- 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
0
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:28 pm to Microtiger
quote:
Irreparable to Earth as a planet, as in a big rock in space, no. Irreparable to some of the living things on the planet, including us? Absolutely.
If you consider the material in a nuclear reactor a "substance", then imagine a Chernobyl in every country. That'd be pretty irreparable to most things on Earth and made of totally raw materials sourced from Earth.
Life. Finds. A. Way. Tard.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:37 pm to yat70458
quote:
My question is...if the 5 Iranian ships loaded with oil are sunk, has anyone considered the catastrophic damage done to the oceans with 5 tankers full of oil released into the ocean. Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks
WOW, “catastrophic damage done to the oceans”? Nazi submarines sent untold numbers of oil tankers to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea. Meanwhile in the Pacific America sent Japanese tankers and Japan sent American tankers to the bottom.
Tell me. Where can I go and see this “catastrophic damage done to the oceans” today?
I won’t wait for your answer, since we both know you won’t answer, because you can’t, so just don’t!
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:58 pm to ManBearTiger
quote:
Life. Finds. A. Way. Tard.
Yeah, some mushrooms have figured out how to grow in chernobyl by feeding off radiation.
The life that finds a way doesn't have to include us, though. Global nuclear fallout would go great for cockroaches and poorly for us.
It's ridiculous to say nothing created by humans can harm the planet. We could blow the whole thing up if we tried enough.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:09 pm to Gaspergou202
It's true that the sinking of these five tankers would be relatively minor compared to the big picture.
But there's a huge body of work that accumulated oil spills do harm the environment.
I think the disagreement comes down to what counts as catastrophic.
We know there's definitely bad effects of oil spills. Take this 2019 review if you'd like more information. You can use https://sci-hub.tw/ to download it for free, or download any other scientific article for free. Screw paywalls for information.
But you could go back to the 80's and see that we still knew this. See this 1984 review. It spends a lot of time on the Tsesis, Florida, and Amoco Cadiz because they happened to spill in areas where research surveys were already being done. These spills led to (1) persistent oil that settled and remained in deep sea sediment, (2) oil that contaminated plankton, marine invertebrates, and fish, and (3) less marine wildlife and less diversity in that wildlife.
Whether or not the accumulated effects of this and the extinction of wildlife matters, and where the cutoff point is, is up to debate. One side of the aisle will think the slightest disturbance is catastrophic, the other will not. I know a lot of conservatives will not care if random species go extinct in the ocean, and a lot of liberals will be up in arms about it. However, there does come a point where enough sea life could be impacted to ruin fishing industries, which would definitely be a common point of concern I think.
Would five tankers sinking cause that? Hell no. It's silly to focus on just five ships as a problem, when
But there's a huge body of work that accumulated oil spills do harm the environment.
quote:
Tell me. Where can I go and see this “catastrophic damage done to the oceans” today?
I think the disagreement comes down to what counts as catastrophic.
We know there's definitely bad effects of oil spills. Take this 2019 review if you'd like more information. You can use https://sci-hub.tw/ to download it for free, or download any other scientific article for free. Screw paywalls for information.
But you could go back to the 80's and see that we still knew this. See this 1984 review. It spends a lot of time on the Tsesis, Florida, and Amoco Cadiz because they happened to spill in areas where research surveys were already being done. These spills led to (1) persistent oil that settled and remained in deep sea sediment, (2) oil that contaminated plankton, marine invertebrates, and fish, and (3) less marine wildlife and less diversity in that wildlife.
Whether or not the accumulated effects of this and the extinction of wildlife matters, and where the cutoff point is, is up to debate. One side of the aisle will think the slightest disturbance is catastrophic, the other will not. I know a lot of conservatives will not care if random species go extinct in the ocean, and a lot of liberals will be up in arms about it. However, there does come a point where enough sea life could be impacted to ruin fishing industries, which would definitely be a common point of concern I think.
Would five tankers sinking cause that? Hell no. It's silly to focus on just five ships as a problem, when
This post was edited on 5/21/20 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:12 pm to ManBearTiger
quote:
Only an absolute retard could think we would actually sink those ships.
Fixed. We have other means at our disposal. Most likely we would confiscate the embargoed contraband.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:17 pm to Microtiger
quote:
Would five tankers sinking cause that? Hell no. It's silly to focus on just five ships
The solution to pollution is dilution. If they were to be sunk (which they will not), it would be best to sink them out in the middle of the ocean where the effects would not be concentrated to one relatively small specific ecologic zone (like say Prince William Sound).
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:19 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
The solution to pollution is dilution. If they were to be sunk (which they will not), it would be best to sink them out in the middle of the ocean where the effects would not be concentrated to one relatively small specific ecologic zone (like say Prince William Sound).
Agreed, but would it not be political suicide to sink them in international waters before they actually break the blockade?
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:28 pm to Microtiger
quote:
Agreed, but would it not be political suicide to sink them in international waters before they actually break the blockade?
Agreed, but I was responding to allegations of a "catastrophic" event that would largely go un-noticed.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:35 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
Agreed, but I was responding to allegations of a "catastrophic" event that would largely go un-noticed.
Yeah, and I agree - if they sank out there it wouldn't be a big deal.
But it's relevant because realistically they will be sunk in Venezuela's borders though, and territorial borders go 12 miles out. Deepwater Horizon was 40 miles out from the Louisiana coast, in the "Exclusive Economic Zone" but still technically international waters. Deepwater Horizon spilled 4.9 million barrels, the five Iran tankers apparently hold 6.8 million barrels total.
So we should talk about it in that context - more oil than Deepwater Horizon spilled closer than Deepwater Horizon. Some will argue (me included) that that's still not enough to worry about, since Deepwater Horizon was faaaaar from being a global catastrophe. Would suck for Venezuela's beaches I guess, though.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:43 pm to yat70458
quote:
My question is...if the 5 Iranian ships loaded with oil are sunk, has anyone considered the catastrophic damage done to the oceans with 5 tankers full of oil released into the ocean. Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks
quote:
A 2003 report from the National Research Council estimates that, on average, approximately 160,000 tonnes of petroleum enter North American waters through natural seeps each year.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:52 pm to highcotton2
quote:
A 2003 report from the National Research Council estimates that, on average, approximately 160,000 tonnes of petroleum enter North American waters through natural seeps each year.
At 0.1364 metric tonnes per barrel, the 6.8 million barrels on those five ships would add up to 927,000 tonnes, or more than five years of natural North American seepage.
A better comparison would be how many spills happen per year.
quote:
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 1.3 million gallons (4.9 million liters) of petroleum are spilled into U.S. waters from vessels and pipelines in a typical year. A major oil spill could easily double that amount.
That's only the U.S., but 1.3 million gallons is more than 4,000 tonnes, just for perspective. IDK about worldwide.
This post was edited on 5/21/20 at 10:29 pm
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:52 pm to yat70458
Well I believe it is gasoline not oil in those 5 tankers . Salt water would completely change its composition much faster than oil as well .
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:55 pm to yat70458
Seize the ships. Apprehend the crew and dump them off on Venezuela. Take the fully loaded oil tankers back to the States. Free oil.
frick off Iran.
frick off Venezuela.
We win.
frick off Iran.
frick off Venezuela.
We win.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:55 pm to yat70458
The damage inflicted on our senses from hearing from make-believe environmentalists would be far worst than the damage inflicted on the ocean.
This post was edited on 5/21/20 at 4:56 pm
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:57 pm to yat70458
Some do this so Anderson Cooper can get back into the game.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 10:19 pm to Microtiger
Did you work on the Corona models ? Where did you come up with 7 tons per barrel of oil ! A barrel of oil weighs about 300 lb, so like 7 barrels per ton. I think you meant 7.33 barrels per ton, not 7 tons per barrel.
Plus, these ships are supposedly carrying distillates which are likely less weight than crude oil. Example gasoline weighs around 6 lbs per gallon so at 42 gallons a barrel would be about 250 lbs
Plus, these ships are supposedly carrying distillates which are likely less weight than crude oil. Example gasoline weighs around 6 lbs per gallon so at 42 gallons a barrel would be about 250 lbs
Posted on 5/21/20 at 10:24 pm to ArkBengal
Haha yeah whoops I must have majorly misread the Google results for the conversion - I'll fix my numbers real quick.
Yikes that's embarrassing, I'm going to go ahead and put in an application at the CDC though.
Edit: wait, yeah it's 7.33 barrels per ton but it looks like my calculation was right - this site says 1 barrel of crude oil is equal to 0.1364 metric tonnes, so 6.8 million barrels would be 927,520 tonnes, which is what I said. I just wrote the conversion rate backwards. Thanks for catching that.
Yikes that's embarrassing, I'm going to go ahead and put in an application at the CDC though.
Edit: wait, yeah it's 7.33 barrels per ton but it looks like my calculation was right - this site says 1 barrel of crude oil is equal to 0.1364 metric tonnes, so 6.8 million barrels would be 927,520 tonnes, which is what I said. I just wrote the conversion rate backwards. Thanks for catching that.
This post was edited on 5/21/20 at 10:31 pm
Posted on 5/21/20 at 10:30 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
some clowns think it's the equivalent of nuking them.
Maybe if when we were the only country in the world with nukes in 1946, we should have settled all scores then. When we had over 6 million soldiers and the largest navy ever with over 50 carriers, we should have nuked the USSR, the communist in China and every islamic country in the world, killing all our enemies and been done with it while we were mobilized. We should have found all the Marxist in the US and hung them while we were at it. The world would be a better place today. No USSR, red China, North Korea or any radical Islamist. We wouldn’t have the Soros progressive socialist here either. The world would be better today if we would have finished ww2 then.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 10:36 pm to Microtiger
Yes.Your final number would be close if it was crude. However I see no circumstances which would result in these ships being sunk. Worst case disabled perhaps though even just a blockade could likely be considered an act of war. Don't see that happening - at least not yet.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News