Microsoft founder is a hardcore eugenicist who has publicly stated his intention to use the billions worth of vaccines his foundation funds to lower global population
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Bill Gates’ advocacy for “death panels” has caused controversy amongst conservative commentators, but the real outrage behind the story has been completely overlooked – the fact that Gates is a hardcore eugenicist and has called for lowering the global population through vaccines which his foundation funds to the tune of billions.
Gates’ “death panel” comments were actually made over two months ago at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen Colorado, but they only garnered attention when the video clip appeared on numerous conservative websites on Sunday, including Breitbart.tv and The Blaze.
During a question and answer session, Gates implied that elderly patients undergoing expensive health care treatments should be killed and the money spent elsewhere.
Gates said there was a “lack of willingness” to consider the question of choosing between “spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient” or laying off ten teachers.
“But that’s called the death panel and you’re not supposed to have that discussion,” added Gates.
The Microsoft owner’s advocacy for killing granny in the name of spending the money elsewhere strikes at the root of why so many Americans are outraged over Obamacare, which contains as one of its core components a cost/benefit board which will be able to refuse care to elderly patients, proving that death panels will indeed come into force despite establishment media PR campaigns to convince the public otherwise.
Although Americans will be subject to the whims of death panels, the federal government will “continue to require hospitals to provide emergency treatment to illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense,” the New York Times reported.
However, the wider significance of Gates’ comments has gone completely unnoticed by those outraged over what he said.
Gates is an avowed eugenicist who is committed to drastically reducing the world’s population in the name of combating global warming. This is alarming given the fact that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation funds the production and distribution of vaccines to the third world.
During a February 2010 TED conference, Gates openly stated that vaccines would be used to reduce global population and lower CO2 emissions.
Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”
Watch the clip.
Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates was referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.
Indeed, As Natural News’ Mike Adams revealed, one of the Gates Foundation’s current projects revolves around the funding of a “sterilization program that would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a man’s scrotum to render him infertile for six months.”
“Now, the foundation has funded a new “sweat-triggered vaccine delivery” program based on nanoparticles penetrating human skin,” writes Adams. “The technology is describes as a way to “…develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human sweat to release vaccines.”
The Microsoft founder’s advocacy for death panels is a shocking admission, but it pales in significance when one considers that Gates, as one of the richest men on the planet who routinely meets with other billionaires to discuss population reduction efforts, has publicly stated his intention to use the billions of dollars worth of vaccines that he funds to lower global population in the third world, which could only be achieved if the vaccines were designed to forcibly sterilize people without their consent or induce forced abortions.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
Read Article With Links
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
EXCLUSIVE: After a Year of Setbacks, U.N. Looks to Take Charge of World's Agenda
Understand The Times
Urgent Comment from Understand The Times:
A meeting held recently in Austria attended by the "elite," has set in motion the agenda that will change the world until Jesus comes for His Church in the rapture. (I Thessalonians 4:17).
Expect three trends to happen fulfilling the 666 plan:
1. The development of a global government. (6)
2. The development of a global currency within a global economy. (6)
3. The development of a global religion for peace. (6)
The "fundamental transformation" of the United States and every other country in the world has begun.
Born-again Bible believing Christians will be a remnant. Believers who follow the true Jesus and His Word will proclaim the truth in love and expose the "lie". This will happen worldwide.
Christians can expect the following:
1. The shocking collapse of many well respected "Christian" organizations. .
2. The development of a counterfeit bride for a counterfeit Christ (Revelation 17:1-9).
3. Perilous times (2 Timothy chapter 3).
The counter prevention for Apostasy
1. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. (Psalms 122:6).
2. Read 2 Timothy 4:1-8.
3. Pray each day to be led by the Holy Spirit. (John 16:13).
4. Proclaim the gospel. (2 Corinthians 4:3-5).
5. Be a watchman for Jesus Christ. (Ezekiel 3:17).
6. Be a good servant. (2 Timothy chapter 2).
7 Read Colossians chapters 1 though 4
.
Sincerely in the name of Jesus Christ,
Roger Oakland
View Original Comment
By George Russell
Fox News.com
After a year of humiliating setbacks, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants — the top brass of the entire U.N. system — spent their Labor Day weekend at a remote Austrian Alpine retreat, discussing ways to put their sprawling organization in charge of the world’s agenda.
Details concerning the two-day, closed-door sessions in the comfortable village of Alpbach were closely guarded. Nonetheless, position papers for the meeting obtained by Fox News indicate that the topics included:
-- how to restore “climate change” as a top global priority after the fiasco of last year’s Copenhagen summit;
-- how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen the discussion further to encompass the idea of “global public goods”;
-- how to keep growing U.N. peacekeeping efforts into missions involved in the police, courts, legal systems and other aspects of strife-torn countries;
-- how to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework”;
-- how to make “clever” use of new technologies to deepen direct ties with what the U.N. calls “civil society,” meaning novel ways to bypass its member nation states and deal directly with constituencies that support U.N. agendas.
As one underlying theme of the sessions, the top U.N. bosses seemed to be grappling often with how to cope with the pesky issue of national sovereignty, which — according to the position papers, anyway — continued to thwart many of their most ambitious schemes, especially when it comes to many different kinds of “global governance.”
Not coincidentally, the conclave of bureaucrats also saw in “global governance” a greater role for themselves.
As a position paper intended for their first group session put it, in the customary glutinous prose of the organization’s internal documents: “the U.N. should be able to take the lead in setting the global agenda, engage effectively with other multinational and regional organizations as well as civil society and non-state stakeholders, and transform itself into a tool to help implement the globally agreed objectives.”
And for that to happen, the paper continues, “it will be necessary to deeply reflect on the substance of sovereignty, and accept that changes in our perceptions are a good indication of the direction we are going.”
Hammering away at perceptions that nation-states cannot adequately meet global challenges, but the U.N. can, is a major theme of the position papers, which were assembled by a variety of U.N. think tanks, task forces and institutions, including the United Nations Development Program, and the U.N.’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
CLICK HERE FOR THE POSITION PAPERS
National sovereignty — meaning the refusal of major powers like India, China and the United States to go along with sweeping global agendas — was specifically indicted for the failure of the much ballyhooed Copenhagen summit on climate change. “National sovereignty remains supreme,” as one position paper noted.
Nonetheless, the U.N. leaders intend to keep trying to change that, especially when it comes to the climate agenda. “The next 40 years will prove pivotal,” one paper argues, while laying out the basis of a renewed U.N. climate campaign, the “50-50-50 Challenge.”
That refers to a projection that by 2050, the world’s population will reach an estimated 9 billion (50 percent higher than today), at the same time that the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — producer of the scandal-tainted 2007 Global Assessment of global warming — is calling for a 50 percent reduction in world green house gas emissions.
According to the paper prepared by Secretary General Ban’s own climate change team, however, the newly rebranded challenge still depends on the same economic remedy proposed for Copenhagen: a drastic redistribution of global wealth, “nothing less than a fundamental transformation of the global economy.”
Rolling just about every U.N. mantra into one, the paper declares that “nothing is more crucial to preventing run-away climate change than lifting billions out of poverty, protecting our planet and fostering long-term peace and prosperity for all.”
And to do that, the paper suggests, equally dramatic shifts in political power may be needed. “Is the global governance structure, still dominated by national sovereignty, capable of responding with the coherence and speed needed?” it asks. “Or do we need to push the ‘reset’ button and rethink global governance to meet the 50-50-50 Challenge?”
Yet even as the U.N. bosses talk of delivering billions from poverty, their main aim, the papers argue should be much, much larger: to limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world.
As the opening session paper puts it: “The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles.”
The answer to that “real challenge,” as well as many others addressed in the position papers, is that the U.N. and its proliferating array of funds, programs, institutes, and initiatives, should push themselves forward as the great synthesizer of solutions to global problems: “connecting the dots,” as the climate change paper puts it, across a “range of issues,” including "climate, water, food, energy, and health.”
“At the practical level, through the U.N. system we have all kinds of expertise and capacities, even if not adequate resources, to actually do something,” the paper notes.
How to get more of those resources is another major theme of many of the papers. As one of the documents focusing on food security notes, “development assistance funding is less readily available and the donors are ever more focused on demonstrable results.” One suggestion: tap global philanthropies, as well as link together “a broad range of public sector, business and civil society partners.”
The U.N. bosses also need to make sure that the institution sits at top tables where the world’s financial decisions are made. It is “urgent to secure U.N. participation” at regular meetings of the G-20 finance ministers and their deputies,” according to one of the papers, a group that the U.N. Secretariat, based in New York City and Geneva, does not interact with very much.
That observation ties into another Alpbach theme: pushing global financial regulation even further.
“The much paraded reform of financial governance institutions has not gone far enough,” the position paper for the U.N. leadership’s keynote session asserts, and the voting power of emerging players and developing world, in general, which demand a greater say on these matters, remains inadequate.”
The answer? “An enhanced political will is clearly needed to avoid return to status quo, to push forward regulatory mechanisms, and improve financial governance.”
Along with planting a new flag in the field of international financial regulation, the U.N. chiefs also contemplated the further growth of the U.N. as the world’s policeman. As another paper notes, U.N. peacekeeping operations “will soon have almost 17,000 United Nations police officers serving on four continents” — little more than two years after establishing what one papers calls the institutions “Standing Police Capacity.”
The peacekeepers are now also building a “standing justice and corrections element” to go with the semi-permanent police force — a permanent strike force to establish courts and prisons in nations where peacekeepers are stationed.
In essence, as another paper observes, the U.N. peacekeeping effort is transforming into a new kind of supervisory organism in which not only conflicts but also national institutions and cultures must be regulated for longer and longer periods of time.
“Even where a semblance of stability is achieved,” the paper by Ban’s peace-building support office argues, the achievement of peace may involve more than “adopting a constitution or holding elections.” It adds that “more fundamental change may be needed in a country’s institutions and political culture as well as in public perceptions and attitudes.”
(At the same time, as another paper makes clear, “some” U.N. peacekeepers come from countries “where the armed forces and police are seriously implicated in human rights violations,” including sexual crimes. While such actions “cannot be tolerated,” the paper makes clear the U.N. has no clear answers on how to police its own behavior.)
The answer to many if not most of the problems outlined in the U.N. papers is, as the opening session paper puts it: “multilateralism is instrumental to the success of our response to global challenges.”
But not any old multilateralism. The other major theme of the position papers is that the world organization, a haphazard array of at least 37 major funds, programs, and institutions, and a proliferating number of regulatory and other authorities, should be knitting itself into a much more close-knit global system, with greater control over its own finances, along with a stronger role in setting the international agenda.
How successful Ban and his chieftains will be at pushing that agenda may soon be seen, as the secretary general hosts the lead-off event of the fall diplomatic season, a two-day summit starting September 20 on the so-called Millennium Development Goals.
That refers to the U.N.-sponsored compact among nations to halve the number of the world’s poorest people, achieve global primary schooling, reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and enhance the standing of women, among other goals, by 2015.
The position papers from Ban’s conclave make clear that Ban and his team are deeply concerned that momentum toward the MDGs, as they are known, is faltering, although one paper notes that “with the right policies, adequate investment and reliable international support, the MDGs remain achievable.”
In that sense, the secretive session in Alpbach was not only a planning session, but also the equivalent of a half-time locker room huddle.
What is at stake, the papers make clear, is not only the alleged betterment of the world, but the U.N.’s soaring ambitions for itself — no matter what roadblocks national sovereignty may throw in its way.
George Russell is executive editor of Fox News
Read Article With Links
Urgent Comment from Understand The Times:
A meeting held recently in Austria attended by the "elite," has set in motion the agenda that will change the world until Jesus comes for His Church in the rapture. (I Thessalonians 4:17).
Expect three trends to happen fulfilling the 666 plan:
1. The development of a global government. (6)
2. The development of a global currency within a global economy. (6)
3. The development of a global religion for peace. (6)
The "fundamental transformation" of the United States and every other country in the world has begun.
Born-again Bible believing Christians will be a remnant. Believers who follow the true Jesus and His Word will proclaim the truth in love and expose the "lie". This will happen worldwide.
Christians can expect the following:
1. The shocking collapse of many well respected "Christian" organizations. .
2. The development of a counterfeit bride for a counterfeit Christ (Revelation 17:1-9).
3. Perilous times (2 Timothy chapter 3).
The counter prevention for Apostasy
1. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. (Psalms 122:6).
2. Read 2 Timothy 4:1-8.
3. Pray each day to be led by the Holy Spirit. (John 16:13).
4. Proclaim the gospel. (2 Corinthians 4:3-5).
5. Be a watchman for Jesus Christ. (Ezekiel 3:17).
6. Be a good servant. (2 Timothy chapter 2).
7 Read Colossians chapters 1 though 4
.
Sincerely in the name of Jesus Christ,
Roger Oakland
View Original Comment
By George Russell
Fox News.com
After a year of humiliating setbacks, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants — the top brass of the entire U.N. system — spent their Labor Day weekend at a remote Austrian Alpine retreat, discussing ways to put their sprawling organization in charge of the world’s agenda.
Details concerning the two-day, closed-door sessions in the comfortable village of Alpbach were closely guarded. Nonetheless, position papers for the meeting obtained by Fox News indicate that the topics included:
-- how to restore “climate change” as a top global priority after the fiasco of last year’s Copenhagen summit;
-- how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen the discussion further to encompass the idea of “global public goods”;
-- how to keep growing U.N. peacekeeping efforts into missions involved in the police, courts, legal systems and other aspects of strife-torn countries;
-- how to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework”;
-- how to make “clever” use of new technologies to deepen direct ties with what the U.N. calls “civil society,” meaning novel ways to bypass its member nation states and deal directly with constituencies that support U.N. agendas.
As one underlying theme of the sessions, the top U.N. bosses seemed to be grappling often with how to cope with the pesky issue of national sovereignty, which — according to the position papers, anyway — continued to thwart many of their most ambitious schemes, especially when it comes to many different kinds of “global governance.”
Not coincidentally, the conclave of bureaucrats also saw in “global governance” a greater role for themselves.
As a position paper intended for their first group session put it, in the customary glutinous prose of the organization’s internal documents: “the U.N. should be able to take the lead in setting the global agenda, engage effectively with other multinational and regional organizations as well as civil society and non-state stakeholders, and transform itself into a tool to help implement the globally agreed objectives.”
And for that to happen, the paper continues, “it will be necessary to deeply reflect on the substance of sovereignty, and accept that changes in our perceptions are a good indication of the direction we are going.”
Hammering away at perceptions that nation-states cannot adequately meet global challenges, but the U.N. can, is a major theme of the position papers, which were assembled by a variety of U.N. think tanks, task forces and institutions, including the United Nations Development Program, and the U.N.’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
CLICK HERE FOR THE POSITION PAPERS
National sovereignty — meaning the refusal of major powers like India, China and the United States to go along with sweeping global agendas — was specifically indicted for the failure of the much ballyhooed Copenhagen summit on climate change. “National sovereignty remains supreme,” as one position paper noted.
Nonetheless, the U.N. leaders intend to keep trying to change that, especially when it comes to the climate agenda. “The next 40 years will prove pivotal,” one paper argues, while laying out the basis of a renewed U.N. climate campaign, the “50-50-50 Challenge.”
That refers to a projection that by 2050, the world’s population will reach an estimated 9 billion (50 percent higher than today), at the same time that the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — producer of the scandal-tainted 2007 Global Assessment of global warming — is calling for a 50 percent reduction in world green house gas emissions.
According to the paper prepared by Secretary General Ban’s own climate change team, however, the newly rebranded challenge still depends on the same economic remedy proposed for Copenhagen: a drastic redistribution of global wealth, “nothing less than a fundamental transformation of the global economy.”
Rolling just about every U.N. mantra into one, the paper declares that “nothing is more crucial to preventing run-away climate change than lifting billions out of poverty, protecting our planet and fostering long-term peace and prosperity for all.”
And to do that, the paper suggests, equally dramatic shifts in political power may be needed. “Is the global governance structure, still dominated by national sovereignty, capable of responding with the coherence and speed needed?” it asks. “Or do we need to push the ‘reset’ button and rethink global governance to meet the 50-50-50 Challenge?”
Yet even as the U.N. bosses talk of delivering billions from poverty, their main aim, the papers argue should be much, much larger: to limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world.
As the opening session paper puts it: “The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles.”
The answer to that “real challenge,” as well as many others addressed in the position papers, is that the U.N. and its proliferating array of funds, programs, institutes, and initiatives, should push themselves forward as the great synthesizer of solutions to global problems: “connecting the dots,” as the climate change paper puts it, across a “range of issues,” including "climate, water, food, energy, and health.”
“At the practical level, through the U.N. system we have all kinds of expertise and capacities, even if not adequate resources, to actually do something,” the paper notes.
How to get more of those resources is another major theme of many of the papers. As one of the documents focusing on food security notes, “development assistance funding is less readily available and the donors are ever more focused on demonstrable results.” One suggestion: tap global philanthropies, as well as link together “a broad range of public sector, business and civil society partners.”
The U.N. bosses also need to make sure that the institution sits at top tables where the world’s financial decisions are made. It is “urgent to secure U.N. participation” at regular meetings of the G-20 finance ministers and their deputies,” according to one of the papers, a group that the U.N. Secretariat, based in New York City and Geneva, does not interact with very much.
That observation ties into another Alpbach theme: pushing global financial regulation even further.
“The much paraded reform of financial governance institutions has not gone far enough,” the position paper for the U.N. leadership’s keynote session asserts, and the voting power of emerging players and developing world, in general, which demand a greater say on these matters, remains inadequate.”
The answer? “An enhanced political will is clearly needed to avoid return to status quo, to push forward regulatory mechanisms, and improve financial governance.”
Along with planting a new flag in the field of international financial regulation, the U.N. chiefs also contemplated the further growth of the U.N. as the world’s policeman. As another paper notes, U.N. peacekeeping operations “will soon have almost 17,000 United Nations police officers serving on four continents” — little more than two years after establishing what one papers calls the institutions “Standing Police Capacity.”
The peacekeepers are now also building a “standing justice and corrections element” to go with the semi-permanent police force — a permanent strike force to establish courts and prisons in nations where peacekeepers are stationed.
In essence, as another paper observes, the U.N. peacekeeping effort is transforming into a new kind of supervisory organism in which not only conflicts but also national institutions and cultures must be regulated for longer and longer periods of time.
“Even where a semblance of stability is achieved,” the paper by Ban’s peace-building support office argues, the achievement of peace may involve more than “adopting a constitution or holding elections.” It adds that “more fundamental change may be needed in a country’s institutions and political culture as well as in public perceptions and attitudes.”
(At the same time, as another paper makes clear, “some” U.N. peacekeepers come from countries “where the armed forces and police are seriously implicated in human rights violations,” including sexual crimes. While such actions “cannot be tolerated,” the paper makes clear the U.N. has no clear answers on how to police its own behavior.)
The answer to many if not most of the problems outlined in the U.N. papers is, as the opening session paper puts it: “multilateralism is instrumental to the success of our response to global challenges.”
But not any old multilateralism. The other major theme of the position papers is that the world organization, a haphazard array of at least 37 major funds, programs, and institutions, and a proliferating number of regulatory and other authorities, should be knitting itself into a much more close-knit global system, with greater control over its own finances, along with a stronger role in setting the international agenda.
How successful Ban and his chieftains will be at pushing that agenda may soon be seen, as the secretary general hosts the lead-off event of the fall diplomatic season, a two-day summit starting September 20 on the so-called Millennium Development Goals.
That refers to the U.N.-sponsored compact among nations to halve the number of the world’s poorest people, achieve global primary schooling, reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and enhance the standing of women, among other goals, by 2015.
The position papers from Ban’s conclave make clear that Ban and his team are deeply concerned that momentum toward the MDGs, as they are known, is faltering, although one paper notes that “with the right policies, adequate investment and reliable international support, the MDGs remain achievable.”
In that sense, the secretive session in Alpbach was not only a planning session, but also the equivalent of a half-time locker room huddle.
What is at stake, the papers make clear, is not only the alleged betterment of the world, but the U.N.’s soaring ambitions for itself — no matter what roadblocks national sovereignty may throw in its way.
George Russell is executive editor of Fox News
Read Article With Links
Oil From the BP Spill Found at Bottom of Gulf
University of Georgia Researcher Says Samples Are Showing Oil From the Spill
By MATT GUTMAN and KEVIN DOLAK
ABC News
Oil from the BP spill has not been completely cleared, but miles of it is sitting at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, according to a study currently under way.
Professor Samantha Joye of the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Georgia, who is conducting a study on a research vessel just two miles from the spill zone, said the oil has not disappeared, but is on the sea floor in a layer of scum.
"We're finding it everywhere that we've looked. The oil is not gone," Joye said. "It's in places where nobody has looked for it."
All 13 of the core samples Joye and her UGA team have collected from the bottom of the gulf are showing oil from the spill, she said.
In an interview with ABC News from her vessel, Joye said the oil cannot be natural seepage into the gulf, because the cores they've tested are showing oil only at the top. With natural seepage, the oil would spread from the top to the bottom of the core, she said.
"It looks like you just took a strip of very sticky material and just passed it through the water column and all the stuff from the water column got stuck to it, and got transported to the bottom," Joye said. "I know what a natural seep looks like -- this is not natural seepage."
In some areas the oily material that Joye describes is more than two inches thick. Her team found the material as far as 70 miles away from BP's well.
"If we're seeing two and half inches of oil 16 miles away, God knows what we'll see close in -- I really can't even guess other than to say it's going to be a whole lot more than two and a half inches," Joye said.
This oil remaining underwater has large implications for the state of sea life at the bottom of the gulf.
Joye said she spent hours studying the core samples and was unable to find anything other than bacteria and microorganisms living within.
"There is nothing living in these cores other than bacteria," she said. "I've yet to see a living shrimp, a living worm, nothing."
Studies conducted by the University of Georgia and the University of South Florida caused controversy back in August when they found that almost 80 percent of the oil that leaked from BP's well is still out in the waters of the Gulf.
Their report stood in stark contrast to that of the federal government, which on Aug. 4 declared that 74 percent of the oil was gone, having broken down or been cleaned up.
"A report out today by our scientists shows that the vast majority of the spilled oil has been dispersed or removed from the water," President Obama said in August.
The studies by Joye and other scientists found that what the government had reported to the public only meant that the oil still lurked, invisible in the water.
Though initially denying the claim, BP -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- acknowledged the existence of the dispersed oil. BP subsequently pledged $500 million for gulf research.
In May, Joye was featured on a newscast as part a team of scientists that discovered giant underwater plumes of oil. Joye and other marine researchers claimed that these plumes present a major threat to underwater creatures.
"The concentrations that are currently out there in various locations are high enough to have a toxic effect on marine life," said Charles Hopkinson, also of the University of Georgia's marine sciences program.
NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, the government's top ocean scientist, has acknowledged concerns over the effects of dissolved oil, but has said that chemical dispersants had largely done their job.
"Nobody should be surprised," Joye said. "When you apply large scale dispersants, it goes to the bottom -- it sediments out. It gets sticky."
ABC News' Susan Schwartz contributed to this report.
Read Original Article
By MATT GUTMAN and KEVIN DOLAK
ABC News
Oil from the BP spill has not been completely cleared, but miles of it is sitting at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, according to a study currently under way.
Professor Samantha Joye of the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Georgia, who is conducting a study on a research vessel just two miles from the spill zone, said the oil has not disappeared, but is on the sea floor in a layer of scum.
"We're finding it everywhere that we've looked. The oil is not gone," Joye said. "It's in places where nobody has looked for it."
All 13 of the core samples Joye and her UGA team have collected from the bottom of the gulf are showing oil from the spill, she said.
In an interview with ABC News from her vessel, Joye said the oil cannot be natural seepage into the gulf, because the cores they've tested are showing oil only at the top. With natural seepage, the oil would spread from the top to the bottom of the core, she said.
"It looks like you just took a strip of very sticky material and just passed it through the water column and all the stuff from the water column got stuck to it, and got transported to the bottom," Joye said. "I know what a natural seep looks like -- this is not natural seepage."
In some areas the oily material that Joye describes is more than two inches thick. Her team found the material as far as 70 miles away from BP's well.
"If we're seeing two and half inches of oil 16 miles away, God knows what we'll see close in -- I really can't even guess other than to say it's going to be a whole lot more than two and a half inches," Joye said.
This oil remaining underwater has large implications for the state of sea life at the bottom of the gulf.
Joye said she spent hours studying the core samples and was unable to find anything other than bacteria and microorganisms living within.
"There is nothing living in these cores other than bacteria," she said. "I've yet to see a living shrimp, a living worm, nothing."
Studies conducted by the University of Georgia and the University of South Florida caused controversy back in August when they found that almost 80 percent of the oil that leaked from BP's well is still out in the waters of the Gulf.
Their report stood in stark contrast to that of the federal government, which on Aug. 4 declared that 74 percent of the oil was gone, having broken down or been cleaned up.
"A report out today by our scientists shows that the vast majority of the spilled oil has been dispersed or removed from the water," President Obama said in August.
The studies by Joye and other scientists found that what the government had reported to the public only meant that the oil still lurked, invisible in the water.
Though initially denying the claim, BP -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- acknowledged the existence of the dispersed oil. BP subsequently pledged $500 million for gulf research.
In May, Joye was featured on a newscast as part a team of scientists that discovered giant underwater plumes of oil. Joye and other marine researchers claimed that these plumes present a major threat to underwater creatures.
"The concentrations that are currently out there in various locations are high enough to have a toxic effect on marine life," said Charles Hopkinson, also of the University of Georgia's marine sciences program.
NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, the government's top ocean scientist, has acknowledged concerns over the effects of dissolved oil, but has said that chemical dispersants had largely done their job.
"Nobody should be surprised," Joye said. "When you apply large scale dispersants, it goes to the bottom -- it sediments out. It gets sticky."
ABC News' Susan Schwartz contributed to this report.
Read Original Article
Professor Says HOMELAND SECURITY Confiscated Samples and NOTES With Insider Information on Dispersant — “IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY”
floridaoilspilllaw.com
Science in the Gulf, NPR Science
Transcript Excerpt
FLATOW, HOST: Yeah, let me to go the phones, Darren(ph) in College Station, Texas. Hi, Darren.
DARREN (Caller): Hello, Ira.
FLATOW: Hi, there.
DARREN: I’m an adjunct professor here at A&M, and we were also in the Gulf, but got thrown out. We were testing a theory that the chemical composition of the dispersant they were using was causing the oil to sink. And we’d been there for approximately three days, and federal agents flat told us to get out. And it wasn’t Fish and Wildlife officers. These were Homeland Security officers, and we were told that it was in the interest of national security.
CARY NELSON, president, American Association of University Professors,: I mean, I could see restricting access so that 500 people shouldn’t be able to ride their dune buggies along the beach, but reputable scientists should have access.
FLATOW: Darren, did take your samples away or anything – take anything away from you?
DARREN: Oh, yeah, they inspected the boat. They, of course, checked everyone’s identification, and they took all the samples that we had. And they also took some notes that we had. The theory that we were operating upon was information that had been given to us by someone who worked in the plant that made that dispersant. And they took everything.
FLATOW: Wow.
DARREN: (unintelligible)…
Prof. NELSON: Ira, it’s really kind of an insane world that we’ve entered into in terms of the barring of reputable scientists from a public site where they can contribute considerably to the knowledge that we have.
FLATOW: Dr. D’Elia, do you know of other cases like Darren’s?
Dr. CHRISTOPHER D’ELIA, professor and dean, School of The Coast and Environment, Louisiana State University: Yes, I’ve heard of other cases…
See The Report Here
View Original Article With Links
Science in the Gulf, NPR Science
Transcript Excerpt
FLATOW, HOST: Yeah, let me to go the phones, Darren(ph) in College Station, Texas. Hi, Darren.
DARREN (Caller): Hello, Ira.
FLATOW: Hi, there.
DARREN: I’m an adjunct professor here at A&M, and we were also in the Gulf, but got thrown out. We were testing a theory that the chemical composition of the dispersant they were using was causing the oil to sink. And we’d been there for approximately three days, and federal agents flat told us to get out. And it wasn’t Fish and Wildlife officers. These were Homeland Security officers, and we were told that it was in the interest of national security.
CARY NELSON, president, American Association of University Professors,: I mean, I could see restricting access so that 500 people shouldn’t be able to ride their dune buggies along the beach, but reputable scientists should have access.
FLATOW: Darren, did take your samples away or anything – take anything away from you?
DARREN: Oh, yeah, they inspected the boat. They, of course, checked everyone’s identification, and they took all the samples that we had. And they also took some notes that we had. The theory that we were operating upon was information that had been given to us by someone who worked in the plant that made that dispersant. And they took everything.
FLATOW: Wow.
DARREN: (unintelligible)…
Prof. NELSON: Ira, it’s really kind of an insane world that we’ve entered into in terms of the barring of reputable scientists from a public site where they can contribute considerably to the knowledge that we have.
FLATOW: Dr. D’Elia, do you know of other cases like Darren’s?
Dr. CHRISTOPHER D’ELIA, professor and dean, School of The Coast and Environment, Louisiana State University: Yes, I’ve heard of other cases…
See The Report Here
View Original Article With Links
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)