- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
1
Posted on 6/8/10 at 3:03 pm to CptBengal
quote:
These hypoxic or even anoxic zones are devastating to marine life, as evidenced by the Dead Zone in the Gulf.
I've always heard about this "dead zone" but I've dove and fished that area tons of times in the peak of the summer when it's supposed to be dead and there are tons of fish swimming around everywhere. I'm not saying there's no truth to the "Dead Zone" but I haven't been able to discern any difference in my observations. What is the real deal on this dead zone?
Posted on 6/8/10 at 3:04 pm to CptBengal
Can you post all the fish kill photos from the toxic dispersant that is covering the Gulf from sea floor to surface?
TIA
TIA
Posted on 6/8/10 at 3:08 pm to Bussemer
quote:
Can you post all the fish kill photos from the toxic dispersant that is covering the Gulf from sea floor to surface?
Sure, as soon as the bio-concentrations of the chemical have reached the LD 50 for those organisms, and based on the fact it is a chemical which bioaccumulates, we may need to wait several years for them. Further, I never said the Corexit will cause fish kills. Also, because it bio-accumulates...I'm sure you'll be enjoying all those fish you catch, just better hope you don't reach the human LD 50.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 3:12 pm to CptBengal
Water testing around the spill sight hasn't shown what you are implying to be true. Everything you're proclaiming sounds like conjecture, but i'll be the first to admit i'm wrong if I start to glow from eating trout.
Why did the government say it's ok to continue using dispersant?
Why did the government say it's ok to continue using dispersant?
Posted on 6/8/10 at 3:16 pm to Bussemer
quote:
Water testing around the spill sight hasn't shown what you are implying to be true.
because currents both in the x/y and z directions are moving the water and the spill.
quote:
Everything you're proclaiming sounds like conjecture, but i'll be the first to admit i'm wrong if I start to glow from eating trout.
You won't glow, but I don't understand the bioeffects of Corexit fully to make an assessment on the initial toxicity levels and the LD 50 necessary for the many organisms with which it will come in contact with.
quote:
Why did the government say it's ok to continue using dispersant?
Political CYA, to say they are doing something
I don't work for the Feds. Further, the EPA has suggested many times that BP use a different LESS TOXIC dispersant, and has even advocated suspending all use. ETA: But BP has a ownership portion of the company which makes Corexit...so
This post was edited on 6/8/10 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 6/8/10 at 3:27 pm to CptBengal
quote:
See above on why dispersing it is bad. I think i covered it being more bioavailabe, etc....
Ok, well I guess I'll just have to take your word then. I didn't see the explanation I was looking for or I wouldn't have asked for it. I just don't see how if you can disperse oil over a greater volume of water that it could be any worse than allowing it to accumulate in great concentrations.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 3:28 pm to CptBengal
quote:
ETA: But BP has a ownership portion of the company which makes Corexit...so
BP owns part of NALCO?
Posted on 6/8/10 at 3:35 pm to MountainTiger
quote:
I just don't see how if you can disperse oil over a greater volume of water that it could be any worse than allowing it to accumulate in great concentrations.
It basically makes the oil more bioavaiable to the organisms by becoming miscible with water. Oil is naturally not, think italian salad dressing. By making it miscible with water, and organisms are all water based, it allows for more to become entrained quicker into the food web.
But honestly, there really isn't a good solution to the problem. Just pointing out that using dispersants is not a "good" idea on the whole.
Also, motile animals have the opportunity to avoid those large thick concentrations theoretically, where with it being miscible in the water, they may not even realize they are swimming through them at all.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 3:39 pm to CptBengal
Cpt
I can't speak for everyone here, but I may be able to speak for most.
You are obviously very knowledgeable and you are making what appears to be excellent points. Could you please simply them into something that a dumbass like me could understand?
I can't speak for everyone here, but I may be able to speak for most.
You are obviously very knowledgeable and you are making what appears to be excellent points. Could you please simply them into something that a dumbass like me could understand?
Posted on 6/8/10 at 3:41 pm to RPC4LSU
quote:
BP owns part of NALCO?
Sorry, should have explained better. There are members of BP board that also sit on Corexit's board. A dubious relationship to say the least.
quote:
We knew there was something fishy going on, but couldn’t figure out what it might be. Why did BP and the EPA keep on using Nalco’s Corexit, which is highly toxic to both humans and wildlife? Turns out that Rodney F. Chase, who sits on the board of Nalco, was also a BP board member. Likelihood that he still holds shares in both companies is very high. So it wasn’t JUST nepotism, it was a for-profit choice.
LINK
quote:
The two types of dispersants BP is spraying in the Gulf of Mexico are banned for use [1] on oil spills in the U.K. As EPA-approved products [2], BP has been using them in greater quantities than dispersants have ever been used [3] in the history of U.S. oil spills. BP is using two products from a line of dispersants called Corexit [4], which EPA data [2] appear to show is more toxic and less effective [5] on South Louisiana crude than other available dispersants, according to Greenwire.
quote:
As we’ve reported, Corexit was also used after the Exxon Valdez disaster [8] and was later linked with human health problems including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders. One of the two Corexit products also contains a compound that, in high doses, is associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems [9].
But I'm sure Corexit is safe and the best choice
Posted on 6/8/10 at 3:50 pm to CptBengal
quote:
CptBengal
Those are some excellent points. I've been a bit bothered by the idea and volume of chemicals they are injecting. Don't like hearing they are ignoring EPA's recommendation to use a different chemical
. My dad, who is retired from USFWS, has been working with them again down in Alabama/Florida area. He specializes in migratory birds. He said they are definitely sick from something. They come in from the water when they are sick. He believes it could be from eating the fish in the Gulf. This is worrisome.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 3:51 pm to TigerFred
quote:
I can't speak for everyone here, but I may be able to speak for most.
You are obviously very knowledgeable and you are making what appears to be excellent points. Could you please simply them into something that a dumbass like me could understand?
Fred, thats why I quit posting in this thread. dude dropped some knowledge and I was out
Posted on 6/8/10 at 4:00 pm to CptBengal
I think the bottom line is this right now:
No one has ever used these dispersants (Correxit, etc.) in these volumes or at these depths. The Gulf has become a great science experiment and the effects could be felt for years. No matter what the tests say now, we will be testing for a very, very, very long time.
No one has ever used these dispersants (Correxit, etc.) in these volumes or at these depths. The Gulf has become a great science experiment and the effects could be felt for years. No matter what the tests say now, we will be testing for a very, very, very long time.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 4:00 pm to TigerFred
I think I understand. Big globs of oil are easier for all life to avoid by swimming away from it. When it's dispersed into smaller drops, aquatic life doesn't see it, swims in it, and it accumilates in their system, thus poisoning more aquatic life. Think chronic poisoning, instead of acute poisoning. Right?
Posted on 6/8/10 at 4:05 pm to bayouprophet
quote:
No one has ever used these dispersants (Correxit, etc.) in these volumes or at these depths. The Gulf has become a great science experiment and the effects could be felt for years. No matter what the tests say now, we will be testing for a very, very, very long time.
Agreed, but based off tests of its limited use after Valdez...the prognosis doesn't look good, for the reasons enumerated above.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 4:05 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Think chronic poisoning, instead of acute poisoning. Right?
basically....you entrain into into the food web faster, and at higher volumes.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 4:06 pm to Alahunter
Cpt Bengal is 100% right on this and is what many have been saying all along. It has the potential to seriously disrupt the food chain.
Also from what I understand 4 cruises have went out looking at the plumes. The first cruise which got all the pub turned out not to be the case after samples were ran. The results from the latest cruises are still being analyzed at various labs. We should have more info regarding the size of the plumes coming forth over the next couple of weeks.
Also from what I understand 4 cruises have went out looking at the plumes. The first cruise which got all the pub turned out not to be the case after samples were ran. The results from the latest cruises are still being analyzed at various labs. We should have more info regarding the size of the plumes coming forth over the next couple of weeks.
Posted on 6/8/10 at 4:11 pm to Mudminnow
I think what the professor is trying to say is "Don't eat the fish".
Posted on 6/8/10 at 4:11 pm to Mudminnow
I was waiting for you to chime in mud.... 
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News