- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Possible good news about the plumes
Posted on 6/8/10 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 6/8/10 at 1:42 pm
This only an initial study and more is being conducted, but perhaps the initial study is a good indication that the plumes aren't as heavy as some thought.
LINK to NOAA initial analysis press release
LINK to NOAA initial analysis press release
quote:
* Hydrocarbons found in surface samples taken at the Slick 1 source, 40 nautical miles northeast from the well head, were consistent with the BP oil spill source;
* Hydrocarbons found in samples from Station 07—42 nautical miles northeast from the well head—at the surface, at 50 meters and at 400 meters are petroleum-derived but in concentrations too low to confirm the source; and
* Hydrocarbons found in samples taken from Station 01, 142 nautical miles southeast of the well head, at 100 meters and 300 meters were not consistent with the BP oil spill source.
* An additional analysis of samples taken from waters 1,250 meters deep and 1,000 deep at two stations closer to the well are consistent with the findings of the University of South Florida. Our preliminary results revealed petroleum hydrocarbons so highly fractionated that it was not possible to confirm the source of the oil.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 1:43 pm to TigerFred


This post was edited on 6/8/10 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 6/8/10 at 1:47 pm to TigerFred
Having read the linked release, it's hard to find anything that obviously supports the characterization "possible good news." Help us out.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 1:49 pm to TigerFred
quote:
This only an initial study and more is being conducted, but perhaps the initial study is a good indication that the plumes aren't as heavy as some thought.
No it's worse.
Using the dispersants they made the hydrocarbons more miscible in the seawater. This makes them more difficult to clean up, and more bioavailable.
This is even worse, not better.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 1:52 pm to nycajun
When the test samples are so low in concentration to identify the source it sure sounds like the plumes aren't as heavy as some thought. If the plumes aren't heavy in concentration it sounds like good news to me.
I would wait to make a final judgment until I see more data from further testing.
I would wait to make a final judgment until I see more data from further testing.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:10 pm to TigerFred
How dare you shed some positive light into this thread Fred....Dont you know that this is the end of the world as we know it??
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:12 pm to tgrbaitn08
Lemme read again, oh yea, that study was made by the Gubament.................
How do ya think its gonna read....
How do ya think its gonna read....
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:13 pm to Drop4Loss
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/8/10 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:16 pm to CptBengal
Having less oil in the gulf is worse? please explain
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:20 pm to TigerFred
quote:
Having less oil in the gulf is worse? please explain
It's not less...unless somehow the dispersants magically made it disappear. They simply made the molecules more miscible in water. thereby decreasing the concentration per volume, and making them more bioavailable.
For example if I have 1 gallon of oil and nine gallons of water in a large container....and add dispersants....The oil "disperses", becoming more miscible int the whole of the body of water. This has done nothing to decrease the volume of oil...merely made it be able to mix with the water. thereby making it harder to clean up, and making it more bioavaliable for the wildlife...particularly at the more vulnerable basal end of the food web.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:31 pm to CptBengal
quote:
It's not less...unless somehow the dispersants magically made it disappear. They simply made the molecules more miscible in water. thereby decreasing the concentration per volume, and making them more bioavailable.
For example if I have 1 gallon of oil and nine gallons of water in a large container....and add dispersants....The oil "disperses", becoming more miscible int the whole of the body of water. This has done nothing to decrease the volume of oil...merely made it be able to mix with the water. thereby making it harder to clean up, and making it more bioavaliable for the wildlife...particularly at the more vulnerable basal end of the food web.
Have you ever heard that the answer to pollution is dilution. Once the oil is broken down or dispersed it is easier for the bacteria of the sea to degrade the oil into nothing.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:36 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:
Have you ever heard that the answer to pollution is dilution.
yeah, i have.
i've also heard that the solution to pollution is to don't pollute, or reduce all types of emissions to begin with.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:38 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:
Have you ever heard that the answer to pollution is dilution. Once the oil is broken down or dispersed it is easier for the bacteria of the sea to degrade the oil into nothing.
Agreed, however the size of this spill far outweighs the microbial loop's ability to deal with the problem efficiently and in a timely manner. In the meantime, while the microbial loop ramps up its number of organisms to deal with the new food source, the oil has become more bioavailable to wildlife for an extended period of time. Being more miscible in the water it also becomes more likely to be entrained into the food web and at higher quantities in the organisms. That is a major problem.
Secondarily, with it being more interspersed in water, the overall area where the bacteria interact with the oil has increased. Thereby increasing the area where there will be reduction in available oxygen as the bacteria use it for respiration. These hypoxic or even anoxic zones are devastating to marine life, as evidenced by the Dead Zone in the Gulf.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:42 pm to el tigre
quote:
i've also heard that the solution to pollution is to don't pollute, or reduce all types of emissions to begin with.
lame
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:43 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Agreed, however the size of this spill far outweighs the microbial loop's ability to deal with the problem efficiently and in a timely manner. In the meantime, while the microbial loop ramps up its number of organisms to deal with the new food source, the oil has become more bioavailable to wildlife for an extended period of time. Being more miscible in the water it also becomes more likely to be entrained into the food web and at higher quantities in the organisms. That is a major problem.
Secondarily, with it being more interspersed in water, the overall area where the bacteria interact with the oil has increased. Thereby increasing the area where there will be reduction in available oxygen as the bacteria use it for respiration. These hypoxic or even anoxic zones are devastating to marine life, as evidenced by the Dead Zone in the Gulf.
Well, you're obviously way fricking smarter than I am, so I'll just let you win this one.

Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:45 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:
Well, you're obviously way fricking smarter than I am, so I'll just let you win this one.
There's alot of false info and hope about what's going on. As a humble scientist, I'm just trying to drop some knowledge where I can...so people understand the breath of the issue that now faces us all.

Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:49 pm to CptBengal
quote:
There's alot of false info and hope about what's going on. As a humble scientist, I'm just trying to drop some knowledge where I can...so people understand the breath of the issue that now faces us all.
Further to that effort, could you explain whether dispersing the oil is better than not dispersing it? Certainly it's a bad deal either way but from a layperson's viewpoint dispersed oil seems way better than concentrated oil.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:49 pm to CptBengal
Knowledge dropped scientist. 

Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:52 pm to MountainTiger
quote:
Further to that effort, could you explain whether dispersing the oil is better than not dispersing it? Certainly it's a bad deal either way but from a layperson's viewpoint dispersed oil seems way better than concentrated oil.
See above on why dispersing it is bad. I think i covered it being more bioavailabe, etc....
Not to mention Corexit is a toxic chemical in its own right that does not have a microbial loop to break it down, and will become entrained into the organisms of the food web.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:57 pm to CptBengal
Do you mind if I ask who you work with?
I understand if you would rather not.
I understand if you would rather not.
Popular
Back to top
