Posted on 06/18/2010 9:31:10 AM PDT by lbryce
There is one question that I would really like an answer to. Who died and made BP king of the Gulf of Mexico? In recent weeks, BP has almost seemed more interested in keeping the American people away from the oil spill than in actually cleaning it up. Journalists are being pushed around and denied access, disaster workers are being intimidated and abused and now BP has even go so far as to hire an army of private mercenaries to enforce their will along the Gulf coast. Are we suddenly living in occupied Iraq? How in the world did a foreign oil company get the right to start pointing guns at the American people? The last time I checked, BP did not own the Gulf of Mexico and did not have the right to tell the American people where they can and cannot go. The truth is that BP could have avoided all of this by running an open, honest and transparent operation from the start. They could have welcomed help from all sources, they could have tried to be open with the media, and they could have tried to be fair with the volunteers and rescue workers. But instead BP has been conducting this whole thing as if we are living in a totalitarian dictatorship and they are the dictators.
Over the last several weeks, members of the mainstream media attempting to cover the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have been yelled at, harassed, kicked off public beaches and threatened with arrest. The Obama administration keeps promising "to improve media access", but so far their promises haven't seemed to make much difference. In fact, a recent AP report detailed several recent highly disturbing incidents of journalist intimidation....
(Excerpt) Read more at theeconomiccollapseblog.com ...
Ethylene glycol has a sweet taste, and is used in antifreeze coolant (with appropriate warnings not to leave this out for animals will drink it. The LD50 (that is the 1/2 of lethal dose of ethylene glycol is: Oral rat 4700 mg/kg body weight; Skin of rabbit LD50: 9530 mg/kg body weight.
Irritation - skin rabbit: 555 mg(open), mild; eye rabbit: 500mg/24H, mild.
Note: the rat test subject is most valid, especially as applies to direct mammalian comparison to trial lawyers/sarc
Sure.
So why are those symptoms listed as potential hazards of contact or proximity to COREXIT?
Your telling me. I drank some once.
“Your telling me. “
I would like to apologize to all readers for one of the most grammatically incomplete and incorrect sentences I have written in a long time.
“• A fifth ingredient is used by a major supplier of brand name household cleaning products for “soap scum” removal.”
They could go ahead a say this as an adjunct to THE NAME of the ingredient. That might just be a bit more balanced. Giving the name of one ingredient wouldn’t give away their patented formula, besides it’s patented. I would guess that this ingredient is one that causes a few warnings on the container for the soap scum remover.
Toxicity aside, the use of this product makes the oil more difficult to see and recover by ships from the ocean surface. I wish they hadn’t used it and had instead allowed as many skimmers as would come to the scene.
What is the United States getting in return for Obama’s investment “on our behalf”? Anybody know?
You so funny!
We get a warm, happy feeling inside, the sensation of a job well done.
It seems interest in the thread has waned, and it is getting late.
I wanted to Thank You both for the back and forth conversations we had. I enjoyed it very much.
Those are pretty general systems. I would guess if you pulled any MSDSs for products listed as "solvent", you'd see the same exact health warnings.
That’s what I figured.
There exists a MSDS for water.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.