships' bunkers, oily refuse or oil mixed in waste. Spills take months or even years to clean up.Oil also enters the marine environment from natural oil seeps. Most human-made oil pollution comes from land-based activity, but public attention and regulation has tended to focus most sharply on seagoing oil tankers.

      Lately the talk of Controlled burning is said to effectively reduce the amount of oil in water, if done properly. But it can only be done in low wind, and can cause air pollution.
      What is the Law ?

      Although the definition of what used oil is not uniform in all states of USA, nor it is treated the same Internationally, some States, notably Alabama and California, consider used Motor Oil a serious problem.

      What Really happens with Recycled Oil ?

      Theory








      The well intentioned and well sounding "theory" that is propagated by environmentalists, State agencies and many other entities is a fact illustrated below:
      What is being done about Used Oil ?










      Unfortunately in a "real life" scenario, substitution of Used Oil for a fuel for power generation is theoretically possible. In practice, however, because of the "heavy metal" and sulfur components in Used Oil, unless it is processed and cleaned first, serious Air Pollution problem results when burned "AS-IS".











      video:

      Oil Spills
      [nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuVv6jDk1jY"][COLOR=white]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuVv6jDk1jY[/COLO[/nomedia]



      Peace be upon you

      Used Oil
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spill
      oil spill gulf of mexico 2010 - Google Search

      images:
      big pharma - Google Search

    2. #2
      Pragmatic's Avatar
      Pragmatic is offline Moderator

      Join Date
      Nov 2005
      Location
      San Diego
      Posts
      2,814
      Blog Entries
      13
      Thumbs Up/Down
      Received: 22/0
      Given: 9/0
      Rep Power
      297

      The E.P.A is spreading cancer


      0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
      17,000 potentially harmful chemicals kept secret under obscure law

      By Raw Story
      Monday, January 4th, 2010 -- 11:37 am


      Of some 84,000 chemicals being used commercially in the United States, some 20 percent -- or 17,000 -- are kept secret not only from the public, but from medical professionals, state regulators and even emergency responders, according to a report at the Washington Post.
      And the reason for this potentially harmful lack of openness? Profit.
      A 1976 law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, mandates that manufacturers report to the Environmental Protection Agency any new chemicals they intend to market, but manufacturers can request that a chemical be kept secret if disclosure "could harm their bottom line," the Washington Post reports.

      Because they are secret, it's impossible to tell how many of the 17,000 chemicals are potentially harmful to people. But the Post notes that, in March of last year, more than half of the "substantial risk" reports filed with the EPA involved secret chemicals.

      And chemical makers may be abusing their privilege under the law. According to the EPA, in recent years 95 percent of manufacturers' reports of new chemicals have made some request for secrecy. Ten of the secret chemicals are used in children's products


      The Post reports that Congress this year will tackle reform of the 1976 law.
      EPA head Lisa Jackson has begun an effort to increase transparency in commercial chemicals. The EPA recently announced it is creating a "Chemicals of Concern" list, which will detail substances that "may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment." The power to do that was granted to the EPA under the 1976 law, but has never been used before.
      Environment News Service reports:
      Jackson says the 1976 law is both outdated and in need of reform. The decision to list the chemicals further signals "this administration's commitment to aggressively use the tools at its disposal under TSCA," she said.
      "At the same time," Jackson said, "I will continue to fight for comprehensive reform of the nation's outdated chemical management laws that ensures a full assessment of the safety of chemicals on the market today and effective actions to reduce risks where chemicals do not meet the safety standard."
      "Chemical safety is an issue of utmost importance, especially for children, and this will remain a top priority for me and our agency going forward," said Jackson, who is a mother.
      In a press release, the EPA noted that, since the 1976 law was put on the books, the number of listed chemicals used in the US has increased from 60,000 to more than 80,000, but the EPA "has only successfully restricted or banned five existing chemicals and has only required testing on another two hundred existing chemicals."


      Perchlorates: REPORT ON WIDESPREAD ROCKET FUEL POLLUTION IN NATION'S FOOD AND WATER

      CLICK HERE TO SEND INSTANT LETTER TO YOUR SENATORS!


      A new analysis of data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control indicates that a toxic chemical in rocket fuel has severely contaminated the nation's food and water supply (read the Environmental Working Group study here).
      Scientists warn that the chemical, known as perchlorate, could cause thyroid deficiency in more than 2.2 million women of childbearing age.
      This thyroid deficiency could damage the fetus of pregnant women, if left untreated. Perchlorate, the explosive ingredient in solid rocket fuel, has leaked from military bases and defense and aerospace contractors' plants in at least 22 states, contaminating drinking water for millions of Americans.
      Despite massive complaints, defense contractors such as Kerr-McGee have done little or nothing to clean up the pollution. Perchlorate has also been widely detected in milk, lettuce, produce and other foods. In an alarming study, the CDC found perchlorate in the urine of every person tested. The OCA has mobilized thousands of organic consumers to pressure the EPA and government officials to begin a massive clean up of perchlorate for over a year.

      Background: The Environmental Working Groups new report is an anlaysis of data originally released in 2005, when the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released its long anticipated report on the human health effects of perchlorates, a byproduct of rocket fuel. Perchlorates, which are a common pollutant near military sites, have recently been found in the water at concerning levels in 22 states as well as in 93% of lettuce and milk. 97% of breast milk samples taken randomly from around the U.S. have tested positive for perchlorates.
      The government funded NAS report reveals that perchlorates are roughly ten times more toxic to humans than the Department of Defense has been claiming. Perchlorates can inhibit thyroid function, cause birth defects and lower IQs, and are considered particularly dangerous to children.
      The NAS report recommends human exposure at no more than .0007 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. The EPA has responded to the report by recommending a water standard reference dose of 24.5 ppb for perchlorate. This is bad news for military sites and rocket fuel plants around the country, including Henderson, Nevada, where EPA well monitoring has found perchlorates at a level 30,000 times higher than that. There are over 12,000 military sites in the U.S. that are used for training with live explosives.
      The Pentagon is urging Congress to pass a new law that would allow the military to freely violate a host of environmental regulations. Entitled "The Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative," the legislation would allow military facilities to ignore laws like the Clean Air Act. The Pentagon claims environmental regulations are a threat to national security, since they restrict the military.
      To date, only one Senator has had the backbone to propose legislation that would hold the military (and other perchlorate polluters) responsible for this excessive pollution of the U.S. food and water supply.
      Senator Feinstein (CA) has proposed legislation that would spend $200 million to identify and clean up perchlorate sources and provide grants for technologies to clean up existing contamination, while holding perchlorate polluters responsible for cleanup efforts.
      "It is imperative that we reduce the perchlorate in our drinking water and protect Californians, especially pregnant women, the unborn, infants, and young children from this threat to their health," said Feinstein of the bill.



      21st CENTURY TIMELINE OF U.S. ROCKET FUEL POLLUTION SCANDAL

      • 2002: EPA releases draft report highlighting widespread water contamination of a toxic rocket fuel byproduct known as perchlorate. The report indicates that most of the pollution is coming from U.S. military sites [Source]
      • January 2003 : Courtroom proceedings reveal that aerospace and defense contractor Lockheed Martin was concealing documents for several years indicating the company knew about toxic levels of percholate contamination in the nation's vegetable produce. [Source]
      • March 2003: California's Senator Feinstein demands the military clean up perchlorate pollution as a matter of public safety. The Department of Defense responds by saying it must be exempt from perchlorate liability, as a matter of anti-terrorist "readiness." [Source].
      • April 2003: Bush Administration puts gag order on the Environmental Protection Agency, mandating complete silence regarding military perchlorate pollution and human health impacts. [Source]
      • November 2004: FDA finds perchlorate in 93% of lettuce and milk samples across the nation. Bush Administration requests no regulatory action take place until the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concludes investigation of human health implications. [Source]
      • January 2005: NAS announces perchlorates are as much as ten times as toxic as what the Department of Defense had been claiming. Senator Feinstein of California announces forthcoming bill proposal to create federal perchlorate regulations and to allocate funding for cleanup of existing contamination. [Source]
      • February 2005: EPA adopts NAS recommendations and recommends weak reference dose standards for drinking water without any public comment or review. [Source]
      • June 2005: Senator Feinstein files letter with EPA requesting a review of perchlorate data and stricter perchlorate drinking water standards. [Source]
      • October 2006: The Environmental Working Group releases a study indicating that perchlorate pollution has put 2.2 million women and their children at risk. [Source]


      Fueling Cancer in Colorado




      by Adrienne Anderson



      Worried about soaring breast cancer rates? Kids with cancers in Colorado?


      The single most important action citizens can take toward preventing cancer in Colorado is to STOP a current plan of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) that would allow one of the most potent toxic and cancer-causing compounds known to be kept hidden, even if present at levels nearly 73,000 times higher than state standards for human health protection allow.


      What's the History?

      The Titan II Missile Program in Colorado is history, but its highly toxic legacy and risks for escalating cancer rates among our residents is not.

      Huge amounts of highly toxic wastes from the fuel mixed for the missiles were released into Colorado’s environment for decades.

      The top-secret fuel, known as Aerozine-50, was a blend that included 50% hydrazine, a compound that readily breaks down into n-nitrosodimethylamine (or NDMA, for short), dangerous and highly carcinogenic compounds. The potent propellants gave the Titan IIs, the largest inter-continental missiles ever developed by the U.S. Air Force, the capability to travel at 15,000 miles per hour to targeted locales over 5,000 miles away, with the intent to obliterate entire populations then deigned as threats to U.S. security.

      Threats to Local Water

      Now, the poisonous substances threaten the safety of our own local water supplies at numerous sites throughout the state.

      Fueling the controversy is a current proposal by Colorado’s health agency that would allow huge levels of a deadly fuel compound, known as n-nitrosodimethylamine (or NDMA for short) to be masked from public detection, despite potent risks for public health and higher cancer rates, the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center warns.

      Under the plan, a lab in Colorado would not have to report detections of NDMA in submitted samples unless the level was nearly 73,000 times above that considered safe for public health protection.

      Currently, the state standard for NDMA is 0.69 parts per trillion – an amount equivalent to less that half a teaspoon of the chemical in 500 Olympic sized swimming pools.Yet under the proposal, while the standard would remain unchanged, the level at which its presence would have to be reported would be raised to 50,000 parts per trillion.



      In California and Massachusetts, by contrast, the states are closing drinking water wells contaminated with the substance where only the tiniest of fractions of the compound have been detected, at levels many thousands of times that below what Colorado will seek to cover up, if this proposal is not jerked due to public outcry.

      The State of California has set a Notification Level for NDMA at 10 parts per trillion and a Public Health Goal of 3 parts per trillion.
      In Colorado, the highly toxic and potent carcinogen now contaminates large land areas where the substance has been found at former rocket manufacturing, fuel test, mix and dumping sites around the state, including sites in Boulder, Adams, Jefferson and Arapahoe Counties. Alarmingly, each are upgradient of drinking water supplies in active use by parts of Front Range communities, serving tens of thousands of people. The proposal could have major public health consequences elsewhere around the state.

      For years, Titan Missiles that would each be loaded with a W-53 nine megaton thermonuclear warhead were manufactured in Colorado at the Martin Marietta Aerospace plant (now Lockheed Martin) on a hillside above the South Platte River at the southwest edge of metro Denver. The missiles after being loaded with the warheads at the Lowry Air Force base in Denver would then be trucked to the Lowry Bombing Range southeast of Denver where they would be lowered into silos and readied for launch at the touch of a button.

      At the Martin site, the missile engines were tested using the highly toxic liquid fuel blend, which then was illegally dumped or flushed downhill to public water supply sources below for decades, records show. The consequences were allegedly deadly for some little children consuming the contaminated water in the 1970’s and early 80’s, some medical experts concluded, against denials by Martin and the water purveyor who piped the polluted around various parts of the metro area, the Denver Water Board.

      The Aerozine-50 fuel used at Martin had been mixed at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Commerce City, where NDMA also contaminates water flowing northwards toward Brighton.

      NDMA also poisons water from the Beech/Raytheon site above Boulder, which drains downward to the Left Hand Reservoir, a water supply source for various parts of Boulder County at times.

      NDMA in large volumes also contaminates the Lowry Landfill southeast of Denver, atop three regional aquifer systems.

      Further, NDMA is also a byproduct of wastewater treatment, so its presence in water downgradientof sewage plants in the state poses still further concerns, especially for municipalities who draw their water from below such discharge points.

      At the Lockheed Martin/U.S. Air Force installation, state officials in November said they were also “in negotiations” with the U.S. Air Force to allow them to ignore the state’s health-based standards for the Lockheed Martin site in a state-mandated clean-up. Studies show an entire underground geological formation is saturated with the poison, a virtually permanent channel for the NDMA pollutant to impact the South Platte River and the adjacent Chatfield Reservoir below, now being used as a public drinking water source for several parts of Metro Denver.

      Which water districts does this affect?


      RMPJC's Nuclear Nexus Project has been conducting a review of this in recent months of a number of NDMA contaminated sites throughout the state, many directly above active public water supply sources, and posing potent potential cancer risks.



      • The Left Hand Water District, which serves rural Boulder and Weld County, including Erie, Longmont and Niwot, and parts of Boulder. The Left Hand Reservoir is part of this system's water supply, and is in the watershed drainage area of the former Beech/Raytheon site northwest of Boulder (where there's now a McGuckins Hardware warehouse.).
      • While the EPA claims there has been no impact to the Left Hand Reservoir from this former fuel blending site, documents obtained from the Boulder County Health Department prove there has in fact been a history of contamination impact. A sample of water taken from the reservoir in the the late 1990's had high levels of hydrazine in it, the parent compound of NDMA, records show.

      • Denver Water, which uses Chatfield Reservoir, most recently stating "in emergency situations," though contradictory statements make this uncertain, and Denver Water has refused to provide documents regarding its specific history of use of Chatfield Reservoir water, citing "Homeland Security"
      • Englewood Water, which which moves water from Chatfield Reservoir downgradient of Lockheed Martin to McLellan Reservoir, Englewood's water storage facility in the south metro area
      • Aurora Water, which pipes water from the South Platte River/Chatfield area for storage in the Aurora Reservoir on the Lowry Bombing Range. Last year, Aurora hired a company to build a multi-million dollar system to treat their water with ultraviolet light. The same company had installed its system at sites in California with the purpose of lowering NDMA levels for water districts contaminated with the substance.
      • Centennial Water District, which uses Chatfield Reservoir vicinity water to recharge its groundwater wells, pumping surface water into the aquifer to supplement its system of groundwater wells.
      Furthermore, there's talk of expanding the use of Chatfield water. Water providers and users participating in the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project include: the City of Englewood, the cities of Aurora and Brighton, the Western Mutual Ditch Company, the City and County of Denver, Denver Water, the South Metro Water Supply Authority, the Parker and Centennial Water and Sanitation Districts, the Town of Castle Rock, Roxborough Metro District, Castle Pines North Metro District, Castle Pines Metro District, Hock Hocking, LLC; Perry Park Country Club, Colorado State Parks, Denver Botanical Gardens, and Mt. Carbon Metro District.



      Under such an alarming scenario, citizens should expect the most protective action by our state health officials, but the reverse appears to be the case with this proposal. Those paid from our taxpayer dollars to protect public health at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) appear to be protecting the polluters, instead. The state’s Water Quality Control Division, which has concocted the plan with influence by key polluters, seems to be attempting an end run around the tough NDMA standard designed to protect public health. If successful, the measure could mean that a sample of someone’s water could be polluted by NDMA at 49,999 parts per trillion, enough to have caused a widespread public health crisis, yet be masked as a “non-detect” by the testing lab, unbeknownst to the party seeking the assurance about their water’s quality and safety.
      The question must be asked: Does Governor Ritter’s health department think Colorado citizens are 73,000 times less susceptible to the cancer-causing potency of this toxic rocket fuel compound than the citizens of California or Massachusetts? Or are our state’s regulators simply 73,000 times more susceptible to polluters’ undue influence in setting policiesto protect polluters from their environmental liabilities, while putting citizens of this state at risk?
      This could be the most important act of cancer prevention in the state at this time. Citizens must contact Governor Bill Ritter and urge that his CDPHE appointee, Jim Martin, pull this outrageous proposal under his direction, and support maximum clean-up at NDMA contaminated sites for protection of Colorado’s limited water sources and public health.
      At RMPJC’s request, a CDPHE public comment period slated to end this past New Year’s eve was extended to January 15th, 2008.If you do not want to risk children here being born with neuroblastoma or develop kidney cancers before they make it to the first grade, join in vigorously opposing this proposal and advocate the strongest protections for the quality of Colorado’s water supplies.
      Contact Governor Ritter about this. Tell him that Colorado's citizens demand the same protection from this cancer-causing toxic poison that citizens in California are getting, and to protect the quality of Colorado's precious water sources.
      You can write to him on-line at this link.
      Or:
      Mail

      Bill Ritter, Governor
      136 State Capitol
      Denver, CO 80203-1792

      Phone
      (303) 866-2471

      Fax
      (303) 866-2003

      Also send a copy of your comments to:
      Dave Akers, Colorado Water Quality Control Division
      E-Mail: daakers@smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us.

      Update: The RMPJC submitted comments on this proposal on January 15th. They can be read in the attached file, below.

      ---
      Adrienne Anderson served on the faculty at CU Boulder and for over a decade taught highly ranked courses on environmental ethics, environmental justice, and has researched water contamination problems throughout Colorado and other parts of the western U.S. since 1983, most in the Denver metropolitan area. Anderson coordinated RMPJC’s new “Nuclear Nexus Project, Working to End the Local Hazards and the Global Threat" and established RMPJC's "Safe Water" project. She continues to support RMPJC on joint projects where labor and neighbors can unite for safer workplaces, communities and the environment.
      Copyright: Do not reprint or link to this article without permission of the author
      Contact: a2020@earthlink.net




      January 9, 2009; EPA: Rocket

      January 9, 2009; EPA: Rocket Fuel Contaminant Safe For Nation's Drinking Water .... to include a more specific warning: "This water may cause cancer or birth defects.” ... If vegetables irrigated with Colorado River water are in fact ... 4 May 2007 ... Jacobson believes that “flex-fuel cars replacing current gasoline ... This probably means that cancer rates for E85 are no different to ... finreviewer.com Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104. Fueling Cancer Cell Growth. NANCY DUMONT, YONGPING G. CRAWFORD, ... The single most important action citizens can take toward preventing cancer in Colorado is to STOP a current plan of the Colorado Department of Public ... fundscons.com Cancer cells react to different types of foods with some types fueling the spread of cancer and others .... Colorado State University Ft. Collins, CO, USA ... Colorado Right to Life Displays Abortion / Breast Cancer Banner ... Study: Abortion Fueling Cancer Epidemic. Newsletter - December 5, 2007 ... finadviserweblog.com Most perchlorate plumes in the United States, including the Colorado River, ... The rocket fuel component, perchlorate, has been found in baby formulas, ... Denver Colorado's leading cancer treatment medical center that is dedicated ... from personal cancer memoirs to expert nutritional guides about fueling your ... Fuel Cycle Facility Locations · Uranium Recovery Locations ... For example, people residing in Colorado are exposed to more natural radiation than residents .... The likelihood of cancer occurring after radiation exposure is about five ... 235160107



      Peace be upon you

      www.rmpjc.org/ndma_comments

      Perchlorate - Senator Feinstein - Rocket Fuel Pollution - NAS - EPA

      17,000 potentially harmful chemicals kept secret under obscure law | Raw Story

    3. #3
      Pragmatic's Avatar
      Pragmatic is offline Moderator

      Join Date
      Nov 2005
      Location
      San Diego
      Posts
      2,814
      Blog Entries
      13
      Thumbs Up/Down
      Received: 22/0
      Given: 9/0
      Rep Power
      297

      0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
      Scientist finds Gulf bottom still oily, dead



      By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer Sat Feb 19, 8:53 pm ET

      WASHINGTON – Oil from the BP spill remains stuck on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, according to a top scientist's video and slides that she says demonstrate the oil isn't degrading as hoped and has decimated life on parts of the sea floor.

      That report is at odds with a recent report by the BP spill compensation czar that said nearly all will be well by 2012.

      At a science conference in Washington Saturday, marine scientist Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia aired early results of her December submarine dives around the BP spill site. She went to places she had visited in the summer and expected the oil and residue from oil-munching microbes would be gone by then. It wasn't.

      "There's some sort of a bottleneck we have yet to identify for why this stuff doesn't seem to be degrading," Joye told the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual conference in Washington. Her research and those of her colleagues contrasts with other studies that show a more optimistic outlook about the health of the gulf, saying microbes did great work munching the oil.

      "Magic microbes consumed maybe 10 percent of the total discharge, the rest of it we don't know," Joye said, later adding: "there's a lot of it out there."

      The head of the agency in charge of the health of the Gulf said Saturday that she thought that "most of the oil is gone." And a Department of Energy scientist, doing research with a grant from BP from before the spill, said his examination of oil plumes in the water column show that microbes have done a "fairly fast" job of eating the oil. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab scientist Terry Hazen said his research differs from Joye's because they looked at different places at different times.

      Joye's research was more widespread, but has been slower in being published in scientific literature.

      In five different expeditions, the last one in December, Joye and colleagues took 250 cores of the sea floor and travelled across 2,600 square miles. Some of the locations she had been studying before the oil spill on April 20 and said there was a noticeable change. Much of the oil she found on the sea floor — and in the water column — was chemically fingerprinted, proving it comes from the BP spill. Joye is still waiting for results to show other oil samples she tested are from BP's Macondo well.
      She also showed pictures of oil-choked bottom-dwelling creatures. They included dead crabs and brittle stars — starfish like critters that are normally bright orange and tightly wrapped around coral. These brittle stars were pale, loose and dead. She also saw tube worms so full of oil they suffocated.

      "This is Macondo oil on the bottom," Joye said as she showed slides. "This is dead organisms because of oil being deposited on their heads."
      Joye said her research shows that the burning of oil left soot on the sea floor, which still had petroleum products. And even more troublesome was the tremendous amount of methane from the BP well that mixed into the Gulf and was mostly ignored by other researchers.

      Joye and three colleagues last week published a study in Nature Geoscience that said the amount of gas injected into the Gulf was the equivalent of between 1.5 and 3 million barrels of oil.
      "The gas is an important part of understanding what happened," said Ian MacDonald of Florida State University.

      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco told reporters Saturday that "it's not a contradiction to say that although most of the oil is gone, there still remains oil out there."
      Earlier this month, Kenneth Feinberg, the government's oil compensation fund czar, said based on research he commissioned he figured the Gulf of Mexico would almost fully recover by 2012 — something Joye and Lubchenco said isn't right.

      "I've been to the bottom. I've seen what it looks like with my own eyes. It's not going to be fine by 2012," Joye told The Associated Press. "You see what the bottom looks like, you have a different opinion."
      NOAA chief Lubchenco said "even though the oil degraded relatively rapidly and is now mostly but not all gone, damage done to a variety of species may not become obvious for years to come."


      Lubchenco Saturday also announced the start of a Gulf restoration planning process to get the Gulf back to the condition it was on Apr. 19, the day before the spill. That program would eventually be paid for BP and other parties deemed responsible for the spill. This would be separate from an already begun restoration program that would improve all aspects of the Gulf, not just the oil spill, but has not been funded by the government yet, she said.

      The new program, which is part of the Natural Resources Damage Assessment program, is part of the oil spill litigation — or out-of-court settlement — in which the polluters pay for overall damage to the ecosystem and efforts to return it to normal. This is different than paying compensation to people and businesses directly damaged by the spill. The process will begin with public meetings all over the region.


      Peace be upon you

      Scientist finds Gulf bottom still oily, dead - Yahoo! News

    4. #4
      Pragmatic's Avatar
      Pragmatic is offline Moderator

      Join Date
      Nov 2005
      Location
      San Diego
      Posts
      2,814
      Blog Entries
      13
      Thumbs Up/Down
      Received: 22/0
      Given: 9/0
      Rep Power
      297

      0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
      video:

      [nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFunN9kBK1U[/nomedia]


      MEXICO CITY: A total of 713 oil platform workers were evacuated Tuesday when the Flotel Jupiter oil platform began to collapse into the Gulf of Mexico, said state-owned oil company Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex).

      The Flotel Jupiter oil platform which housed the 713 workers is about 80 kilometers (50 miles) off the coast of Campeche state in the Gulf of Mexico.

      Initially 638 workers were evacuated earlier Tuesday after water entered part of the facility and it began to lean to one side, but Pemex said by the afternoon all 713 workers on board the platform had been evacuated.

      After several attempts to rescue the facility, the platform late Tuesday "turned over and sank," said Pemex.


      Peace be upon you


    LinkBacks (?)

    Thread Information

    Users Browsing this Thread

    There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Similar Threads

    1. Congo-Kinshasa: Defense Minister Spills 'Secrets' About DRC, M23
      By TTDC Bot in forum Afrikan News RSS Feed
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: 09-01-2012, 02:01 AM
    2. Zimbabwe: Mliswa Spills the Beans
      By TTDC Bot in forum Afrikan News RSS Feed
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: 08-31-2012, 02:00 AM
    3. My Mission And Purpose
      By Asded in forum Share With The Comrades
      Replies: 11
      Last Post: 11-12-2010, 07:41 AM
    4. Purpose
      By TTDC Bot in forum Revolutionary Daily Thoughts
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: 11-11-2008, 11:30 PM
    5. Nia (Purpose)
      By JRSWRITER in forum Junious Ricardo Stanton
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: 01-03-2006, 03:30 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •  


    About

      Assata Shakur Speaks is an Forum Devoted To Assata Shakur And All Political Prisoners Around The World.
      Assata Shakur Speaks Is An Oasis Of Pan African Information Geared Towards The Liberation Of Afrikan People.

    Follow Us On

    Twitter Facebook youtube Flickr DavianArt Dribbble RSS Feed



    BACK TO TOP