Have You Forgotten About the Dangers in the Gulf?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Username:
Password:
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

There aren't any users online.

Last year while researching the Gulf oil Spill I discovered several things that the Government was not telling us.  I wrote this article with Dr. Riki Ott, a world known toxicologist for her work on the Exxon Valdez.

To view the images we are speaking of please click on either link at the bottom of the article.

These people have been virtually forgotten, I want to remind you, so you do not forget.

Thanks for your time,
Pax

Bio-Remediation or Bio-Hazard? Dispersants, Bacteria & Illness in the Gulf
September 17, 2010 By admin

Test The Rain Project’s team member Allison Schmidt’s opinion was noted by Dr. Riki Ott in her latest news article in The Huffington Post. Ali, known to those here at Test The Rain Project, has been researching the MRSA like infections that are being reported in the Gulf States. If Ali’s conclusions are right we are looking at a bacterial storm that will attack the weaker immune systems.

In the Gulf, Nurse Schmidt believes,”This is like a major bacterial storm. It could be the reason we are seeing a variance of symptoms in different individuals. In some people, we see respiratory complications, while in others we see skin or GI symptoms. I think it is due to a multitude of colonized bacteria – which may have been triggered by BP’s disaster. ”



The Huffington Post
Riki Ott
Posted: September 17, 2010

Ocean Springs, AL. A grandmother made me rethink all the bio-remediation hype. The “naturally-occurring oil-eating bacteria” have been newsworthy of late as they are supposedly going to come to the rescue of President Obama and BP and make good on their very premature statement that “the oil is gone.”

We were talking about subsurface oil in the Gulf when she said matter-of-factly, “The bacteria are running amok with the dispersants.” What? “Those oil-eating bacteria – I think they’re running amok and causing skin rashes.” My mind reeled. Could we all have missed something so simple?

The idea was crazy but, in the context of the Gulf situation – an outbreak of mysterious persistent rashes from southern Louisiana across to just north of Tampa, Florida, coincident with BP’s oil and chemical release, it seemed suddenly worthy of investigating.

I first heard about the rash from Sheri Allen in Mobile, Alabama. Allen wrote of red welts and blisters on her legs after “splashing and wading on the shoreline” of Mobile Bay with her two dogs on May 8. She reported that “hundreds of dead fish” washed up on the same beach over the following two days. This was much too early for the summer sun to have warmed the water to the point of oxygen depletion, but not too early for dispersants and dispersed oil to be mixed into the Gulf’s water mass. By early July, Allen’s rash had healed, leaving black bruises and scarring.

Other people – both residents and visitors to the Gulf coast – wrote of similar rashes or other skin problems like peeling palms. The rashes have been diagnosed as scabies and staph infections, including MRSA, the potentially lethal Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria. Most cases lingered for months, as the rash did not respond well to antibiotics, steroid creams, or steroid shots.

Medical doctors are diagnosing skin rashes on Gulf visitors and residents alike as scabies and staph infections, including MRSA (this photo, identity protected). The rashes resist prescribed treatments and often reoccur for months. (Photo permission: Riki Ott)

Normal looking scabies contrasts sharply with the Gulf cases. (Photo: provided by Nurse Ali Schmidt)

That should have been a clue that maybe the primary cause was not biological, but chemical. A secondary biological infection might clear up with antibiotic treatment, but then keep reoccurring because the primary chemical illness had not been treated.

Retired Registered Nurse Allison Schmidt agrees. Referring to Allen's case, she said, "I can say without hesitation that these skin rashes have nothing to do with scabies. Scabies is a parasite, which causes a skin infection and is extremely contagious. It spreads from person to person by direct skin contact or by wearing an article of clothing worn by an infected person." Schmidt said, "If this were scabies you would see entire families infected and NOT just a single family member."

Another clue to the real cause of the mystery rash is its prevalence across the entire oil-impacted Gulf. Something in the water or air, or both, could explain this. While public officials and BP claim that dispersant use was halted in May for Corexit 9527A and on July 19 for Corexit 9500A, evidence collected by Gulf residents has shown that dispersants are being used in nearshore and inland waters, close to highly populated areas across the Gulf. Further, oil and the Corexit marker have been found in air and inland water.

Despite denial by public officials and BP, evidence mounts of continued dispersant use in inland and nearshore waters near populated areas across the Gulf. Private contractor in Carolina Skiff with tank of Corexit dispersant, August 10, south of Pass Christian Harbor, Mississippi, 9:30 AM. (Photo: Don Tillman)

I have heard from Gulf residents and visitors who developed a rash or peeling palms from contact with Gulf water, including such activities as swimming or wading, getting splashed, handling oiled material or dead animals without gloves, and shucking crabs from the recently opened Gulf fisheries. I have also heard from people who developed the same symptoms after contact with Gulf air by wiping an oily film off their airplane's leading edges after flying over the Gulf (absorbent pad tested positive for oil) or swimming in outdoor pools, or splashing in puddles, after it rained.

Outraged by the unprecedented release of oil and toxic chemicals in the Gulf, Nurse Schmidt and Mike McDowell developed a project to test Gulf rainwater for harmful chemicals.  Schmidt said, "We are convinced the chemicals used in the Gulf to help disperse oil have evaporated and will eventually come down mixed with the rain." 

Another clue, more like a condemnation, is that NOAA and EPA decided to use dispersants in the Gulf without considering what harm the chemicals and dispersed oil might do to people, specifically, the general public. Dr. Sylvia Earle, former chief scientist of NOAA, and other scientists, criticized the agencies' decision, in part, based on concern about harm to human health. Other scientists have also criticized the agencies' decision. Citing the National Academy of Sciences, a Texas Tech University professor testified in Congress that the chemicals break down cell walls, making organisms (including people) more susceptible to oil. The professor called the Gulf an "eco-toxicological experiment," which is inexcusable, because OSHA has known about harm from solvent exposure since at least 1987. Don't these federal agencies talk amongst themselves -- or with others?

Which all brings me back to the grandmother. After talking with her, I've been reading about bacteria, and I now think the Great Gulf Experiment is going very badly for humans. One can only wonder about the rest of the ecosystem.

There are two distinct types of bacteria based on the structure of their cell walls. Gram-positive bacteria have a single-membrane cell wall, while Gram-negative bacteria have a double-membrane cell wall. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria are "Gram-positive," while the oil-eating bacteria are Gram-negative.

But! A component of the double-membrane cell wall structure of Gram-negative bacteria can irritate human skin, causing inflammation and activating the immune system. In other words, oil-eating bacteria, just because they are Gram-negative, can cause skin rashes. In the case of Alcanivorax borkumensis, the reaction can erupt on the skin like MRSA infections.

To make things a little scarier, some of the oil-eating bacteria have been genetically modified, or otherwise bioengineered, to better eat the oil -- including Alcanivorax borkumensis and some of the Pseudomonas. Oil-eating bacteria produce bio-films. According to Nurse Schmidt, studies have found that bio-films are rapidly colonized (p. 97) by other Gram-negative bacteria -- including those known to infect humans. 

Scientists anticipated early on that the Gulf leak would cause populations of oil-eating bacteria to soar. Still, infections are not likely in healthy people. However, exposure to oil weakens a person's immune system function, as does the mental stress of dealing with disaster trauma. And then there are people who are more at risk than others to bacterial infections, especially when first challenged with oil and solvent exposure. This includes children, people with cystic fibrosis or asthma, and African Americans (who are prone to blood disorders), to name a few.

Is this the perfect storm -- an exploding population of opportunistic Gram-negative bacteria (some natural, some not), millions of gallons of food (oil) for the bacteria, and a susceptible population of stressed-out people?

Perhaps. If the outbreak of skin rashes across the Gulf is any indication, the health care providers, media, and Congress ought to be taking a hard look at this question. Further, people ought to be connecting the dots to illnesses that surfaced in Exxon Valdez spill responders and to the illnesses occurring now in Michigan residents coping with the Enbridge oil pipeline spill.

In the Gulf, Nurse Schmidt believes:

This is like a major bacterial storm. It could be the reason we are seeing a variance of symptoms in different individuals. In some people, we see respiratory complications, while in others we see skin or GI symptoms. I think it is due to a multitude of colonized bacteria -- which may have been triggered by BP's disaster.

The nurse and I think the grandmother is onto something.

http://testtherain.com/?cat=5

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-ott/bio-remediation-or-bio-ha_b_720461.html

Not me Pax! the GoM is what brought me to RC in the first place. hope to contribute more soon. i am sad fuku has happened for obvious reasons, but the fact that it has stolen what recognition there was from the Gulf adds to the immense tragedy spreading from there. thanks for such hard work and posting so that all may see, remember and share.

No not you monkey!  You have raised so much awareness to the health hazards brought on by sloppy management.  I pray the people directly effected by Fuku. get the help they need!  I have a feeling they won't and we won't know the extent of this tragedy for years to come.......... The hard work you have put in to the nuclear news is simply
amazing!!  I thank you you and Hx for driving the traffic to this site.

Cheers,
Pax

yep, Pax. looks like Fuku ending up just like the GoM mess. Maybe the People wake up. We try Our best.

i also started a new GoM thread...maybe will change the title. have lots to add yet, but the first post is most important. thanks! http://realitycheck.no-ip.info/forum/index.php/topic,116.msg234.html#msg234

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/05/us/bp-halliburton/index.html
By Vivian Kuo, CNN | updated 7:45 PM EST, Mon December 5, 2011

(CNN) -- BP is accusing Halliburton of having "intentionally destroyed evidence" related to the explosion aboard an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that led to the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

The accusation comes in court papers filed by BP Monday in federal court in New Orleans as part of a lawsuit aimed at having sanctions imposed on Halliburton Energy Services Inc., which was a contractor for BP on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. An explosion on the rig on April 20, 2010, killed 11 people working on the rig and injured 16 others. The explosion led to more than 200 million gallons of oil being released into the Gulf.

BP alleges in its filing that Halliburton destroyed evidence on cement testing and violated court orders by not bringing forth "inexplicably missing" computer modeling results.

"Halliburton has steadfastly refused to provide these critical testing and modeling results in discovery. Halliburton's refusal has been unwavering, despite repeated BP discovery requests and a specific order from this Court," the documents state.

"BP has now learned the reason for Halliburton's intransigence -- Halliburton destroyed the results of physical slurry testing, and it has, at best, lost the computer modeling outputs that showed no channeling. More egregious still, Halliburton intentionally destroyed the evidence related to its nonprivileged cement testing, in part because it wanted to eliminate any risk that this evidence would be used against it at trial," the BP papers say.

Further, the documents state that two Halliburton employees testified under oath about destroying notes and samples related to analyzing the stability of a similar cement mixture that was used in the failed oil well.

4/20/2012
BP Crimes Go Unpunished

A Stain That Won’t Wash Away By Abrahm Lustgarten. The New York Times. April 19, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/opinion/a-stain-that-wont-wash-away.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120420

[excerpted] "TWO years after a series of gambles and ill-advised decisions on a BP drilling project led to the largest accidental oil spill in United States history and the death of 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, no one has been held accountable...

What is missing is the accountability that comes from real consequences: a criminal prosecution that holds responsible the individuals who gambled with the lives of BP’s contractors and the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico. Only such an outcome can rebuild trust in an oil industry that asks for the public’s faith so that it can drill more along the nation’s coastlines. And perhaps only such an outcome can keep BP in line and can keep an accident like the Deepwater Horizon disaster from happening again..."

Majia here: BP has an extreme record of corporate misdeeds. Here are some of the headlines I've examined over the last 2 years

Longish essay on BP's gulf oil spill: The BP Gulf Oil Spill Was the Rehearsal for Tepco's Fukushima
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/bp-gulf-oil-spill-was-rehearsal-for.html

Whistleblower: BP Oil Platform Present, Imminent Danger By David Hammer, The Times-Picayune 19 March 12
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/10527-whistleblower-bp-oil-platform-present-imminent-danger

Environmental Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico: The Escalation of BP's Liability
As oil, sickness and contamination persist, Gulf residents and lawyers file thousands of lawsuits against the oil giant.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26947

BP, The Gulf and Amoratized Lack of Responsibility . August 2011
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/bp-gulf-and-amoratized-lack-of.html

BP's Gulf Oil Well Is Leaking Again: "It’s A Dead Ringer For The [BP] Oil, As Good A Match As I’ve Seen" August 26, 2011
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/bps-gulf-oil-well-leaking-again-it%E2%80%99s-dead-ringer-bp-oil-good-match-i%E2%80%99ve-seen-i-think-pri
BP Macondo Well Still Leaking, Seafood Dangerous, Animals Still Dying  March 5, 2012
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/bp-macondo-well-still-leaking-seafood.html

Dolphin Deaths in The Gulf: Why the Censorship of Science?  April 5, 2012
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/dolphin-deaths-in-gulf-why-censorship.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26947
by Dahr Jamail

"If you got caught humping another woman - [if] you're both naked and caught in the act - you'd want BP to explain to your wife how it didn't happen."

This colorful analogy was proposed by Dean Blanchard, a seafood distributor on Grand Isle, Louisiana, to explain oil giant BP's continuing machinations to evade liability in the aftermath of the April 2010 disaster.

During a recent discussion in his office, Blanchard told Al Jazeera that the fishing waters off Louisiana are only producing one per cent of the shrimp they formerly produced. "Half of the local fishermen have shut down," he stated. "They are dying. And [as] for the fishing, every day they are hauling dead porpoises in front of my place. I have a claim filed with BP, but none of us in the seafood business are being paid."

Speculating that he may soon have to close down his company, Blanchard spoke for hundreds of thousands of Gulf Coast residents who remain angry and frustrated when he added: "I worked 30 years to establish my business, and now BP has destroyed my life."

Fallout and responsibility

In a key investigative report released on September 14, the US government heaped most of the blame for the oil disaster on BP, which now faces a raft of criminal and civil litigation and billions of dollars in potential damages.

The report concluded that BP violated federal regulations, ignored safety concerns and crucial warnings, and made careless decisions during the cementing of the well nearly two kilometres underwater.

"That report summarised what we already knew, and it will help establish the punitive damage case against the defendant [BP]," New Orleans-based attorney Stuart Smith, representing more than 1,000 cases against BP, told Al Jazeera.

Smith has been litigating against oil companies for 25 years, and in 2001 was lead counsel in a case that resulted in a $1bn verdict against ExxonMobil.

"The fastest way to lose a toxic tort case is to rely on the government or the defendant to collect the evidence," explained Smith, whose firm has spent more than $2m for its client's cases by collecting samples and data and having them analysed by experts.

As litigation against BP continues to mount, several studies have confirmed Smith and Blanchard's concerns about the deep impact of BP's oil disaster.