- 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
re: Like I have been saying all along
Posted on 6/21/10 at 1:41 pm to Bussemer
Posted on 6/21/10 at 1:41 pm to Bussemer
quote:
Now that is tragic. Do you really think this? Seriously?
Yes. OK for all you doom and gloomers lets think about this objectively.
Things we know.
1. Less oil is going into the gulf that was flowing two weeks ago.
2. Capture capacity will double in a couple of weeks.
3. If needed more capacity will be available in another two weeks.
How long does it take oil to kill whatever it is going to kill? Tell me, what is the basis to think that less oil in July is worse than more oil in June or May?
How is this devastation going to occur. Tell me how this oil is all of a sudden going to start killing stuff that it hasn't yet killed?
Where is all the devastation going to come from??? Does oil after 60 days morph into something that grows fins and starts eating all the fish or something. What is the mechanism for the future destruction???
2
Posted on 6/21/10 at 1:42 pm to GREENHEAD22
quote:
I will stick with history, facts
....its unprecedented.....dayum!
Posted on 6/21/10 at 1:43 pm to omegaman66
quote:
How is this devastation going to occur. Tell me how this oil is all of a sudden going to start killing stuff that it hasn't yet killed?
organisms 4000+ ft below the surface may disagree with your position.
Posted on 6/21/10 at 1:43 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Tell me how this oil is all of a sudden going to start killing stuff that it hasn't yet killed?
bio-accumulation.
please, read this it's pretty easy to read.
Posted on 6/21/10 at 1:44 pm to CharlesLSU
Well not to good but thats not bc there isnt any fish/shrimp.
OO and here you go Captain and Charlie.
LINK
OO and here you go Captain and Charlie.
LINK
Posted on 6/21/10 at 1:44 pm to CptBengal
oh snap!
care to cite your biased source's education on the topic? and, the dispursant they have used heavily is widely accepted as more toxic than oil itself.
your source is complete fricking garbage. do real homework. did you really just cite this rigzone deduction as your "proof"? wow
quote:
With the significant efforts underway to control the extent of the spill and with the usage of dispersants, both at the surface and being injected directly into the oil plume, the actual environmental impact of Macondo may be significantly less than Ixtoc. If that is truly the case, the long-term environmental fallout from the Gulf oil spill will likely be much less significant than the enduring catastrophe that many are envisioning.
care to cite your biased source's education on the topic? and, the dispursant they have used heavily is widely accepted as more toxic than oil itself.
your source is complete fricking garbage. do real homework. did you really just cite this rigzone deduction as your "proof"? wow
This post was edited on 6/21/10 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 6/21/10 at 1:46 pm to CharlesLSU
Just like I thought, resort to your same ole personal attacks when your left with your dick in your hand.
Posted on 6/21/10 at 1:46 pm to GREENHEAD22
from you're link, try reading the article....
quote:
While the Macondo leak's proximity to sensitive coastal wetlands and the fact that microorganisms that break down oil are likely more active in shallow waters might increase the Macondo spill's impact,
Posted on 6/21/10 at 1:49 pm to CharlesLSU
In response to the lack of oxygen:
The dead zone encompasses an area 10,000 square miles. It goes from the sea floor up towards the surface.
The 'oil zone' so far have not been measured to be a health hazard to sea life. Just they are just lower in o2. They were lower in o2 when first measured, still lower but have never been measured yet to be threating to sea life.
The 'oil zones' 'plumes' as they are called are smaller than the annual occuring dead zones AND they don't reach to the sea floor.
So it is logical think that an area that hasn't reached a deadly o2 level AND covers less area than the dead zone AND doesn't reach the sea floor would be less damaging than a bigger area with less o2 that does extend to the seafloor. It is really pretty simple.
The dead zone encompasses an area 10,000 square miles. It goes from the sea floor up towards the surface.
The 'oil zone' so far have not been measured to be a health hazard to sea life. Just they are just lower in o2. They were lower in o2 when first measured, still lower but have never been measured yet to be threating to sea life.
The 'oil zones' 'plumes' as they are called are smaller than the annual occuring dead zones AND they don't reach to the sea floor.
So it is logical think that an area that hasn't reached a deadly o2 level AND covers less area than the dead zone AND doesn't reach the sea floor would be less damaging than a bigger area with less o2 that does extend to the seafloor. It is really pretty simple.
Posted on 6/21/10 at 1:52 pm to CptBengal
quote:
and beaches in Mexico were covered in oil, with the location bird population suffering and commercial fishing industry closed for a time after the spill. The level of animal life in the region of the spill fell by more than 50 percent for some species in the immediate aftermath
since it was in MX, it didn't count?
the article doesn't quantify fishery results pre- and post-spill.
IT'S A frickING POLITICAL ARTICLE!!!
Posted on 6/21/10 at 1:54 pm to omegaman66
quote:
the dispursant they have used heavily is widely accepted as more toxic than oil itself.
Have you seen the EPA's analysis of the dispersants after all the ingredients and percentages was released.
As many of us have been saying all along the dispersant issue is a bunch of crap. You would think with thousands of barrels of oil flowing into the gulf everyday people wouldn't have to go dream harmless crap up to be worried about.
Posted on 6/21/10 at 2:33 pm to tgrbaitn08
More on the impact:
Link: LINK
Why are people defending BP and the .gov? I can understand why they're in denial or trying to minimize personal consequences but damn. Put the blame squarely where it belongs.
Link: LINK
quote:
Lots of sharks, lots of oil seen off Bon Secour (with video) Published: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 6:19 PM Updated: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 6:34 PM
en Raines, Press-Register Ben Raines, Press-Register Submerged oil at Bon Secour shoreline
FORT MORGAN, Ala. -- A two-inch layer of submerged oil hugged portions of the Gulf seafloor off the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge on Friday, a week after a smothering layer of floating crude washed ashore there. Collecting in pockets and troughs in waist-deep water, the underwater oil was looser and stickier than the tarballs spread liberally along the beach. The consistency was more like a thick liquid, albeit one made up of thousands of small globs. Unlike tarballs, which can often be picked up out of the water without staining the fingers, the submerged oil stained everything that it touched. A hand passed through the material emerged covered in oily smears. A hunk of fabric hovering near the bottom was completely covered in oil.
The Press-Register found a number of patches of submerged oil 40 to 100 feet off the beach, apparently collecting along rip currents and sandbars. The carcasses of sand fleas, speckled crabs, ghost crabs and leopard crabs were spread throughout the oil, a thick layer of the material caking the bodies of the larger crabs. Their claws looked as if they been turned into clubs made of oil. Thumb-size sand fleas burrow in the sand where the waves wash onto the beach.
It appeared that they had suffocated. Other burrowing creatures, such as the small and colorful coquina clams, seemed unaffected. Unlike sand fleas, the clams are able to close their shells for extended periods, an ability that would offer a measure of protection as oil washed across the sand above them. Dark patches seen in deeper water Friday might also have been oil, but exceptional numbers of large sharks meant diving down to investigate was not an option.
Hammerhead, bull and other sharks were schooling around a boat anchored in 6 feet of water just outside the breaking waves. Most of the sharks in the deeper water were 6 feet long or more. Smaller sharks could be seen inside the first sandbar, in one case in a school 27 strong.
Huge schools of bait hugged the seashore, attracting large numbers of birds. King mackerel, Spanish mackerel, mullet, ladyfish, speckled trout and other fish schooled in unusually large numbers amid the sharks. Dead fish seen onshore seemed to have collected in the areas closest to the underwater oil. It was unclear if the fish died because of exposure to the oil.
The Dauphin Island Sea Lab measured large areas of low oxygen water just off the beach at Fort Morgan last week, beginning in water around 20 feet deep. Monty Graham, a University of South Alabama scientist, theorized that the population of oil-consuming microbes had swelled, and those tiny animals consumed lots of oxygen. Sea life begins to die if oxygen levels drop below 2 parts per million. "We saw some very low oxygen levels, some below 1," said Graham, of testing he conducted aboard a Dauphin Island Sea Lab research vessel.
He said that the layer of low-oxygen water closest to shore off Fort Morgan began at the bottom and rose up 30 feet. Graham said he believed that the low oxygen levels were responsible for reports of strange behavior among fish. "The low oxygen explains things we've been hearing, like reports of flounder swimming on the surface," Graham said. The low oxygen levels offshore may also explain the dense aggregations of fish seen in the surf zone. The turbulent area near shore is naturally high in oxygen due to the influence of the breaking waves.
The Press-Register has heard numerous reports that suggest oil is moving beneath the surface in Alabama waters. State officials conducting shrimp trawls in the Mississippi Sound two weeks ago found oil on their nets when they pulled them. More recently, BP contractors working around Dauphin Island reported oil coming up on their anchors. ===
Oil-covered speckled crab with American flag (Press-Register/Ben Raines) A speckled crab is almost completely encased in a thick layer of oil just offshore from the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. Bits of trash, such as this American flag, are similarly encrusted with the thick, goopy oil found hugging the seafloor in several locations along the Gulf beach.
Why are people defending BP and the .gov? I can understand why they're in denial or trying to minimize personal consequences but damn. Put the blame squarely where it belongs.
Posted on 6/21/10 at 2:36 pm to WNCTiger
EPA said the dispersant do not bioaccumulate. Try to keep up!
Posted on 6/21/10 at 2:40 pm to omegaman66
quote:
EPA said the dispersant do not bioaccumulate. Try to keep up!
Read the MSDS sheet.
Low bioaccumulation =! No bioaccumulation.
Posted on 6/21/10 at 2:52 pm to CptBengal
LINK
"NAPERVILLE, Ill., May 27, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- COREXIT 9500, the only dispersant Nalco (NYSE:NLC) is manufacturing to help break up the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, is a simple blend of six well-established, safe ingredients that biodegrade, do not bioaccumulate and are commonly found in popular household products, the company said today. The COREXIT products do not contain carcinogens or reproductive toxins. All the ingredients have been extensively studied for many years and have been determined safe and effective by the EPA. "
Looking for facts
LINK
LINK
"NAPERVILLE, Ill., May 27, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- COREXIT 9500, the only dispersant Nalco (NYSE:NLC) is manufacturing to help break up the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, is a simple blend of six well-established, safe ingredients that biodegrade, do not bioaccumulate and are commonly found in popular household products, the company said today. The COREXIT products do not contain carcinogens or reproductive toxins. All the ingredients have been extensively studied for many years and have been determined safe and effective by the EPA. "
Looking for facts
LINK
LINK
Posted on 6/21/10 at 3:03 pm to omegaman66
Ok, so the EPA determines Corexit to be 'safe and effective'. Yet the UK outlaws its use.
<sarcasm>
The government is doing a great job managing this crisis and have been completely truthful throughout. Likewise BP. Therefore anything they say must be 100% true. They are completely transparent and have not tried to hide or obscure any unpleasant facts about this incident since April 20th.
</sarcasm>
Nothing to see here. Move along.
ETA: Globe Newswire: From their site:
LINK
So what are they but a PR firm?
<sarcasm>
The government is doing a great job managing this crisis and have been completely truthful throughout. Likewise BP. Therefore anything they say must be 100% true. They are completely transparent and have not tried to hide or obscure any unpleasant facts about this incident since April 20th.
</sarcasm>
Nothing to see here. Move along.
ETA: Globe Newswire: From their site:
LINK
quote:
GlobeNewswire, a NASDAQ OMX company, is one of the world's largest newswire distribution networks, specializing in the delivery of corporate press releases, financial disclosures and multimedia content to the media, investment community, individual investors and the general public.
So what are they but a PR firm?
This post was edited on 6/21/10 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 6/21/10 at 3:05 pm to WNCTiger
Do you know why it is outlawed in England for this use? I guess not or you wouldn't be touting that as a reason for concern.
Posted on 6/21/10 at 4:02 pm to omegaman66
quote:
commonly found in popular household products
In that case, it should be completely safe as we all know that no two common household products could ever be combined into something lethal...
Posted on 6/21/10 at 6:32 pm to tgrbaitn08
Could the amount of natural gas be as serious a factor in dead zone severity as discussed in this clip, or is it to be dismissed as uniformed MSM reporting?
LINK
LINK
Posted on 6/21/10 at 7:32 pm to Loophole
I am educated in engineering and business, and have worked in various professions for 30+ years, I have no idea what will happen to the GOM and its shorelines as a result of the spill, but I do know I would never bet a single dime on the predictions of scientists about what will happen. My two cents!
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News