Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

URGENT: The Video NOAA and The FDA Are Afraid You'll Watch. Lab Finds 193 ppm Oil in Gulf Shrimp

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 03:33 AM
Original message
URGENT: The Video NOAA and The FDA Are Afraid You'll Watch. Lab Finds 193 ppm Oil in Gulf Shrimp
 
Run time: 05:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh1g0NeUUP4
 
Posted on YouTube: November 06, 2010
By YouTube Member: ProjectGulfImpact
Views on YouTube: 483
 
Posted on DU: November 07, 2010
By DU Member: Generic Other
Views on DU: 2410
 
http://www.projectgulfimpact.org

Seafood Testing Reveals 193 parts per million of "Oil & Grease" in Shrimp from Venice LA.

Despite repeated statements from the EPA and NOAA assuring residents that thorough Gulf of Mexico seafood testing has revealed levels safe for human consumption, public skepticism has continued to deter many locals from their usual seafood medley. Independent scientists have expressed concern over the published methods and protocols used by federal agencies to open sensitive fishing grounds & determine seafood safety. Invertebrates, such as shrimp, crab, & oysters, are of particular concern due to their feeding habits, relatively stationary lifestyle, and inability to process highly toxic compounds found in crude oil called Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH). Unfortunately, their concerns have proven valid.

One local activist, "Mac" Mackenzie of NOLA Emergency Response, decided that it was time to take matters into her own hands. After an incessant 7-week investigation, Mac was able to obtain crucial information from our government regarding the specifics of Gulf shrimp testing. Particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is common for shrimp to be prepared and even served whole, with the shell and digestive tract intact. When Mac learned that the Gulf shrimp testing performed to date had not included an analysis of whole shrimp with intact shells or digestive tract, she decided to mobilize. She obtained two pounds of locally caught shrimp from Venice, a small town located in the heart of Southern Louisiana. The samples were promptly transported on ice to a laboratory in Mobile Alabama, where Chemist Dr. Robert Namen tested the digestive tracts of the shrimp for components of crude oil. What they found was an alarming 193 parts per million of "Oil & Grease."



Mac informed FOSC Rear Adm. Paul Zukunft of these results during a public November 3rd conference call. The conversation went as follows:

Nancy MacKenzie: "Hi, Admiral. Thanks for taking my call. Just out of curiosity, I recently bought a couple of pounds of shrimp in Venice and had the veins tested."

Paul Zukunft: "Yes"

Nancy MacKanzie: "And they came back with 193 parts per million of oil. And I was wondering if you could comment on that."

Paul Zukunft: "OK. Yes, no I'm not aware of that particular test. I've been to the lab in Pascagoula where they actually do the sensory and chemical tests over there. And then when I've seen the shrimp that's been tested, it is deveined. So you know, the shrimp has been deveined and deshelled when they do the analysis. So all I can comment are the protocols that we're using and the fact that we're not finding any concentration of PAH in those tests. So that's new information and I'll have our environmental unit follow upon that."

Nancy MacKenzie: "Yes, Please do. Because a lot of people down here cook in shell and cook with veins in. So..."

Paul Zukunft: "Fully aware of that."

Nancy MacKenzie: "Alright. Thank you very much. I appreciate that."

Paul Zukunft: "Alright. Thank you. "

For more information on NOLA Emergency Response and their upcoming efforts to get Gulf seafood tested, please visit their website at www.nolaer.org . We will continue to update on their progress. Check back soon for more!

ShareThis

"NOAA and the Federal Food and Drug Administration earlier this week issued a joint statement giving the "all clear" to the consumption of Gulf of Mexico seafood."

NOAA demands that information questioning seafood safety be removed: http://www.einnews.com/pr-news/215998 ...

Matt Smith
Gavin Garrison
Heather Rally
for Project Gulf Impact
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cachukis Donating Member (232 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. Disheartening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue sky at night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. anyone with a shred of common sense would know this...
i won't be eating shrimp regardless of the source, but you have to feel for folks down on the gulf who make their living in the Sea Food Trade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. I haven't eaten seafood since the gusher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WestSeattle2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. Doesn't surprise me in the least. It's all about money in this
country. We cannot trust the government to ensure food safety when there are billions of dollars at stake. The occasional beef or poultry recall is one thing; shutting down an entire industry in an entire region is something they simply won't do. Too much money would be lost.

Bottom line - never trust what the government says, and don't eat seafood that comes out of the Gulf.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrynXX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. I said months ago I wouldn't eat anything coming out of those waters for years.
You just don't leak out that much oil and expect to be eating anything from it. If you want seafood only safe way ironically right now is from Asia.



Course there's always stuff we don't know. CSI LV the tv show put that one on the table with the teen with boobs. Who killed himself over it. The water was contaminated. Course anybody who watch the ep knows how that turned out. (no spoilers)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
6. K&R ! //nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crim son Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
7. Uh huh. NOAA & the FDA never considered testing intact shrimp?
That is an utter lie, I'd be my life on it. What they didn't consider doing is publishing the results of those tests. I am so sorry for the people of the gulf, and for the people who have faith that our government would not deliberately poison us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rabies1 Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. Yes we are on our own.
Educate YOURSELF about the Gulf and the over-use of toxic Corexit.
How they're still spraying this shit. Not just killing fish and wildlife.
See how it's poisoning and even killing people.
Do your own web research and find out what real people, who actually live there, have to say.

Look on YouTube at the real beaches of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and see for yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Altoid_Cyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
9. Wow, what a shock!!!
This is disgusting that an ongoing disaster is getting so little national exposure.

Once again, thank you for the updates as to what is really happening now that the corporate media has closed the books on this.

Has anyone noticed that the people who were defending BP and the use of Corexit on this board have gone silent in the last month or so?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. K&R
The media's not asking tough questions?

Of course they aren't. Who owns the media? Who advertises in the media? What would telling the truth cost the media?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
12. This needs to be seen around the nation.
:kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Henryman Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
13. This doesn't mean anything!
Oil& Grease analysis and PNA analysis are two completely different things!

Your lawn cuttings have oil & grease, your shoe has oil & grease, your little toe has oil & grease! A slice of pizza has a ton of oil and grease.

And, again, the chemist who did this analysis continues to prove he is a hack in the environmental analytical field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chervilant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Wow.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to blog and remove all doubt...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. It is probably part of a money collection scam
The FBI has files on approximtately 1300 cases where fraud and outright crimes have been carried out to claim oil damages and collect money from the BP fund. The other scam is to place this type of "discovery" in blogs, and direct the reader to sites where money is collected "to protect the environment". Reader beware.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-10 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. So you are saying all the posts we see with oil and tarballs...
all the sick people 4 Gulf state health departments report having higher than normal respiratory illnesses, all the environmentalists like Dr. Ott or journalists like Dahr Jamal with Truthout, all the local parish officials, and all the local TV stations are in cahoots to scam us for funds? I have posted hundreds of their reports. Are you saying I am aiding and abetting people who are committing fraud by revealing the truth?

WOW. And where do you get your information. Please post a link to any article that backs up your claims against any of the websites I have posted here at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Sorry but the oil and grease on my lawnmower is not the same
as that on my pizza, and if it is, I won't be eating it! You are nuts if you think shrimp marinated in crude oil and corexit is safe to eat.

I suspect these shrimp are the last adults that will be harvested for some time. Next year's offspring are probably already dead. I have said all along sniff tests are meaningless. Real scientific analysis is necessary. And our government will not share the results of these with us. This is why the scientific and environmental community must pay for their own testing.

The people who conducted this study based their conclusions on actual data they collected and analyzed. You however simply offer your belief that you know more based on nothing but your own opinions. I would hesitate to accept a dinner invitation at your house given your level of understanding about the distinction between oil and grease on food and other items.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Henryman Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-10 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. That's exactly my point! (partly)
By definition, Oil & Grease is anything that dissolves (with agitation)in hexane. So that's pizza grease, vegetable oil or shrimp guts. My point is that Oil & Grease analysis is the wrong test. This jackass chemist should be analyzing for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (also called polyaromatic nuclear hydrocarbons)by method SW-848 8310 or 8270A.

On the other hand, the Oil & Grease test is very easy to do but it doesn't tell you what's in the oil and grease. 173ppm of Oil & Grease: is that good or bad? How much Oil & Grease did you expect? You do know that animals and plants do contain oils, don't you?

And you're nuts if you read my post and you conclude that I "think shrimp marinated in crude oil and corexit is safe to eat." And for your information, I have over 25 years of experience in environmental chemistry and toxicology.

Do me a favor and look up the recent history of this nutbag chemist. To keep the people and environment of the gulf safe, we do not need people flying off the handle due to incompetent scientists trying to get their 15 minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-10 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. So you think oil found in Gulf shrimp is not related to BP spill?
Edited on Tue Nov-09-10 09:21 AM by Generic Other
I believe testing for hydrocarbons has been done and high levels have been detected. That study was also criticized by naysayers who seem intent on downplaying BP's role in destroying a viable seafood industry.

Maybe you should make a Youtube video showing yourself and your family feasting on fresh caught Gulf shrimp taken from contaminated areas to show your contempt for the conclusions of scientists in the area who have tested the shrimp and found it lacking. Because nothing less will even begin to convince me of your sincerity.

Or pay for or do the testing yourself.



Photo by a Florida fisherman of the badly oil-saturated inners of a fish he caught.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Henryman Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-10 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Where did you get that's what I think?
Please read or re-read my posts and please stop jumping to conclusions about my intentions. I'm trying to make a point to help our cause, which is to continue to bring attention to the atrocious and criminal poisoning of the gulf by BP. My point is that bad science, hyperbole and extremist views make us look bad and do not help. Please try to understand. If you don't understand science, that's fine, I'm sure your good at something else. Try to understand my position before you start labeling me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. "bad science, hyperbole and extremist views make us look bad"
I have had a number of posters dismiss articles by questioning the people doing the testing or calling for testing. The scientists are accused of everything from perpetrating fraud to make false claims on BP money to having no qualifications. I don't buy these accusations because they have been made against EVERY SINGLE person I have linked to concerning the Gulf spill in the past few months: Dr. Riki Ott, journalist Dahr Jamal, activist Kindra Arnesen, Gregg Hall, websites like FloridaLawOilSpill, GulfImpactProject, Dr. Robert Namen, etc. These also happen to be among the very few people speaking out against the spill at all.

I call foul on the idea that EVERY SINGLE person involved in challenging BP has no credibility. I have seen tests performed by Namen. They appear to come from legitimate testing facilities. Analytical Chemistry Research Laboratory conducted testing on Namen's behalf. Are their findings not trustworthy? Where are the articles repudiating Namen or anyone else involved with GulfImpactProject? I would think I would have found them if they existed. I'm just try8ing to understand why anyone who doesn't defend the BP line is under fire every time they draw attention to the lies we are being fed.

I am not questioning anyone's expertise in this matter, but I am questioning anyone's sources if they insist on dismissing the information individuals are posting about testing for chemicals. You are basically calling into question the methodology and conclusions of the only people doing ANY testing other than EPA's sniff tests. If they are wrong, the EPA needs to step up and confirm this. NOAA needs to release valid information. They have neglected their responsibility to the people of the Gulf region by refusing to do so. No one believes the rosy pictures they are painting of a miraculously cleaned up Gulf. We have eyes. We have ears. We can see for ourselves what is and isn't so. None of what the government or BP is telling us passes the sniff test.

I would gladly post any valid information I can find provided by my government or anyone else. Too bad such information has not been forthcoming. If you have valid links to articles repudiating any of the sources I have posted on DU, bring them on!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Henryman Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Exaggerate much?
Every single person? Really? I question two people: this chemist and the marine toxicologist who gives her opinion on human health toxicology (forgot her name). I just googled this chemist again and I found two websites on the first page of the search that question this chemist. This joker owns the lab. He is self-promoting. He has made the news three times in the last few months touting his analytical results. Each time his data and conclusions are severely flawed. His methods and quality control wouldn't pass a high school chemistry class. If you want details of the deficiencies of all three of these instances, let me know and I will gladly expound.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Every single person I named has been challenged
for posting information critical to BP. The government has done nothing to alleviate concerns of the citizens of the Gulf concerning their health by posting "valid" test results. Sniff tests don't count. Now you not only challenge Dr. Namen, you also challenge a marine toxicologist whose name you can't even remember. Dr. Riki Ott, I presume. She is the toxicologist well known for her work in Valdez, Alaska with Exxon oil spill.

Post # 15 in this very thread implies those that challenge the corporate BP line are committing fraud for monetary gain. That poster even suggests I am some how involved in such activity.

Where's the exaggeration? Too many challenges to the conclusions of those who are finding serious problems in the Gulf, yet no better evidence presented. No studies, no tests, just BP and the government's word that all is fine. I wouldn't trust BP's word enough to believe it was safe to put a tank of their gas in my car at this point.

Sorry. I need more than your say so that all the sources I post are deficient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Henryman Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Check out the laboratory!
ACT has 1 employee.
ACT has their phone disconnected.
ACT doesn't even have a website.
"Dr." Robert Nanan doesn't have his CV posted anywhere.
If it walks like a duck...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Bob Naman, an analytical chemist who lives on the Gulf, in Mobile, Ala.
Naman initially became involved in the controversy through his neighbors, who were concerned about oil in their water. "People started walking in and asking me to test their water," he said in an interview with DailyFinance.

Soon, Naman was being sought out by the news. WKRG News 5, a CBS affiliate based in Mobile, asked him to test several water samples from various locations in their viewing area. He found that the samples contained between 16 and 221 parts per million of oil, often in water that appeared clean. In mid-August, while testing a sample from Margaret Long, a resident of Cotton Bayou, Ala., he also found 13.3 parts per million of Corexit, a chemical dispersant that -- according to Coast Guard commander Thad Allen -- BP had stopped using in mid-July.

Dangers of Dispersant

Here's where the story gets complicated. There are actually two versions of Corexit: 9527 and 9500. While both compounds have been linked to a variety of health problems, the first version, Corexit 9527, is particularly toxic. According to its safety sheet, the chemical can cause a wide range of symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, "anesthetic or narcotic effects" and respiratory tract irritation. Extensive or repeated exposure can cause permanent damage to blood cells, kidneys and the liver.

According to Nalco Holdings (NLC), which makes the compounds, BP stopped using Corexit 9527 in mid-April. But Bob Naman disagrees. Some of the water samples he's analyzed contain significant quantities of 2-butyoxyethanol, a major ingredient in Corexit 9527 that isn't included in Corexit 9500. Long's water sample also contained 2-butyoxyethanol.

Linked to cancer in lab animals, 2-butyoxyethanol also causes several cardiopulmonary problems, including low blood pressure, fluid collection around the lungs and coma. Considering that BP supposedly stopped using Corexit 9527 in April, it's hard to explain the compound's presence in the Gulf.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/bp-gulf-... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. I would rather you proved their data was wrong than simply attack them
I read Namen's CV last time he was attacked. It is online. ACT does have a website. Google it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Namen is not the only one finding toxins in the water and in the air
Blood Tests Show Elevated Level of Toxic Hydrocarbons in Gulf Residents

Chemists are finding elevated levels of toxic hydrocarbons in the bloodstream of Gulf coast residents.

People who live near the water are showing higher than normal levels of toxic chemicals. These are not fishermen, shrimpers, oil workers or others who work on the water.

Jerry Cope recently wrote about his test results in an article at Huffington Post.

Several Gulf coast residents have discussed their test results in a number of videos (links posted in my journal).

And the Intel Hub has uploaded test reports.

The local ABC news affiliate in Pensacola, Florida ABC3 Wear covered the story:

Several residents of Orange Beach say the oil spill has been making them sickand they have the test results to prove it.

Gerry Cope, Margaret Carrouth and Robin Young were all feeling the same symptoms of headaches, watery eyes, and breathing problems

All three had blood samples taken at the beginning of August

Tests revealed each had elevated levels of the Hydrocarbons Ethyl Benzene and Xylene.

Bob Naman, a chemist out of Mobile, analyzed the results.

He shows three times the amount you typically find in someones blood.

These people are from different backgrounds, and from different walks of life, all showing same similar organic compounds in blood, says to me its very likely in the air.

Background levels of these chemicals were taken from the U.S. Centers for Disease Controls Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals.

National Public Radio notes, Orange Beach city geologist Mark White and others found oil which was apparently airborne.

And New Orleans news channel WDSU noted in July:

Smiths team has also conducted air monitoring tests. What they found high levels of chemicals like benzene and hexane coming from dispersants.

And even BP admitted back in June elevated levels of ethyl benzene and xylene offshore.

In addition, scientists have found that applying Corexit to Gulf crude oil releases 35 times more toxic chemicals into the water column than would be released with crude alone.

Yet, rather than scrutinizing the data, critics always attack the ones who release the information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. the BP disaster will hang over Obama like Katrina did Bush
it is disheartening
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Takket Donating Member (89 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
19. Food for thought......
A typical "large" shrimp weighs 1/25 of a pound. If you ate a serving of 10, that's 2/5 of a pound of shrimp.

At a rate of 193 ppm of oil/grease, if you ate that 2/5 pound of shrimp, that would mean you injest a grand total of 0.0000386 pounds of oil.

A gallon of crude oil weights 7 pounds, so that's 0.000005514 gallons.

That's a pretty small number to comprehend, so converting we get 0.021 milliliters of oil. If someone put that much oil in your mouth with an eyedropper, you probably would not even taste it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
33. "applying Corexit to Gulf crude oil releases 35 times more toxic chemicals"
add that to your numbers...toxic. You do know what that means, don't you? To me it means, I don't want even .021% of it in my system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-10 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
28. The media's completely worthless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC