CRIMINAL: BP's Cover-Up of Blow-Out in Caspian Sea

Aoxomoxoa said:
You have no time for science either apparently, the levels of radioactivity in those fish are only slightly above background radiation but telling you that will not convince you.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

The spill left behind two radioactive isotopes of cesium. One was previously undetectable in the ocean off the California coast, and the other had previously existed only in very low levels in radiation left behind from the fallout of atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons.

“The area of the Fukushima spill is an area of high use for juveniles,” said Daniel Madigan, a Stanford doctoral student in marine biology at Hopkins Marine Station and the lead author of the study. Many tuna spend their first year in the coastal waters off Japan feeding and gathering strength for the long migration ahead of them. So, he thought, there was a possibility that some of the tuna feeding in the coastal areas around Japan had accumulated radioactive cesium.
In order to test this hypothesis Madigan collected tissue samples from young bluefin tuna that were caught off the coast of San Diego in August 2011. He sent them to the laboratory at Stony Brook to be tested by Baumann for radioactive cesium.
“We thought that it was unlikely that we would find anything,” said Professor Nicholas Fisher of Stony Brook, a coauthor of the study, “We were very surprised at the results – all of them had clearly detectable levels.”
The radiation provides “unequivocal evidence” that these fish transported radioactivity across the Pacific Ocean, the researchers said. Furthermore, the ratio between the two isotopes of cesium allowed the scientists to determine that this particular group of Pacific bluefin tuna had left Japan approximately four months earlier, after spending less than a month in the contaminated waters near Japan.
http://scienceblog.com/54753/tuna-caught-off-california-carry-radiation-from-japanese-disaster/

Because tuna can rapidly metabolise radiation, the levels found in a fish caught off California, a four month journey from the sea of Japan, are completely irelevant to the issue I am raising, the contamination of the breeding grounds. Read a little slower, address my actual comments or you will continue to present as an ignorant lying shill.


 
Rune said:
Bullshit.

The spill left behind two radioactive isotopes of cesium. One was previously undetectable in the ocean off the California coast, and the other had previously existed only in very low levels in radiation left behind from the fallout of atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons.

“The area of the Fukushima spill is an area of high use for juveniles,” said Daniel Madigan, a Stanford doctoral student in marine biology at Hopkins Marine Station and the lead author of the study. Many tuna spend their first year in the coastal waters off Japan feeding and gathering strength for the long migration ahead of them. So, he thought, there was a possibility that some of the tuna feeding in the coastal areas around Japan had accumulated radioactive cesium.
In order to test this hypothesis Madigan collected tissue samples from young bluefin tuna that were caught off the coast of San Diego in August 2011. He sent them to the laboratory at Stony Brook to be tested by Baumann for radioactive cesium.
“We thought that it was unlikely that we would find anything,” said Professor Nicholas Fisher of Stony Brook, a coauthor of the study, “We were very surprised at the results – all of them had clearly detectable levels.”
The radiation provides “unequivocal evidence” that these fish transported radioactivity across the Pacific Ocean, the researchers said. Furthermore, the ratio between the two isotopes of cesium allowed the scientists to determine that this particular group of Pacific bluefin tuna had left Japan approximately four months earlier, after spending less than a month in the contaminated waters near Japan.
http://scienceblog.com/54753/tuna-caught-off-california-carry-radiation-from-japanese-disaster/
Click to expand...

Holy shit, I hadn't even finished that post before you jumped in!! Here is a table to give you some idea of natural radiation. Those fish were found to have 4 bq/kg for Cs 134 and 6 bq/kg for Cs 137


[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 adult human (100 Bq/kg)[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]7000 Bq[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 kg of coffee[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]1000 Bq[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 kg superphosphate fertiliser[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]5000 Bq[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]The air in a 100 sq metre Australian home (radon)[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]3000 Bq[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]The air in many 100 sq metre European homes (radon)[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]up to 30 000 Bq[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 household smoke detector (with americium)[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]30 000 Bq[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]Radioisotope for medical diagnosis[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]70 million Bq[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]Radioisotope source for medical therapy[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]100 000 000 million Bq (100 TBq)[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 kg 50-year old vitrified high-level nuclear waste[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]10 000 000 million Bq (10 TBq)[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 luminous Exit sign (1970s)[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 000 000 million Bq (1 TBq)[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 kg uranium[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]25 million Bq[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 kg uranium ore (Canadian, 15%)[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]25 million Bq[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 kg uranium ore (Australian, 0.3%[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]500 000 Bq[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 kg low level radioactive waste[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 million Bq[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 kg of coal ash[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]2000 Bq[/TD]

[TD="class: bodycopy"]1 kg of granite[/TD]
[TD="class: bodycopy"]1000 Bq[/TD]




http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...Blow-Out-in-Caspian-Sea&p=1010076#post1010076
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
Oh so the accusation you made which was:

"Yet you think it makes more sense to store it at the nuclear facility!! "

Was completely made up. Okay.
Click to expand...

What are you going on about now? I was trying to ask USC why environmentalists think it is wiser to store nuclear waste at nuclear facilities rather than storing it underground?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So what was this proof? A polemic from Greg Palast about the cementing job done in the Caspian Sea two years before Deepwater. Using nitrogen to foam cement has been around for many years and is nothing new or indeed unique to BP. I have never tried to absolve BP from blame but when I originally posted about this in 2010 in a thread entitled "why is BP taking all the blame" I wanted to know why Transocean and Halliburton did their level best to evade responsibility whereas BP set up a compensation fund. Halliburton has ponied up in the meantime but Transocean still refuses to accept any responsibility. There has been so much bullshit printed about the causes, one I remember very well was the acoustic switch theory which someone had decided was the reason why the blowout preventer failed notwithstanding the fact that the BOP didn't fail to operate but the shears failed to fully close.

http://www.leancrew.com/all-this/2010/10/foamed-cement-and-the-bp-oil-spill/
Click to expand...

Found it!!

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...s-BP-taking-all-the-blame&p=689702#post689702
 
I must admit that this thread has been a real eye opener for me, the level of scientific ignorance is truly beyond belief. I thought it was bad enough in the UK but as always the USA is bigger and better.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So what was this proof? A polemic from Greg Palast about the cementing job done in the Caspian Sea two years before Deepwater. Using nitrogen to foam cement has been around for many years and is nothing new or indeed unique to BP.
Click to expand...

The failure of the cement used and the fact that BP knew their fix would fail is only part of the story - and it's the first part, and obviously the only part that you read of what I posted by Palast.


I have never tried to absolve BP from blame
Click to expand...

Yes you have, by bringing other oil companies (Exxon) into the argument, minimizing the criminal negligence of BP's part in Deepwater, parroting the PR bullshit about the 'compensation fund' (as you've done yet again in the post above, thereby proving you didn't bother reading the post that pertains to BP's complete screwing-over of victims), projecting anyone who questions your obvious bias as 'naive' and 'emotion-laden' - and now we can add 'ignorant' to the terms you've projected onto others. Your attempt to deflect away from the actual discussion and instead focus on the 'energy issue' is transparent and hopefully you've awakened to the fact that no one's buying it here.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I must admit that this thread has been a real eye opener for me, the level of scientific ignorance is truly beyond belief. I thought it was bad enough in the UK but as always the USA is bigger and better.
Click to expand...

The issue of this thread was never science. You made it about science because you don't want to talk about BP's criminal negligence. Unwittingly, your defensiveness and myriad other expressions you've posted here have revealed your bias in spite of your pursuit to keep it concealed by deflection. In other words, you're busted.
 
Bijou said:
The failure of the cement used and the fact that BP knew their fix would fail is only part of the story - and it's the first part, and obviously the only part that you read of what I posted by Palast.




Yes you have, by bringing other oil companies (Exxon) into the argument, minimizing the criminal negligence of BP's part in Deepwater, parroting the PR bullshit about the 'compensation fund' (as you've done yet again in the post above, thereby proving you didn't bother reading the post that pertains to BP's complete screwing-over of victims), projecting anyone who questions your obvious bias as 'naive' and 'emotion-laden' - and now we can add 'ignorant' to the terms you've projected onto others. Your attempt to deflect away from the actual discussion and instead focus on the 'energy issue' is transparent and hopefully you've awakened to the fact that no one's buying it here.
Click to expand...

Give me a break, if anybody is biased then it is you. You have an agenda that must be satisfied at all costs, so to feed that you use a polemical journalist like Greg Palast of whom Left-wing MP George Galloway said he "conflates meetings, truths and half-truths, statements taken out of context to produce a toxic smear which would be actionable in the country he claims to work in"
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Give me a break, if anybody is biased then it is you. You have an agenda that must be satisfied at all costs, so to feed that you use a polemical journalist like Greg Palast of whom Left-wing MP George Galloway said he "conflates meetings, truths and half-truths, statements taken out of context to produce a toxic smear which would be actionable in the country he claims to work in"
Click to expand...

Attack the messenger. That only carries weight when you can refute the message s/he's carrying. A wiki notation from Galloway doesn't cut it. And neither do all the other posts you've made here, hoping to deflect from the truth.

Nice try, but...

FAIL
 
BP1.jpg
 
Bijou said:
Attack the messenger. That only carries weight when you can refute the message s/he's carrying. A wiki notation from Galloway doesn't cut it. And neither do all the other posts you've made here, hoping to deflect from the truth.

Nice try, but...

FAIL
Click to expand...

If anyone can recognise a fellow polemicist it is Gorgeous George!
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
How the fuck can burying something inside a mountain be in anyone's backyard? I have given up trying to explain vitrification to the ignorant hordes, they prefer to believe the fuckwits that write loony greenwash blogs!!



Vitrification is a proven technique in the disposal and long-term storage of nuclear waste or other hazardous wastes.[SUP][4][/SUP] Waste is mixed with glass-forming chemicals in a melter to form molten glass that then solidifies in canisters, immobilizing the waste. The final waste form resembles obsidian and is a non-leaching, durable material that effectively traps the waste inside. The waste can be stored for relatively long periods in this form without concern for air or groundwater contamination. Bulk vitrification uses electrodes to melt soil and wastes where they lay buried. The hardened waste may then be disinterred with less danger of widespread contamination. According to the Pacific Northwest National Labs, "Vitrification locks dangerous materials into a stable glass form that will last for thousands of years."[SUP][5][/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification
Click to expand...
Sounds like a great idea, until you factor in the cost of the process. Using energy, in order to dispose of the waste product of producing energy, greatly reduces the viability of the nuclear theory.

The problems we face with the filthy forms of energy, is that the companies refuse to spend the money necessary to provide safer/cleaner results.


Do you know how much energy it takes for the vitrification process? What about the cost of the chemicals/labor? It's a valid concept, but nobody wants to reduce profit.

That's been the problem for decades.
 
Althea said:
Sounds like a great idea, until you factor in the cost of the process. Using energy, in order to dispose of the waste product of producing energy, greatly reduces the viability of the nuclear theory.

The problems we face with the filthy forms of energy, is that the companies refuse to spend the money necessary to provide safer/cleaner results.


Do you know how much energy it takes for the vitrification process? What about the cost of the chemicals/labor? It's a valid concept, but nobody wants to reduce profit.

That's been the problem for decades.
Click to expand...

It is more than a great idea, it is proven, tested and being used already in the UK.

As already noted, the volume of nuclear waste produced by the nuclear industry is very small compared with other wastes generated. Each year, nuclear power generation facilities worldwide produce about 200,000 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, and about 10,000 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of high-level waste including used fuel designated as waste[SUP]1[/SUP].
In the OECD countries, some 300 million tonnes of toxic wastes are produced each year, but conditioned radioactive wastes amount to only 81,000 m[SUP]3[/SUP] per year.
In the UK, for example, the total amount of radioactive waste (including radioactive waste expected to arise from existing nuclear facilities) is about 4.7 million m[SUP]3[/SUP], or around 5 million tonnes. A further 1 million m[SUP]3[/SUP] has already been disposed. Of the UK's total radioactive waste, about 94% (i.e. about 4.4 million m[SUP]3[/SUP]) falls into the low-level radioactive waste (LLW) category. About 6% (290,000 m[SUP]3[/SUP]) is in the intermediate-level radioactive waste (ILW) category, and less than 0.1% (1000 m[SUP]3[/SUP]) is classed as high-level waste (HLW). Although the volume of HLW is relatively small, it contains about 95% of the total inventory of radioactivity[SUP]12[/SUP].
A typical 1000 MWe light water reactor will generate (directly and indirectly) 200-350 m[SUP]3[/SUP] low- and intermediate-level waste per year. It will also discharge about 20 m[SUP]3[/SUP] (27 tonnes) of used fuel per year, which corresponds to a 75 m[SUP]3[/SUP] disposal volume following encapsulation if it is treated as waste. Where that used fuel is reprocessed, only 3 m[SUP]3[/SUP] of vitrified waste (glass) is produced, which is equivalent to a 28 m[SUP]3[/SUP] disposal volume following placement in a disposal canister.
This compares with an average 400,000 tonnes of ash produced from a coal-fired plant of the same power capacity. Today, volume reduction techniques and abatement technologies as well as continuing good practice within the work force all contribute to continuing minimisation of waste produced, a key principle of waste management policy in the nuclear industry. Whilst the volumes of nuclear wastes produced are very small, the most important issue for the nuclear industry is managing their toxic nature in a way that is environmentally sound and presents no hazard to both workers and the general public.
Click to expand...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
 
The Anglo-apologist continues his desperate dodging...how many shares of BP does Tommy own?

bp.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top