- 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
2
Posted on 6/9/10 at 10:18 am to CptBengal
no, youre a realist IMO
ETA: you present legitimant facts to your arguments that you didnt google/wiki
ETA: you present legitimant facts to your arguments that you didnt google/wiki
This post was edited on 6/9/10 at 10:20 am
Posted on 6/9/10 at 10:20 am to mylsuhat
quote:
no, youre a realist IMO
thanks
The reality is there isn't a good solution. We just have to try and mitigate the damage as best we can.
Posted on 6/9/10 at 10:24 am to CptBengal
I wouldn't consider you a doom and gloomer. You actually make good points and understand what you are talking about.
Presenting both sides of an issue is informative and you have done a good job IMO in this thread. I don't quite understand every detail but I get the overall point that you are making.
When i first read the press release it sounded as if the plumes were not as heavy as initially thought. You clarified and helped me understand.
Presenting both sides of an issue is informative and you have done a good job IMO in this thread. I don't quite understand every detail but I get the overall point that you are making.
When i first read the press release it sounded as if the plumes were not as heavy as initially thought. You clarified and helped me understand.
Posted on 6/9/10 at 10:26 am to TigerFred
quote:
When i first read the press release it sounded as if the plumes were not as heavy as initially thought. You clarified and helped me understand.
Thanks. Like i said before, there's misinfo on both sides. The reality is alot more interesting, if people would only take the time to look.
Posted on 6/9/10 at 10:28 am to CptBengal
the main problem is the media doesnt understand any of the technical information that is released, but they still turn around and report what they think it means. 99% of the time theyre wrong
Posted on 6/9/10 at 10:29 am to mylsuhat
quote:
the main problem is the media doesnt understand any of the technical information that is released, but they still turn around and report what they think it means. 99% of the time theyre wrong
That's what happens when Bill Nye The Science Guy is your "scientific expert"
Posted on 6/9/10 at 10:50 am to CptBengal
or James Cameron
Posted on 6/9/10 at 10:53 am to mylsuhat
quote:
James Cameron
He was actually pissed they didn't ask for his "expert" help.
Dude, I don't think computer generated blue monkeys have anything to do with this problem...
Posted on 6/9/10 at 12:25 pm to CptBengal
quote:
I never said the Corexit will cause fish kills. Also, because it bio-accumulates.
Please don't think I'm defending the use of dispersants, but in your opinion what chemical in "Corexit" bio-accumulates, because I don't see any that have the typical characteristic as say the elemental metals (mercury).
Petroleum Distillate 10 to 30 % (wet weight)
Propylene glycol 1 to 5 %
Sulfonic Acid Salt 10 to 30 %
I believe acute toxicity is the main concern, but the lowest LD50 is at 25 ppm for 96 hours for fish.
The issue could be with invertebrates, there was one test subject (Acartia tonsa) that saw acute LD50 at 2 ppm, all others above 20 ppm
Posted on 6/9/10 at 12:32 pm to Fifthstring
You work for NALCO?
because this....
Claiming it doesn't have any chemicals which can bioaccumulate would be a difficult comment to make concerning that fact.
What we do know is from Valdez, there were instances of human ailments (see links on last page) that occurred years AFTER the incident. One would conclude as humans are a high trophic organism that such chemicals thereby DO bioaccumulate, as evidenced by the effects occurring several YEARS after the use of Corexit.
ETA: LINK
because this....
quote:
The proprietary composition is not public,
Claiming it doesn't have any chemicals which can bioaccumulate would be a difficult comment to make concerning that fact.
What we do know is from Valdez, there were instances of human ailments (see links on last page) that occurred years AFTER the incident. One would conclude as humans are a high trophic organism that such chemicals thereby DO bioaccumulate, as evidenced by the effects occurring several YEARS after the use of Corexit.
ETA: LINK
This post was edited on 6/9/10 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 6/9/10 at 12:42 pm to CptBengal
For those interested, the link is to NALCO's MSDS for Corexit.
Corexit MSDS
Corexit MSDS
Posted on 6/9/10 at 12:48 pm to CptBengal
quote:
You work for NALCO?
No, I work for none of these companies, just a scientist with questions like everyone else. I've seen the MSDS like you have and would also like to know the proprietary info, but I can't.
Saying the health affects seen in Alaska is caused from bioaccumulation of the other 30% in Corexit is a shot in the dark. It sounds reasonable because humans, like most carnivores, are high trophic organisms, but you just don't know.
I would put a higher probability on the fact that the health effects have more to do with the oil and associated impurities that were never properly cleaned from the area.
I still think the use of dispersants is not a good idea because of a lot of reasons, but I'm not ready to say the mystery 30% will bioaccumulate and cause us problems 20 years from now.
Posted on 6/9/10 at 12:48 pm to RPC4LSU
from your link, and thanks for the MSDS sheet....
Low =! No
quote:
BIOACCUMULATION POTENTIAL Component substances have a low potential to bioconcentrate.
Low =! No
Posted on 6/9/10 at 12:53 pm to Fifthstring
quote:
I've seen the MSDS like you have and would also like to know the proprietary info, but I can't.
I think there are ALOT of people that would like to know based on how much they are using.
quote:
Saying the health affects seen in Alaska is caused from bioaccumulation of the other 30% in Corexit is a shot in the dark. It sounds reasonable because humans, like most carnivores, are high trophic organisms, but you just don't know.
Agreed, but that premise is not far fetched, and sounds fairly plausible...as the oil usually does contain heavy metals, but am unsure about the concentrations of those in the Valdez spill.
quote:
I would put a higher probability on the fact that the health effects have more to do with the oil and associated impurities that were never properly cleaned from the area.
Heavy metal poisoning is pretty easy to test for, I would assume that the medical professionals who looked at those people would have checked that, but who knows.
quote:
I still think the use of dispersants is not a good idea because of a lot of reasons, but I'm not ready to say the mystery 30% will bioaccumulate and cause us problems 20 years from now.
I agree, my point was corexit will be far more insidious for the marine life than us (particularly zooplankton, double especially ichthyoplankton). Particularly if 70-90% is expected to be entrained in the sediment...which opens it up to a whole new section of the food web not found in the water column.
Posted on 6/9/10 at 3:35 pm to TigerFred
TigerFred:
I incorrectly mislabeled you as a BP apologist (i present my apologies), but the OP was trying to downplay the severity of the plumes...was it not?
Kinda like how you and mylsuhat (until my post), and also tigerbaitn08 did in this thread when cptbengal came along?
mylsuhat:
EVERY SINGLE THREAD that you post in, you have an excuse for BP and/or downplay the situation. I completely agree with you that the media sensationalizes/exaggerates/makes assumptions that they are not qualified to make, but the truth is somewhere in the middle of what they say and the non-issue type situation that you always portray.
I have issues with your comments because from what i can tell we are about the same age, and have similar interests. i usually agree with your posts on the rant, find your posts on the OT to be amusing, but just can't understand how someone that enjoys the same inshore/offshore/outdoors activities as me could not be deeply concerned about our coast, the wetlands, our fisheries, the gulf as a whole, etc. Your posts always lead me to believe that you have no concerns about this disaster, which i find to be just as foolish as the media you always denounce.
MY MAIN PROBLEM WITH WHAT IS GOING ON IS THE USE OF COREXIT, SPECIFICALLY. Can someone clue me in as to why the EPA or the feds don't mandate that BP use a safer disperant? TIA
I incorrectly mislabeled you as a BP apologist (i present my apologies), but the OP was trying to downplay the severity of the plumes...was it not?
quote:
The doom and gloomers around here run and won't respond after facts are presented.
Kinda like how you and mylsuhat (until my post), and also tigerbaitn08 did in this thread when cptbengal came along?
mylsuhat:
quote:
we never said anything about BP being in the clear or not at fault, we are realist that have a WAY better understanding of what is going
EVERY SINGLE THREAD that you post in, you have an excuse for BP and/or downplay the situation. I completely agree with you that the media sensationalizes/exaggerates/makes assumptions that they are not qualified to make, but the truth is somewhere in the middle of what they say and the non-issue type situation that you always portray.
I have issues with your comments because from what i can tell we are about the same age, and have similar interests. i usually agree with your posts on the rant, find your posts on the OT to be amusing, but just can't understand how someone that enjoys the same inshore/offshore/outdoors activities as me could not be deeply concerned about our coast, the wetlands, our fisheries, the gulf as a whole, etc. Your posts always lead me to believe that you have no concerns about this disaster, which i find to be just as foolish as the media you always denounce.
MY MAIN PROBLEM WITH WHAT IS GOING ON IS THE USE OF COREXIT, SPECIFICALLY. Can someone clue me in as to why the EPA or the feds don't mandate that BP use a safer disperant? TIA
Posted on 6/9/10 at 3:43 pm to MC123
The original post was intended to be what it was. When I read the report it sound like good news to me. I said I would reserve judgment until further reports.
Prior to your response I responded to cpt telling him that he made goods points and asked him to put them into simpler terms which could be understood by someone with as little knowledge as me.
Prior to your response I responded to cpt telling him that he made goods points and asked him to put them into simpler terms which could be understood by someone with as little knowledge as me.
Posted on 6/9/10 at 3:53 pm to TigerFred
Fair enough, i assumed you had an agenda, and I was wrong. My bad.
Now, as for the other two....
Now, as for the other two....
Posted on 6/9/10 at 3:58 pm to MC123
I do have an agenda. I want the leak stopped. The oil cleaned up. Let's go back to work.
And the biggest is for the truth to come out about what is really happening. BP has screwed up as well as our government.
And the biggest is for the truth to come out about what is really happening. BP has screwed up as well as our government.
Posted on 6/9/10 at 4:29 pm to TigerFred
LINK
Just FYI.
And I know it's old, but I just read it.
quote:
“The samples have shown no contaminated tissue,” Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality’s Jeff Dauzat said. “We feel they are safe (to eat), but testing will continue. “Preliminary numbers are telling us (fish and shellfish) are not toxic, but there’s still a lot of science that needs to be done.” Dauzat and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries’ Karen Foote said there have been hundreds of tissue samples collected both inside and outside of closed areas in an effort to ensure there are no health threats. In addition, thousands of air, water and sediment samples have been taken. “Our results have come back as ‘non-detectable levels’” of contamination, Foote said of the more than 100 tissue samples her office alone has collected. LDWF, DEQ and the Department of Health and Hospitals are working together to gather samples for testing at a Metairie lab, Dauzat said. DHH did not respond to an interview request.
quote:
And Dauzat said the black, red and brown goopy surface oil that is hitting Louisiana beaches and spreading into the marshes does pose dangers of contamination, but prolonged weather offshore has lessened the dangers through evaporation.
Just FYI.
And I know it's old, but I just read it.
This post was edited on 6/9/10 at 4:33 pm
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News