Aves y Peces Envenenados por Emisiones de Formaldehído

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
13 de Enero 2011

Desde que la muerte alarmante de miles de aves, peces, murciélagos y ranas comenzó, las teorías han sido tan numerosas como el número de lugares donde estos animales aparecieron muertos. Con cada nuevo lugar, una nueva teoría surgió. (Ver mapa) Es lógico pensar que, debido al hecho que los animales aparecieron muertos en lugares tan lejanos entre sí como Costa Rica y Europa, tiene que haber una explicación diferente para cada uno de esos casos. Sin embargo, ¿por qué no podría ser todo lo contrario? ¿No podría haber una causa común en la muerte de esos animales? O tal vez, la mayoría de los casos?

¿Cuál podría ser el detonante de la muerte masiva de animales en casi todos los continentes? Cuando empecé a pensar en ello, pensé que tenía que ser algo que podría existir en todos los lugares y que podría moverse en todos o muchos de estos lugares de la misma manera, con la capacidad o el potencial de expandirse rápidamente, homogéneamente y de forma masiva. Entonces pensé en el aire que respiramos. Los seres humanos están expuestos a cientos de contaminantes diariamente. Los humanos no morimos como los pájaros y otros animales pequeños porque somos animales de mayor tamaño, con sistemas respiratorios más avanzados que tienen la capacidad de filtrar impurezas. Por lo tanto, tardamos más tiempo para ser afectados cuando envenenados con pequeñas cantidades de contaminantes en el aire.

Tomemos por ejemplo el smog. Caminamos en las grandes ciudades, donde miles de coches, autobuses y camiones circulan diariamente liberando humo a través de sus tubos de escape. Sin embargo, no caemos muertos de inmediato. Se requiere más que eso para matarnos rápidamente. Pero con las aves, peces, murciélagos y ranas, las cantidades y concentraciones requeridas son más pequeñas, mucho más pequeñas. Para que las muertes masivas ocurran, los animales necesitan ser expuestos a lo que los mató de forma continua durante un largo período de tiempo, o a una dosis más elevada durante un corto período. De cualquier manera, el resultado sería el mismo: la muerte.

Es importante señalar que la extraña muerte masiva de animales, tales como las que se ven en Arkansas, Brasil, Florida, Nueva Zelandia, Haití y otros lugares no se inició recientemente. Los medios de comunicación sólo lo han reportado ahora, pero comenzó al menos hace una década. La primera gran muerte en masa fue reportada por la estudiante de Posgrado Karen Lips, que pasó dos años estudiando las ranas doradas en las selvas de Talamanca, Costa Rica. Los patólogos no pudieron determinar la causa de la muerte. La Sra. Lips volvió a América Central después, esta vez al oeste de Panamá, donde después de un tiempo, las ranas también empezaron a morir. Por segunda vez, los patólogos no pudieron determinar la causa de la muerte de las ranas.

La tendencia se hizo más alarmante cuando investigadores descubrieron que las ranas no sólo morían en América Central, sino también en los Estados Unidos y otras partes del mundo. (Vea una cronología de las muertes masivas de animales actuales aquí)

Entonces, ¿cuál es la causa de la muerte de los pájaros, los peces y las ranas? Pensemos en un gas. Pensemos en un gas cuyas propiedades le permite viajar desde la superficie hacia la parte superior de la atmósfera y viceversa, así como de continente a continente o hemisferio a hemisferio. Este gas estaría presente en todos los locales donde las muertes ocurrieron o serían producidos como resultado de reacciones químicas, incluso en los lugares más cálidos o más fríos.

Como los lectores de The Real Agenda han leído en un reporte anterior, (Kvenvolden y Rogers, 2005; Salomón, Susana et al, 2010; Blake y Rowland, 1988:.. Bousquet, P. et al, 2006; Chandler, David 2008) revelaron que la presencia de gas metano aumentó en la atmósfera de forma continua, triplicándose en los últimos 300 años. La investigadora Andrea Silverthorne pidió a David Rind de la NASA que explicara los efectos de la existencia de vapor de agua -un oxidante de gas metano- en la atmósfera en exceso y las consecuencias de esto. Rind había escrito un artículo sobre sus preocupaciones sobre el aumento del vapor de agua en la atmósfera en 1998. Después, durante un intercambio de e-mail con el Sr. Rind, Silverthorne planteó la cuestión de si el derrame de petróleo de BP había aumentado las emisiones de gases, pero Rind se negó a responder sobre cualquier cosa que pudiera relacionar el derrame de petróleo con las emisiones de gases en el aire. (Una de las principales fuentes de gas metano en los oceános y el aire es precisamente la extracción de petróleo.)

Keith Kvenvolden, un empleado jubilado del Servicio Geológico de los Estados Unidos (USGS), escribió un artículo en 2004 sobre las cantidades enormes de metano procedentes del fondo del mar en lugares en los que se extrajo petróleo. Publicado en el Diario de Marina y Geología Petrolera, Kvenvolden apuntó que, “las emisiones más espectaculares de gases suceden en lugares como Coal Oil Point, California“. El documento también dice que las filtraciones de metano suceden en lugares donde hay volcanes de lodo en las zonas donde las reservas de petróleo se encuentran. Las emisiones están formadas por barro, agua y gas metano.

Según una investigación realizada por la investigadora Andrea Silverthorne, “El gas metano se oxida en la atmósfera y se transforma en tóxicos de metanol y luego se vuelve vapor de agua y formaldehído. Ambos son gases muy peligrosos, ya que el formaldehído es tóxico y el vapor de agua atrapa el calor.” Silverthorne cita un informe publicado en Science Daily, sobre los niveles de metano, los cuales aumentaron en 27 millones de toneladas en 2007 (Organización Europea para la Explotación de Satélites Meteorológicos (EUMETSAT).

Nuevas investigaciones sobre la existencia e influencia de metano en la atmósfera, dirigida por Kelly Chance y Thomas P. Kurosu, del Centro Harvard-Smithsoniano para Astrofísica, reveló que “los niveles de formaldehído en la atmósfera eran compatibles con los niveles de la biosfera, y que son más altos en el verano de las zonas más calientes “. El formaldehído es uno de los gases más pesados, y es el producto de la oxidación del metano en niveles altos. “El gas metano es más ligero y se encuentra normalmente en zonas más frescas. Una vez que la oxidación se completa, el gas cae a la tierra porque es mucho más pesado “, escribe Silverthorne.

Los investigadores Chance y Kurosu atribuyeron el aumento de los niveles de formaldehído a la oxidación del metano, pero dijeron que este aumento se debía a la presencia de isopreno exhalado por los árboles, ya que también se oxida y transforma en formaldehído.

En 2000, científicos en Groenlandia, midieron el intercambio de gases en el aire, específicamente el formaldehído y el peróxido de hidrógeno. Ellos descubrieron que el formaldehído se mantenía en reposo durante las horas de la noche y se oxida durante el día, después que el sol parecía al amanecer. En 2003 y 2004, los científicos volvieron a Groenlandia durante la primavera para medir los niveles de mediados de verano. Se dieron cuenta de que entre más caliente era la temperatura, mayor era la liberación de formaldehído en el aire.

Sin embargo, altas concentraciones de formaldehído no se limitan a la atmósfera. En 2006, científicos que trabajaban en Turquía, y que habían estudiado los niveles de formaldehído en agua, confirmaron que el formaldehído se encontraba en los depósitos líquidos, así como la nieve. “Depósitos líquidos pueden ser una fuente significativa de HCHO a los sistemas acuáticos, ya que las concentraciones en el agua de lluvia son más altos que en las aguas superficiales”. Sus revelaciones señalaron que el formaldehído va del agua al aire y vice versa. Después que vuelve al agua, forma diol metano (formalina), el preservativo tóxico utilizado en los laboratorios. Su informe fue más allá al decir que el viento disminuyó los índices de depósito mientras que la humedad los aumentaba. Los científicos sugirieron estudiar más a fondo la degradación de HCHO en el agua.

Entonces, ¿cómo afectaría el formaldehído a las aves, ranas, peces o murciélagos? Según la investigadora Andrea Silverthorne: “Incluso en bajos niveles, el formaldehído provoca reacciones inmunes. Cuando los niveles aumentan, puede causar hipotermia, asfixia y acidosis en última instancia, lo que literalmente destruye sus cuerpos de adentro hacia afuera “. Esta descripción coincide con lo que los científicos han estado describiendo en casi todas las muertes en aves, murciélagos, peces y otros animales pequeños que han muerto misteriosamente . Ella continúa diciendo que: “el formaldehído que se ingiere a través del agua es la peor forma de envenenamiento. Los murciélagos beben agua en las cuevas oscuras. Las ranas probablemente también beben agua en su medio natural y también lo hacen las aves. Los peces serían probablemente las primeras criaturas afectadas en un ambiente envenenado con formaldehído, porque viven cada segundo de su vida dentro del agua.

¿Pero los animales y los peces no tienen la capacidad de oler el formaldehído y correr por sus vidas? Según un estudio realizado por el Programa Internacional sobre Seguridad Química (IPCS) de las Naciones Unidas, el formaldehído huele solamente una vez que llega a concentraciones de 3 ppm. Estudios realizados en Brasil -uno de los lugares afectados por la muerte masiva de peces- reveló que concentraciones tan bajas como 1,25 ppm, muy por debajo del límite legal en muchos países, afecta la respiración. En otros estudios que se completaron antes del que se realizó en Brasil, determinó que el formaldehído en el agua reduce los niveles de oxígeno. (Morgan, Kevin T. 1984). Al parecer, las filtraciones de metano en el océano -como lo describe Kvenvolden – se oxidan también.

Así pues, tenemos el origen plausible y la presencia de concentraciones óptimas. No necesitamos de alguna manera que niveles peligrosos existan en todas partes para causar las muertes en masa, como lo hemos presenciado? Gases viajan con facilidad por todo el planeta a través de los patrones de viento. Las altas concentraciones locales o columnas móviles de formaldehído en todo el planeta serían efectivas para causar muertes masivas de animales. De acuerdo con el informe del Programa Internacional sobre Seguridad Química:

El formaldehído se forma naturalmente en la troposfera durante la oxidación de hidrocarburos. Estos reaccionan con los radicales OH y el ozono para formar formaldehído y / o otros aldehídos como productos intermedios en una serie de reacciones que conducen en última instancia a la formación de monóxido de carbono, dióxido de carbono, hidrógeno y agua (Zimmermann et al, 1978;. Calvert, 1980).

De los hidrocarburos que se encuentran en la troposfera, el metano se produce en las concentraciones más altas (1,18 mg / m) en el hemisferio norte. Por lo tanto, constituye la fuente más importante de formaldehído (Lowe et al., 1981).

A esta afirmación podemos añadir la información de la investigadora Silverthorne de que el metano tiene una vida útil de 9 años, por lo que la muerte masiva actual de los animales podría prolongarse por 9 años más.

“El derrame de gas de BP, junto con los niveles ya elevados-probablemente peor en Arkansas porque tiene filtraciones de metano por actividad sísmica, hicieron el problema peor. El metano va en dirección al sur a través del agua a pesar de que lleva mucho tiempo para mezclarse a través del aire, y migra de ida y vuelta a los polos cada verano, y en nuestro hemisferio, hacia el norte, probablemente llega al Medio Oeste y la India, aunque el gran exceso de viento está cambiando los patrones actuales. “.

En su trabajo de investigación publicado en The Real Agenda, Andrea Silverthorne también presenta el caso de la desaparición masiva de abejas que se tornó en relevante para los medios de comunicación tradicionales hace apenas unos meses. Ella escribe: “las abejas están sucumbiendo a los parásitos y virus cuando antes no lo estaban, y las abejas son sensibles a la acidosis. Ellas toleran la acidosis durante la etapa de larva, peor no después de nacer. Es por eso que no hay cuerpos de abejas para encontrar, con toda probabilidad. Pueden haber sido literalmente disueltos con ácido, de la acidosis creado por altos niveles de formaldehído. ”

El científico K-U Goss, presentó un informe sobre la adsorción en el aire de compuestos orgánicos en condiciones ambientales en 2004, y planteó la cuestión de si todos nosotros, especialmente los niños que juegan y corren por el suelo o en la nieve -donde el gas formaldehído pesado descansa- se exponen los 365 días del año a este asesino silencioso. Él va más allá y pregunta si cuando la gente abre sus casas el gas formaldehído entra en las casas y queda en el suelo durante el verano y el invierno también. El informe de Goss también revela que el formaldehído tiene la capacidad de adsorción en el suelo, lo que significa que podríamos estar enfrentando la contaminación del suelo también. Laboratorios tuvieron que suspender el uso del formalina por esa misma razón, no podían librarse del gas que se extiende en el suelo porque la ventilación está diseñada para eliminar solo los gases más ligeros.

¿Será que los gobiernos del mundo están realizando estudios para medir los niveles de formaldehído en el suelo, nieve, niebla, escarcha, rocío, ríos, lagos, estanques, arroyos y los mares – tanto de noche como durante el día? Están los científicos estudiando la existencia de formaldehído tóxico en el aire, dada su capacidad de causar el envenenamiento de los animales y luego humanos en concentraciones tan diminutas? Es la presencia del gas formaldehído en el aire, el agua y la nieve responsable por la muerte masiva de aves, peces, murciélagos y ranas? (La mayoría de los medios de comunicación atribuyen esas muertes a fuegos artificiales, las tormentas y nubes espaciales. Ninguna de estas posibles causas explica la destrucción de los órganos internos y tejidos. La intoxicación por formaldehído lo hace.).

Permítanme concluir con algunas de las afirmaciones de la investigadora Andrea Silverthorne menciona:

El formaldehído, como el agua, busca su propio nivel, cada vez más alto hasta que inunda los pulmones de todos los seres vivos, manteniendo un nivel de 0.29 ppm, por lo que nunca huele, pero causa la muerte cuando estos seres se exponen de manera continua.

La extinción por gas formaldehído explicaría por qué los animales pequeños mueren por primera vez como un grupo y luego mueren los más grandes -como un grupo.

Es por eso que nuestros niños, que pasan mucho tiempo cerca del suelo, juegan al aire libre y se sientan en la nieve o la tierra están experimentando un espectacular aumento de trastornos del sistema inmune y alergias?

Pero más importante que cualquier cuestión que se puede plantear es el hecho que ninguno de nosotros animales podemos escapar un gas que circula en el aire, desciende a la tierra por la noche y vuelve a subir durante el día. Necesitamos respirar para vivir. ¿Cuándo tiempo pasará antes de que los seres humanos mueran como un grupo?

Para obtener una lista completa de las fuentes científicas utilizadas en este artículo, por favor haga clic en este enlace.

Dead Fish and Birds Poisoned by Formaldehyde Gas Emissions

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
January 12, 2011

Since the alarming death of thousands of birds, geese, fish, bats and frogs began, theories have been as numerous as theMass bird death number of places these animals appeared dead.  With every new place, a new theory emerged.  (See locations where animals were found dead)  It is logical to think that due to the fact animals appear dead in places as far away from each other as Costa Rica and Europe, there has got to be a different explanation for each mass death.  However, why couldn’t it be quite the opposite?  Couldn’t there be a common cause for the death of those animals?  Or perhaps, most of those cases?

What could be the trigger of mass animal death in almost all seven continents?  As I began to think about it, I thought it had to be something that could exist in all those places and that could be carried though each of those locations in the same manner, with the ability or potential to expand rapidly, homogeneously, massively.  Then I thought about the air we breath.  Humans are exposed to hundreds of contaminants on a daily basis.  We don’t die as the birds and other small animals did because we are larger animals, with more advanced respiratory systems that have the capacity to filter impurities.  So it takes longer for us to be affected when poisoned with small amounts of contaminants in the air.

Take for example smog.  We walk around towns and large cities where thousands of cars, buses and trucks circulate daily releasing smog through their exhaust pipes.  However we do not fall dead immediately.  It requires more than that to kill us quickly.  But with birds, fish, bats, frogs and geese, the amounts and concentrations required are smaller, much smaller.  In order for mass deaths like this to happen, animals need to be either exposed to the cause continuously for a long period of time, or to a high dose for a short period.  Either way, the result would be the same: death.

It is important to note that strange mass animal deaths such as the ones seen in Arkansas, Brazil, Florida, New Zealand, Haiti and other places did not begin recently.  The media has only reported on it now, but it began at least a decade ago.  First major mass deaths were reported by Graduate student Karen Lips who spent two years studying Golden Frogs in the jungles of Talamanca, Costa Rica.  Pathologist couldn’t determine the cause of death.  Ms. Lips returned to Central America later, this time to western Panama, where after a while, frogs also start dying.  For the second time, pathologists could not determine what caused the death of the frogs.

The trend became more alarming when researchers found out the frogs were not only dying in Central America, but also in the United States and elsewhere in the world. (See a chronology of the current mass deaths of animals here)

So what is that ‘trigger’ of death that could be present almost everywhere those birds, fish and frogs have appeared dead?  Let’s think about a gas.  Let’s think about a gas whose properties allows it to travel from the ground up and vice versa as well as from continent to continent or hemisphere to hemisphere.  How about one that could exist or that due to chemical reactions appear everywhere, even in the coldest or warmest places.

As The Real Agenda informed readers, it has been reported by (Kvenvolden and Rogers, 2005; Solomon, Susan et al., 2010; Blake and Rowland, 1988: Bousquet, P. et al.,2006; Chandler, David 2008) that the presence of methane gas in the atmosphere increased continuously, tripling over the past 300 years.  Researcher Andrea Silverthorne asked NASA’s David Rind about the existence and consequences of water vapor – an oxidant of methane gas- in the atmosphere.  Rind had written an article on his concerns about water vapour’s rise in our atmosphere back in 1998.  During an e-mail exchange with Mr. Rind, Silverthorne posed the question on whether the BP oil spill had increased gas emissions, but Rind refused to answer on anything that could relate the oil spill to the release of gases into the air.

methane coming from oceans

Keith Kvenvolden, a former USGS, retired employee, wrote a paper in 2004 about the gigantic amounts of methane coming from the ocean floor in places where where petroleum was extracted.  Published on the Marine and Petroleum Geology Journal, Kvenvolden points to observations of “the ‘world’s most spectacular marine hydrocarbon seeps off Coal Oil Point, California”.  The paper also details methane seepage out of mud volcanoes in areas where petroleum reserves are located.  These are formed by mud, water and methane gas.

According to an investigation conducted by researcher Andrea Silverthorne, “Methane gas oxidizes in the atmosphere first to a transitory toxic substance call methanol and then moves to formaldehyde and water vapor. Both are very dangerous gases, because formaldehyde is toxic, and water vapor traps heat.” Silverthorne cites a report published in Science Daily, about methane levels increasing by 27 million tons in 2007 (European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT).

Further research on the existence and influence of methane in the atmosphere, conducted by Kelly Chance and Thomas P. Kurosu, of the Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, revealed that “formaldehyde levels in the atmosphere were consistent with ground levels, and that they were highest in the summer in hotter areas”.   Formaldehyde is one of the heaviest gases out there, and it is the product of methane oxidation at high levels.  “Methane gas is lighter and is usually located in areas where it turns cooler. Once the oxidation is complete, the gas falls to earth because it is so much heavier,” writes Silverthorne.

Researchers Chance and Kurosu attribute increasing formaldehyde levels to methane oxidation, although they hink such increase is due to the presence of isoprene exhaled by trees, as it too oxidizes to formaldehyde.

In 2000, scientists in Greenland who measured air/gas exchange for formaldehyde and hydrogen peroxide, discovered that formaldehyde remained at rest during the night hours and began oxidizing during the day, as soon as the sun appeared at dawn.  In 2003 and 2004, scientists returned to Greenland to look at earlier spring and mid summer levels.  They found out that the warmer it got the higher the release of formaldehyde was into the air.

But high concentrations of formaldehyde do not limit themselves to air.  In 2006, scientists working in Turkey, who had Mass fish deathstudied formaldehyde levels in water, reported they found formaldehyde in liquid deposits as well as snow. “Wet deposit may be a significant source of HCHO to aquatic systems since concentrations in rainwater are expected to be higher than in surface waters”.  Their revelations noted that formaldehyde goes from water to the air and back. After it returns to the water, it forms methane diol (formalin), the toxic preservative used in laboratories. Their report went further to say that wind decreased deposition rates while humidity increased them. Scientists suggested further study of HCHO degradation in water.

So how would formaldehyde affect a bird, frog, fish or goose? According to researcher Andrea Silverthorne: “Even in low levels formaldehyde causes immune reactions. As levels go higher it can cause hypothermia, asphyxiation, and ultimately acidosis, which literally eats you from the inside out.”  This description matches what scientists have been describing in almost all cases where birds, geese, bats and other small animals have died mysteriously.  She goes on to say that: “formaldehyde ingested through water is the worst form of poisoning. Bats drink water in dark caves.  Frogs probably also drink water in their natural environment and so do birds.  Fish would probably be the first and most affected creatures in an environment poisoned with formaldehyde, because they live every second of their lives inside the water.

Wouldn’t animals and fish have the ability to smell the formaldehyde and run for their lives?  According to a study done by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) for the United Nations, formaldehyde does not smell until it reaches 3ppm. Studies made in Brazil -one of the location affected by mass fish death- revealed that concentrations as low as 1.25 ppm, well below the countries legal limit, caused breath impairment.  Other studies completed earlier than the one in Brazil, determined that formaldehyde in water reduces oxygen levels. (Morgan, Kevin T. 1984).  Apparently, methane seeps in ocean water -as described by Kvenvolden – oxidizing too.

So, we have the plausible origin and presence of optimum concentrations.  Don’t we need somehow that dangerous levels existed everywhere to cause mass deaths such as the ones we’ve witnessed?  Gases travel easily across the planet through wind patterns.  High local concentrations or moving columns of formaldehyde around the planet would be effective to cause mass animal deaths.  According to the report by the International Programme on Chemical Safety:

Formaldehyde is naturally formed in the troposphere during the oxidation of hydrocarbons. These react with OH radicals and ozone to form formaldehyde and/or other aldehydes as intermediates in a series of reactions that ultimately lead to the formation of carbon monoxide and dioxide, hydrogen, and water (Zimmermann et al., 1978; Calvert, 1980).

Of the hydrocarbons found in the troposphere, methane occurs in the highest concentration (1.18 mg/m in the northern hemisphere. Thus, it provides the single most important source of formaldehyde (Lowe et al., 1981).

To this statement we can add Silverthorne’s information that methane has a 9 year shelf life, so the current mass death of animals could go for as long as 9 years.

The BP gas spill, combined with already high levels -it was probably worse in Arkansas because you have methane seeps going on there from the seismic activity- making it worse.   Methane does go south through the water even though it takes a very long time to mix south through the air, and methane migrates back and forth to the poles every summer, so it will, in our hemisphere, move north,  most likely over the Midwest and India, although the great excess is changing wind current patterns.

In her research paper published on The Real Agenda, Andrea Silverthorne also presents the case of the bee mass disappearance that became relevant for the main stream media only months ago.  She writes: “bees are succumbing to parasites and virus where before they were not, and bees are susceptible to acidosis; they go through it safely in the larva stage. That is why there are no bee bodies to find, in all probability. They may have been literally dissolved with acid, from acidosis created by high formaldehyde levels.

Scientist K.-U Goss, presented a report about the Air/Surface Adsorption Equilibrium of Organic Compounds Under Ambient Conditions in 2004, which raised the question of whether all of us, especially infants who play or run around the floor or on the snow, where heavy formaldehyde gas rests, are exposed 365 days a year to this toxic silent killer.  He goes further to ask if when people open their houses’ windows formaldehyde gas enters the homes and drops to the floor for the summer and then winter too. Goss’ report also reveals that formaldehyde has the ability to adsorb to soil, which means we could be facing deadly soil contamination as well.  Laboratories had to discontinue use of formalin for that very reason; they could not get rid of the gas lying low on the floor as ventilation is designed to eliminate lighter gases.

Are world governments conducting studies to test formaldehyde levels in soil, snow, fog, frost, dew, rivers, lakes, ponds, streams . . . and seas — both at night and during the day?  Are scientists focusing on the existence of toxic formaldehyde in the air, given that it can cause animal and certainly human poisoning in such minute concentrations?  Is formaldehyde gas in the air, water and snow the explanation no one has looked into for the mass death of birds, fish, bats and frogs? (Most media attribute it to fireworks, storms and space clouds.  None of which explains the destruction of internal organs and tissues.  Formaldehyde poisoning does.).

Let me close with some of Ms. Silverthorne’s important assertions:

Formaldehyde, like water, seeks its own level, rising higher and higher until it floods the lungs of all living breathing life, maintaining a level of .29 ppm, so we never smell it, but die from chronic exposure.

Extinction by formaldehyde gas would explain why small animals die first as a group and then larger ones die— as a group.

Is this why our children, who hang out closer to the floor, play outside and sit on the snow and ground more, are experiencing dramatically increasing immune and allergen disorders?

But more important than any question we can raise is the fact none of us animals can escape a gas that circulates in the air, descends to the ground at night and goes right back up during the day.  We need to breathe in order to live.  When will humans time come to die as a group?

For a complete list of scientific sources used in this article, please click this link.


Costa Rica Occupied by U.S. Military -Update-

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
July 7, 2010

In an interview to a local newspaper, the Vice Minister of Security of Costa Rica, JORGE CHAVARRÍA said the alternative solution to letting the American occupiers move around the country is “too expensive”.  ”It would require the whole national budget to fully equip the Coast Guard so they can do the work the U.S. military will do.”  But if Costa Rica is not capable of securing its own coasts and land, it means the U.S. Army will have to stay in Costa Rican territory forever, and not only for six months as the permit says, doesn’t it?  One point the Vice Minister got right is that drug smuggling is a regional or even continental problem, therefore, Costa Rica cannot solve it by itself.  However, Mr. CHAVARRÍA also believes it is kosher to violate the Constitution and allow foreign forces to occupy the country.  But isn’t this very same action an example of trying to solve the problem by itself?

In the meantime, legislator Luis Fishman has decided to take the approval of Congress to Costa Rican courts as he believes it is unconstitutional.  ”The agreement signed between Costa Rica and the United States in 1998 was to allow Coast Guard ships only and not military,” insists Fishman.  While some legislators complain about the arrival of the Americans, it seems some people in Costa Rica do not understand what this issue is all about.  It is common to read comments in the local media which favor the arrival of the U.S. Army.  Jesus Cespedes Calderon says in a comment that Fishman’s actions only reflect an interest for self promotion and not an authentic concern for the country’s sovereignty.  Luis Adrian Gonzalez Rozmenoski, another Costa Rican writes that people like Fishman and the others opposing the move are a bunch of drama queens that shield themselves with the issue of sovereignty to become popular figures.

Other comments express a belief that the precarious security condition the country is experiencing demands and justifies the type of actions the Costa Rican Congress has taken.  They ignore or do not recognize that the dire situation they so precisely point out exists due to the corruption that exists at all levels in the Costa Rican society.  They surely ignore the Hegelian dialect and way of operating in which the conquerors create a problem to cause a reaction and provide a “solution”.

A local newspaper called La Nacion, points out that the current security problem is a result of the government neglect, who is used to receiving donations from foreign governments instead of setting funds aside for combating crime and drug trafficking. The Director of the Coast Guard, Martín Arias, said in an interview that: “We don’t have the capacity to safeguard all our marine territory”.  Who has?  The United States, with all its might cannot take care of its own borders, which makes it even more ironic that they go to Costa Rican land and oceans to help them safeguard the territory.

Arias added that the government of Costa Rica has indeed neglected the security of the country, by many seen as a small piece of paradise in the middle of a revolted region.  ”The country is happy with accepting royalties from friendly governments,” he said.  The local Coast Guard obtains its budget from the Public Security Department.  The total annual budget for combating crime in Costa Rican waters is of about $145,000 of which only 15 percent is spent on security operations.  Did anybody say corruption?

Although Mr. Arias did not detail how the U.S. Army would help in the fight against drug trafficking, he insisted that if the Coast Guard had the ability to fully patrol the oceans they could limit the extent to which Costa Rican oceans are used to transport and deal illegal drugs.  One thing is sure: Costa Rica does not need 46 War Ships, or 7,000 Marines or War Helicopters to end with drug trafficking in its oceans.

Costa Rica Occupied: Congress Surrenders Sovereignty to U.S. Army

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
July 6, 2010

For the first time since it abolished its Army in 1948, Costa Rica decided to allow the invasion of United States ships into its harbor

"Cuando alguno pretenda tu gloria manchar, verás a tu pueblo valiente y viril."

and effectively renounced to its sovereignty.  In an illegal move, the Costa Rican Congress approved the arrival of the American troops which include 46 US warships and 7,000 Marines.  All troops will have freedom to move about the country in their full gear, and will be allowed to police the Central American land.  The Congress’ illegal approval is in direct violation of the Costa Rican Constitution, as it was established after 1948 that the country would would not create or maintain an official army and that all the monies would instead be invested in social reform programs such as education and housing.

Although the US army is supposed to only stay in the country until December 2010, many citizens and political parties declared their opposition to the move, due to the fact the U.S. has never actually left a country it has taken possession of.  The newspaper Prensa Latina reported that the leaders of three parties in Costa Rica called the decision a “violation of sovereignty”.  The move, according to those who support it, is justified in order to empower the effort to eradicate drug trafficking in the region.  According to PressTV, the Costa Rican government argues that the approval is disproportionate to the threat caused by drug smuggling in the country and the Central American area.  Besides the 7,000 troops and the ships, the U.S. also added helicopters to the massive contingent.

Luis Fishman, the leader of the Social Unity Party (PUSC) said that the permission is a blank check to the U.S. to station its forces on the coast line of the country.  Others have warned that this position will allow the American forces to launch attacks against  targets like Venezuela, whose government opposes the American Imperialistic policies.  Before the arrival of the 7,000 troops, ships and Helicopters, the U.S. already counted with two bases in Costa Rica, which were directed by SOUTHCOM, or Southern Command, a paramilitary American group -disguised as a drug trafficking combating force- which maintains a Naval Base in the port of Caldera in the Caribbean and another one in the northern province of Guanacaste.  “We cannot support an illegal act, we won’t allow the Constitution to be broken,” Fishman added.

More complaints were heard from other political leaders.  Legislator Jose Maria Villalta said the permission will allow U.S. troops to “enjoy freedom of movement and the right to carry out the activities needed to fulfill their mission.”  Villalta added that the Washington government sees Central America as being within an area of influence  which it intends to use to force its dominance.  Previous to letting the American military forces in, Costa Rica already had agreements with the United States to allow the presence of Coast Guard vessels to remain in its waters, but never before did it permit the arrival or permanence of a military ships, helicopters or any other major war contingent.

Even if these military forces leave Costa Rican soil, as they are supposed to on December 31, 2010, the country will remain occupied by the flotilla of military soldiers who operate out of Caldera and Guanacaste under SOUTHCOM.  However, many believe that the U.S. Army is there to stay.  Let’s see if the Costa Rican people honor what their National Anthem says: “Whenever someone tries to stain your glory, you’ll see your people strong and virile.”

BP to blame in explosion, internal documents show

AP

The secret we all knew: BP cut corners days before platform explosion.

BP made a series of money-saving shortcuts and blunders that dramatically increased the danger of a destructive oil spill in a well that an engineer ominously described as a “nightmare” just six days before the blowout, according to documents released Monday that provide new insight into the causes of the disaster.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee released dozens of internal documents that outline several problems on the deep-sea rig in the days and weeks before the April 20 explosion that set in motion the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. Investigators found that BP was badly behind schedule on the project and losing hundreds of thousands of dollars with each passing day, and responded by cutting corners in the well design, cementing and drilling mud efforts and the installation of key safety devices.

“Time after time, it appears that BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense. If this is what happened, BP’s carelessness and complacency have inflicted a heavy toll on the Gulf, its inhabitants, and the workers on the rig,” said Democratic Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Bart Stupak.

The missteps emerged on the same day that President Barack Obama made his fourth visit to the Gulf, where he sought to assure beleaguered residents that the government will “leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before.”

Obama’s two-day trip to Mississippi, Alabama and Florida represents his latest attempt to persevere through a crisis that has served as an important early test of his presidency. The visit coincides with a national address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night in which he will announce new steps to restore the Gulf Coast ecosystem, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the president’s announcements.

“I can’t promise folks … that the oil will be cleaned up overnight. It will not be,” Obama said after encouraging workers in hard hats as they hosed off and repaired oil-blocking boom. “It’s going to be painful for a lot of folks.”

But, he said, “things are going to return to normal.”

The breached well has dumped as much as 114 million gallons of oil into the Gulf under the worst-case scenario described by scientists — a rate of more than 2 million a day. BP has collected 5.6 million gallons of oil through its latest containment cap on top of the well, or about 630,000 gallons per day.

But BP believes it will see considerable improvements in the next two weeks. The company said Monday that it could trap a maximum of roughly 2.2 million gallons of oil each day by the end of June as it deploys additional containment efforts, including a system that could start burning off vast quantities as early as Tuesday. That would more than triple the amount of oil it is currently capturing — and be a huge relief for those trying to keep it from hitting the shore.

“It would be a game changer,” said Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer Mark Boivin, deputy director for near-shore operations at a command center in Mobile. He works with a team that coordinates the efforts of roughly 80 skimming boats gathering oil off the coast.

Still, BP warned its containment efforts could face problems if hoses or pipes clog and engineers struggle to run the complicated collection system. Early efforts at the bottom of the Gulf failed to capture oil.

Meanwhile, congressional investigators have identified several mistakes by BP in the weeks leading up to the disaster as it fell way behind on drilling the well.

BP started drilling in October, only to have the rig damaged by Hurricane Ida in early November. The company switched to a new rig, the Deepwater Horizon, and resumed drilling on Feb. 6. The rig was 43 days late for its next drilling location by the time it exploded April 20, costing BP at least $500,000 each day it was overdue, congressional documents show.

As BP found itself in a frantic race against time to get the job done, engineers took several time-saving measures, according to congressional investigators.

In the design of the well, the company apparently chose a riskier option among two possibilities to provide a barrier to the flow of gas in space surrounding steel tubes in the well, documents and internal e-mails show. The decision saved BP $7 million to $10 million; the original cost estimate for the well was about $96 million.

In an e-mail, BP engineer Brian Morel told a fellow employee that the company is likely to make last-minute changes in the well.

“We could be running it in 2-3 days, so need a relative quick response. Sorry for the late notice, this has been nightmare well which has everyone all over the place,” Morel wrote.

The e-mail chain culminated with the following message by another worker: “This has been a crazy well for sure.”

BP also apparently rejected advice of a subcontractor, Halliburton Inc., in preparing for a cementing job to close up the well. BP rejected Halliburton’s recommendation to use 21 “centralizers” to make sure the casing ran down the center of the well bore. Instead, BP used six centralizers.

In an e-mail on April 16, a BP official involved in the decision explained: “It will take 10 hours to install them. I do not like this.” Later that day, another official recognized the risks of proceeding with insufficient centralizers but commented: “Who cares, it’s done, end of story, will probably be fine.”

The lawmakers also said BP also decided against a nine- to 12-hour procedure known as a “cement bond log” that would have tested the integrity of the cement. A team from Schlumberger, an oil services firm, was on board the rig, but BP sent the team home on a regularly scheduled helicopter flight the morning of April 20.

Less than 12 hours later, the rig exploded.

BP also failed to fully circulate drilling mud, a 12-hour procedure that could have helped detect gas pockets that later shot up the well and exploded on the drilling rig.

Asked about the details disclosed from the investigation, BP spokesman Mark Proegler said the company’s main focus right now is on the response and stopping the flow of oil. “It would be inappropriate for us to comment while an investigation is ongoing,” Proegler told AP. BP executives including CEO Tony Hayward will be questioned by Congress on Thursday.

The letter from Waxman and Stupak noted at least five questionable decisions BP made before the explosion, and was supplemented by 61 footnotes and dozens of documents.

“The common feature of these five decisions is that they posed a trade-off between cost and well safety,” said Waxman and Stupak. Waxman, D-Calif., chairs the energy panel while Stupak, D-Mich., heads a subcommittee on oversight and investigations.