10 Things You Need (But Don’t Want) To Know About the BP Oil Spill


Daniela Perdomo
May 27, 2010 

It’s been 37 days since BP’s offshore oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. Since then, crude oil has been hemorrhaging into ocean waters and wreaking unknown havoc on our ecosystem — unknown because there is no accurate estimate of how many barrels of oil are contaminating the Gulf.

Though BP officially admits to only a few thousand barrels spilled each day, expert estimates peg the damage at 60,000 barrels or over 2.5 million gallons daily. (Perhaps we’d know more if BP hadn’t barred independent engineers from inspecting the breach.) Measures to quell the gusher have proved lackluster at best, and unlike the country’s last big oil spill — Exxon-Valdez in 1989 — the oil is coming from the ground, not a tanker, so we have no idea how much more oil could continue to pollute the Gulf’s waters.Jefferson Parish Homeland security director Deano Bonano responds to government inaction:


 The Deepwater Horizon disaster reminds us what can happen — and will continue to happen — when corporate malfeasance and neglect meet governmental regulatory failure.

 The corporate media is tracking the disaster with front-page articles and nightly news headlines every day (if it bleeds, or spills, it leads!), but the under-reported aspects to this nightmarish tale paint the most chilling picture of the actors and actions behind the catastrophe. In no particular order, here are 10 things about the BP spill you may not know and may not want to know — but you should.

1. Oil rig owner has made $270 million off the oil leak Transocean Ltd., the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig leased by BP, has been flying under the radar in the mainstream blame game. The world’s largest offshore drilling contractor, the company is conveniently headquartered in corporate-friendly Switzerland, and it’s no stranger to oil disasters. In 1979, an oil well it was drilling in the very same Gulf of Mexico ignited, sending the drill platform into the sea and causing one of the largest oil spills by the time it was capped… nine months later.

 This experience undoubtedly influenced Transocean’s decision to insure the Deepwater Horizon rig for about twice what it was worth. In a conference call to analysts earlier this month, Transocean reported making a $270 million profit from insurance payouts after the disaster. It’s not hard to bet on failure when you know it’s somewhat assured.

 2. BP has a terrible safety record

 BP has a long record of oil-related disasters in the United States. In 2005, BP’s Texas City refinery exploded, killing 15 workers and injuring another 170. The next year, one of its Alaska pipelines leaked 200,000 gallons of crude oil. According to Public Citizen, BP has paid $550 million in fines. BP seems to particularly enjoy violating the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and has paid the two largest fines in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s history. (Is it any surprise that BP played a central, though greatly under-reported, role in the failure to contain the Exxon-Valdez spill years earlier?)

 With Deepwater Horizon, BP didn’t break its dismal trend. In addition to choosing a cheaper — and less safe — casing to outfit the well that eventually burst, the company chose not to equip Deepwater Horizon with an acoustic trigger, a last-resort option that could have shut down the well even if it was damaged badly, and which is required in most developed countries that allow offshore drilling. In fact, BP employs these devices in its rigs located near England, but because the United States recommends rather than requires them, BP had no incentive to buy one — even though they only cost $500,000.

 SeizeBP.org estimates that BP makes $500,000 in under eight minutes.

3. Oil spills are just a cost of doing business for BP According to the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, approximately $1.6 billion in annual economic activity and services are at risk as a result of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Compare this number — which doesn’t include the immeasurable environmental damages — to the current cap on BP’s liability for economic damages like lost wages and tourist dollars, which is $75 million. And compare that further to the first-quarter profits BP posted just one week after the explosion: $6 billion.

 BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, has solemnly promised that the company will cover more than the required $75 million. On May 10, BP announced it had already spent $350 million. How fantastically generous of a company valued at $152.6 billion, and which makes $93 million each day.

 The reality of the matter is that BP will not be deterred by the liability cap and pity payments doled out to a handful of victims of this disaster because they pale in comparison to its ghastly profits. Indeed, oil spills are just a cost of doing business for BP.

 This is especially evident in a recent Citigroup analyst report prepared for BP investors: “Reaction to the Gulf of Mexico oil leak is a buying opportunity.”

4. The Interior Department was at best, neglectful, and at worst, complicit

 It’s no surprise BP is always looking out for its bottom line — but it’s at least slightly more surprising that the Interior Department, the executive department charged with regulating the oil industry, has done such a shoddy job of preventing this from happening.

 Ten years ago, there were already warnings that the backup systems on oil rigs that failed on Deepwater Horizon would be a problem. The Interior Department issued a “safety alert” but then left it up to oil companies to decide what kind of backup system to use. And in 2007, a government regulator from the same department downplayed the chances and impact of a spill like the one that occurred last month: “[B]lowouts are rare events and of short duration, potential impact to marine water quality are not expected to be significant.”

 The Interior Department’s Louisiana branch may have been particularly confused because it appears it was closely fraternizing with the oil industry. The Minerals Management Service, the agency within the department that oversees offshore drilling, routinely accepted gifts from oil companies and even considered itself a part of the oil industry, rather than part of a governmental regulatory agency. Flying on oil executives’ private planes was not rare for MMS inspectors in Louisiana, a federal report released Tuesday says. “Skeet-shooting contests, hunting and fishing trips, golf tournaments, crawfish boils, and Christmas parties” were also common.

 Is it any wonder that Deepwater Horizon was given a regulatory exclusion by MMS?

It gets worse. Since April 20, when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, the Interior Department has approved 27 new permits for offshore drilling sites. Here’s the kicker: Two of these permits are for BP.

 But it gets better still: 26 of the 27 new drilling sites have been granted regulatory exemptions, including those issued to BP.

5. Clean-up prospects are dismal  The media makes a lot of noise about all the different methods BP is using to clean up the oil spill. Massive steel containment domes were popular a few weeks ago. Now everyone is touting the “top kill” method, which involves injecting heavy drilling fluids into the damaged well.

    But here’s the reality. Even if BP eventually finds a method that works, experts say the best cleanup scenario is to recover 20 percent of the spilled oil. And let’s be realistic: only 8 percent of the crude oil deposited in the ocean and coastlines off Alaska was recovered in the Exxon-Valdez cleanup. Millions of gallons of oil will remain in the ocean, ravaging the underwater ecosystem, and 100 miles of Louisiana coastline will never be the same.

    6. BP has no real cleanup plan Perhaps because it knows the possibility of remedying the situation is practically impossible, BP has made publicly available its laughable “Oil Spill Response Plan” which is, in fact, no plan at all.

     Most emblematic of this farcical plan, BP mentions protecting Arctic wildlife like sea lions, otters and walruses (perhaps executives simply lifted the language from Exxon’s plan for its oil spill off the coast of Alaska?). The plan does not include any disease-preventing measures, oceanic or meteorological data, and is comprised mostly of phone numbers and blank forms. Most importantly, it includes no directions for how to deal with a deep-water explosion such as the one that took place last month.

     The whole thing totals 600 pages — a waste of paper that only adds insult to the environmental injury BP is inflicting upon the world with Deepwater Horizon.

    7. BP is sequestering survivors and taking away their right to sue With each hour, the economic damage caused by Deepwater Horizon continues to grow. And BP knows this.

     So while it outwardly is putting on a nice face, even pledging $500 million to assess the impacts of the spill, it has all the while been trying to ensure that it won’t be held liable for those same impacts.

     Just after the Deepwater explosion, surviving employees were held in solitary confinement, while BP flacks made them waive their rights to sue. BP then did the same with fishermen it contracted to help clean up the spill though the company now says that was nothing more than a legal mix-up.

     If there’s anything to learn from this disaster, it’s that companies like BP don’t make mistakes at the expense of others. They are exceedingly deliberate.

    8. BP bets on risk to employees to save money — and doesn’t care if they get sick When BP unleashed its “Beyond Petroleum” re-branding/greenwashing campaign, the snazzy ads featured smiley oil rig workers. But the truth of the matter is that BP consistently and knowingly puts its employees at risk.

     An internal BP document shows that just before the prior fatal disaster — the 2005 Texas City explosion that killed 15 workers and injured 170 — when BP had to choose between cost-savings and greater safety, it went with its bottom line.

     A BP Risk Management memo showed that although steel trailers would be safer in the case of an explosion, the company went with less expensive options that offered protection but were not “blast resistant.” In the Texas City blast, all of the fatalities and most of the injuries occurred in or around these trailers.

     Although BP has responded to this memo by saying the company culture has changed since Texas City, 11 people died on the Deepwater Horizon when it blew up. Perhaps a similar memo went out regarding safety and cost-cutting measures?

     Reports this week stated that fishermen hired by BP for oil cleanup weren’t provided protective equipment and have now fallen ill. Hopefully they didn’t sign waivers.

    9. Environmental damage could even include a climatological catastrophe It’s hard to know where to start discussing the environmental damage caused by Deepwater Horizon. Each day will give us a clearer picture of the short-term ecological destruction, but environmental experts believe the damage to the Gulf of Mexico will be long-term.

     In the short-term, environmentalists are up in arms about the dispersants being used to clean up the oil slick in the Gulf. Apparently, the types BP is using aren’t all that effective in dispersing oil, and are pretty high in toxicity to marine fauna such as fish and shrimp. The fear is that what BP may be using to clean up the mess could, in the long-term, make it worse.

     On the longer-term side of things, there are signs that this largest oil drilling catastrophe could also become the worst natural gas and climate disaster. The explosion has released tremendous amounts of methane from deep in the ocean, and research shows that methane, when mixed with air, is the most powerful (read: terrible) greenhouse gas — 26 times worse than carbon-dioxide.

     Our warming planet just got a lot hotter.

    10. No one knows what to do and it will happen again The very worst part about the Deepwater Horizon calamity is that nobody knows what to do. We don’t know how bad it really is because we can’t measure what’s going on. We don’t know how to stop it — and once we do, we won’t know how to clean it up. BP is at the helm of the recovery process, but given its corporate track record, its efforts will only go so far — it has a board of directors and shareholders to answer to, after all. The U.S. government, the only other entity that could take over is currently content to let BP hack away at the problem. Why? Because it probably has no idea what to do either.

    Here’s the reality of the matter — for as long as offshore drilling is legal, oil spills will happen. Coastlines will be decimated, oceans destroyed, economies ruined, lives lost. Oil companies have little to no incentive to prevent such disasters from happening, and they use their money to buy government regulators’ integrity. 

    Deepwater Horizon is not an anomaly — it’s the norm.

    Published in: on May 27, 2010 at 1:14 pm  Leave a Comment  

    Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition


    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Wednesday, May 26, 2010

    Veteran Middle East correspondent Alan Hart: Largest engineering firm studied collapse of twin towers and said there was no doubt it was a controlled explosion.

    Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.

    Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.

    “My guess is that at an early point they said to the bad guys in the CIA – hey this operation’s running what do we do, and the zionists and the neo-cons said let’s use it,” said Hart, making reference to how top neo-cons like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their fellow Project For a New American Century authors had called for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor,” the year before 9/11.

    “The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes,” said Hart, adding that this view was based on his close friendship with consultants who work with the world’s leading civil engineering and construction firm.

    Hart asked the company to study the collapse of the twin towers, after which they told him directly, “There’s absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion.”

    Hart then explained how the five dancing Israelis seen celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center in New Jersey as it unfolded, who turned out to be Mossad agents, proves at at a minimum Israel knew the attack was going to happen. Hart went further in speculating that the planes had been fitted with transponders and that the Israelis were guiding them in to the towers.

    Host Barrett pointed out that to carry out the successful controlled demolition of three of the biggest buildings in history, the conspirators would have to ensure that they were hit, making the use of remote controlled airliners a distinct possibility. In addition, Barrett mentioned the fact that he had interviewed numerous pilots who dismissed the chances of accurately guiding a huge commercial airliner into a building while flying at sea level at around 600 miles per hour, especially considering the alleged 9/11 hijackers struggled to even fly basic Cessna light aircraft.

    “Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the “loose nukes” rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself,” writes host Barratt.

    Given his biography and standing, Hart’s comments are not to be taken lightly. Hart is a former Middle East Chief Correspondent for ITN News and has also presented for BBC Panorama specializing in the Middle East. He was also a war reporter in Vietnam and the first journalist to reach Suez Canal with the Israeli army in 1967. Over the decades, Hart has developed close relationships with numerous high profile political figures, including the Shah of Iran, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres.

    Hart has been a successful author for years and has no reason to fabricate the fact that a top construction firm told him point blank that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.

    In forwarding this information, Hart joins legions of other credible experts who to some extent or other have all publicly challenged the official 9/11 story, with many outright stating that the attacks were an inside job, people like 20-year decorated CIA veteran Robert Baer, who told a radio host that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job.

    In addition, no less than 1198 architectural and engineering specialists have signed a petition demanding Congress re-open an official investigation into the 9/11 attack and the collapse of the twin towers.

    Listen to the full interview with Alan Hart below. The 9/11 discussion begins at around the 35 minute mark.

    Published in: on May 26, 2010 at 1:38 pm  Leave a Comment  

    Fort Worth cop’s pumped up with testosterone

    Fort Worth police chief promotes hormone therapy



    Posted on May 24, 2010 at 10:48 PM

    Updated yesterday at 1:46 AM

    FORT WORTH — Sex drive. Mental focus. Energy.

    All were topics of discussion at a recent voluntary Wellness Seminar for Fort Worth police officers. Chief Jeffrey Halstead called the meeting to share his testimony about testosterone.

    He said he didn’t have enough, and hit rock bottom, until he was treated with hormone therapy.

    Halstead said he believes some of his officers may be better officers with a hormone adjustment. But is the product he’s sharing safe?

    A police chief works long hours and has to make some tough decisions. Managing hundreds of police officers is a challenge.

    But recently, Halstead noticed something in his life was off. “Stress of the job, long hours and work — everything was getting pulled from both ends,” he said.

    So the chief turned to SottoPelle Pellet Therapy to boost his testosterone levels.

    The therapy starts with a small incision under the skin. A pellet containing testosterone is inserted to raise levels of the hormone.

    Halstead said he now feels great again, and to share his success, he created a voluntary wellness program for the entire Fort Worth Police Department and invited the SottoPelle team.

    “When your boss tells you to be there for the wellness seminar, a lot of people do show up,” Halstead said. “But afterwards, it was amazing: Five of them texted me and told me that was a very important day to them.”

    Halstead released the content of one of those messages:

    “Thanks chief for bringing in the group today at all-staff. I will be checking this out to hopefully assist me in my personal life.”

    Among the topics at the seminar? Sex, because an increase in hormone levels increases sex drive.

    “It may be uncomfortable for many other people in my position, but I have absolutely no problems whatsoever discussing this,” Halstead said, adding that the information was for the betterment of his officers.

    “My benefit in sharing this? I’m going to have a better K-9 officer, a better SWAT officer, better police executives, and people who are going to have better retirements,” the chief said.

    News 8 checked with independent sources about the product Chief Halstead is sharing with officers. Five North Texas doctors with expertise in hormones — representing five different hospitals and clinics — all agreed, first and foremost, that the Chief’s testosterone level is too high.

    He went from 125, which experts said is too low, to nearly 1,000. On average, the doctors said levels should not exceed 400 to 500.

    That means Halstead has twice the testosterone they would recommend.

    But Dr. Gary Donovitz, who represents SottoPelle, says his team never overdoses hormones, and maintains there is extensive blood work for each patient.

    “We weren’t jacking with his hormones like you would anabolic steroids,” Donovitz said. “We’re simply trying to return him and other men to where they should be when they were 30 with normal testosterone.”

    UT Southwestern endocrinologist Dr. Richard Auchus says the chief is encouraging a socially acceptable form of narcotics.

    “There are a number of other psychological changes that occur, particularly when there is an abrupt rise from lowish levels to high levels,” Auchus said. “Those include increased aggression, and some people become psychotic on it.”

    Dr. Donovitz said doctors who don’t like his organization’s product usually haven’t done the research. He says the therapy does just the opposite of what Dr. Auchus suggested.

    “It’s going to lower their aggressiveness, because people with low testosterone levels — specifically males — are much more irritable, much more anxious,” Donovitz said.

    He said the pellets are all-natural, plant-derived, and safe.

    Dr. Auchus doesn’t buy that explanation. “Any time you take a man and you increase his testosterone levels, he experiences a euphoria from that,” Auchus said. It’s a euphoria he worries could become addictive.

    A specialist at Texas Health Arlington said “cocaine is also a plant; I wouldn’t give the to my patients.”

    Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas called the SottoPelle treatment “mis-marketing and inappropriate.”

    Even a wellness clinic that supports hormone replacement acknowledges that “men can become angry.”

    A Texas Health Dallas doctor believes “there are red flags all over it.”

    Chief Halstead says his hope is simple: To keep officers out of trouble.

    “Usually you’ll see officers divert to other not-so-popular behaviors, and I think they do that because they were where I was — nothing was giving any satisfaction,” Halstead said.

    The City of Fort Worth backs its police chief:

    “…it was a voluntary presentation and similar to many of the wellness programs offered to employees. What was presented was one of many wellness options available, and in no way was an endorsement of any product.”

    Chief Halstead chief gets his testosterone pellets replaced every few months, but says he is not getting any kickbacks from SottoPelle.He says finding a hormonal balance can help keep his officers in shape to meet the new demands of their contract.

    Officers are now subject to a physical fitness test. If they fail, they could lose their jobs.

    E-mail sslater@wfaa.com

    Published in: on May 26, 2010 at 12:40 pm  Comments (3)  

    Oil Spill Clean Up is one big Proven Money making Conspiracy Gulf of Mexico Oil spill

    From: Kevin Daum, Save the Oceans Inc.
    Published May 20, 2010 11:42 AM

    Imagine you personally knew (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that a huge earthquake was going to hit a major city and cause massive damage, loss of life, starvation, loss of employment, destruction of property as well as countless hardships. Imagine that the majority (say 95%) of this could be avoided, if only the easily available resources and technology were deployed to prevent this before it happened. Would you deploy the technology? Would you deploy the resources to prevent 95% of the problem?

    Naturally, any sane, ethical person would. However, what if you stood to earn $100’s of millions from this disaster? Your choice . . . do the right thing or go for the money? I understand that this is a hypothetical situation and predicting an earthquake is pretty much impossible; however, knowing an oil spill is going to happen is not. It has happened in the past, it just happened in the Gulf of Mexico and it will happen in the future. Sadly, there are people who have actually made the choice to take the money at everyone’s and every living things’ expense and this article is about showing you the proof.

    Having said that, you need to know how oil spills are currently being cleaned up, why they cost so much and how they should be cleaned up to minimize the damage using the technology that would have minimized the harm and cost? Let me break this down into simple common sense steps for you starting with plugging the hole(s). What they are doing is trying to make a super duper capping device that allows them to control the spill and keep pumping oil. So far it’s not working and there are some pretty impressive reasons/excuses why this is not working. Let’s apply some common sense to this problem. Find a barge, fill it with cement, tow it over the hole, sink it and problem solved. Is that too simple? A couple of days work and a little expense to minimize a major disaster. Please tell me that this is just incompetence.

    Now that the spill is moving and spreading, containing the spill is of major importance. This is done with booms and you basically corral the spill. Then you use skimmers that grab the oil and you pump it into a ship. The problem that occurs is if the water is moving faster then 3 to 4 knots it’s impossible to corral the spill and it starts mixing with the water and forming mousse. This is like multi-size balloons that stick to everything when they pop and make all those scary pictures of bird and otters covered in oil and dying a horrible death. In other words, it’s the worst case situation.

    Typically the idea is to beach the spill so it can be dealt with and not spread any further. Unfortunately, with a spill of this magnitude that means the clean up is huge and it will end up just like the Exxon Valdez spill where you can still turn over rocks today and find the oil. What they are doing is spraying a toxic chemical called a dispersant that is designed to break the oil down into smaller particles and make the oil non sticky. The problem is the chemical itself has limited effectiveness and is toxic. Remember that the problem is the oil is sticky so it sticks to living things and everything else. As it happens, no one takes into consideration that the oil is still there, it just mixes better with the water. Sadly, with this procedure the beaches will be coated with oil for years killing all the life and destroying the local economies. Did I mention the chemical has huge profit margins and they use tonnes of it? I wonder who supplies the chemical?

    It gets better; when the spill is on the beach they get out these really cool looking rags made from a substance called poly propylene and various other things including human hair and chicken feathers and dump them into the spill. Looks great for the cameras and to be fair, it does have a limited effectiveness. The problem with these materials is that the oil is on the outside of the material and is still sticky. With that done, they then proceed to pick up each oily rock and wipe it with the rags and then put it back into the water. I’m not kidding you, they actually do this. They put the oily rocks back in the water. The reasoning is they want to minimize the change to the natural geology of the beach, etc. It’s kind of like saying “Doctor, Doctor don’t cut out all that skin cancer from my chin, you might ruin my beautiful profile”. Now you don’t want to know were the actual recovered oil goes? Or maybe you do but have fun trying to find out. Native land is usually a great choice to get around those pesky water protection laws and expensive hazardous waste disposal costs. Did I mention those costs are usually included in the clean-up estimates?

    I could go on and on for pages and pages with the complete utter nonsense surrounding spill cleanup yet the bottom line is always the same. The environment is destroyed along with the local economy, lots of oil is left behind and then the lawyers get to jump in and make lots of money to add injury to insult. Don’t believe me? Just take a trip up to Alaska and ask Dr Riki Ott her opinion on the subject. She wrote the book on that Exxon spill fiasco.

    Now that you know how not to clean up an oil spill, let’s look at applying some science and common sense that all the top people in the game are fully aware of and make sure does not get used.

    Step 1. Cap the hole. Step 2. Contain the spill with booms. Step 3. Quickly and effectively stop the oil from being sticky. This is the first part that they don’t want you to know about. For decades, hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost by companies that set up to make oil recovery materials made from polymers that grab the oil and turn it into non-sticky rubber. Remember sticky is bad, non sticky is good. The shoes you are wearing, the bubble gum you’re chewing, the computer plastic and the paint on your wall are all made from these polymers.

    It’s a well known fact that specific polymers turn oil into rubber and stop it from sticking to surfaces and there are many of these polymers and dozens of formulations. In other words its not some big secret, it’s a well known fact in the industry, I’ve got thirty or forty in my lab alone. These polymers are made into booms or snakes and simply put into the spill and then removed and recycled.

    If the current spill had been capped and contained, we could have used helicopter, planes and boats to turn the spill into rubber and have cleaned it up long before it hit the beach. Even if the spill had gotten out of control, it could have been made non sticky and massively reduced the damage. To add insult to injury, the argument used to stop the use of these materials so they can keep making ridiculous profits is that a fish or bird may eat some polymer. This ignores the fact that these polymers smell and taste funny which seriously negates this possibility. If you had the choice of being suddenly coated in black goo that made you drown and put you into shock with a high probability of dying horribly or taking your chances on eating a piece of rubber but you would survive, which would you choose?

    So, let’s get back to the spill response. Imagine the spill occurred and a bunch of helicopters were alerted and started dropping booms filled with polymer and a GPS or transducer attached into the spill. You’ve seen this in movies when they are chasing enemy subs. By the time the boats turned up the entire spill could be rendered non sticky and they would simply haul in the booms. Is that too simple? I’ve got to stop giving away these completely obvious ideas that could make me billions of dollars.

    Now that that has not happened lets move to the beach and step 4 . Again polymers can be simply put into sand blasters that you can rent at your local hardware store and fired into the oil to turn it non sticky. Also, there are several types of completely non-toxic bacteria that can be simply mixed into the sand and all the oil can either be recycled or eaten leaving a clean beach. Yes, really it’s that simple. Here’s a neat idea, how about sending some of that bacteria up to the folks in Alaska?

    So, getting to the bottom line, I’m not being sarcastic just for the fun of it. I’m trying to get you to understand that the whole thing is a big media event to make you believe that it’s really a lot harder to deal with the problem then it really is. The problem is that this is being done at your expense. All spills can be quickly rendered non sticky and recovered at less then 10% of the cost of the current fraudulent and amateur methods being used. It’s time that a serious congressional investigation is done into the flow of money, the people controlling this shell game and we start taking care of our environment and the economic health of our communities. Not to mention put some people behind bars.

    Please send this article to everyone you know especially your politicians and demand that this be corrected. If they don’t respond and take action start sending them all your used motor oil and this article so they have instructions on how to clean it up.

    Kevin Daum is the Founder of Save the Oceans Inc. He developed and patented a process for removing oil from surfaces so it could be recycled as well as several other inventions. He has formulated multiple eco-certified cleaners for cleaning everything from airplanes to ships, graffiti and your laundry. He has also authored numerous insightful articles and booklets such as “How to Kill your Cleaning Staff” a really green guide to cleaning. His web site is www.OilLift.net

    Published in: on May 25, 2010 at 11:13 am  Leave a Comment  

    Hidden Government Papers on the Measles Vaccine Exposed


    Christina England

    How a mother is supposed to decide what vaccines are safe, when the governments change their minds so frequently, is anyone’s guess. One minute the government makes it categorically clear that the measles vaccine should never, under any circumstances, be given to a child under the age of nine months, the next minute they are saying the complete opposite and actually advising it.

    Take this circular that was issued to the government in 1968, entitled Notes on the use and storage of Measles vaccine (live attenuated) for routine vaccines for example.

    Click here to see the government document on the measles vaccine.


    It clearly states under Section 7 – Routine Vaccination that live measles vaccine should not be given to children below the age of nine months since it usually fails to immunise such children, owing to the presence of maternally transmitted antibodies. This was the advice from the good old JCVI who at the same time said that the vaccine should instead be given to children in their second year of life after the completion of the immunisation against diphtheria, tetanus whooping cough and polio.

    However despite this advice, reports are now saying the complete and utter opposite.

    Babies Aged 2 To 12 Months Insufficiently Protected Against Measles, Study Finds
     Measles: Gap in protection for young infants 

    Babies aged 2-3 months to a year vulnerable to measles

    Infants ‘at risk for measles in first year’

    I do appreciate times move on and medical advances do as well but something as fundamental as ‘the presence of maternally transmitted antibodies’, does leave me to question this new research.

    OK moving swiftly on. In the 1968 report in Section 6 – Reactions it says:-

    “Mild febrile reactions and transient rashes may be expected to follow the administration of the vaccine in a substantial proportion of cases. The rise of body temperature which may occur from 5 to 10 days after vaccination – usually about the 8th day – is due to the multiplication of the attenuated virus. This febrile reaction, when it occurs, seldom lasts more than 24 to 48 hours. The Committee on Safety of Drugs has agreed that severe and unusual reactions to measles vaccine should be reported on the yellow card used for reporting adverse reactions to drugs. The Committee does not however, wish to receive reports of mild febrile reactions and rashes associated with the use of this vaccine.”

    I bet it doesn’t as this may clog up the system. So what this actually says is, a mother lets her perfectly healthy baby have a vaccine that will give the baby a mild dose of measles ,while risking her child’s health with other adverse reactions to save her child from ultimately catching measles. Totally bizarre thinking if you ask me.

    What this also proves is that the UK government as far back 1968 knew that the measles vaccine gave children adverse reactions, in fact, after reading the papers it is very clear that they seem quite happy to be offering babies a vaccine that they admit in a substantial proportion of cases gives them high fevers and rashes. Well I guess you could say it is all in a days work to them and on this score nothing has actually changed. Currently the measles vaccine is not being given as a single vaccine and is being given instead as part of the MMR. This now means that your baby can expect to enjoy a  few more side effects than he/she would have had from the single measles vaccine.

    “How safe is the MMR vaccine?

    “The drug company that makes the MMR vaccine publishes an extensive list of warnings, contraindications, and adverse reactions associated with this triple shot. These may be found in the vaccine package insert available from any doctor giving MMR, and in the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) at the library.(8,9) The following afflictions affecting nearly every body system — blood, lymphatic, digestive, cardiovascular, immune, nervous, respiratory, and sensory — have been reported following receipt of the MMR shot: encephalitis, encephalopathy, neurological disorders, seizure disorders, convulsions, learning disabilities, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), demyelination of the nerve sheaths, Guillain-Barre’ syndrome (paralysis), muscle incoordination, deafness, panniculitis, vasculitis, optic neuritis (including partial or total blindness), retinitis, otitis media, bronchial spasms, fever, headache, joint pain, arthritis (acute and chronic), transverse myelitis, thrombocytopenia (blood clotting disorders and spontaneous bleeding), anaphylaxis (severe allergic reactions), lymphadenopathy, leukocytosis, pneumonitis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, erythema multiforme, urticaria, pancreatitis, parotitis, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, meningitis, diabetes, autism, immune system disorders, and death (Figure 49).(10,11)”

    The most interesting fact given in the 1968 circular and something that needs a great deal of thinking about today is in Section 8 – Relation to other immunising procedures where it offers the following advice:-

    “An interval of three to four weeks should normally be allowed to elapse between the administration of measles vaccine and any other vaccine, whichever is given first.”

    My question is, if this is so, then why the hell did they dream up putting the measles vaccine into a multi vaccine just a few years later? It is obvious to me that their very clear advice seems to have gone completely out the window, as nowadays, not only is the measles vaccine part of a multi vaccine but now they are saying it is safe to give children many vaccines in one day. In fact Paul Offit is actively giving the advice to parents that multiple vaccines are quite safe saying that even as many as 100,000 are perfectly safe. I wonder how he would feel offering to be the pin cushion he wants our children to be.

    Dr Offit

    “Paul Offit, M.D., chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Henle Professor of Immunologic and Infectious Diseases at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, is the Chief US spokesman/liar for vaccination. The Voice of Sauron. On the board of Every Child By Two. Believes children can safely take 100,000 vaccines!”

    Mind you in saying this according to some he does share the patent on the Rotavirus vaccine Rotateq, that looks to have made him millions. Honestly what some people will do to get rich is beyond me.

    Published in: on May 25, 2010 at 11:11 am  Leave a Comment  

    FDA: Glaxo, Merck vaccines OK despite pig virus


    (Reuters) – Rotavirus vaccines made by GlaxoSmithKline Plc and Merck & Co Inc are safe to use despite being contaminated with a pig virus, U.S. health regulators ruled on Friday.

    The Food and Drug administration, in a statement, said it was safe for doctors to resume giving patients Glaxo’s Rotarix and continue using Merck’s Rotateq. The agency said there was no evidence the contamination caused any harm and the vaccines were important in preventing hospitalizations and death.

    Rotavirus can cause fatal diarrhea. Both vaccines target the virus, but pieces of DNA from porcine circovirus (PCV) have been found in both companies’ products.

    The FDA’s decision follows a May 7 recommendation by its advisory panel, which ruled that the risk to humans from the pig virus was theoretical at best. It called for continued use of the vaccines, saying their benefits outweighed any potential risk.

    Some strains of the pig virus are believed to cause a wasting syndrome in young piglets, marked by diarrhea and an inability to gain weight, but they are not known to injure humans. Tests found DNA from the virus in master cells used to make the Glaxo’s product.

    Glaxo officials have said the DNA may have come from a pig-derived enzyme called trypsin used early in development. The company has said there is no manufacturing or safety issue with its vaccine. Merck has also said its product is safe.

    Neither vaccine is a blockbuster product.

    Sales of Merck’s vaccine totaled $522 million in 2009, including $468 million in the United States. Glaxo’s rotavirus vaccine sales in 2009 were $440 million globally, including $118 million in the United States.

    Worldwide, rotavirus kills more than 500,000 infants each year, mostly in low- and middle-income countries. Deaths are rare in the United States, but severe illness that requires a hospital stay is possible.

    Glaxo’s vaccine won U.S. approval in 2008.

    (Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

    Published in: on May 25, 2010 at 11:09 am  Leave a Comment  

    Secret X-37B Space Plane Spotted by Amateur Skywatchers


    Leonard David
    SPACE.com’s Space Insider Columnist
    SPACE.com Leonard David
    space.com’s Space Insider Columnist
    Mon May 24, 10:31 am ET

    While the U.S. Air Force is mum about the orbital whereabouts of its X-37B mini-space plane, a dedicated band of amateur skywatchers has got its cross-hairs on the spacecraft. 

    The unpiloted X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle 1 was lofted on April 22 atop an Atlas launcher. It is being flown under the auspices of the U.S. Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office. 

    In U.S. military tracking parlance, when the space plane reached orbit it became identified as Catalog Number 36514, 2010-015A, OTV-1 (USA 212). [Video: X-37B space plane spotted.] 

    From there it entered a cone of silence regarding any on-orbit duties. 

    But thanks to a worldwide eyes-on-the-sky network of amateurs, the spacecraft is reportedly in a 39.99 degrees inclination, circling the Earth in an orbit 401 kilometers by 422 kilometers. This data may change slightly as the vehicle’s orbit is better refined, said Greg Roberts of Cape Town, South Africa, a pioneer in using telescopic video cameras to track spacecraft, chalking up exceptional results over the years.

     The Air Force has not said what the robotic ship is for, but analysts say the X-37B is likely a spy craft and almost surely not a weapon. [X-37B spacecraft photos.] 

    Absolute confidence 

    Roberts said that those sighting the craft have “absolute confidence” in their observations, claiming no chance of it being anything else. “The fact that we have now seen it several times confirms that the orbit we have is very close to the real orbit — perhaps an error of a few kilometers or so at most,” he told SPACE.com. 

    “One of our North American members got a brief view of what was suspected to be the space plane under somewhat difficult circumstances before it was no longer visible in the evening sky from the United States,” Roberts said. 

    That single observation was not enough to define the spacecraft’s inclination as the skywatcher used binoculars, Roberts added. Video observers of the sky get “traces” when they record the object of interest, he continued, so it’s possible to determine the angle of travel and hence an idea of the inclination. 

    Roberts said the space plane has been observed over the last week by several members and its orbit is properly tied down. “We now face a spell of a week to two weeks when there will be no optical visibility until it becomes a morning object in the southern hemisphere and an evening object in the northern hemisphere.” 

    The degree of difficulty in finding the X-37B has been a product of not knowing its inclination and having limited optical visibility due to its low orbiting altitude. Amateur astronomers learn how to spot satellites by tracking spacecraft orbits and finding when they may fly over viewing areas on the ground. 

    “This means it spends most of its time in Earth’s shadow during a pass,” Roberts said. Also the ship’s low inclination and altitude has meant that tracking has only been possible from mid-latitude, ruling out observations by some of the members of the team unless they are in position at very low elevations.

     According to Ted Molczan, a leader in the satellite sleuthing business based in Toronto, the X-37B search was moderately challenging.

     “It was the first launch of its kind, so we had only a rough idea of its altitude, inclination and plane. Its low altitude and inclination put it out of reach of several of our most skilled observers,” he told SPACE.com.

     Molczan said his role was estimating the range of possible orbits in which the space plane might be found, which was the basis for the searches.

     “The object is moderately bright. Based on the limited tracking so far, I estimate that it will reach about magnitude 2.5 when observed at high elevation above the horizon, and well illuminated by the sun. That is similar to the brightest stars of the Big Dipper,” Molczan said.

    Nighttime fixation

    What’s behind the nighttime fixation on the X-37B?

    “Well the challenge is finding it without much data to go on,” Roberts responded. “If the data were freely available we would probably not have bothered with it. I see little sense in tracking objects for which data is freely available. It’s like re-inventing the wheel. So as long as there are missions with little or no information, I personally will be interested in the challenge of finding them.”

    Roberts said that the sky watching group has a pretty good record. “If memory is correct, we have found and are tracking every single object launched in the past five years or more. The only objects we are not able to track are those stationed over areas of the earth where we have no active observers…mainly the central Pacific Ocean area.”

     Next up on the Roberts “to-do” list is attempting to see if the space plane is emitting any radio signals on the frequency bands that he’s able to monitor.

    “That is going to be an even bigger challenge,” Roberts concluded, “and I’m not really that keen on it as it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack!”

    Mystery manifest

    Still, even with the ground observations, exactly what’s tucked inside the X-37B’s cargo hold — about the size of a pickup truck bed — remains a mystery.

    The X-37B signals a new way for the Air Force to conduct on-orbit experiments, said Gary Payton, Air Force deputy under secretary for space programs, during a pre-launch press briefing teleconference last month. “Actual on-orbit activities we do classify…for the experimental payloads that are on-orbit with the X-37,” he noted.

    Payton did indicate that there’s enough payload room on the mini-space shuttle to house a couple of small satellites in the range of a few hundred kilograms each. There is growing speculation that the vehicle is likely toting Earth spying gear for the National Reconnaissance Office.

    The reusable X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle 1 was built by Boeing Phantom Works. It is about 29 feet (9 meters) long and has a wingspan of just over 14 feet (4 meters) across. It stands just over 9 1/2 feet (3 meters) tall and weighs nearly 11,000 pounds (about 5,000 kg).

    Big test ahead

    The OTV 1 mission is also designed to test new technologies and develop ways to make space access more routine, affordable and responsive. The OTV is the first vehicle since NASA’s shuttle orbiter capable of returning experiments to Earth for further inspection and analysis.

    A second X-37B is now being fabricated for a test mission scheduled for 2011.

    X-37B is being operated under the direction of Air Force Space Command’s 3rd Space Experimentation Squadron, a space control unit located at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado.

    Capable of orbiting Earth for up to 270 days, a big test for the X-37B is ahead: A “do-it-itself” guided entry and wheels down runway landing at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, with Edwards Air Force Base as an alternate site.

    If the incoming space plane strays off its auto-pilot trajectory over the Pacific Ocean, the craft is outfitted with a destruct mechanism.

    Published in: on May 25, 2010 at 8:34 am  Leave a Comment  

    CBS Propaganda Placement

    CBS Propaganda Placement: Conspiracy Theorists Are Anti-American, Domestic Terrorists

    Steve Watson
    Monday, May 24th, 2010

    CBS Propaganda Placement: Conspiracy Theorists Are Anti American, Domestic Terrorists 240510CSIA primetime CBS show that aired last week featured a notable example of so called “propaganda placement”, where a talking point is inserted into the plot in order to shape public perception, often at the behest of the government.

    CSI NY’s episode entitled “Point of View” featured a character who researches “conspiracy theories”, such the deliberate dispersal of potentially dangerous chemtrails into the atmosphere.

    First the character, a professor, is labeled”odd”, then “anti-American”, before finally he is revealed to be a “domestic terrorist” hell bent on releasing a biological weapon in New York.

    The following is a partial transcript of dialogue from the show:

    CSI detective: “I have a little intel on Professor Scott; he has a history of espousing various conspiracy theories; sharing them with his students got him into a little trouble.”

    Professor’s friend: “Every university has a least one unconventional professor.”

    Second CSI detective: “Oh come on Payton, this guys ideas here are totally anti-American. Look at this; water fluoridation, tsunami bombs, chemtrails…

    First CSI detective: “What are chemtrails?”

    Third CSI detective: “Some people believe that vapor exhaust from aircraft are actually dangerous bio-chemicals dispersed into the air.”

    Friend of the professor: “Which only proves that the professor is a little odd.”

    Watch the video (the above dialogue begins at around 24:40)

    Call me a rabid conspiracy theorist, but the episode happens to coincide with a State Department guide that dismisses a range of “conspiracy theories”, including the use of depleted uranium by U.S. forces in Iraq as existing only “in the realm of myth”.

    But the government cannot inject plot lines into TV dramas – that’s simply a baseless conspiracy theory, isn’t it?

    Unfortunately no, it is not. As we covered in depth last year, in just one publicly announced instance, shows on all the major networks in the U.S. were infested with plot lines and talking points aimed at promoting “service and volunteerism”, as well as other topics high on the priorities list of the Obama administration.

    One of those shows, according to the Entertainment Industry Foundation, was CSI: NY on CBS.

    The week that followed saw many subliminal messages, as well as overt talking points, inserted into shows on all the networks.

      Neither was this the first time the corporate networks prostituted their integrity and handed over control of their content to the Obama administration. Back in June 2009, ABC News mimicked the likes of Communist China and North Korea by completely turning its news coverage over to the government and excluding any dissenting opinions to promote President Obama’s health care agenda.

      The use of the chemtrails talking point in CSI: NY is interesting given that the dispersal of sulphur containing aerosols into the atmosphere is a practice that has been proven to have been undertaken, and is a regular part of controversial discussions concerning geo-engineering the planet in the face of climate change.

      Of course, you’re not supposed to know that, you’re just supposed to think it’s a crazy conspiracy theory espoused by nut case anti-American terrorists who want to kill you with bio weapons.

      Could this be a latest example of propaganda placement be a manifestation of Obama’s information czar Cass Sunstein’s all out war on “conspiracy theories”? Or is that just another conspiracy theory too?

      Published in: on May 25, 2010 at 8:31 am  Leave a Comment  

      State Law Allows Police to Taser School Children


      By: David Deschesne

      Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal, May 19, 2010, p. 1

      As the School Administrative District (SAD) #20 school board for Fort Fairfield schools considers a proposal to allow Fort Fairfield Police officers to function as teachers in Fort Fairfield schools, fears parents have of Taser use on their children may require more serious thought.

      A Taser is a guntype object that electrocutes its victims with a 50,000 volt electric shock, rendering them temporarily incapacitated and in some cases has caused death. Police across the United States have been abusing their Tasers as if they were nothing more than fancy cattle prods to coerce and intimidate the citizenry they serve.

      As cited in last edition of the Fort Fairfield Journal, Maine Revised Statutes, Title 17A, section 106 states a teacher is justified to use a “reasonable degree of nondeadly force against any such person who creates a disturbance when and to the extent that the teacher or other entrusted person reasonably believes it necessary to control the disturbing behavior.” That section of law defines “reasonable degree of force” as “the physical force applied to the child which may result in no more than transient discomfort or minor temporary marks.”

      Since a Taser, most of the time, only creates a devastating shock, it is classified as “nondeadly” force and does not result in more than transient discomfort or minor temporary marks, thereby making it a justified means of punishment or coercion under Maine Law.

      The SAD #20 school board is currently considering a proposal that would place uniformed police officers, armed with loaded handguns and Tasers, in the Elementary, Middle and High School classrooms, functioning as teachers under a grant from the Department of Homeland “Security.” However, Fort Fairfield Police Department policy on Taser use doesn’t address officers functioning as school teachers and how Title 17A would affect Taser usage against the student body.

      According to Fort Fairfield Police Department’s Standard Operating Procedure on Taser use, FFPD officers, when acting in a Law Enforcement capacity may use their Taser to “control a dangerous or violent subject when deadly physical force does not appear to be justified and/or necessary; or attempts to subdue the subject by other conventional tactics have been, or will be unsafe for Officers to approach within contact range of the subject.” FFPD policy also says, “The Taser shall never be used for punitive reasons or for the purposes of coercion.”

      While FFPD policy prohibits the officer from using a Taser for punishment or coercion when functioning as a law enforcement officer, Maine Law appears to allow the use of Tasers for punishment when that officer is functioning as a school teacher in a school environment.

      FFPD policy does not address the use of Tasers on school children when its officers are acting as school teachers, as they would be under the DHS grant program being proposed for Fort Fairfield schools, which means the State law could take precedence and be used by the officer as a defense in the event a Taser is deployed while he is acting as a teacher.

      The SAD #20 school board is still continuing research on the use of armed police officers acting as teachers in Fort Fairfield schools and is planning a public hearing on a yet undisclosed date and time sometime this summer. They plan to vote on the proposal during their August, 2010 school board meeting.

      SAD #20 school board members are: Paula Perkins, Chair; Shawn Murchison, Scott Clark, Megan Barnes and Dawn Martin.

      Published in: on May 24, 2010 at 2:03 pm  Leave a Comment  

      Lehigh Acres Mother stages fake arrest of son aged FIVE… because he played with matches


      By Daniel Bates
      Last updated at 3:19 PM on 21st May 2010

      As far as punishments go, it was just a little on the harsh side.

      An American mother persuaded police to stage a fake arrest of her son when she
      caught him misbehaving.

      But far from being a criminal matter the ‘offence’ was that he was playing with matches – and the boy was just five years old.

      Appalled neighbours looked on, unaware the whole thing was a stunt, as officers handcuffed the crying child – who was barely tall enough to reach the wheel of their patrol car – and put him on the back seat.

      They threatened him by saying: ‘You want to go to jail?’ over and over again before finally releasing him back to his mother.

      The incident took place outside the 7-Eleven convenience store in Florida where the unnamed mother works.

      It later emerged the mother was friends with the deputy sheriff who slapped the cuffs on her child.

      An outraged witness, not realising that the arrest was staged, snapped a photograph on her mobile.

      Critics have claimed that the mother’s actions were wrong and that the boy was too young to be given such a punishment.

      But the unnamed mother in her 20s, from Lehigh Acres in Florida, was unrepentant.

      A TV reporter asked her ‘Do you feel that may have been over the top?’

      ‘No, absolutely not,’ she said.

      ‘If more parents did what I did, we wouldn’t have the crime we have now.

      ‘I hope it scared him to not play with matches or lighters again. That was the whole point of it, it was to make him afraid he was going to jail.’

      Witnesses disagreed, with one neighbour bursting into tears as she recounted the incident.

      ‘That’s not a way to treat a child, that’s not a way to teach a lesson to a little boy,’ said the woman, in her 30s, said.

      Child psychologist Omar Reiche told ABC News: ‘No matter what the details are, when
      you see that picture it says so much.

      ‘The age at which this is being done is inappropriate. This is misguided.’

      But local residents threw their support behind the mother on internet message boards.

      One who called herself Kim wrote on one local paper’s website: ‘We have gotten too soft on our children and wonder why we have all the problems with crime. Good for that mom!

      ‘Hopefully this will teach her son a valuable lesson.. at least we are not reading about him burning his house down.’

      Another reader, Renee, added: ‘I think this is a wonderful way to teach a child. Anyone
      who thinks this is cruel has either never had children or have kids I would not want to meet.’

      Juanita posted on another website: ‘I stand by the mother. Wasn’t it just 4 to 6 years ago that many residents in Lehigh lost their homes to fires caused by arson??

      ‘This happens every dry season, some kid playing with fire ends up burning acres of land.’

      An editorial in a local newspaper said: ‘We sympathize with the frustration many parents and others feel about out-of-control children, and about the perceived limits on parents’ freedom to discipline.

      ‘Further, we do not know how far this child’s misbehaviour with the matches had gone.

      ‘That said, handcuffing a five-year-old in a mock arrest is extreme. Parents need other tactics to use before involving law enforcement.’

      Published in: on May 24, 2010 at 10:14 am  Leave a Comment