Prev: Bowel Movement and BLood?!
Next: Bouncing Fuel Gauge Needle - 02 Tacoma
From: tripletask on 15 Jun 2010 15:37
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:25:48 -0700 (PDT), walt tonne
<tonnewalt487(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Toxic Oil Spill Rains Warned Could Destroy North America
>
>A dire report prepared for President Medvedev by Russia�s Ministry of
>Natural Resources is warning today that the British Petroleum (BP) oil
>and gas leak in the Gulf of Mexico is about to become the worst
>environmental catastrophe in all of human history threatening the
>entire eastern half of the North American continent with �total
>destruction�.
>
>Russian scientists are basing their apocalyptic destruction assessment
>due to BP�s use of millions of gallons of the chemical dispersal agent
>known as Corexit 9500 which is being pumped directly into the leak of
>this wellhead over a mile under the Gulf of Mexico waters and
>designed, this report says, to keep hidden from the American public
>the full, and tragic, extent of this leak that is now estimated to be
>over 2.9 million gallons a day.
>
>The dispersal agent Corexit 9500 is a solvent originally developed by
>Exxon and now manufactured by the Nalco Holding Company of Naperville,
>Illinois that is four times more toxic than oil (oil is toxic at 11
>ppm (parts per million), Corexit 9500 at only 2.61ppm). In a report
>written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical
>Sciences, Inc. titled �Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit
>Products: An Overview� Corexit 9500 was found to be one of the most
>toxic dispersal agents ever developed. Even worse, according to this
>report, with higher water temperatures, like those now occurring in
>the Gulf of Mexico
>
>What next?
>
>walt

Big institutional investors are trading back and forth trying to
maintain BP share price which is already down 46%. Listening
to tesitmony this am it appears BP took shortcuts and used
guestionable techinques in general.

cole
From: Bob Myers on 15 Jun 2010 17:34
On 6/15/2010 1:37 PM, tripletask(a)gmail..com wrote:
>
>> Russian scientists are basing their apocalyptic destruction assessment
>> due to BP�s use of millions of gallons of the chemical dispersal agent
>> known as Corexit 9500 which is being pumped directly into the leak of
>> this wellhead over a mile under the Gulf of Mexico waters and
>> designed, this report says, to keep hidden from the American public
>> the full, and tragic, extent of this leak that is now estimated to be
>> over 2.9 million gallons a day.
>>
>>

Not that the Gulf spill isn't a tragedy, but this sort of thing is blatant
nonsense. Even assuming that BP (or anyone else) were to use
"millions of gallons" of a chemical dispersal agent, it's very hard to
see how this could "destroy half of North America." Exaggerating
the hazards of various means of addressing spills like this does
nothing to further the cause of those with legitimate concerns about
those methods. It just makes those making such exaggerated claims
look like idiots.

For those actually interested in the facts of the matter, here's the
MSDS for Corexit 9500:


http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf

Draw your own conclusion from this data.

I will, however, note that a cubic mile of water (seemed like a
reasonable volume to check, given that the leak in this case is
approximately a mile underwater) represents just over 11
trillion gallons. If we were to assume that "millions of gallons"
meant, and let's be generous here, 100 million gallons of the
dispersant, this would represent about one part per 10,000
IF the dispersant were restricted strictly to that cubic mile.
In an area of 10 miles radius, though, we would have roughly
314 cubic miles of water, again assuming a one mile depth,
which would reduce the concentration to less than 0.3 PPM.
I further note that according to the MSDS, toxicity levels (for
invertebrates) for this substance are in the range of 10s of mg/L,
and 10 mg/L is roughly one part in 100,000 by volume, assuming
a density similar to water (which is not the case here, given
that the dispersant floats). Of course, the dispersant would not
be limited by any means to a 10 mile radius, either, but this seems
to me to be enough "back of the envelope" calculating to say that
the hazard isn't anything close to what the original article is
claiming.


Bob M.


From: Polarhound on 15 Jun 2010 17:50
tripletask(a)gmail..com wrote:

> Big institutional investors are trading back and forth trying to
> maintain BP share price which is already down 46%. Listening
> to tesitmony this am it appears BP took shortcuts and used
> guestionable techinques in general.

Meanwhile, George Soros is dumping billions of dollars into a Brazilian
oil company.

Coincidence?
From: Rob Kleinschmidt on 15 Jun 2010 20:00
On Jun 15, 1:34 pm, Bob Myers <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote:
> On 6/15/2010 1:37 PM, tripletask(a)gmail..com wrote:

> >> Russian scientists are basing their apocalyptic destruction assessment
> >> due to BP’s use of millions of gallons of the chemical dispersal agent
> >> known as Corexit 9500 which is being pumped directly into the leak of
> >> this wellhead over a mile under the Gulf of Mexico waters and
> >> designed, this report says, to keep hidden from the American public
> >> the full, and tragic, extent of this leak

> Even assuming that BP (or anyone else) were to use
> "millions of gallons" of a chemical dispersal agent, it's very hard to
> see how this could "destroy half of North America." Exaggerating
> the hazards of various means of addressing spills like this does
> nothing to further the cause of those with legitimate concerns about
> those methods. It just makes those making such exaggerated claims
> look like idiots.

Don't you see, Mandrake that this is all a Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily
fluids ?
From: Tad Perry on 15 Jun 2010 20:07
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease(a)address.invalid> wrote in message
news:hv8qhv$nfj$1(a)usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> On 6/15/2010 1:37 PM, tripletask(a)gmail..com wrote:
>>
>>> Russian scientists are basing their apocalyptic destruction assessment
>>> due to BP�s use of millions of gallons of the chemical dispersal agent
>>> known as Corexit 9500 which is being pumped directly into the leak of
>>> this wellhead over a mile under the Gulf of Mexico waters and
>>> designed, this report says, to keep hidden from the American public
>>> the full, and tragic, extent of this leak that is now estimated to be
>>> over 2.9 million gallons a day.
>>>
>>>
>
> Not that the Gulf spill isn't a tragedy, but this sort of thing is blatant
> nonsense. Even assuming that BP (or anyone else) were to use
> "millions of gallons" of a chemical dispersal agent, it's very hard to
> see how this could "destroy half of North America." Exaggerating
> the hazards of various means of addressing spills like this does
> nothing to further the cause of those with legitimate concerns about
> those methods. It just makes those making such exaggerated claims
> look like idiots.
>
> For those actually interested in the facts of the matter, here's the
> MSDS for Corexit 9500:
>
>
> http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf
>
> Draw your own conclusion from this data.
>
> I will, however, note that a cubic mile of water (seemed like a
> reasonable volume to check, given that the leak in this case is
> approximately a mile underwater) represents just over 11
> trillion gallons. If we were to assume that "millions of gallons"
> meant, and let's be generous here, 100 million gallons of the
> dispersant, this would represent about one part per 10,000
> IF the dispersant were restricted strictly to that cubic mile.
> In an area of 10 miles radius, though, we would have roughly
> 314 cubic miles of water, again assuming a one mile depth,
> which would reduce the concentration to less than 0.3 PPM.
> I further note that according to the MSDS, toxicity levels (for
> invertebrates) for this substance are in the range of 10s of mg/L,
> and 10 mg/L is roughly one part in 100,000 by volume, assuming
> a density similar to water (which is not the case here, given
> that the dispersant floats). Of course, the dispersant would not
> be limited by any means to a 10 mile radius, either, but this seems
> to me to be enough "back of the envelope" calculating to say that
> the hazard isn't anything close to what the original article is
> claiming.

Maybe. Maybe not. My scales of balance haven't dipped either way regarding
this. I doubt the Russian analysis is completely unbiased. Obviously their
numbers represent much more "terrifying" assumptions that end out in the
entire East Coast region being subjected to highly toxic rain. It's all
going to boil down to how much of the stuff really has been pumped into the
ocean and how bad it really is. And right now those are two things regarding
which I would not trust any source claiming to have the answer. I'm in a
state of having to doubt everything.

One thing I don't have any doubts about include human nature. It's always
worse than the official version.

tvp

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Bowel Movement and BLood?!
Next: Bouncing Fuel Gauge Needle - 02 Tacoma