Mother of all gushers - BP Oil Disaster in Gulf of Mexico

[Seraphina]

I smell more hidden agenda in this new Ocean Council that's been pushed through using the oil spill as a way in.

 

[Seraphina]

my friend who works for a local eye doctor posted this on an update, "A heads up for you guys.. We are getting a lot of patients coming in with Conjuctivitis(pink eye). So please wash your hands a lot...". What kinda ticks me off is he's probably not even considering the toxins in the air. It's just getting blamed on the common type without even testing for toxins, and therefore not being reported. I'm gonna have to ask her if a lot of cases aren't responding to antibiotics. There's contagious conjunctivitis, allergic conjunctivitis, and toxic conjunctivitis. Mine definitely isn't contagious, never had allergic, and there's a lot of toxins in the air known to cause conjunctivitis....hmmm.

 

[rsnedaker]

I just heard Fox news broadcast that the seafood in the gulf is perfectly safe to eat!! Oh that makes me MAD!!!

Here's the link: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4287892/gulf-coast-restaurants-taking-big-hit/?playlist_id=87937

 

[go2]

Where is the United States Department of Justice?

The senior policy analyst at the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response - and former the EPA ombudsman's chief investigator - agrees, telling Democracy Now today:

Corexit is one of a number of dispersants, that are toxic, that are used to atomize the oil and force it down the water column so that it’s invisible to the eye. In this case, these dispersants were used in massive quantities, almost two million gallons so far, to hide the magnitude of the spill and save BP money. And the government—both EPA, NOAA, etc.—have been sock puppets for BP in this cover-up. Now, by hiding the amount of spill, BP is saving hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in fines, and so, from day one, there was tremendous economic incentive to use these dispersants to hide the magnitude of the gusher that’s been going on for almost three months.

***

We have people, wildlife—we have dolphins that are hemorrhaging. People who work near it are hemorrhaging internally. And that’s what dispersants are supposed to do. EPA now is taking the position that they really don’t know how dangerous it is, even though if you read the label, it tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic—it’s an economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public.

***

Who saves money by using these toxic dispersants? Well, it’s BP. But then the next question—I’ve only seen one article that describes it—who owns BP? And I think when you look and see who owns BP, you find that it’s the majority ownership, a billion shares, is a company called BlackRock that was created, owned and run by a gentleman named Larry Fink. And Vanity Fair just did recently an article about Mr. Fink and his connections with Mr. Geithner, Mr. Summers and others in the administration. So I think what’s needed, we now know that there’s a cover-up. Dispersants are being used. Congress, at least three Congress folks—Congressman Markey, Congressman Nadler and Senator Mikulski—are on the case. And I think the media now has to follow the money, just as they did in Watergate, and tell the American people who’s getting money for poisoning the millions of people in the Gulf.

...........

 

[Ca.]

PMPosted by: go2 Yesterday at 08:55:37

Who saves money by using these toxic dispersants? Well, it’s BP. But then the next question—I’ve only seen one article that describes it—who owns BP? And I think when you look and see who owns BP, you find that it’s the majority ownership, a billion shares, is a company called BlackRock that was created, owned and run by a gentleman named Larry Fink. And Vanity Fair just did recently an article about Mr. Fink and his connections with Mr. Geithner, Mr. Summers and others in the administration. So I think what’s needed, we now know that there’s a cover-up. Dispersants are being used

From Democracy Now on the same subject on the effects of Corexit, July 20 2010. Blatant Corruption!

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/20/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_of_covering

 

[Gaby]

my friend who works for a local eye doctor posted this on an update, "A heads up for you guys.. We are getting a lot of patients coming in with Conjuctivitis(pink eye). So please wash your hands a lot...". What kinda ticks me off is he's probably not even considering the toxins in the air.

Hello Seraphina,

Most doctors don't receive training in environmental medicine, so most doctors are incredibly ill-equipped for this disaster, in fact, they can make things worse. :(

Hydrogen suflide:

Acute effects from high or accidental exposure: produces paralysis similiar to cyanides.
Chronic effects from relatively low exposure: conjunctival irritation, chronic bronchitis, recurrent pneumonitis.

 

[mamadrama]

Here's another article from Mother Jones on EPA whistleblower, Hugh Kaufman & the toxicity of dispersant use.

Is the EPA Playing Dumb on Dispersants?

A career whistleblower says the agency knows more than it's letting on about the risks of the oil-spill clean-up chemicals.

— By Kate Sheppard

An Environmental Protection Agency staff member is accusing his employer of being coy when it comes to dispersant use in the Gulf. Career whistleblower Hugh Kaufman says EPA officials know that the chemicals present a threat to public health and the Gulf ecosystem and should be banned; they just don't want to say so.

Kaufman, a senior policy analyst in the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, alleges that agency administrator Lisa Jackson sidestepped the issue last week in her answers to questions about whether the agency has the authority to call off use of dispersants in the Gulf. The agency, he says, is deliberately downplaying the threat—and its own role in regulating the chemicals—to protect itself from liability and keep the public from getting too alarmed.

This is far from the first time Kaufman has raised concerns about the EPA's handling of a major national disaster. In fact, he has been blowing whistles on the EPA since he began working there in 1971, just a few months after it was founded. He criticized the Carter administration's handling of hazardous waste issues, including the infamous Love Canal example in the late 1970s and is credited with spurring the formation of the Superfund program. In 1982 he went after the Reagan administration for not enforcing laws on hazardous waste and toxic chemicals as well, and helped send deputy EPA administrator Rita Lavelle to jail for perjury in 1983. The 2002 book Whistleblowing includes an entire section on Kaufman.

Most recently, Kaufman exposed the agency's efforts to hide information about health risks from air pollution for responders at the World Trade Center site after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. At that time, he was the chief investigator in the office of the EPA ombudsman—but soon after he blew the whistle, then-EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman decided to eliminate the ombudsman's office altogether, a move Kaufman says was meant to silence his complaints. He's still at the agency, but has been shifted away from his watchdog role.

"What's going on in the Gulf is the same cover up that was going with the 9/11 environmental issue," said Kaufman. "The Bush White House ordered EPA to lie about the environmental and public health situation at the World Trade Center because of economic ramifications. So they did."

"I've been through this before," he continued. "It was the same kind of crap."

It's hard to say whether anyone is taking Kaufman seriously this time around. He's compiled a lengthy list of email contacts, from reporters to NGO leaders and green celebrities like Ed Begley, Jr., all of whom he sends almost daily emails on the subject. Since his September 11 whistleblowing, he's basically been forced into bureaucratic exile within the agency, pushing papers rather than keeping watch over the agency's work, like he could in his former role. He asserts that they can't fire him at this point; it would only make the agency look worse.

"He's an activist working inside of the agency," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a group that represents whistleblowers in federal agencies. The group is part of the co-counsel for Kaufman's ongoing lawsuit regarding the elimination of the ombudsman's office.

But Kaufman is not alone in his concern. According to Ruch, at least 10 other EPA staffers, including several toxicologists, have come to PEER to raise concerns about dispersants and other health problems in the Gulf, claiming that their superiors at the agency are not doing due diligence when it comes to dispersants. "[EPA] appears to be making decisions at the behest of BP and not exercising much, if any, independent judgment," says Ruch.

To wit: When Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) asked Lisa Jackson whether the EPA could force BP to stop using the toxic chemicals on the spill at last Thursday's hearing, Jackson first said she didn’t have the authority to weigh in: "I would not know," she said. "I'm not an attorney." Jackson assured Mikulski that the EPA's lawyers would get back to her office with the specifics on their authority. In the past, however, Jackson and the EPA have insisted that they do have that control—they gave BP the go-ahead to use dispersants underwater and have issued guidelines on how much of the chemicals the company is supposed to be using.

Asked to clarify Jackson's remarks, the EPA explained in a statement Monday that the use of dispersants on the surface of the Gulf is pre-approved in the Area Contingency Plan, the response plan that each region of the country is required to draft under the 1990 Oil Pollution Act in preparation for a potential spill. The EPA is only charged with greenlighting specific brands of dispersant for use in the event of a spill. The statement also said that the EPA only controls dispersant use underwater, while the federal on-scene coordinator—a representative from the Coast Guard—controls surface spraying.

The EPA also said that it reserves the right to discontinue use of a dispersant if it deems the substance too hazardous. But so far, the agency has been reluctant to crack down on the chemicals. Citing concerns about Corexit, BP's dispersant of choice, the agency told BP to find an alternative almost two months ago. When the company chose to ignore that directive, instead of forcing the issue, the EPA pledged to do its own tests on both Corexit and the alternatives, and instead told BP to scale back dispersant use. BP continued to use a large volume of dispersants in the ensuing weeks, with the Coast Guard regularly granting permission to use more than the directive called for. At this point, the EPA's tests are essentially worthless for this particular oil spill, as BP has already dumped 1.84 million gallons of Corexit into the Gulf.

Jackson says that her agency is concerned about the dispersants, but it's not going to force BP to stop using the chemicals because the agency believes they are still safer than the oil itself. "The number one enemy is the oil," Jackson said a May 24 press conference. Yet she has said repeatedly that the EPA didn’t know enough about the long-term impacts of the chemicals to ban them. "With the use of dispersants, we are faced with environmental trade-offs," Jackson told the panel last week. "The long term effects on aquatic life are largely unknown."

But Kaufman says you can't have it both ways—either you know it's safe enough to say it's better than the oil, or you don't know enough. "They're admitting they have the evidence to make a balancing test," says Kaufman. "If they have the evidence, then why testify they don't? Which way is it?" He says there is more than enough evidence, between a 2005 National Academy of Sciences study and the warnings that come with the dispersant products to show that they're problematic.

Despite his long history of griping about the EPA, Kaufman says his criticism of the agency is nothing personal. "I'm not partisan," he says. "I just want an honest EPA because I was there when we formed it 40 years ago."

_http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/07/epa-whistleblower-bp-dispersants

 

[Seraphina]

my friend who works for a local eye doctor posted this on an update, "A heads up for you guys.. We are getting a lot of patients coming in with Conjuctivitis(pink eye). So please wash your hands a lot...". What kinda ticks me off is he's probably not even considering the toxins in the air.

Hello Seraphina,

Most doctors don't receive training in environmental medicine, so most doctors are incredibly ill-equipped for this disaster, in fact, they can make things worse. :(

Hydrogen suflide:

Acute effects from high or accidental exposure: produces paralysis similiar to cyanides.
Chronic effects from relatively low exposure: conjunctival irritation, chronic bronchitis, recurrent pneumonitis.

she said they're seeing the worse cases ever...calling it viral conjunctivitis. I'm very aware of how doc's work. I know he's only guessing at the viral diagnosis because doctors very rarely take samples to send to the lab...it's expensive...and normally his diagnosis would be correct, but he's thinking the increasing numbers of this infection is because it's a contagious virus and not taking environmental hazards into consideration.

I have little hope for most doctors to think outside of their boxes. I was a nurse, I've seen their work up close, and I know they're usually useless or even do more harm than good.

 

[Infiniteness]

[quote author=Weather.com]
Tropical wave moving toward Florida
Jon Rowe, Lead Meteorologist, The Weather Channel
Jul. 21, 2010 5:18 pm ET

The tropical wave near Haiti and the Dominican Republic has not become any better organized over the past 12 hours. There is no circulation at the surface and it remains in a sheared environment caused by a trough and upper level low to its northwest and north.

As long as the shearing environment is present any development of the system would be slow. However, the shear is forecast to weaken tomorrow. If that occurs and a low forms at the surface the system could be upgraded to a tropical depression.

Heavy rain continues to fall in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and the Lesser Antilles. The southern Bahamas, eastern Cuba, the Turks and Caicos and Jamaica could all receive heavy rainfall later tonight through Thursday. The heavy rain could cause flash flooding and mud slides in and around mountainous terrain.

It is moving off toward the west at 10 to 15 mph. That motion and speed should bring the system toward southern Florida Friday. Showers, gusty winds and increasing surf could arrive as early as Thursday night in advance of the system.

After the system passes by Florida Friday night it should move toward the central or eastern Gulf coast. On that projected path the system would pass near or to the east of the oil spill in the northern Gulf of Mexico.

There are two additional tropical waves in the central and eastern Atlantic Ocean. Neither of them is showing signs of development at this time.

Meanwhile in the western Pacific Ocean Tropical Storm Chanthu is making steady progress toward southern China. As of 5PM EDT Wednesday Chanthu was located around 130 miles southeast of Zhanjiang moving toward the northwest at 7 mph. Top winds were near 70 mph.

Chanthu has strengthened into a strong tropical storm and will be making landfall west of Hong Kong during the early morning hours Thursday Eastern Time. The main threat from the tropical storm is heavy rain and flooding across southern China, including Hong Kong and Hainan Island and northeastern Vietnam.

[/quote]

Link: http://www.weather.com/newscenter/tropical/

Just to give people a heads up.

 

[go2]

Sott.net connects the dots by following the money in the Grand Theft Economics section of the news. The Vanity Fair article on Larry Fink's man behind the curtain role
exposes the inner workings of a pathological system designed to siphon the energy of billions into the hands of the few driven to maintain their power over others. The quality of life and death of billions of human beings are in the corrupt hands of men motivated by power and greed. I am going to copy a few paragraphs and the editorial comment from the sott.net desk. The connections and context of one of the major controllers of British Petroleum enable one to understand that the cover up and reckless disregard for life and well being in the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster are simply collateral damage to these men who see all as pawns in their game theory warfare against humanity.

Though few Americans know his name, Larry Fink may be the most powerful man in the post-bailout economy. His giant BlackRock money-management firm controls or monitors more than $12 trillion worldwide - including the balance sheets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the toxic A.I.G. and Bear Stearns assets taken over by the U.S. government last year. How did Fink rebound from a humiliating failure to become the financial fulcrum of Washington and Wall Street? Through a series of interviews, the author probes his role in the crisis, his unique risk-assessment system, and the growing concern he inspires

..........................

"The Interest of the American Taxpayer"

Ten months later, on the verge of collapse, Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America and, soon after that, Thain was pushed out. By then, Fink was more powerful than ever. In March 2008, during the frantic weekend when Bear Stearns crumbled, he was on everybody's speed dial. On the Saturday morning that J. P. Morgan called its top executives in to the office to consider buying the moribund investment bank, Jamie Dimon hired BlackRock to value Bear Stearns's assets. The next morning, after Dimon had decided he couldn't buy Bear Stearns without government support, Geithner, then chairman of the New York Fed, called Fink personally for help in managing the $30 billion of toxic assets that the Fed took over. The work at Bear Stearns was particularly brutal, says Charles Hallac, a senior BlackRock executive: "People were throwing things. They were angry. They didn't want to help. It was a hostile environment." In June, after a call from Fink, A.I.G.'s new C.E.O., Robert Willumstad, hired BlackRock to evaluate the ailing insurer's $77 billion credit-default-swap portfolio. It was a job that would lead to others when the market came crashing down six weeks later.

BlackRock owns no private jets, so Fink was on a commercial flight to Singapore the weekend when Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy. He was "shocked" when he heard the news and flew back the next day. "I felt like Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes. I came back and the whole world had changed," he says. During the next 10 weeks, he would be on the phone to government officials several times a day - logging at least 21 calls with Geithner alone. He also spoke frequently to Paulson, at Treasury, helping to advise on the structuring of tarp, and to his number two, Ken Wilson - frantically calling him at around 6:30 a.m. in the middle of September. "The -shite- is hitting the fan. Ken, you've got to do something," Fink said of the massive run on the country's commercial money-market funds that had begun. The funds, including BlackRock's, were hemorrhaging billions, and Fink told Wilson - who in January joined BlackRock as a vice-chairman - that the government needed to step in and guarantee them before the credit market collapsed, which the Treasury Department did within hours of Fink's call.

When A.I.G. was bailed out by the New York Fed, that same week, BlackRock was again brought into the company - this time to evaluate and advise the government on what to do with the $100 billion of A.I.G. assets, including the now infamous credit-default-swap portfolio that the Fed had taken over. For several months, BlackRock would have two teams working inside A.I.G. - one working for the company's management, the other for the Fed. It was a situation so rife with potential conflicts of interest, says Charles Hallac, that for a while neither team was told about the other. By then, BlackRock had already been hired to monitor the troubled portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In December 2008, BlackRock would get yet another contract from the New York Fed, this time to value $301 billion of Citigroup's loans and securities, most of which the U.S. government guaranteed against losses as part of its bailout of the giant bank.

The waterfall of government contracts attracted attention almost immediately. But when asked by members of Congress to explain what BlackRock was being paid and why it was selected without any competitive bidding, Fed officials, and Geithner in particular, revealed virtually nothing. Geithner said that there had been no time to solicit bids from other companies and that BlackRock had been chosen because "the interest of the American taxpayer would be best served." When Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley asked to see BlackRock's contracts, Geithner responded with a letter telling them they were welcome to do so - if they were willing to come to New York to view them in private. When pressed both by members of Congress and by the media for details about BlackRock's fees, the Fed refused, claiming that BlackRock insisted they remain confidential because it had given the government a discount. But BlackRock claims this was not the case. "We've encouraged the Fed to make them public, from the beginning," says Hallac.

Under pressure, the Fed eventually did release BlackRock's contracts. Because they are based on an extremely complex payment schedule, it is difficult to gauge exactly how much BlackRock is making, but it appears to be in the neighborhood of $200 million for the first three years of work on the A.I.G. and Bear Stearns portfolios. For two months' work on the Citigroup portfolio, the firm made $12 million, according to its contract with the Fed - although BlackRock says it worked for two additional months for free. BlackRock does not disclose the fees it charges its other clients, so it's impossible to know if the U.S. taxpayer is, as Geithner claimed, getting a discount. But, some bankers say, the fees are inconsequential. "Larry would have taken those contracts for nothing," says one financier. "It's about the brand, the stature and the new business that flows from that. You couldn't put a price on how valuable those contracts are."


.......................................


Comment: BP's and Obama's Oil Spill Shell Game

BP is primarily owned by very wealthy individuals. I bet you thought retired encyclopedia salesmen and insurance brokers owned most of that stock. You can look here to get a glimpse of BP's backbone. A relative few individual shareholders, and some very powerful investment firms own this oil spill perpetrator. For the sake of clarity, looking at just one reveals interesting associations if nothing else. Follow the money.

About 10 percent of BP shares are controlled by the "now" largest investment management firm in the world, BlackRock. That firm held roughly 6 percent until it bought out Barclays, adding another almost 4 percent. But, to drill this "influence well" deeper, we have to look at who runs all these companies. In the case of BlackRock, that would be someone you may have never heard of, one Larry Fink (left), arguably the most influential man on Wall Street since the economic flop. Add some more drill pipe, keep drilling, and...

Vanity of Vanities

If not for this article in Vanity Fair, most people would just be befuddled at the web of dealings any of these mega rich people weave. But in this case Fink just happens to be one instrumental variable in all that is and has gone on on the world economic scene. Through advice and the dealings big shots like Fink and friends deal in, Vanity Fair or unfair suggests:

Today, through an array of government contracts, BlackRock has effectively become the leading manager of Washington's bailout of Wall Street.

It is also interesting to note that Fink was one of the people responsible for the creation of the very instruments that caused the Wall Street crash in the first place - mortgage backed securities. Looking at Fink as instrumental in US government policy AND as a key investor in BP? You do the connecting here. It is also interesting to note that Fink is "supposed to" hate Goldman Sachs with a passion. Funny that Goldman just announced it is ramping up to advise BP on a possible takeover attempt since BP's stock is in the toilet. Has BlackRock divested shares in all this? You see the point.

We can guess what the US Justice Department is doing. They are having lunch with Larry! He is the man who when losing billions calls his friends at the Federal Reserve Bank and the United States Treasury and siphons trillions of tax payer dollars into a taxpayer bailout of Larry's Blackrock losses. Its clear the rules of the game are heads we win, tails you lose! There is another article in the sott.net archive which may add insight into The Occult Technology of Power.

 

[Guardian]

Yet another pack of government lies....
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/gulfoilspill2010/2010gulfoilspill/health_surveillance.asp

Health Surveillance

UPDATE: This information is current as of July 21, 2010, 12:00 PM ET

The Gulf Coast Oil Spill has the potential to affect human health in addition to the effects already seen on animal and marine life. CDC, along with the affected Gulf Coast states, has developed a plan to track the potential short-term health effects related to the oil spill in the affected communities. Surveillance systems track changes in the number and severity of illnesses and injuries in a population, alerting public health officials to trends that require further investigation.
On this Page

* NPDS
* BioSense
* State Surveillance

CDC, with state and local health departments, is conducting surveillance across the four Gulf States for health effects possibly related to the oil spill using national and state-based surveillance systems. These surveillance systems are being used to track symptoms related to the eyes, skin, and respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and neurological systems, including worsening of asthma, cough, chest pain, eye irritation, nausea, and headache. If the surveillance systems identify groups of people with these symptoms, state and local public health officials will be able to follow up as needed to investigate whether there is an association between the symptoms and the oil spill. This follow-up is important because the same symptoms could be related to a cause unrelated to the oil spill.

These surveillance systems are designed to look for health trends in different ways but all are designed to provide health authorities with signs of possible health impacts on the people and groups most likely to come into contact with the oil. For instance, one system tracks calls to Poison Control Centers related to the oil spill while another system looks at diagnoses at coastal hospitals. These different approaches to tracking health information may mean that some surveillance systems identify trends that other systems do not. By using multiple systems, CDC and the state and local health departments obtain a more comprehensive picture of the health of people who live and work on the Gulf Coast.

CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is also tracking illnesses and injuries reported by Deepwater Horizon response workers in the NIOSH Report of BP Illness and Injury Data.


National Poison Data System (NPDS)

CDC has an agreement with the American Association of Poison Control Center’s NPDS to track calls related to the oil spill—including information calls and potential exposures—for 60 Poison Centers (PCs) in all 50 states. This enables CDC to track the number of Poison Center calls and potential health effects. The data are also being provided to the states so that they can follow up as needed.

Current NPDS data includes all calls received by the BP Deepwater Horizon Medical Support Line since the hotline was established on June 3, 2010.

Findings
Each weekday, access updates from the National Poison Data System.


Biosense

BioSense is a national program that conducts electronic surveillance of health information, and enables public health officials to track changes in a population’s health status through access to existing data from healthcare organizations across the country. BioSense includes 86 coastal healthcare facilities in the five Gulf states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) and staff are watching for specific syndromes (groupings of signs and symptoms) that could be related to the oil spill. CDC provides daily reports of the BioSense findings to the five Gulf States.

Findings (June 27 – July 7)
During this period, reviews of BioSense data have found no trends in the number of illnesses and injuries in the monitored healthcare facilities that would require further public health investigation.

Previous Updates:
Findings (June 20 – June 26)
Findings (June 13 – June 19)
Findings (June 6 – June 12)
Findings (May 27 – June 5)
Findings (May 3 – May 26)


State Surveillance

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi are using state-based surveillance systems to track oil spill-related health effects that might be related to occupational or non-occupational exposure. The states and CDC are collecting data from sources such as emergency departments, urgent care facilities, and poison centers for evaluation. States and CDC are regularly sharing data and summaries with each other. As of July 8, 2010, states had reported a few complaints of respiratory symptoms, nausea, and headache in people who had possible oil exposures. Surveillance reveals no trends of public health concern related to the oil spill.

To learn more about each state’s system and findings, click on the state map below.

Map of State by State Surveillance
Previous Updates

July 6, 2010
June 18, 2010
June 10, 2010

 

[Gaby]

Gulf of Mexico Loop Current Broken!! Risk of Global Climate Change By BP Oil Spill !:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/212458-Gulf-of-Mexico-Loop-Current-Broken-Risk-of-Global-Climate-Change-By-BP-Oil-Spill

Here is also an interview with one of the scientists (Dr. Gianluigi Zangari): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT_YlI3yd3c

 

[Oxajil]

Gulf of Mexico Loop Current Broken!! Risk of Global Climate Change By BP Oil Spill !:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/212458-Gulf-of-Mexico-Loop-Current-Broken-Risk-of-Global-Climate-Change-By-BP-Oil-Spill

Here is also an interview with one of the scientists (Dr. Gianluigi Zangari): _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT_YlI3yd3c

This will result in massive climate change and possibly an ice age for Europe!

:/

 

[rylek]

Gulf of Mexico Loop Current Broken!! Risk of Global Climate Change By BP Oil Spill !:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/212458-Gulf-of-Mexico-Loop-Current-Broken-Risk-of-Global-Climate-Change-By-BP-Oil-Spill

Here is also an interview with one of the scientists (Dr. Gianluigi Zangari): _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT_YlI3yd3c

This will result in massive climate change and possibly an ice age for Europe!

:/

This looks like the tipping point that will accelerate those already underway changes.

 

[Seraphina]

Yet another pack of government lies....
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/gulfoilspill2010/2010gulfoilspill/health_surveillance.asp

Health Surveillance

UPDATE: This information is current as of July 21, 2010, 12:00 PM ET

The Gulf Coast Oil Spill has the potential to affect human health in addition to the effects already seen on animal and marine life. CDC, along with the affected Gulf Coast states, has developed a plan to track the potential short-term health effects related to the oil spill in the affected communities. Surveillance systems track changes in the number and severity of illnesses and injuries in a population, alerting public health officials to trends that require further investigation.
On this Page

* NPDS
* BioSense
* State Surveillance

CDC, with state and local health departments, is conducting surveillance across the four Gulf States for health effects possibly related to the oil spill using national and state-based surveillance systems. These surveillance systems are being used to track symptoms related to the eyes, skin, and respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and neurological systems, including worsening of asthma, cough, chest pain, eye irritation, nausea, and headache. If the surveillance systems identify groups of people with these symptoms, state and local public health officials will be able to follow up as needed to investigate whether there is an association between the symptoms and the oil spill. This follow-up is important because the same symptoms could be related to a cause unrelated to the oil spill.

These surveillance systems are designed to look for health trends in different ways but all are designed to provide health authorities with signs of possible health impacts on the people and groups most likely to come into contact with the oil. For instance, one system tracks calls to Poison Control Centers related to the oil spill while another system looks at diagnoses at coastal hospitals. These different approaches to tracking health information may mean that some surveillance systems identify trends that other systems do not. By using multiple systems, CDC and the state and local health departments obtain a more comprehensive picture of the health of people who live and work on the Gulf Coast.

CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is also tracking illnesses and injuries reported by Deepwater Horizon response workers in the NIOSH Report of BP Illness and Injury Data.


National Poison Data System (NPDS)

CDC has an agreement with the American Association of Poison Control Center’s NPDS to track calls related to the oil spill—including information calls and potential exposures—for 60 Poison Centers (PCs) in all 50 states. This enables CDC to track the number of Poison Center calls and potential health effects. The data are also being provided to the states so that they can follow up as needed.

Current NPDS data includes all calls received by the BP Deepwater Horizon Medical Support Line since the hotline was established on June 3, 2010.

Findings
Each weekday, access updates from the National Poison Data System.


Biosense

BioSense is a national program that conducts electronic surveillance of health information, and enables public health officials to track changes in a population’s health status through access to existing data from healthcare organizations across the country. BioSense includes 86 coastal healthcare facilities in the five Gulf states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) and staff are watching for specific syndromes (groupings of signs and symptoms) that could be related to the oil spill. CDC provides daily reports of the BioSense findings to the five Gulf States.

Findings (June 27 – July 7)
During this period, reviews of BioSense data have found no trends in the number of illnesses and injuries in the monitored healthcare facilities that would require further public health investigation.

Previous Updates:
Findings (June 20 – June 26)
Findings (June 13 – June 19)
Findings (June 6 – June 12)
Findings (May 27 – June 5)
Findings (May 3 – May 26)


State Surveillance

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi are using state-based surveillance systems to track oil spill-related health effects that might be related to occupational or non-occupational exposure. The states and CDC are collecting data from sources such as emergency departments, urgent care facilities, and poison centers for evaluation. States and CDC are regularly sharing data and summaries with each other. As of July 8, 2010, states had reported a few complaints of respiratory symptoms, nausea, and headache in people who had possible oil exposures. Surveillance reveals no trends of public health concern related to the oil spill.

To learn more about each state’s system and findings, click on the state map below.

Map of State by State Surveillance
Previous Updates

July 6, 2010
June 18, 2010
June 10, 2010

This would be wonderful if they actually do as they say they are doing. This may be more misleading, saying they are monitoring everything to ease public fear, and reporting bogus results. If they were to do this correctly, and report actual increases in complaints that may be related, it could create a state of hysteria in the public.