- 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
question about the marshes
Posted on 6/10/10 at 6:17 pm
Posted on 6/10/10 at 6:17 pm
i heard a guy call a radio show with a suggestion and he was laughed at bu i cant figure out why.
he said that in places where there is heavy oil in the marshes, it should be burnt now. they burn marshes anyway and they would just grow back. if you let the oil settle into the ground, they may never grow back.
i thought it was a good idea. so why was he laughed at by the hosts and do you think its a plausible idea?
he said that in places where there is heavy oil in the marshes, it should be burnt now. they burn marshes anyway and they would just grow back. if you let the oil settle into the ground, they may never grow back.
i thought it was a good idea. so why was he laughed at by the hosts and do you think its a plausible idea?
5
Posted on 6/10/10 at 6:25 pm to deuceiswild
too stupid to ignore but here goes
because burning oil is toxic.
there will be toxic fumes.
anything in the water that survives, like fish, will ingest it, it will move up the food chain, and pretty soon your nuts are shriveling from chemo that you have to take, since crude poisoning is usually cancerous.
OR
this is not beavis and butthead. You can't go FIRE FIRE and think the oil will all burn off.
because burning oil is toxic.
there will be toxic fumes.
anything in the water that survives, like fish, will ingest it, it will move up the food chain, and pretty soon your nuts are shriveling from chemo that you have to take, since crude poisoning is usually cancerous.
OR
this is not beavis and butthead. You can't go FIRE FIRE and think the oil will all burn off.
Posted on 6/10/10 at 6:32 pm to tigerpurple84
well excuse the shite outta me smart man.
what about the fish that are gonna be poisoned anyway?
what about the marshes that are gonna die anyway?
are you really suggesting that by burning a few thousand acres of oil, we're all doomed automatically? Its not like we would wait for the right conditions to do it. If it were me, i'd do it with a light southern wind to be sure to have that shite settle right on top of us. But thats me. I'd guess the smart people would wait for a northern breeze.
/sarcasm
now...cant you simply answer a sincere question without being an a-hole? I apologize for not being an oilfield worker. I only operate a nuclear reactor for a living, so what the hell do i know about ANYTHING???
what about the fish that are gonna be poisoned anyway?
what about the marshes that are gonna die anyway?
are you really suggesting that by burning a few thousand acres of oil, we're all doomed automatically? Its not like we would wait for the right conditions to do it. If it were me, i'd do it with a light southern wind to be sure to have that shite settle right on top of us. But thats me. I'd guess the smart people would wait for a northern breeze.
/sarcasm
now...cant you simply answer a sincere question without being an a-hole? I apologize for not being an oilfield worker. I only operate a nuclear reactor for a living, so what the hell do i know about ANYTHING???
Posted on 6/10/10 at 6:38 pm to deuceiswild
I've heard the problem with this is that if you burn it and before it grows back you have further oil introduced the plants will never grow back.
I agree that a burned marsh comes back looking better than ever and this idea has some potential but I think it has been dismissed because of the possible downside of permanent destruction which is pretty significant.
Posted on 6/10/10 at 6:43 pm to tgrgrd00
i agree. but it seems to me that permanent destruction is imminent anyway in some places if nothing is done.
Posted on 6/10/10 at 6:48 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
but it seems to me that permanent destruction is imminent anyway in some places if nothing is done
Valid point. I would not be opposed to testing the burning marsh concept in certain areas and monitoring the results.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 10:17 am to tgrgrd00
the wackos are more concerned about burning the marsh, which is done annually, than they are about the oil in the marshes 
Posted on 6/11/10 at 11:12 am to deuceiswild
It grows back because the marsh is reseeded by close-by plants. This won't happen if you burn the whole marsh, as there's nothing to reseed from. This is just theory though...in practice it may work the other way, and burning could eliminate some of the toxic elements from the water. It's probably not a good time to gamble with the marshes though.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 11:15 am to deuceiswild
You DO NOT want to burn oil saturated marsh. It will never grow back. Not to mention the heavy black toxic oil that you would be releasing into the air.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 8:29 am to tgrbaitn08
burning the marsh is used quite frequently in Louisiana during the winter months.
Burning the marsh for an oil spill is an accepted method for wetland remediation. However, its vital the root stock remains intact and not oiled for long.
Many of the freshwater marshes (panicum. bull tongue, eleochris, schoenplectis) and brackish (s.patens) are burned quite regularlary in Louisiana.
Burning the marsh for an oil spill is an accepted method for wetland remediation. However, its vital the root stock remains intact and not oiled for long.
Many of the freshwater marshes (panicum. bull tongue, eleochris, schoenplectis) and brackish (s.patens) are burned quite regularlary in Louisiana.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 9:12 am to Mudminnow
I dont know why someone would laugh at any question at this point! Just like some have said, marsh burning has been going on for years,so i dont know why it wouldnt be giving a thought. If the oil just sits there, it is going to destroy all it comes in contact with anyway. This may be a dumb question , but does oil eventually break down? or would it sit there, if not touched for years? R would the micro organisms eventually take care ot it? Im talking the oil in the Marshes?
Posted on 6/12/10 at 4:49 pm to real
Its a sound question, blow off the negatigers. Most of those plants are perennials with deep "rootstock" but the problem is that the oil will be at the root level also. After the spill is stopped (if ever) and the spillage is where it is gonna stay, burning and replanting may be the course of action. The plants are widespread (I even found 20 acres of south La bullrush in Claiborne Parish years ago - salt water intrusion from oil and gas rigs allowed it to grow).
Posted on 6/12/10 at 4:51 pm to Mudminnow
quote:
Many of the freshwater marshes (panicum. bull tongue, eleochris, schoenplectis) and brackish (s.patens) are burned quite regularlary in Louisiana.
Mud - you a botanist? (honest question)
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:13 pm to jeffsdad
The marshes aren't going to die because of the oil ... IMHO ...
Posted on 6/12/10 at 7:19 pm to jeffsdad
I'm a wetland ecologist or try to be 
They have a microbe agent to spray on the vegetation if its a light coating. However most of the stuff I have seen is a thick gelantinous coating and prob the only way to get it off without destroying the marsh is burning it.
If it was late in the fall and the plants had a full growing season it would be a different story. If the veg had a good root stock it will survive a burning.
They have a microbe agent to spray on the vegetation if its a light coating. However most of the stuff I have seen is a thick gelantinous coating and prob the only way to get it off without destroying the marsh is burning it.
If it was late in the fall and the plants had a full growing season it would be a different story. If the veg had a good root stock it will survive a burning.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 8:08 pm to deuceiswild
burning would be the worse idea
Posted on 6/12/10 at 9:18 pm to sheek
Depends on the marsh type and species.
They burn Spartina patens marshes yearly. Spartina alterniflora marshes are burned from time to time too but its not prevalent. Many of the freshwater marshes are able to recover, however, I'm not sure about Roseau Cane.
I know its prevalent in the atchafalaya and wax lake delta in spots but I dont know how it recovers from being burned.
They burn Spartina patens marshes yearly. Spartina alterniflora marshes are burned from time to time too but its not prevalent. Many of the freshwater marshes are able to recover, however, I'm not sure about Roseau Cane.
I know its prevalent in the atchafalaya and wax lake delta in spots but I dont know how it recovers from being burned.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News