The disaster that never was. by oldenglanddry

America loves a winner!

Brits understandably have a vested interest in restoring the image of BP

While it's true the oil can be absorbed by the environment, I still feel the impact will be felt for years to come. The devastated wet lands, the mass killing off of wildlife, especially in the fragile nesting grounds for so many species.... time will tell what the true damage will be from this catastrophe.

And let's not forget or forgive BP or the US Federal Gov't for it's inaction and lack of response. The folks of the Gulf coast know what they saw, or didn't see, in the way of assistance.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 8:00 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

bump

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 9:42 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I don't wonder, I know. Just because you don't see it fouling beaches, don't kid yourself. There's the food chain:

Quote:
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Scientists are reporting early signs that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is altering the marine food web by killing or tainting some creatures and spurring the growth of others more suited to a fouled environment.

Near the spill site, researchers have documented a massive die-off of pyrosomes - cucumber-shaped, gelatinous organisms fed on by endangered sea turtles.

Along the coast, droplets of oil are being found inside the shells of young crabs that are a mainstay in the diet of fish, turtles and shorebirds.

And at the base of the food web, tiny organisms that consume oil and gas are proliferating.

If such impacts continue, the scientists warn of a grim reshuffling of sealife that could over time cascade through the ecosystem and imperil the region's multibillion-dollar fishing industry.

"You change the base of the food web, it's going to ripple through the entire food web," said marine scientist Rob Condon, who found oil-loving bacteria off the Alabama coastline, more than 90 miles from BP's collapsed Deepwater Horizon drill rig. "Ultimately it's going to impact fishing and introduce a lot of contaminants into the food web."

How about the fish, and the ecosystem?

Quote:
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill "will likely have considerable impacts for years and possibly decades to come," Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said August 4 at a White House briefing.

"I think the common view of most of the scientists inside and outside government is that the effects of the spill will likely linger for decades," she said.

For example, the full impact on fish populations of species that spawned in the water column contaminated with oil will not be known for a number of years, she said. She noted that bluefin tuna have eggs and larvae that would have been in oil-contaminated water. "If those eggs or larvae were exposed to oil, they probably would have died or been significantly impacted," she said.

All of the naturally dispersed oil and some of the oil that was chemically dispersed remained well below the surface in diffuse clouds where it began to dissipate further and biodegrade.
Previous analyses have shown evidence of clouds of oil between 3,300 and 4,300 feet in very low concentrations moving in the direction of ocean currents and decreasing with distance form the wellhead, the report said. Oil that was chemically dispersed at the surface moved into the top 20 feet of the water column where it mixed with surrounding water and began to biodegrade.

However, the report concludes, "Even though the threat to shorelines, fish and wildlife and ecosystems has decreased since the capping of the BP wellhead, federal scientists remain extremely concerned about the impacts of the spill to the Gulf ecosystem. Fully understanding the impacts of this spill on wildlife, habitats and natural resources in the Gulf region will take time and continued monitoring and research."

And of course, humans (unimportant tho' they may be to any outside the Gulf):

Quote:
As catastrophic as the Gulf oil spill has been for the region's environment and residents' livelihoods, experts say the impact of the disaster on human health and well-being has not even begun to be quantified.

"These are people in a serious crisis," says Dr. Irwin Redlener, president of the Children's Health Fund and director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University. "They're at ground zero of a catastrophe."

The question is what shape the impact of that catastrophe will take — mentally, physically, emotionally — on the people of the Gulf, now and for generations to come. Much is unknown about the long-term health dangers of an oil spill; few spills have been studied in this way.

the reality is that we know far too little about the effects of oil spills on human health to have any confidence in the long-term ramifications. At the Institute of Medicine conference, Nalini Sathiakumar of the University of Alabama noted that of the 400 tanker spills that have occurred since the 1960s, only seven have been studied. And they provide reason for caution. Oil isn't just oil — it also contains volatile organic compounds like the carcinogen benzene. "Studies [of spills] have shown us consistent evidence for oracular, neurological and dermal exposure as a result of exposure to volatile organic compounds," said Sathiakumar. "Short-term lung, kidney and liver functions could be affected."

Indeed, a retrospective study of cleanup workers involved in a 2002 oil spill on the coast of Spain — one far smaller than the Gulf catastrophe — found evidence of DNA damage, most likely from chemical or oil exposure, though it was of the sort that can be repaired by the body. If scientists hope to track spill workers and coastal residents who are currently encountering oil, studies must be launched right now.

Want more?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 9:45 AM

America loves a winner!

But Niki..., this is all we need to know ( or so we're being told )

BEFORE....

AFTER - see ? All better now!

***
If you look carefully, you'll notice that the before/ after pics of the beach are taken at different points. Sure, they both show the same hotels in the back ground, but the top one is taken further down the beach, where the buildings are closer to the camera. The reporter's head actually blocks out much of what is shown in the top shot. Not that I doubt it's been cleaned, but just something to think about...

***

And now, the flip side of the issue....

In the Gulf, scientific questions still lurk beneath the surface
By John D. Sutter, CNN
August 9, 2010 9:28 a.m. EDT

Of the dispersed and dissolved oil that's still in the Gulf, he said: "It hasn't disappeared. It's in the water. It's changed forms. We don't see it anymore, but it's still there.......

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/09/gulf.environment.damage/index.html?hp
t=C2

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 10:10 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Further:

It's not just pellies, you know...

(Roseate Spoonbill)

IBRRC updates show it's not over yet by a long shot:

Quote:
The BP well has been capped but we are still receiving hundreds of oiled birds each week. These are primarily the orphans of the spill: Laughing Gulls, Brown Pelicans, Terns, Herons and Skimmers who are attempting to fledge from their protective islands. In doing so they are becoming oiled as residual pools of oil and oiled grasses still exist on some of the islands.

On July 23rd we successfully moved 400+ bird patients from the Fort Jackson rescue center in Buras, Louisiana to Hammond, which is 80 miles further north. Primarily, this move was to ensure the safety of people and animals in the event of a tropical storm or hurricane. We currently have over 500 birds at the Hammond center.

http://l.wbx.me/l/?p=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fintbirdrescue.blogspot.com%2F201
0%2F08%2Fday-109-update-gulf-oiled-bird-rescue.html

As best I can make out from an official report (Deepwater Horizon Response Consolidated Fish and Wildlife Collection Report), as of today:

Birds collected alive: 1,069
Collected dead: 3,902
Released: 773

Sea Turtles collected alive: 503
Collected dead: 517
Released: 127
Nests transported: 207
Hatchlings released: 4,633

Mammals (including dolphins) collected alive: 5
Collected dead: 71
Released: 5

Reptiles, 1 collected dead, 1 alive, no releases

This is what IBRRC has treated thus far:

Brown Pelicans
White Pelicans
Laughing Gulls
Northern Gannets
Night Herons
Cattle Egret
Snowy Egrets
Reddish Egret
Least Bitterns
Common Terns
Sandwich Terns
Least Terns
White Ibis
Herring Gulls
Dunlins
Roseate Spoonbills
Sanderlings
Terrapins

"Disaster that nerver was" my ass.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 10:15 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yeah, Raptor, I know. That's what gauls me: "Out of sight, out of mind", dammit!!!

Now the MSM is minimizing it, it's not such a story, it's not PHOTOGENIC enough to make headlines, so it sinks from consciousness.

Makes me want to

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 8:11 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Bump: So? This thread has been read 100 times; nobody wants to chime in? Nobody wants to agree with OldEngland that this is "the disaster that never was"? Gee, what's wrong with you people? I mean surely it's NOT a disaster, or at least it's only a little one, surely Obama caused it, or it's part of a conspiracy he's part of to panic people at least...surely you have SOMETHING to say...? Or not...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 8:19 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

CNN may want to agree that this is a non-disaster, now that they've finished milking the disaster angle. They've got front-webpage articles about happy dolphins frolicking in the gulf now.

It must be interesting to work in an industry where you can get paid no matter which way things go.

Step 1) TERRIBLE DISASTER ENDS THE WORLD !!!!!

Step 2) Terrible Disaster not so Terrible. Rejoice!

Step 3) Hidden consequences surface! Terrible Disaster was terrible after all!

Step 4) Terrible Disaster One Year Later. Was it Really Terrible?

Step 5) Ten Years after Terrible Disaster. Scars still Linger.

Step 6) People who worked on Terrible Disaster are ill! Or are they?

Step 7) Will complete cost of Terrible Disaster ever be known? Two opposing viewpoints.

I mean, they're going to milk this from every angle for as long as they can. They'll run it in one direction as far as they can, then run back the other way, then back again, until the pendulum loses momentum. Each time they swing, people will lose interest. Finally, it will be that thing that happened that everybody remembers but isn't sure it was as big a thing as people think it was.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 8:35 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sigh...yeah, a la Exxon Valdez. I guess that's why nobody's interested anymore.

On to more "timely" mattere...how IS Lindsay Lohan these days?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 7:25 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, we got our own spill up here in Michigan which is a hassle and a half to pay mind to, helping out with that has been frustrating, as I mentioned before.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 1:32 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Yeah, Raptor, I know. That's what gauls me: "Out of sight, out of mind", dammit!!!

Now the MSM is minimizing it, it's not such a story, it's not PHOTOGENIC enough to make headlines, so it sinks from consciousness.

Makes me want to

But me dear Niki, that was the plan all along! Why do you think BP was so intent on using dispersants? If you can't SEE the oil, then in the minds of the general public, it's not there. And if you tell them that 75% of it has just *vanished*, they'll be happy to go back to their regularly-scheduled lives, vacationing at the Gulf Coast, eating shellfish from the Gulf, and pretending nothing's wrong?

Remember, as long as you can quickly and superficially treat the SYMPTOMS of the problems, you never actually have to worry about the CAUSES of them!

It's the American Way™!

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 2:25 AM

RIVERLOVE

They (BP/Obama) stopped the leak quicker than anyone thought they would.

BP is spending billions to clean up the mess.

Obama got $20 billion for Gulf residents.

There's nothing left to report.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 2:49 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

I do feel a little ripped off by cnn... I'm sure they'd say they were just following the story though. "What's the story now? We can't find the oil." that seems like it's worth a follow up.
Here's an interesting spin: our own little bubble works a lot like the msm if you think about it. People post "headlines" (thread titles) that try to attract our interest. They write stories that will spin in various directions depending on the interest and the writers (posters). Some threads blow up and get to 100 posts, and some die out, just like news stories. Don't tell me that you all know better than to read and even post in PN or Whozit threads! Maybe the msm is just following our collective lead?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 4:54 AM

http://mywaybusiness.com/oil-spill-may-have-lasting-effect-on-sea-life
/1530/

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

...or maybe we are reflective of how people think, including the MSM? The difference is we have nothing to gain by what we do here...oh, wait, yes, we do: attention and the respect of our peers? That's the only thing I can think of...and of course for some, negative attention is better than none, so it works just as well.

Yes, Mike, I know about the "out of sight, out of mind" thing BP pulled...now we know why they refused to stop using the dispersant even when EPA INSISTED they do, as well as why they were shooting it down INTO the leak, which isn't normal procedure.

Hey, worked for them...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The story now...

Quote:
There is one animal that scientists are keeping a close eye on in order to determine how big of a hit the animal life in the Gulf has taken from the BP oil spill: the blue crab.

The blue crab is named for it’s blue-tinted claws. They also have thick shells and 10 legs, which help them survive in the Gulf. They are one of the major sustenance provider for some of the bigger animals in the area, including raccoons and whooping cranes.

Scientist’s have been monitoring the larvae of the blue crab and have recently discovered small oil droplets among them. Although some small animals can withstand a certain amount of oil and survive, a larger animal could eat too many of these tainted specimens and get a “megadose” of oil, which would be fatal.

Harriet Perry is a biologist with the University of Southern Mississippi’s Gulf Coast Research Laboratory. “In my 42 years of studying crabs, I’ve never seen this,” she says. She couldn’t answer how many of the crab larvae might be contaminate, but did say that, of the area the crab inhabit, about 40 percent was affected by the oil spill.

But as you say, it's the OOSOOM principle (out of sight, out of mind)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 6:10 AM

KANEMAN

Is anyone surprised that O'bama's MSM would minimize? Could see this coming a million miles away. After all the money O'bama got from Big Oil did anyone really think he and the MSM would go after BP once the cameras went away? The I'm tough on oil charade is over.Two months from now this story will be as dead as most pelicans in the region.....Go Barry Go.....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:06 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"Most pelicans in the region" won't be dead. Their numbers have been hurt, certainly, but there are plenty left, and a bunch of nests were moved and fledglings released by IBRRC. They've already recovered from near extinction once, they'll do it again. THEY will get special treatment, being LA's "official bird".

I HOPE it doesn't get "disappeared"...certainly other things will get front page, but hopefully it'll still make the news as time goes on...for how long? Who can say.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:18 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Is anyone surprised that O'bama's MSM would minimize? Could see this coming a million miles away. After all the money O'bama got from Big Oil did anyone really think he and the MSM would go after BP once the cameras went away? The I'm tough on oil charade is over.Two months from now this story will be as dead as most pelicans in the region.....Go Barry Go.....

Different story and all, but you just KNOW that if this were Bush / any GOP in the WH, we'd see pics of oil covered pelicans, floating dead turtles and more of this....

You'll remember how the NYT ran prison pics from Iraq day after day after day after day......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:37 AM

KWICKO

Nice that you're so quick to equivocate human beings in U.S. custody to turtles in the Gulf.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:42 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Nice that you're so quick to equivocate human beings in U.S. custody to turtles in the Gulf.

I didn't , but nice try.

Oh, wait..it was a miserable try.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 9:06 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
you just KNOW that if this were Bush / any GOP in the WH, we'd see pics of oil covered pelicans, floating dead turtles and more of this

Is that a joke? Because if you think OBAMA can control the MSM to minimize the crisis, I'd LOVE to see what Dumbya would have done. Big Oil was his BABY; he'd have made sure it was minimized as much as possible.

Hell, if Dumbya were in office, we'd never have found out about the MSM, there'd never have been a $20 billion fund, BP would never have been taken to task, the damage would have been minimized, scientists would have been shut up, there'd never have been an attempt at a moratorium until the rights could be checked out...

I mean, surely you JEST!

And I, too, find it interesting that you equate photos getting out of prisoners being abused with those of dead animals resulting from an oil gusherfuck which wasn't officially "condoned" by the government.

Personally, I'd think you were being sarcastic, if it were anyone else.

By the way, isn't it just a bit self-defeating to post a video of dead turtles (I didn't watch it, but I got the gist) in an attempt to say the MSM is minimizing the situation? Just askin'.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 9:40 AM

America loves a winner!

No jesting here, what so ever, Niki.

You know that fully 90% of the MSM consider ITSELF to be Left wing. Obama doesn't have to " control " anyone. They simply fall in line, out of basic philosophical allegiance to Obama.

Same reason why the UK press reports on Michelle in all her opulence and lavish trappings on her girl's weekend to Spain, while the US press merely paints it as ' a private family get away'.

It appears that Big Oil is Obama's baby now....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:37 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Uhhh, in which case, why am I seeing stories about Michelle's trip all over the news, the internet, etc.?? I haven't seen ANY of them paint it as "a private family getaway"...all I've seen is stories about how their trip has caused a furor...

As to the "liberal media bias" myth:

Quote:
The conservative media tilt has become a dominant reality in modern U.S. politics.

This imbalance was not an accident. It resulted from a conscious, expensive and well-conceived plan by conservatives to build what amounts to a rapid-response media machine. This machine closely coordinates with Republican leaders and can strongly influence - if not dictate - what is considered news."

Quote - "I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95

If there truly were a liberal bias in mainstream media, right-wing commentators would not dominate the three major opinion-shaping forums in our country: TV punditry, talk radio and syndicated columns.

Next time someone tells you that the right wing is unfairly treated in the mass media, start reading from this list. Challenge them to match these names with left-wing pundits who have equivalent access to the public debate -- not tepid centrists who rally 'round the status quo, but leaders of and advocates for progressive movements, as unabashed in their politics to the left as these conservative voices are to the right. Chances are, you'll soon be listening to dead air.

How many of these names do you recognize?

Joe Scarborough (TV)
Dick Armey (TV)
Michael Savage (TV)
Pat Buchanan (TV, P)
Robert Novak (TV, P)
William Buckley (TV, P)
Cal Thomas (P)
Paul Gigot (TV, P)
Pat Robertson (TV)
Jerry Falewell (TV)
John Gibson (TV)
Charles Krauthammer (P)
John Leo (P)
James J. Kilpatrick (P)
Ben Wattenberg (TV, P)
Armstrong Williams (TV, R, P)
Thomas Sowell (P)
Fred Barnes (TV)
G. Gordon Liddy (R)
Michael Reagan (R)
James Dobson (R)
James Pinkerton (P)
Suzanne Fields (P)
Bob Grant (R)
George Will (TV, P)
Rush Limbaugh (R)
William Safire (P)
William Kristol (TV)
Bay Buchanan (TV)
John McLaughlin (TV)
Oliver North (TV, R)
Kate O'Beirne (TV)
Linda Chavez (P)
Tony Snow (TV, P)
James Glassman (TV, P)
Robert Bartley (P)
Mona Charen (P)
Laura Ingraham (TV)
John Stossel (TV)
Ken Hamblin (R)
Michael Barone (P)
Maggie Gallagher (P)
Sean Hannity (TV, R)
Bill O'Reilly (TV)
R. Emmett Tyrrell (P)
Tucker Carlson (TV)
Ann Coulter (TV, P)
Brit Hume (TV)
Chris Matthews (TV)
Don Imus (TV, R)
Brent Bozell (TV, P)
Larry Elder (TV, P, R)
Jonah Goldberg (TV, P)
Jack Kemp (TV, P)
Larry Kudlow (TV, P)
Michelle Malkin (TV, P)
Debbie Schlussel (TV, P)

*(TV = television, P = print, R = radio)

If you want a bias, the following is true of most media, so where does that leave the "media bias"?

Quote:
--Media Concentration: A handful (Disney, CBS Corporation, News Corporation, TimeWarner, and General Electric) of corporate conglomerates own the majority of mass media outlets. Such a uniformity of ownership means that stories which are critical of these corporations are in some cases underplayed in the media.

--Capitalist Model: In the United States the media are operated for profit, and are usually funded by advertising. Stories critical of advertisers or their interests may in some cases be underplayed, while stories favorable to advertisers may be given more coverage.

--Conservative Media Organizations: Certain conservative media outlets such as NewsMax and WorldNetDaily describe themselves as news organizations, but are generally seen as promoting a conservative agenda. Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corporation (the parent of Fox News), has exerted a strong influence over Fox News.

Quote:
Quote - "I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." William Kristol

As I believe Peacekeeper said, we are a center-right country at BEST; there are only a few news sources with actual "liberal bias".

Hell, there are books about the myth: The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader by Edward S. Herman; Unmasking 100 Liberal Myths, Media Bias, and the U.S. Moral Decay!: Independents, can you handle the truth? "Every American Should Read!" A Twelve Year Investigation!! by John C. Hyland; Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media by David Edwards, David Cromwell, and John Pilger; Conservatives constructed myth about liberal media.: An article from: St. Louis Journalism Review by Daniel Hellinger.

Quote:
During the 36 days following election night I slavishly watched the TV and read the papers, but I never saw these "objective" observations made by the mainstream media, or even the political pundits. The pervading attitude was that Bush "deserved" the election and that Gore was trying to steal it.

Quote:
It will be hard to comprehend how Bush got two terms as President of the United States, ran up a massive debt, and misled the country into at least one disastrous war – without taking into account the extraordinary influence of the conservative media, from Fox News to Rush Limbaugh, from the Washington Times to the Weekly Standard.

Recently, it’s been revealed, too, that the Bush administration paid conservative pundits Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher while they promoted White House policies. Even fellow conservatives have criticized those payments, but the truth is that the ethical line separating conservative “journalism” from government propaganda has long since been wiped away.

For years now, there’s been little meaningful distinction between the Republican Party and the conservative media machine.

In 1982, for instance, South Korean theocrat Sun Myung Moon established the Washington Times as little more than a propaganda organ for the Reagan-Bush administration. In 1994, radio talk show host Limbaugh was made an honorary member of the new Republican House majority.

The blurring of any ethical distinctions also can be found in documents from the 1980s when the Reagan-Bush administration began collaborating secretly with conservative media tycoons to promote propaganda strategies aimed at the American people.

In 1983, a plan, hatched by CIA Director William J. Casey, called for raising private money to sell the administration’s Central American policies to the American public through an outreach program designed to look independent but which was secretly managed by Reagan-Bush officials.

The project was implemented by a CIA propaganda veteran, Walter Raymond Jr., who had been moved to the National Security Council staff and put in charge of a “perception management” campaign that had both international and domestic objectives.

In one initiative, Raymond arranged to have Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch chip in money for ostensibly private groups that would back Reagan-Bush policies. According to a memo dated Aug. 9, 1983, Raymond reported that “via Murdock [sic], may be able to draw down added funds.” [For details, see Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.]

Besides avoiding congressional oversight, privately funded activities gave the impression that an independent group was embracing the administration’s policies on their merits. Without knowing that the money had been arranged by the government, the public would be more inclined to believe these assessments than the word of a government spokesman.

When Dumbya was in office, the media sycophants were all over his lies:

Quote:
Two of America's most respected newspapers have admitted that their editors knowingly "resisted" publishing information that challanged the official excuse for invading Iraq.

The Washington Post concedes: "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier". The New York Times confess that their coverage "was not as rigorous as it should have been".

The US corporate media promotes government propaganda while actively suppressing the other side of the story. As a result the majority of Americans live in a state of perpetual delusion about what their government is doing and why.

So yes, the media cow-tows to whoever is in power; but there's far less "liberal" media than "conservative" media, and the power of the conservative media is FAR greater.

The "liberal media" is identical to "activist judges"...buzz words which have long been accepted because they have been repeated again and again by conservatives. The Big Lie theory works for them!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:08 AM

Quote:
But me dear Niki, that was the plan all along! Why do you think BP was so intent on using dispersants? If you can't SEE the oil, then in the minds of the general public, it's not there. And if you tell them that 75% of it has just *vanished*, they'll be happy to go back to their regularly-scheduled lives, vacationing at the Gulf Coast, eating shellfish from the Gulf, and pretending nothing's wrong?

Remember, as long as you can quickly and superficially treat the SYMPTOMS of the problems, you never actually have to worry about the CAUSES of them!

It's the American Way™!

...

I don't know about shooting it down the well, but you all keep attacking the use of dispersants. I'm not sure this is some kind of malicious attempt to hide the oil; the reason you use a dispersant is to spread out a contaminant, which decreases the concentration, and the hope is you decrease it below toxic screening levels.

I do have questions about the underwater plumes, though, and of course the oxygen depletion is very bad. But I'm not sure dispersants were the wrong choice. Maybe the volume used was, the EPA's data is in some weird format I can't see. But I don't think we can argue that we've made dispersants into a worse problem than the oil, there's orders of magnitude different in the # barrels of oil and # barrels of dispersants released into the waters of the gulf, even if BP is lying about how much they used, and the dispersants are rated less toxic than the oil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:20 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, I've heard over and over the effort to minimize the toxicity of the dispersants by the statement that "they're no more toxic than the oil". If that's true, wasn't using dispersants just INCREASING the amount of toxic substance in the water? Even if they're slightly less toxic, I don't see how that improved things, adding something toxic to the toxic mess itself.

The EPA DID demand that they stop, and BP went right on, totally ignoring a department of our government which told them to stop putting toxic substances into the Gulf. I think we know why now, in my opinion.

As to shooting it down the well itself, they did. And what I've read is that this isn't done; dispersants are for surface use only.

I'm sorry, love, but given all the lies, fraud, etc., out of BP, I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to using something that makes the situation LOOK better, despite however bad it might be in the long term. It's just too typical of their M.O.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:40 AM

Quote:
Byte, I've heard over and over the effort to minimize the toxicity of the dispersants by the statement that "they're no more toxic than the oil". If that's true, wasn't using dispersants just INCREASING the amount of toxic substance in the water? Even if they're slightly less toxic, I don't see how that improved things, adding something toxic to the toxic mess itself.

What has to be understood here, is that sometimes different toxic substances effect different organ systems. It's perfectly possible that you could take a certain dose of one toxin, and a dose of another, and combined the two toxins may exceed the LC50 for either compound, but you won't die, because the effects of the combined toxins weren't cumulative on the respective organ systems.

Some substances DO become more toxic to an organ system when combined together. Combinations like this are called "additive effects", "synergistic effects", or "potentiation." Also, some toxic combinations are less toxic together ("antagonism"), like say if once toxic chemical increases enzyme activity acting against the other toxic chemical.

Making the oil more soluable in water does make the oil slightly more toxic, meaning you lower the amount needed for a lethal dose. But this is somewhat balanced by the fact that by adding the dispersant, you greatly decrease the concentration of both substances in the area, which means you're greatly decreasing the dose you're exposed to.

If you want to argue that the dispersant is making the situation more toxic, indirectly it is making the OIL a little more toxic, but there are nuances, and overall it sounds like the toxicity of the dispersant is independent of the toxicity of the oil, which is why everyone is reporting it that way.

Now, I'd like to double check that, and the systems effected by both to be sure it isn't accumulative, but that's my explanation for you.

Quote:
The EPA DID demand that they stop, and BP went right on, totally ignoring a department of our government which told them to stop putting toxic substances into the Gulf. I think we know why now, in my opinion.

This is very possibly a valid complaint. I'd have to see the dispersant toxicity data.

Quote:
As to shooting it down the well itself, they did. And what I've read is that this isn't done; dispersants are for surface use only.

...This, on the other hand, is wrong. Dispersants are used below surface in a number of situations. One I can think of off the top of my head is in groundwater spills. Dispersants mobilize the plume, some of that plume might be below the water table, it actually makes sense to inject along the vertical dimension of the plume. There can be a question, however, of whether it's feasible to do so.

Quote:
I'm sorry, love, but given all the lies, fraud, etc., out of BP, I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to using something that makes the situation LOOK better, despite however bad it might be in the long term. It's just too typical of their M.O.

Sure. And it wouldn't surprise me if BP is trying to pull some wool over our eyes, but dispersants are just so common and wide-spread in the clean-up industry, it's hard for me to imagine there were ulterior motives at work in their use.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:51 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Uhhh...the only comment I have on this is that yes, dispersants may be common and widespread in the industry, but given what we've learned about the industry the past few months, is that necessarily a reason to recommend them?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:07 PM

Well, I'm not taking about the oil industry here, which I think is the big screw up. I imagine BP has a mess of environmental consultants working for them right now, so it might be difficult to say straight out that the dispersant order came from BP itself. I kind of suspect it didn't, but that would depend on how familiar with clean-up BP is. It might be that it was BP, and they'd used dispersants before, but they didn't have a complete understanding of the applications and the situation when they did.

When I said "the industry," I meant the "clean-up industry." I think the clean-up people have encountered set-backs, but frankly I'm amazed they've done as well as they have. The size of this spill when I first heard of it was near incomprehensible to me. I could imagine some basic ways they might go about clean-up (the very same ways which I then saw implemented, including dispersants), but the scale of it all was staggering.

I stand by my statements that dispersants have their uses, and the use of them can be valid. If they were misused here, then the EPA would be a good judge of that, which is why I said that's a valid complaint. But dispersants themselves are just a tool.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 1:25 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Hey Niki - you forget Jeff Gannon, and Talon News Service...

That list, btw, gave me the growlies, since if you happened to ask me for a list of "people you'd like to see swinging from a rope" that'd prettymuch be it, only Dobson would be #1.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:25 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Uhhh, in which case, why am I seeing stories about Michelle's trip all over the news, the internet, etc.?? I haven't seen ANY of them paint it as "a private family getaway"...all I've seen is stories about how their trip has caused a furor...

As to the "liberal media bias" myth:
Quote:
The conservative media tilt has become a dominant reality in modern U.S. politics.

This imbalance was not an accident. It resulted from a conscious, expensive and well-conceived plan by conservatives to build what amounts to a rapid-response media machine. This machine closely coordinates with Republican leaders and can strongly influence - if not dictate - what is considered news."

Quote - "I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95

If there truly were a liberal bias in mainstream media, right-wing commentators would not dominate the three major opinion-shaping forums in our country: TV punditry, talk radio and syndicated columns.

Next time someone tells you that the right wing is unfairly treated in the mass media, start reading from this list. Challenge them to match these names with left-wing pundits who have equivalent access to the public debate -- not tepid centrists who rally 'round the status quo, but leaders of and advocates for progressive movements, as unabashed in their politics to the left as these conservative voices are to the right. Chances are, you'll soon be listening to dead air.

How many of these names do you recognize?

Joe Scarborough (TV)
Dick Armey (TV)
Michael Savage (TV)
Pat Buchanan (TV, P)
Robert Novak (TV, P)
William Buckley (TV, P)
Cal Thomas (P)
Paul Gigot (TV, P)
Pat Robertson (TV)
Jerry Falewell (TV)
John Gibson (TV)
Charles Krauthammer (P)
John Leo (P)
James J. Kilpatrick (P)
Ben Wattenberg (TV, P)
Armstrong Williams (TV, R, P)
Thomas Sowell (P)
Fred Barnes (TV)
G. Gordon Liddy (R)
Michael Reagan (R)
James Dobson (R)
James Pinkerton (P)
Suzanne Fields (P)
Bob Grant (R)
George Will (TV, P)
Rush Limbaugh (R)
William Safire (P)
William Kristol (TV)
Bay Buchanan (TV)
John McLaughlin (TV)
Oliver North (TV, R)
Kate O'Beirne (TV)
Linda Chavez (P)
Tony Snow (TV, P)
James Glassman (TV, P)
Robert Bartley (P)
Mona Charen (P)
Laura Ingraham (TV)
John Stossel (TV)
Ken Hamblin (R)
Michael Barone (P)
Maggie Gallagher (P)
Sean Hannity (TV, R)
Bill O'Reilly (TV)
R. Emmett Tyrrell (P)
Tucker Carlson (TV)
Ann Coulter (TV, P)
Brit Hume (TV)
Chris Matthews (TV)
Don Imus (TV, R)
Brent Bozell (TV, P)
Larry Elder (TV, P, R)
Jonah Goldberg (TV, P)
Jack Kemp (TV, P)
Larry Kudlow (TV, P)
Michelle Malkin (TV, P)
Debbie Schlussel (TV, P)

*(TV = television, P = print, R = radio)
If you want a bias, the following is true of most media, so where does that leave the "media bias"?
Quote:
--Media Concentration: A handful (Disney, CBS Corporation, News Corporation, TimeWarner, and General Electric) of corporate conglomerates own the majority of mass media outlets. Such a uniformity of ownership means that stories which are critical of these corporations are in some cases underplayed in the media.

--Capitalist Model: In the United States the media are operated for profit, and are usually funded by advertising. Stories critical of advertisers or their interests may in some cases be underplayed, while stories favorable to advertisers may be given more coverage.

--Conservative Media Organizations: Certain conservative media outlets such as NewsMax and WorldNetDaily describe themselves as news organizations, but are generally seen as promoting a conservative agenda. Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corporation (the parent of Fox News), has exerted a strong influence over Fox News.
Quote:
Quote - "I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." William Kristol
As I believe Peacekeeper said, we are a center-right country at BEST; there are only a few news sources with actual "liberal bias".

Hell, there are books about the myth: The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader by Edward S. Herman; Unmasking 100 Liberal Myths, Media Bias, and the U.S. Moral Decay!: Independents, can you handle the truth? "Every American Should Read!" A Twelve Year Investigation!! by John C. Hyland; Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media by David Edwards, David Cromwell, and John Pilger; Conservatives constructed myth about liberal media.: An article from: St. Louis Journalism Review by Daniel Hellinger.
Quote:
During the 36 days following election night I slavishly watched the TV and read the papers, but I never saw these "objective" observations made by the mainstream media, or even the political pundits. The pervading attitude was that Bush "deserved" the election and that Gore was trying to steal it.
Quote:
It will be hard to comprehend how Bush got two terms as President of the United States, ran up a massive debt, and misled the country into at least one disastrous war – without taking into account the extraordinary influence of the conservative media, from Fox News to Rush Limbaugh, from the Washington Times to the Weekly Standard.

Recently, it’s been revealed, too, that the Bush administration paid conservative pundits Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher while they promoted White House policies. Even fellow conservatives have criticized those payments, but the truth is that the ethical line separating conservative “journalism” from government propaganda has long since been wiped away.

For years now, there’s been little meaningful distinction between the Republican Party and the conservative media machine.

In 1982, for instance, South Korean theocrat Sun Myung Moon established the Washington Times as little more than a propaganda organ for the Reagan-Bush administration. In 1994, radio talk show host Limbaugh was made an honorary member of the new Republican House majority.

The blurring of any ethical distinctions also can be found in documents from the 1980s when the Reagan-Bush administration began collaborating secretly with conservative media tycoons to promote propaganda strategies aimed at the American people.

In 1983, a plan, hatched by CIA Director William J. Casey, called for raising private money to sell the administration’s Central American policies to the American public through an outreach program designed to look independent but which was secretly managed by Reagan-Bush officials.

The project was implemented by a CIA propaganda veteran, Walter Raymond Jr., who had been moved to the National Security Council staff and put in charge of a “perception management” campaign that had both international and domestic objectives.

In one initiative, Raymond arranged to have Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch chip in money for ostensibly private groups that would back Reagan-Bush policies. According to a memo dated Aug. 9, 1983, Raymond reported that “via Murdock [sic], may be able to draw down added funds.” [For details, see Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.]

Besides avoiding congressional oversight, privately funded activities gave the impression that an independent group was embracing the administration’s policies on their merits. Without knowing that the money had been arranged by the government, the public would be more inclined to believe these assessments than the word of a government spokesman.
When Dumbya was in office, the media sycophants were all over his lies:
Quote:
Two of America's most respected newspapers have admitted that their editors knowingly "resisted" publishing information that challanged the official excuse for invading Iraq.

The Washington Post concedes: "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier". The New York Times confess that their coverage "was not as rigorous as it should have been".

The US corporate media promotes government propaganda while actively suppressing the other side of the story. As a result the majority of Americans live in a state of perpetual delusion about what their government is doing and why.
So yes, the media cow-tows to whoever is in power; but there's far less "liberal" media than "conservative" media, and the power of the conservative media is FAR greater.

The "liberal media" is identical to "activist judges"...buzz words which have long been accepted because they have been repeated again and again by conservatives. The Big Lie theory works for them!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

Nice list. I think you should have it as a tattoo on your wrinkled and crinkled ass.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:39 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree Byte, given what you said. I'm sure dispersants have their use in cleaning up environmental problems, and I'll buy that MAYBE BP wasn't well-versed enough to use them properly--certainly given so many of their other screw ups, it's easy to imagine!

But I'm not convinced. The fact that the dispersants made it seem like the oil "disappeared" seems so in line with what BP WANTS and has strived for all along, that I'll withhold judgment until it's proven one way or another (which it probably never will be anyway).

As to the EPA, it seems to me they're at least half in the pocket with BP; they're our government agency, if they really had wanted BP to stop using dispersants (which they said they did and "demanded" BP do), they'd have been down BP's throat when they continued to use them. I have no faith in the current EPA. Under Dubya, we all know how "effective" they've been and what "power" they wielded...NOT!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:42 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20543

BP's Insidious Coverup and Propaganda Campaign: Out of Sight, Out of Mind

by Dahr Jamail

Global Research, August 9, 2010
Dahr Jamail's Dispatch - 2010-07-08

Since BP announced that CEO Tony Hayward would receive a multi-million dollar golden parachute and be replaced by Bob Dudley, we have witnessed an incredibly broad, and powerful, propaganda campaign. A campaign that peaked this week with the US government, clearly acting in BP’s best interests, itself announcing, via outlets willing to allow themselves to be used to transfer the propaganda, like the New York Times, this message: “The government is expected to announce on Wednesday that three-quarters of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon leak has already evaporated, dispersed, been captured or otherwise eliminated — and that much of the rest is so diluted that it does not seem to pose much additional risk of harm.”

The Times was accommodating enough to lead the story with a nice photo of a fishing boat motoring across clean water with several birds in the foreground.

This message was disseminated far and wide, via other mainstream media outlets like the AP and Reuters, effectively announcing to the masses that despite the Gulf of Mexico suffering the largest marine oil disaster in US history, most of the oil was simply “gone.”

Thus, it’s only what is on the surface that counts. If you can’t see it, there is not a problem.

This kind of government cover-up is nothing new, of course.

“It is well known that after the Chernobyl accident, the Soviet government immediately did everything possible to conceal the fact of the accident and its consequences for the population and the environment: it issued “top secret” instructions to classify all data on the accident, especially as regards the health of the affected population,” journalist Alla Yaroshinskaya has written.

In 1990 Yaroshinskaya came across documents about the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe that revealed a massive state cover-up operation, coupled with a calculated policy of disinformation where the then Soviet Union’s state and party leadership knowingly played down the extent of the contamination and offered a sanitized version to the public, both in and out of Russia. To date, studies continue to show ongoing human and environmental damage from that disaster.

When the disaster at Chernobyl occurred, it was only after radiation levels triggered alarms at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden that the Soviet Union admitted an accident had even occurred. Even then, government authorities immediately began to attempt to conceal the scale of the disaster.

Sound familiar?

In late April, after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank into the depths and the Macondo well began gushing oil, BP and the complicit Coast Guard announced no oil was being released.The Gulf Restoration Network flew out to the scene and saw massive amounts of oil and sounded the alarm, which forced BP and the US government to admit there was, indeed, oil. Such has the trend of BP/US Government lying, countered by (sometimes) forced accountability, then to more lying, been set.

These most recent, and most blatant of the BP/US Government propaganda gems are easily undermined by countless facts. Reality and truth always, given time, find a way to surface…just like BP’s dispersed oil.

Two captains of so-called “vessels of opportunity” helping with the cleanup recently told Times-Picayune reporter Bob Marshall that they saw more oil at South Pass on Tuesday than they have during the entire crisis.

“I don’t know where everyone else is looking, but if they think there’s no more oil out there, they should take a ride with me,” charter captain Mike Frenette said.

Another captain, Don Sutton, saw floating tar balls for 15 miles from South Pass to Southwest Pass. “And that wasn’t all we saw. There were patches of oil in that chocolate mousse stuff, slicks and patches of grass with oil on them,’” he said.

Yesterday I spoke with Clint Guidry, a Louisiana fisherman who is on the Board of Directors of the Louisiana Shrimp Association and the Shrimp Harvester Representative on the Louisiana Shrimp Task Force created by Executive Order of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

“Right now, there is more oil in Barataria Bay than there has been since this whole thing started on April 20,” Guidry told me.

BP oil is now turning up under the shells of post-larval blue crabs all across the northern Gulf of Mexico. Nearly all the crab larvae collected to date by researchers, from Grand Isle, Louisiana all the way over to Pensacola, Florida, have oil under their shells. Further analysis is showing that the crabs likely also contain BP’s Corexit dispersant.

On August 5th it was reported that a pair of fishermen in Mississippi “made an alarming discovery that has many wondering what’s happening below the surface” of the Gulf of Mexico. They found several full-sized crabs filled with oil.

In Hancock County, Mississippi, Brian Adam, the EMA director, reported, “We’re still seeing tar balls everyday, and I’m not talking just a few tar balls. We’re seeing a good amount everyday on the beaches.”

According to Adam, a rock jetty near Waveland became covered in one thousand pounds of tar balls in only three days time. Keith Ladner, owner of Gulf Shores Sea Products and a longtime supplier of seafood, said this of some full-sized crabs he found near the mouth of Bay St. Louis: “You could tell it was real slick and dark in color so I grabbed it, and opened the back of the crab, and you could see in the ‘dead man’ or the lungs of the crabs…you could see the black.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report from Wednesday claims that 33 percent of BP’s oil in the Gulf has been either burned, skimmed, dispersed, or directly recovered by cleanup operations. NOAA goes on to claim that another 25 percent has evaporated into the atmosphere or dissolved in the water, and another 16 percent has been naturally dispersed. Of the remaining 26 percent, NOAA claims that amount is either washed ashore, been collected from beaches, is buried along the coasts, or is still on or just below the surface.

University of South Florida chemical oceanographer David Hollander says these estimates are “ludicrous.” Of the NOAA report, Hollander says, “It’s almost comical.”

Other scientists also immediately expressed their doubts of the validity of the NOAA report, whiletoxicologists expect to be busy tracking the effects of BP’s toxic dispersants “for years.”

Giant plumes of BP’s sub-surface dispersed oil are floating around the Gulf of Mexico, as confirmed recently by researchers from the University of South Florida.

It was also recently revealed that the worst dead zone in 25 years has been recorded in Gulf of Mexico waters. Of course it’s likely a given that this is due to BP’s liberal use of dispersants.

“To judge from most media coverage, the beaches are open, the fishing restrictions being lifted and the Gulf resorts open for business in a healthy, safe environment,” environmental activist Jerry Cope wrote recently, “We, along with Pierre LeBlanc, spent the last few weeks along the Gulf coast from Louisiana to Florida, and the reality is distinctly different. The coastal communities of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida have been inundated by the oil and toxic dispersant Corexit 9500, and the entire region is contaminated. The once pristine white beaches that have been subject to intense cleaning operations now contain the oil/dispersant contamination to an unknown depth. The economic impacts potentially exceed even the devastation of a major hurricane like Katrina, the adverse impacts on health and welfare of human populations are increasing every minute of every day and the long-term effects are potentially life threatening.”

Cope continued:

“In May, Mother Nature Network blogger Karl Burkart received a tip from an anonymous fisherman-turned-BP contractor in the form of a distressed text message, describing a near-apocalyptic sight near the location of the sunken Deepwater Horizon — fish, dolphins, rays, squid, whales, and thousands of birds – “as far as the eye can see,” dead and dying. According to his statement, which was later confirmed by another report from an individual working in the Gulf, whale carcasses were being shipped to a highly guarded location where they were processed for disposal.”

“Local fisherman in Alabama report sighting tremendous numbers of dolphins, sharks, and fish moving in towards shore as the initial waves of oil and dispersant approached in June. Many third- and fourth-generation fishermen declared emphatically that they had never seen or heard of any similar event in the past. Scores of animals were fleeing the leading edge of toxic dispersant mixed with oil. Those not either caught in the toxic mixture and killed out at sea, or fortunate enough to be out in safe water beyond the Source, died as the water closed in, and they were left no safe harbor. The numbers of birds, fish, turtles, and mammals killed by the use of Corexit will never be known as the evidence strongly suggests that BP worked with the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, the FAA, private security contractors, and local law enforcement, all of which cooperated to conceal the operations disposing of the animals from the media and the public.”

Cope added, “The Gulf of Mexico from the Source into the shore is a giant kill zone.”

Earlier this week, marine biologist, toxicologist and Exxon Valdez survivor Dr. Riki Ott took a flight over southern Louisiana. Here’s some of what she wrote about it:

“Bay Jimmy on the northeast side of Barataria Bay was full of oil. So was Bay Baptiste, Lake Grande Ecaille, and Billet Bay. Sitting next to me was Mike Roberts, a shrimper with Louisiana Bayoukeepers, who has grown up in this area. His voice crackled over the headset as I strained to hold the window. “I’ve fished in all these waters - everywhere you can see. It’s all oiled. This is the worst I’ve seen. This is a heart-break…”

“We followed thick streamers of black oil and ribbons of rainbow sheen from Bay Baptiste and Bay Jimmy south across Barataria Bay through Four Bayou Pass and into the Gulf of Mexico. The ocean’s smooth surface glinted like molten lead in the late afternoon sun. Oil. As far as we could see: Oil.”

“When we landed after our 2-hour flight, our pilot told us that she sometimes has to wipe an oily reddish film off the leading edges of her plane’s wings after flying over the Gulf. Hurricane Creekkeeper John Wathem documented similar oily films on planes he chartered for Gulf over-flights. Bonnie doesn’t wear gloves when she wipes her plane. She showed me her hands — red rash, blisters, and peeling palms.

If peeling palms are an indication of the oil-solvent stew, the reddish film on Bonnie’s plane and others means that the stew is not only in the Gulf, it is in the rain clouds above the Gulf. And in the middle of hurricane season, this means the oil-solvent mix could rain down anywhere across the Gulf.”

Dean Blanchard, one of the most important seafood purchasers in Louisiana, recently attended a Town Hall Meeting with a BP representative in Grand Isle, Louisiana.

In the meeting, Blanchard stands up and addresses the BP representative at length.

“Ya’ll didn’t give me enough money to pay my bills. I can show you. For the electric bill and everything. What I’ve collected from BP, so far since this started, is less than what I paid out in bills. And I’ve cut my things down to rock bottom. But how do you expect a man to live on less than 10 percent of what I was projected to make? I don’t believe there’s anybody in this country who could pay their bills with just 10 percent of their check. We borrowed money preparing for shrimping season and this happened at the worst possible time.”

Blanchard added, “I ain’t got no job, and no money, and Mr. Hayward gets $18 million and a new job. That’s hard to take. Let me tell you. Very, very hard to take.”

I should point out that from my first days Louisiana, I’ve been hearing from fishermen working on BP’s clean-up operations that BP is using night flights to drop dispersant on oiled bays. I’ve seen video taken by fishermen of a white-foamy substance in the marsh the morning after these flights took place.

Blanchard went on to say that he felt that BP did not want to clean up the oil, that it was more cost effective for them to leave it in the water than to clean it up, and then mocked the preposterous government claim that most of the oil is gone because you cannot see it from the air.

The BP rep, Jason, clearly nervous, later responds by saying, “We are doing over-flights, our task forces are looking for oil each day. We have a communications room where they are able to call in sightings of oil, from the boats, from the task forces. There is…I understand the anger and I understand the frustration. A couple of things that Dean said I have to take exception to. We do want to clean up this oil. I can understand frustration. I can understand seeing certain people getting certain amounts of money and some of the things that people see. But someone is going to have to explain to me why BP would not want to clean up this oil.”

Blanchard had clearly heard enough of BP’s propaganda. To the representatives’ request to have someone explain to him why BP would not want to clean up the oil, Blanchard angrily obliged:

“Because it’s more cost effective for ya’ll to come at night and sink the son-of-a-bitch! When the oil’s coming around, they call ya’ll, they tell ya’ll where the oil’s at, and the first thing ya’ll do is tell them to go the other way, ya’ll send the planes, and ya’ll fucking sink it! [Spray dispersants from the air] That’s what ya’ll are doing, come on man!” He sits back down angrily. “Let’s quit playing over here and tell the truth. Ya’ll are sinking the oil, Jason! You know ya’ll are sinking it. You know what ya’ll are doing. Ya’ll are sending all the boats, you’re putting them all in a group at night, we all hear the planes, and the next morning there’s nothing but white bubbles! What do you think, we’re stupid? We’re not stupid! Ya’ll are putting the oil on the bottom of my fishing grounds! Ya’ll not only messing me up now, ya’ll are messing me up for the rest of my life! I ain’t gonna live long enough to buy anymore shrimp!”

The lives of Gulf coast fishermen and residents are being destroyed. Scientists, environmentalists, and toxicologists are describing the Gulf of Mexico as a growing dead zone, a kill zone, and an energy sacrifice zone. As you read this, oil is everywhere around southeastern Louisiana, and continually washing ashore in Alabama and Mississippi.

Meanwhile, Doug Suttles, BP’s chief operating officer, announced Friday that the company may not give up on its claims on the Macondo well. “There’s lots of oil and gas here,” he said, “We’re going to have to think about what to do with that at some point.”

Of this, Louisiana’s St. Bernard Parish President Craig Taffaro said it’s no secret that BP wants to drill again. In fact, he said, it has been part of his conversations with BP since the oil crisis began.

Let us be clear about who, and what, we are dealing with here.

Dahr Jamail is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Dahr Jamail

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Dahr Jamail, Dahr Jamail's Dispatch, 2010

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20543

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Privacy Policy

© Copyright 2005-2009 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2009

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:49 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
...I have no faith in the current EPA. Under Dubya, we all know how "effective" they've been and what "power" they wielded...NOT!

So , how you likin' the flava of ScamBOFascism ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:15 AM