Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/4/10 11:46 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 4, 11:37 am, wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:26 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
When one considers the far greater number

or organisms to degrade the oil, we can conclude that it will degrade
far more rapidly in the Gulf of Mexico than in Prince William Sound.

The oil spill in the gulf of valdez is still degrading. The spill was
more than 20 years ago. While the spill in the gulf may degrade more
rapidly, it still has the potential to do billions of dollars in damage.

Your right-wing slant isn't going to mitigate the damage or the
responsibility of BP and its partners. Hopefully, they will pay for
every dollar of damage their spill causes.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Reality and real data are two things lefties cannot deal with.
I once spent a month in Santa Barbara, CA and did some walking on the
beach. My hotel had towels for removing tar stains from your feet and
I remarked to the hotel owner that the effects of the oil spill in the
60s was still being felt. He had lived there since the 50s and told
me that there were tar balls on the beach before the spill and he
thought they were from tankers torpedoed in WW2. There were no
tankers torpedoed off CA in WW2 and we have since learned the tar is
most likely from natural seeps. A month ago, asphalt volcanoes were
found off the coast there that are hundreds of feet high and natural
oil seeps are novel bio-communities (just as in the deep Gulf of
Mexico).
Yes, a spill will look nasty for awhile but it will go away whereas
the ravages of tourism are forever.
One comment I have to make on the NOAA data shown on that web site is
that the organisms in the sediment increased by a factor of 4 over
just 4 years after the spill and their growth tracks the growth of the
control. If one extrapolates the trend line, it looks as if it will
totally recover to pre-spill levels after 50 years.


I am discussing the necessity of BP and its partners to pay for every
bit of damage their spill caused. You are discussing something else.
Further, your cites and anecdotes are not the sort of info needed to
determine with any degree of certainty what the damages will be or how
long the spill's aftereffects hang around.

In other words, you are spewing only the right-wing slant.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Drill here, drill now
 

hk wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:46 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 4, 11:37 am, wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:26 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
When one considers the far greater number

or organisms to degrade the oil, we can conclude that it will degrade
far more rapidly in the Gulf of Mexico than in Prince William Sound.

The oil spill in the gulf of valdez is still degrading. The spill was
more than 20 years ago. While the spill in the gulf may degrade more
rapidly, it still has the potential to do billions of dollars in damage.

Your right-wing slant isn't going to mitigate the damage or the
responsibility of BP and its partners. Hopefully, they will pay for
every dollar of damage their spill causes.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Reality and real data are two things lefties cannot deal with.
I once spent a month in Santa Barbara, CA and did some walking on the
beach. My hotel had towels for removing tar stains from your feet and
I remarked to the hotel owner that the effects of the oil spill in the
60s was still being felt. He had lived there since the 50s and told
me that there were tar balls on the beach before the spill and he
thought they were from tankers torpedoed in WW2. There were no
tankers torpedoed off CA in WW2 and we have since learned the tar is
most likely from natural seeps. A month ago, asphalt volcanoes were
found off the coast there that are hundreds of feet high and natural
oil seeps are novel bio-communities (just as in the deep Gulf of
Mexico).
Yes, a spill will look nasty for awhile but it will go away whereas
the ravages of tourism are forever.
One comment I have to make on the NOAA data shown on that web site is
that the organisms in the sediment increased by a factor of 4 over
just 4 years after the spill and their growth tracks the growth of the
control. If one extrapolates the trend line, it looks as if it will
totally recover to pre-spill levels after 50 years.


I am discussing the necessity of BP and its partners to pay for every
bit of damage their spill caused. You are discussing something else.

That's why threads have titles and subjects. You didn't know that?


Further, your cites and anecdotes are not the sort of info needed to
determine with any degree of certainty what the damages will be or how
long the spill's aftereffects hang around.


What spill? The one that was supposed to coat the beaches and wetlands
with tar last Friday?
Still waiting for that.
Looks like the lefty media pumped all this up, and like Frogwatch said
before, there's nothing to it.
The flooding in and around Nashville is a much bigger disaster.


In other words, you are spewing only the right-wing slant.


That's what lefties always say to common sense.

Jim - Wasting some time with Harry.

Drill here, drill now
 

On May 4, 12:31*pm, Jim wrote:
hk wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:46 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 4, 11:37 am, *wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:26 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
* *When one considers the far greater number

or organisms to degrade the oil, we can conclude that it will degrade
far more rapidly in the Gulf of Mexico than in Prince William Sound.

The oil spill in the gulf of valdez is still degrading. The spill was
more than 20 years ago. While the spill in the gulf may degrade more
rapidly, it still has the potential to do billions of dollars in damage.

Your right-wing slant isn't going to mitigate the damage or the
responsibility of BP and its partners. Hopefully, they will pay for
every dollar of damage their spill causes.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Reality and real data are two things lefties cannot deal with.
I once spent a month in Santa Barbara, CA and did some walking on the
beach. *My hotel had towels for removing tar stains from your feet and
I remarked to the hotel owner that the effects of the oil spill in the
60s was still being felt. *He had lived there since the 50s and told
me that there were tar balls on the beach before the spill and he
thought they were from tankers torpedoed in WW2. *There were no
tankers torpedoed off CA in WW2 and we have since learned the tar is
most likely from natural seeps. *A month ago, asphalt volcanoes were
found off the coast there that are hundreds of feet high and natural
oil seeps are novel bio-communities (just as in the deep Gulf of
Mexico).
Yes, a spill will look nasty for awhile but it will go away whereas
the ravages of tourism are forever.
One comment I have to make on the NOAA data shown on that web site is
that the organisms in the sediment increased by a factor of 4 over
just 4 years after the spill and their growth tracks the growth of the
control. *If one extrapolates the trend line, it looks as if it will
totally recover to pre-spill levels after 50 years.

I am discussing the necessity of BP and its partners to pay for every
bit of damage their spill caused. You are discussing something else.

That's why threads have titles and subjects. *You didn't know that?

Further, your cites and anecdotes are not the sort of info needed to
determine with any degree of certainty what the damages will be or how
long the spill's aftereffects hang around.

What spill? *The one that was supposed to coat the beaches and wetlands
with tar last Friday?
Still waiting for that.
Looks like the lefty media pumped all this up, and like Frogwatch said
before, there's nothing to it.
The flooding in and around Nashville is a much bigger disaster.

In other words, you are spewing only the right-wing slant.

That's what lefties always say to common sense.

Jim - Wasting some time with Harry.

It is my opinion that the environmental impact of this spill is being
greatly overblown. Consider, the amount leaking every day (5000
barrels) would fit into a cube 32' on a side. Consider that studies
have shown that within a few days that crude oil will lose about 50%
of its volume due to evaporation if it spreads out. The use of
dispersants greatly increases this evaporation. Consider that the
rate of combined bio and solar degradation of the oil should be about
6X that of the Exxon Valdez incident and you have minimal
environmental impact compared to many other human activities.
Consider that as it evaporates it's toxicity drops rapidly and soon
becomes dense enough to simply sink as small droplets. Even after
sinking it continues to diffuse out much faster than in the Exxon
Valdez simply because the Gulf of Mexico is warm whereas Prince
William Sound is cold.

Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/4/10 1:18 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 4, 12:31 pm, wrote:
hk wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:46 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 4, 11:37 am, wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:26 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
When one considers the far greater number

or organisms to degrade the oil, we can conclude that it will degrade
far more rapidly in the Gulf of Mexico than in Prince William Sound.

The oil spill in the gulf of valdez is still degrading. The spill was
more than 20 years ago. While the spill in the gulf may degrade more
rapidly, it still has the potential to do billions of dollars in damage.

Your right-wing slant isn't going to mitigate the damage or the
responsibility of BP and its partners. Hopefully, they will pay for
every dollar of damage their spill causes.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Reality and real data are two things lefties cannot deal with.
I once spent a month in Santa Barbara, CA and did some walking on the
beach. My hotel had towels for removing tar stains from your feet and
I remarked to the hotel owner that the effects of the oil spill in the
60s was still being felt. He had lived there since the 50s and told
me that there were tar balls on the beach before the spill and he
thought they were from tankers torpedoed in WW2. There were no
tankers torpedoed off CA in WW2 and we have since learned the tar is
most likely from natural seeps. A month ago, asphalt volcanoes were
found off the coast there that are hundreds of feet high and natural
oil seeps are novel bio-communities (just as in the deep Gulf of
Mexico).
Yes, a spill will look nasty for awhile but it will go away whereas
the ravages of tourism are forever.
One comment I have to make on the NOAA data shown on that web site is
that the organisms in the sediment increased by a factor of 4 over
just 4 years after the spill and their growth tracks the growth of the
control. If one extrapolates the trend line, it looks as if it will
totally recover to pre-spill levels after 50 years.

I am discussing the necessity of BP and its partners to pay for every
bit of damage their spill caused. You are discussing something else.

That's why threads have titles and subjects. You didn't know that?

Further, your cites and anecdotes are not the sort of info needed to
determine with any degree of certainty what the damages will be or how
long the spill's aftereffects hang around.

What spill? The one that was supposed to coat the beaches and wetlands
with tar last Friday?
Still waiting for that.
Looks like the lefty media pumped all this up, and like Frogwatch said
before, there's nothing to it.
The flooding in and around Nashville is a much bigger disaster.

In other words, you are spewing only the right-wing slant.

That's what lefties always say to common sense.

Jim - Wasting some time with Harry.

It is my opinion that the environmental impact of this spill is being
greatly overblown.

Your opinion on this matter is worth less than the price of a cup of
McDonald's coffee. You have no credentials.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/4/2010 1:34 PM, hk wrote:
On 5/4/10 1:18 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 4, 12:31 pm, wrote:
hk wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:46 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 4, 11:37 am, wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:26 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
When one considers the far greater number

or organisms to degrade the oil, we can conclude that it will
degrade
far more rapidly in the Gulf of Mexico than in Prince William Sound.

The oil spill in the gulf of valdez is still degrading. The spill was
more than 20 years ago. While the spill in the gulf may degrade more
rapidly, it still has the potential to do billions of dollars in
damage.

Your right-wing slant isn't going to mitigate the damage or the
responsibility of BP and its partners. Hopefully, they will pay for
every dollar of damage their spill causes.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another
name.

Reality and real data are two things lefties cannot deal with.
I once spent a month in Santa Barbara, CA and did some walking on the
beach. My hotel had towels for removing tar stains from your feet and
I remarked to the hotel owner that the effects of the oil spill in the
60s was still being felt. He had lived there since the 50s and told
me that there were tar balls on the beach before the spill and he
thought they were from tankers torpedoed in WW2. There were no
tankers torpedoed off CA in WW2 and we have since learned the tar is
most likely from natural seeps. A month ago, asphalt volcanoes were
found off the coast there that are hundreds of feet high and natural
oil seeps are novel bio-communities (just as in the deep Gulf of
Mexico).
Yes, a spill will look nasty for awhile but it will go away whereas
the ravages of tourism are forever.
One comment I have to make on the NOAA data shown on that web site is
that the organisms in the sediment increased by a factor of 4 over
just 4 years after the spill and their growth tracks the growth of the
control. If one extrapolates the trend line, it looks as if it will
totally recover to pre-spill levels after 50 years.

I am discussing the necessity of BP and its partners to pay for every
bit of damage their spill caused. You are discussing something else.

That's why threads have titles and subjects. You didn't know that?

Further, your cites and anecdotes are not the sort of info needed to
determine with any degree of certainty what the damages will be or how
long the spill's aftereffects hang around.

What spill? The one that was supposed to coat the beaches and wetlands
with tar last Friday?
Still waiting for that.
Looks like the lefty media pumped all this up, and like Frogwatch said
before, there's nothing to it.
The flooding in and around Nashville is a much bigger disaster.

In other words, you are spewing only the right-wing slant.

That's what lefties always say to common sense.

Jim - Wasting some time with Harry.

It is my opinion that the environmental impact of this spill is being
greatly overblown.

Your opinion on this matter is worth less than the price of a cup of
McDonald's coffee. You have no credentials.

His opinion is based on some knowledge of science. Yours is based on
what? Nothing!

Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/4/10 4:27 PM, A.Boater wrote:
On 4-May-2010, wrote:

Prove it


That doesn't take a lot of effort.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2133


You're dealing with Boatless Flajim there, whose wife left him for a
cucumber.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Drill here, drill now
 

In article ae416b36-fd8e-4ce0-9517-
,
says...

snip

You must have gotten your information directly
from that idiot Palin:


Geeze. For months I heard you complain about political posts and rants,
insults etc.. Now every time I come back all you are doing is taking up
the slack for other political hacks here.. Oh well, I guess I will try
again some other time to see if we still have a solid double standard
here for rants... snerk

--
Pain is temporary, Glory is forever!

Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/4/10 4:39 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In articleae416b36-fd8e-4ce0-9517-
,
says...

snip

You must have gotten your information directly
from that idiot Palin:


Geeze. For months I heard you complain about political posts and rants,
insults etc.. Now every time I come back all you are doing is taking up
the slack for other political hacks here.. Oh well, I guess I will try
again some other time to see if we still have a solid double standard
here for rants...snerk

--
Pain is temporary, Glory is forever!

As if you knew anything about politics...or anything else. I suggest you
try again...next year.


--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Drill here, drill now
 

On May 4, 4:31*pm, hk wrote:
On 5/4/10 4:27 PM, A.Boater wrote:

On *4-May-2010, *wrote:

Prove it

That doesn't take a lot of effort.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2133

You're dealing with Boatless Flajim there, whose wife left him for a
cucumber.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

A. Boater: What a silly propaganda article. They repeatedly mention
the herring yet both NOAA and the AK fisheries commission says herring
had record catches 3 years AFTER the spill and then were reduced to
25% probably due to overfishing.
NOAA says you can find oil under th sand and in tidal pools but they
also show data on the oil and find that because the volatile
components are gone that its toxicity is low enough for organisms to
live with it. This is why the sediment fauna is slowly recovering
(once again, see the NOAA data). Of course, there are species that
rely on herring that was overfished. Draw a linear trend through the
data and you get 50 years for recovery to pre-spill. In reality,
populations do not grow linearly, the grow exponentially so we should
probably expect recovery to pre-spill within 30 years from now.

In the Gulf of Mexico, where the UV index gives nearly 3X the amount
of UV light and there is a lot more bio-degradation, we should expect
a recovery at 6X the rate as in AK.
Data ALWAYS trumps emotionalism.

Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/4/10 4:45 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 4, 4:31 pm, wrote:
On 5/4/10 4:27 PM, A.Boater wrote:

On 4-May-2010, wrote:

Prove it

That doesn't take a lot of effort.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2133

You're dealing with Boatless Flajim there, whose wife left him for a
cucumber.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

A. Boater: What a silly propaganda article. They repeatedly mention
the herring yet both NOAA and the AK fisheries commission says herring
had record catches 3 years AFTER the spill and then were reduced to
25% probably due to overfishing.
NOAA says you can find oil under th sand and in tidal pools but they
also show data on the oil and find that because the volatile
components are gone that its toxicity is low enough for organisms to
live with it. This is why the sediment fauna is slowly recovering
(once again, see the NOAA data). Of course, there are species that
rely on herring that was overfished. Draw a linear trend through the
data and you get 50 years for recovery to pre-spill. In reality,
populations do not grow linearly, the grow exponentially so we should
probably expect recovery to pre-spill within 30 years from now.

In the Gulf of Mexico, where the UV index gives nearly 3X the amount
of UV light and there is a lot more bio-degradation, we should expect
a recovery at 6X the rate as in AK.
Data ALWAYS trumps emotionalism.


Well, what the hell, just 30 years. snerk

Your attempts to minimize the disaster make you like like more of a
lunatic than thought.



--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.