Oil Spill in the Gulf

[Barbara]

Cont'd...

It is not certain if the massive slick will have to be set on fire near Tampa Bay, but the possibility has not been ruled out.
BP has been using controlled burns as a way to contain the oil spill SINCE THE CRISIS BEGAN.  Plans to do additional controlled burns around the well site were announced by Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen at a briefing early in June."

You can see the article with a map here:

www.examiner.com/x-17299-Hernando-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m5d9-Gulf-Oil-Spill-2010-Plans-to-evacuate-Tampa-Bay-area-expected-to-be-announced

[Barbara]

I've got another article on the effects of heat on the million barrels of chemicals on the shores down here but I'm on my way out - I'll write when I come back later...

[nChrist]

Hello Sister Barbara,

Thanks for the additional information. It sounds like a mess of epic proportions.

[Soldier4Christ]

It was bound to come to this. Considering the spread of the oil a burn will be very dangerous and quite possibly cause more damage than expected. The word 'controlled' does not sound plausible. I was in Desert Storm when the Iraqi guard ran out of Kuwait breaking off the well heads and setting fire to them. Even though I was a little over 300 miles to the south of there the smoke was horrendous. It blacked out the sun and made breathing almost impossible. Without a watch we couldn't tell the difference between night and day. That didn't have the chemicals in it that this one does so I can imagine how bad it will be.

[Soldier4Christ]

Now according to scientists using flow sensors at the well head they have upped the flow rate to be at 2.5 million barrels a day.

[nChrist]

Now according to scientists using flow sensors at the well head they have upped the flow rate to be at 2.5 million barrels a day.

It sure would be nice to have some good investigative reporters who would find out about pay-offs and political corruption to look the other way while regulations were being violated. I can assure you that BP is not the only villain in this story, regardless of how hard Obama tries to make it so. Does anyone really doubt that regulations were either bypassed or violated?

[Soldier4Christ]

With the conditions in this well I don't think it would matter what pay-offs or political corruption there is attached to all of this. Even if all the safety inspectors had done their jobs correctly and all the safety's had worked I still think that there would have been a problem that no one could foresee. There is more pressure in this oil well than there has been in any of the others that have been drilled so far. The pressure on this well is so great that even if they had successfully capped it off it could easily blow the drill tube out of the drill hole.

There is so much pressure behind it that I am beginning to believe some of the stories about the well collapsing in on itself as it empties out. There is something there causing it to maintain such high pressure. Others claim it to be a volcano feeding lava into the well since it is right above tectonic plates and is in an area of underwater volcanoes. I have doubts on that as the heat of a volcano would have the oil burning days ago and the shaft would already be gone.

As for corruption, this is a crisis whether made made or not that this administration plans on using to their benefit if there is anything left for them to benefit from.

[Barbara]

Agreed! Things are happening way too fast - we are making arrangements to get out of here ASAP! It'll take some doing but we feel the Holy Spirit has been warning us and alot of others around here lately, and we've been saving like we never knew we could have for months - now we're beginning to understand why.

I got this article last month:

NO TOXICITY TESTS ON BP's DISPERSANT
May 6, 2010
Andy Rowell on the Oil Change Blog

Whilst the media has been focussing on the untested nature of the 4 story dome or "cofferdam" that is going to be lowered over BPs spill at the seabed, its use of dispersant is also coming under scrutiny.
   Alarmingly, according to the dispersant manufacturer, no toxicity tests have been conducted on this product.     Cont'd...

[Barbara]

Cont'd...
   The NYT reports this morning that BP has sprayed some 160,000 gals of chemical dispersant on the water's surface and pumped an additional 6,000 gals directly onto the leak, a mile beneath the surface.
   When he gave his interview to the BBC the other day, Tony Hayward the CEO of BP was at pains to stress how the use of dispersants at such depths had never been tried before.
    What he didn't mention was that these dispersants are highly toxic and the ecological impact of doing it is completely unknown.     The NYT reports that the main dispersants applied so far, from a product line called Corexit, are so toxic they had their approval rescinded in Britain a decade ago "because laboratory tests found them so harmful to sea life that inhabits rocky shores, like limpets."
    I should point out that while the dispersant failed the "limpet test" it passed an offshore safety test.
   The Safety Data sheet for BPs "Dispersant Type 1" Corexit 9500 and its "Dispersant Type 2" Corexit EC9527A have now been posted on line here.
   The ten page sheets are produced by NALCO, the chemical company that produces Corexit. The data sheets show that these products are not benign.                                  Cont'd...

[Barbara]

Cont'd...
The "Human Health Hazards" are said to be Chronic for EC9572A.
   "Prolonged and/or repeated exposure through inhalation or extensive skin contact" with the chemical "may result in damage to the blood and kidneys."
   However, what the NYT didn't say is that the data sheets contain 2 alarming statements: for toxicological information it says, for both dispersants, "No toxicity studies have been done on this product."
   Considering these dispersants are being used in vast quantities, this statement is quite alarming.
BUT IT GETS WORSE:
     For Corexit EC9527A under "Ecological Information" and "Ecotoxicological Effects" it once again states that "No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product."
    So if NALCOs own safety sheets are to be believed, then basic safety toxicity tests have not been done.
AND it gets worse again.
     Corexit EC9527A contains 2-Butoxyethenol, the same hazardous chemical that was present in INIPOL EAP 22, the main despersant used by Exxon in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez.

         Cont'd...

[Barbara]

Cont'd...
A Material Data Sheet for INAPOL produced by Exxon in 1989 noted that components of this product 2-Butoxyethanol "may be absorbed through the skin and cause blood and kidney damage."
   Effects of overexposure could be highly serious . "Inhalation of high vapor concentrations may have results ranging from dizziness, headache and respiratory irritation to unconsciousness and possibly death."
   On Environmental Information, the Exxon Data Sheet says, "keep product out of sewers and watercourses."
  If this product is so hazardous that it should be kept out of watercourses, what is BP doing spraying thousands of gallons on the ocean?
    Another dispersant, used on the Exxon Valdez, Corexit 9580M2, even came in barrels with labels that warned "toxic to fish."
    And BP - for the first time ever - is pumping thousands of gallons of dispersant a mile under the surface.
  NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE DAMAGE WILL BE.
One thing is sure: BP has now spread far more dispersant than Exxon ever did in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez.
     AND IT GETS WORSE.

CONT'D...

[Barbara]

Cont'd...
   Just because the US regulatory authorities allow their use, it doesn't mean they think they're safe either.
 In her book on the Exxon Valdez disaster, the leading marine biologist Dr Riki Ott noted about dispersants:
"Before considering the human health effects of dispersants, it is instructive to review how industry and government handle dispersant use from a liability perspective."
     Dr Ott notes that EPA specifically states: "The listing of a product on the Schedule doesn't constitute approval of the product."
   Speaking about the use of dispersants today, Dr Ott said, "This is like treating cancer with something you dont' know is going to work or not, or you don't know whether the cure is worse than the harm. You don't know anything."

[Barbara]

Pastor Roger, I'm glad you told us about Desert Storm and those conditions. We had a problem also with 'controlled burns'. We also think the public should know about these burns that having already been taking place.

We haven't trusted anyone in gov't or industry to "do the right thing" as it pertains to civilians, for a long time now. They think only of their political reputation and their real bottom line is their $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

This kind of evacuation in a large area would require Martial Law, as moving millions of people will not be an easy task. Food, water, housing will have to be provided, as well as medicine in an aging population.

We don't want to be here for any of this. We're only 1 hour from Tampa and also don't trust their "controlled burns". This is starting to sound like this country's Chernobyl. 

[nChrist]

Hello Sister Barbara,

Thanks for all of the additional information. You and all of the other people effected by this will be in my prayers. My son lives near West Palm Beach - considerably North, but I plan to share some of this information with him. The magnitude of this disaster is still probably unknown, but it appears to be getting larger by the day.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Barbara]

Hi Brother Tom!
We're getting so much info so fast our heads are swimming and our stomachs turning. We can't tell you how much we appreciate your prayers, as we endeavor to 'exit' the area in an unplanned, long vacation - the logistics are a little hard to coordinate - but everything according to God's Will.
Would love to hear your son's perspective on some of the info. This morning between 8am and 9pm the Weather Channel was showing films of the controlled burns and saying the "story" was coming up next after the commercials - we sat down to watch but they ended up dropping that story after showing the film of the burn twice.

My husband just gave me another site where there are articles, photos, and videos from locals in the area who are complaining about the 'stench' and the beautiful turquoise water (which we ourselves have enjoyed) is now a putrid yellow. It's too much for me to write so I'll give you the website (at your discretion):

www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/long-ribbons-of-orange-brown-oil-4-miles-off-tampa-bay-coast-smelled-like-oil-felt-like-oil-couldn't-get-it-off-hands-photos