OUTRAGEOUS, BP Causes Cancer!

Off Topic
1

I am really pissed off right now!

The state of Indiana has given legal permission to British Petroleum (BP) to dump industrial waste and sewage into Lake Michigan. In addition to the hazardous chemicals that will compile over hundreds of years, the waste includes asbestos, which is proven to cause cancer.

Right now the other lake-bordering states are trying to fight this, lets hope they succeed.

This is insane, if you are ever bored, look this shit up, it will absolutely amaze you. You think we would learn a lesson after the Cuyahoga (sp) river incident. For those of you that don’t know, a while back, the Cuyahoga river in Ohio I think actually caught on fire! A river that caught on fire! crazy! It caught on fire cuz so much industrial waste collected in it over time.

Why BP dumping asbestos tainted waste will lead to human cancer incidents: When a toxin is introduced into an ecosystem, lets say it is absorbed by seaweed first. Then lets say a tadpole eats 5 seaweed pieces. The toxins cant be metabolized, so they accumulate in the organism over time.

Now the tadpole has the toxins from 5 seaweed pieces. Then lets say a fish eats 20 tadpoles. The fish now has accumulated 100 times the amount of toxins in it’s environment. The higher an animal is on the food chain, the more toxins it retains. (this is why pesticides kill lots of birds. the pesticides accumulate through the plants, then is magnified through the insects, then is magnified again into the birds).

so after that little ecology lesson, it is clear (and had been stated by leading ecologists) that if BP dumps its industrial toxins into Lake Michigan, and we eat fish from the lake, some people will get cancer because of the asbestos accumulation. BP will directly be the cause of cancer for some people, and they fucking know it too.

Please dont take me for a tree-hugger, it just makes me mad that this shit happens after all the evidence that we are killing the earth and ourselves.

2

Keep the great lakes clean,i hope they stop them. why would you dump anything in water? Obviously BP is paying someone or a political party some big bucks.

3

The State of Indiana officials were elected correct? Then write them letters, heck get go around door to door if you want to sign a petition.

4

This is a tough case and it is hard to know the truth of what is happening but it seems to me they can do some additional ammonia removal before they discharge.

I don’t know what they are doing to treat the wastewater but I doubt they have implemented the latest technologies for ammonia removal.

The mercury removal is even trickier. They are within federal limits and they claim that runoff from elsewhere that goes into the lake has a higher percentage of mercury than their effluent. If this is true then perhaps they are doing the right thing with mercury removal.

It is hard to know the truth because the media gets everything wrong, the company will try to do whatever is cheapest and the politicians are not trustworthy either.

5

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is a tough case and it is hard to know the truth of what is happening but it seems to me they can do some additional ammonia removal before they discharge.

I don’t know what they are doing to treat the wastewater but I doubt they have implemented the latest technologies for ammonia removal.

The mercury removal is even trickier. They are within federal limits and they claim that runoff from elsewhere that goes into the lake has a higher percentage of mercury than their effluent. If this is true then perhaps they are doing the right thing with mercury removal.

It is hard to know the truth because the media gets everything wrong, the company will try to do whatever is cheapest and the politicians are not trustworthy either.[/quote]

Only time will tell. When the flora and fauna are disappearing or not reproducing as they should, or there is a trend of visual distress to the area of the outflow, we will know they aren’t doing it right.

6

My apologies. BP is not meeting the stringent federal guidelines for mercury.

And double apologies if this ends up a double post.

7

This is horse shit. Ever feel like the reason you don’t research politics is because every time you do, you want to kill a corrupt politician?

8

[quote]meangenes wrote:
This is horse shit. Ever feel like the reason you don’t research politics is because every time you do, you want to kill a corrupt politician?

[/quote]

Kill “a” politician? You mean all, right?

9

You guys realize they are trying to expand the refineries capacity don’t you?

More oil refining equals more pollution.

If you don’t like that equation don’t drive.

The only real question is if they are using best available treatment technology. If the are then there is not much to be done.

10

Why does Indiana get to decide who can dump what in lakes that are outside of the State?

11

Disregard that last post. I forgot that Lake Michigan was also bounded by Indiana…

12

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You guys realize they are trying to expand the refineries capacity don’t you?

More oil refining equals more pollution.

If you don’t like that equation don’t drive.

The only real question is if they are using best available treatment technology. If the are then there is not much to be done.[/quote]

I understand that, and am willing to have more refineries to keep gas prices in check. I am also for them IF they stay within permitted limits on their outfalls and atmospheric output. It is possible to minimize pollution if adequate measures are taken AND enforced.

13

I gurantee that the waste will not be treated to an “acceptable” ;evel. Acceptable meaning it wont kill EVERYthing.

Indiana doesnt care cuz it doesnt have any big cities on lake michigan, and that part of the state is a piece of shit anyways (Gary comes to mind).

Anyways, its impossible to get rid of all the asbestos

14

Note: my intent is NOT to discredit the damaging effects of lake and river dumping…just need to present the facts.

Asbestos is NOT a dangerous CHEMICAL…it is a naturally occurring fibrous rock that prior to 1985 was mined (still is in Canada, Russia, Africa, etc.) for numerous purposes including: insulation for various products, clothes, brake pads(still used on them today), fireproofing, gaskets, shingles, in cement, personal protective gear, armour (way back in the day), etc.

While the above statement regarding asbestos’ role as a cancer causing agent is half true…it leads to numerous misconceptions.

First of all, it’s role in cancer has only been directly linked to cancers of the lung (mesothelioma and asbestosis). It, however, has NOT been proven to cause cancers by ingestion (although to be fair, studies out of California have shown a link to its consumption and increased risk of colon cancer as well as cancer of the esopagus and stomach).

Mesothelioma and asbestosis rates are highest in Libby Montana and that is due to a geographic anomaly that is the Libby mine (clusterfuck if you ask me). And these rates are not all that high considering the amount of friable (air-borne) asbestos that is flying around that area and along its connecting rail-ways.

Some “fun” fact about asbestos:

*The government(E.P.A. and D.E.Q.) actually allows 7,000,000 fibers per milliliter to be present in drinking water…
*The most prevalent types of asbestos mined and used were crysotile (95%) and amosite (“man-stos” 2-3%), although there are several other rarer types that can be mined.
*Smoking causes a 50 fold increased chance of developing mesothelioma or asbestosis (when handling it as a contractor).

*Once meso is detected it usually takes less than eight months before you drown in your own lungs.
*Asbestosis looks nearly identical to regular ole’ lung cancers on a chest x-ray.
*The latency period for these diseases are typically 20 to 30 years (amount of time it takes for a disease to appear after first exposure).

There are some exceptions, with the most notable being an 18 year old Libby resident who died from meso two years ago.
*During the 911 debacle, 300 to 400 tons of this shit were released in a highly friable, pulverized state and were smaller than 5 microns in size (the smaller the fiber size, the more hazardous they become to lung health). In the next couple decades, the repercussions of this will become headline news (already seeing many rescue workers and animals with the early stages of these diseases).

Christine Whittman should be strung up for her murderous statements after the collapses.

As stated above…my intent is not to minimize dumpings’ effects on lake, river, ocean health. But, if I were you, I’d be far more concerned with the mercury, benzene, lead, chlorocarbons, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, treated or untreated human and animal wastes, prescription medicines, growth hormones, dyes, scents, emulsifiers, stabilizers, genetically altered materials/foods, plastics, xenoestrogens, non-metabolized products/foods, refinery wastes that are present in various levels and concoctions throughout our countries polluted-as-fuck water sources.

As long as you don’t go grab a huge piece of man-stos and sniff it after smoking a pack of death-sticks…I think this fight should be directed at something else.

(disclosure) One of my 32 previous jobs was as an asbestos contractor supervisor, so it’s not like I read some book or article and am spewing out theory and speculation…I’ve dealt with this shit.

15

[quote]spurlock wrote:

(disclosure) One of my 32 previous jobs was as an asbestos contractor supervisor, so it’s not like I read some book or article and am spewing out theory and speculation…I’ve dealt with this shit.[/quote]

Glad you mentioned friable asbestos, as that is where the danger lies. Non friable sources pose very little risk, as far as inhalation goes. It’s when it’s airborne, like you mentioned, is when it’s a health hazard.

And also, yes, we should be more concerned with pollutants such as benzene, fertilizer runoff, petroleum distillates, and other manufacturing wastes.

16

I used to live in Northwestern Indiana, alog the lake shore and I can tell you, it is a shithole, dying area that needs to be put down with a head shot. BP, US Steel, Exxon/Mobil (one of the most vile corporations out there), and more are doling out cancer to people like it’s going out of style.

To the author, I’d recommend moving to another state, seriously.

17

[quote]BigRagoo wrote:

And also, yes, we should be more concerned with pollutants such as benzene, fertilizer runoff, petroleum distillates, and other manufacturing wastes.[/quote]

Especially in Louisiana! When I lived down there and worked offshore, it was sort of my grand wake-up call to the damage that humans are doing to our waterways.

The Mississippi: a sewer line
The Gulf: a cesspool

On my way out to the rig, it would be miles before the water cleared up and when I was going through training, they specifically told us not to go into the water (which had the consistency of water treatment sludge).

Up the river, you can have the pleasure of seeing tires, shopping carts, shit, yellowish agri-chemical residues and other technicolor elements that shouldn’t be in a waterway as important as the Mississippi.

Or you can go to the beaches of Texas and see the debris that ends up there are circling the Gulf for months or years at a time. There will be pallets, children’s toys, used tampons, hard hats, oil, plastics of all kinds among the numerous species of animals dead and rotting from all of this shit.

Or you can go to Seattle and see up close how polluted the Puget is and how the dead zone is expanding daily. Hell, go diving it it for shitsake and try to find sea life.

Or you can visit any major city in Florida and simply smell the tap water that is “safe” to drink.

Or you can try fishing next any of the rivers, streams or lakes that are unfortunate enough to have refineries next to them. Good luck, ya might want to bring a lunch…

The next time your major city near you loses a grid or two of power, ask someone involved with the city what happens to the cities’ waste water when there is no electricity to “clean” the water that ends up it the cities’ neighboring waterways.

How about testing the ground water near subdivisions that have been standing for more than five years.

You don’t need the T.V. or books or Al Gore to tell you how fucked up the environment is…just travel the country, world or simply look around your area (unless you live in Bumfuck, Iowa and are more than 100 miles from any major city).

Additionally, we shouldn’t simply blame these major corporations for their roles in pollution…we need to all look in the mirror.

Every time we buy gas, use electricity, use our computer, eat or drink from plastic containers, wear designer (and non-designer) clothing, use our cell phone, pay for non-organic food, drink pop (soda for you southerners), buy a new build house, buy hygiene products, etc. etc. etc. we are making our own small contribution to this runaway-train.

And if you’re one of those self-important mother fuckers who own a “hybrid,” go fuck yourselves…you actually pollute more than the petroleum whores that you have so much disdain for! How? You use TWO fossil fuels when you drive…I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe that electricity comes from magic.

18

Well, in a slight defense about the gulf down here, the Miss. river would cloud the gulf even if there was no pollution. And believe it or not, the gulf is a productive ecosystem, even though it is officially polluted. And for that, I have no defense.

19

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is hard to know the truth because the media gets everything wrong, the company will try to do whatever is cheapest and the politicians are not trustworthy either.[/quote]

Weren’t you the one last week blasting Canada because you felt we weren’t doing our share in cleaning up the Great Lakes?

Why so hard on Canada and now so soft & easy on BP?

20

[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is hard to know the truth because the media gets everything wrong, the company will try to do whatever is cheapest and the politicians are not trustworthy either.

Weren’t you the one last week blasting Canada because you felt we weren’t doing our share in cleaning up the Great Lakes?

Why so hard on Canada and now so soft & easy on BP?

[/quote]

I wasn’t blasting Canada, I was mildly surprised that they were lagging and I found it interesting. I am aware that Canada has been a major producer of various sulfur oxides (but loved to blame the US for acid rain) but I always thought they were ahead of the curve with simple water treatment when in fact they are behind.

It would be nice if Canada lived up to it’s environmentally friendly reputation.

I am not excusing BP for anything merely wondering what the truth is. They are expanding their refining capacity and they will consequently pollute more. If they are using the best available treatment technology then I do not see anything wrong here.