As a Florida native, I have seen our beaches and estuaries destroyed
by the effects of tourism including the filling of marshes and
destruction of habitat by overbuilding. These natural areas WILL
NEVER RECOVER. On the other hand, I remember the Exxon Valdez oil
spill and only 3 years after the accident, almost all of the oil was
gone and by 7 years organisms in the bottom had mostly recovered. 20
years afterwards, all animals initially listed as being affected by
the spill had recovered according to NOAA. Remaining oil has
weathered so much that most volatiles are gone and it is mostly
tolerated by organisms according to NOAA.
This means that recovery from a major oil spill can happen over a 20
year period even when it happens in the far north. Here at 30 degree
latitude where the UV index is very high, the oil would degrade much
faster and recovery would be much faster. All you have to consider is
the occasional styrofoam cup you find that has been weathered for a
year, it is basically rotten and will be gone within a year.
Our beaches and estuaries will NEVER recover from the ravages of
tourism but would easily recover from even a major oil spill.

David OHara

On 5/4/10 10:32 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
As a Florida native, I have seen our beaches and estuaries destroyed
by the effects of tourism including the filling of marshes and
destruction of habitat by overbuilding. These natural areas WILL
NEVER RECOVER. On the other hand, I remember the Exxon Valdez oil
spill and only 3 years after the accident, almost all of the oil was
gone and by 7 years organisms in the bottom had mostly recovered. 20
years afterwards, all animals initially listed as being affected by
the spill had recovered according to NOAA. Remaining oil has
weathered so much that most volatiles are gone and it is mostly
tolerated by organisms according to NOAA.
This means that recovery from a major oil spill can happen over a 20
year period even when it happens in the far north. Here at 30 degree
latitude where the UV index is very high, the oil would degrade much
faster and recovery would be much faster. All you have to consider is
the occasional styrofoam cup you find that has been weathered for a
year, it is basically rotten and will be gone within a year.
Our beaches and estuaries will NEVER recover from the ravages of
tourism but would easily recover from even a major oil spill.

David OHara


For a self-proclaimed "scientist," you really are an ignorant asshole.
You're also misinformed about the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez disaster.





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

On 5/4/2010 10:35 AM, hk wrote:
On 5/4/10 10:32 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
As a Florida native, I have seen our beaches and estuaries destroyed
by the effects of tourism including the filling of marshes and
destruction of habitat by overbuilding. These natural areas WILL
NEVER RECOVER. On the other hand, I remember the Exxon Valdez oil
spill and only 3 years after the accident, almost all of the oil was
gone and by 7 years organisms in the bottom had mostly recovered. 20
years afterwards, all animals initially listed as being affected by
the spill had recovered according to NOAA. Remaining oil has
weathered so much that most volatiles are gone and it is mostly
tolerated by organisms according to NOAA.
This means that recovery from a major oil spill can happen over a 20
year period even when it happens in the far north. Here at 30 degree
latitude where the UV index is very high, the oil would degrade much
faster and recovery would be much faster. All you have to consider is
the occasional styrofoam cup you find that has been weathered for a
year, it is basically rotten and will be gone within a year.
Our beaches and estuaries will NEVER recover from the ravages of
tourism but would easily recover from even a major oil spill.

David OHara


For a self-proclaimed "scientist," you really are an ignorant asshole.
You're also misinformed about the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Prove it Harrie.

"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
On 5/4/2010 10:35 AM, hk wrote:
On 5/4/10 10:32 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
As a Florida native, I have seen our beaches and estuaries destroyed
by the effects of tourism including the filling of marshes and
destruction of habitat by overbuilding. These natural areas WILL
NEVER RECOVER. On the other hand, I remember the Exxon Valdez oil
spill and only 3 years after the accident, almost all of the oil was
gone and by 7 years organisms in the bottom had mostly recovered. 20
years afterwards, all animals initially listed as being affected by
the spill had recovered according to NOAA. Remaining oil has
weathered so much that most volatiles are gone and it is mostly
tolerated by organisms according to NOAA.
This means that recovery from a major oil spill can happen over a 20
year period even when it happens in the far north. Here at 30 degree
latitude where the UV index is very high, the oil would degrade much
faster and recovery would be much faster. All you have to consider is
the occasional styrofoam cup you find that has been weathered for a
year, it is basically rotten and will be gone within a year.
Our beaches and estuaries will NEVER recover from the ravages of
tourism but would easily recover from even a major oil spill.

David OHara


For a self-proclaimed "scientist," you really are an ignorant asshole.
You're also misinformed about the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Prove it Harrie.



Prove you're an ignorant asshole? Do you really think he needs to prove the
obvious.

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.

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.

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.

On 5/4/2010 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.

A.Boater is one of your many aliases; is it not?

On 5/4/10 5:39 PM, anon-e-moose wrote:
On 5/4/2010 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.

A.Boater is one of your many aliases; is it not?


Nope. Sorry, ****-for-brains, it isn't me. Maybe it is a result of your
months of ID spoofing here.

It is only happenstance that I opened this post of yours. Usually, I
simply skip over your posts, as all you are here is a right-wing troll.

Flajim - no wife, no job, no kids, no boat. It really must suck to be
you, eh? No wonder you behave like the ultimate asshole here.

Perhaps you could adopt Loogy. He's got potential to be your sort of moron.

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

hk wrote:

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

It'd be interesting to hear why your first wife left you. My money is on
emotional abuse.

Johnson