Drill here, drill now
 

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

Drill here, drill now
 

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.

Drill here, drill now
 

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.

Drill here, drill now
 

On May 4, 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

I think you should do some reading, there are still effects from the
oil spill in Alaska. You must have gotten your information directly
from that idiot Palin:

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Alaska/miller2.htm

Some parts herein:

Lasting Harm to Communities.



SUBSISTENCE


"The excitement of the season had just begun, and then, we heard the
news, oil in the water, lots of oil killing lots of water. It's too
shocking to understand. Never in the millennium of our tradition have
we thought it possible for the water to die, but its true."

-- The late Chief Walter Meganack, Port Graham, 1989[22]

· Subsistence harvests of fish and wildlife substantially
declined by Alaska Native communities after the spill and continue to
be affected.

· Villagers have been forced to rely on different resources
since there is still a scarcity of important subsistence resources
like harbor seals, herring, clams, and crab. Hunters must travel
farther, spend more time, money and effort to feed their families.

· “The oil spill with its devastation affected our subsistence
way of life and resources,” said Gary Kompkoff from the village of
Tatitlek in 1999. “Subsistence is too important to have recovered
from an incident caused by carelessness and negligence. We always
have been able to rely on the land to provide for us—to be forced to
stop harvesting in traditional areas we’ve always relied upon is hard
to get over.”



FISHERIES
· Commercial salmon and herring fisheries closed in oiled areas
in 1989, including in Prince William Sound, most of Cook Inlet, and
most of the Kodiak area. Shrimp, blackcod, bottomfish and crab
fisheries were also closed.

· Five years after the spill, 100 fishing boats blockaded
tanker traffic at Valdez Narrows for 2 days when wild pink salmon runs
plummeted. These fish were the first wild runs that left Prince
William Sound during the oil spill. Banks had already repossessed 70
Cordova fishing boats. In 1993, the Pacific herring season in the
Sound was cut short when schools failed to show up, and in 1994 to
1996 the season never opened. The herring fishery remained limited in
1997 and 1998.



· Ten years after the spill, and five years after a jury
ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion in punitive damages, Exxon has yet to
pay any of this judgement to injured fishermen, Native Americans, and
landowners.





HUMAN HEALTH
· 20 communities were in the oil's path where it caused major
social and psychological impact like depression and Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder.[23] This injury continues in places like Cordova
today.

· Cleanup workers faced average oil mist exposure 12 times in
excess of the regulatory limits, with a maximum exposure 400 times
higher during hot water beach washing. In 1989, 1,811 workers filed
compensation claims, primarily for respiratory system damage,
according to National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.[24]


STATE OF THE SOUND


Toxic effects linger.



To the naked eye, Prince William Sound may appear “normal.” But if
you look beneath the surface, oil continues to contaminate beaches,
national parks, and designated wilderness. In fact, the Office of
Technology Assessment estimated beach cleanup and oil skinning only
recovered 3-4% of the Exxon Valdez oil and studies by government
scientists estimated that only 14% of the oil was removed during
cleanup operations.[15]



A decade later, the ecosystem still suffers. Substantial
contamination of mussel beds persists and this remarkably unweathered
oil is a continuing source of toxic hydrocarbons.[16] Sea otters,
river otters, Barrow’s goldeneyes, and harlequin ducks have showed
evidence of continued hydrocarbon exposure in the past few years.
[17]



The depressed population of Pacific herring – a critical source of
food for over 40 predators including seabirds, harbor seals and
Steller sea lions – is having severe impacts up the food chain.
Wildlife population declines continue for harbor seal, killer whales,
harlequin ducks, common loon, pigeon guillemot, and pelagic, red-faced
cormorant, and double-crested cormorants.



Exxon-funded scientists have repeatedly dismissed evidence of on-going
effects to wildlife from the massive 1989 oil spill by claiming that
oil seeps contribute a bigger background source of hydrocarbons in
bottom sediments in Prince William Sound.[18] Yet, they dismiss coal
as a possible source due to ignoring location of known deposits and
other factors about its “fingerprint.” A new study by the National
Marine Fisheries Service concluded that the source is coal, and that
coal hydrocarbons are not chemically available to impact wildlife.[19]

Drill here, drill now
 

On May 4, 10:39*am, Loogypicker wrote:
On May 4, 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

I think you should do some reading, there are still effects from the
oil spill in Alaska. You must have gotten your information directly
from that idiot Palin:

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Alaska/miller2.htm

Some parts herein:

Lasting Harm to Communities.

SUBSISTENCE

"The excitement of the season had just begun, and then, we heard the
news, oil in the water, lots of oil killing lots of water. *It's too
shocking to understand. *Never in the millennium of our tradition have
we thought it possible for the water to die, but its true."

-- The late Chief Walter Meganack, Port Graham, 1989[22]

· * * * *Subsistence harvests of fish and wildlife substantially
declined by Alaska Native communities after the spill and continue to
be affected.

· * * * *Villagers have been forced to rely on different resources
since there is still a scarcity of important subsistence resources
like harbor seals, herring, clams, and crab. *Hunters must travel
farther, spend more time, money and effort to feed their families.

· * * * *“The oil spill with its devastation affected our subsistence
way of life and resources,” said Gary Kompkoff from the village of
Tatitlek in 1999. *“Subsistence is too important to have recovered
from an incident caused by carelessness and negligence. *We always
have been able to rely on the land to provide for us—to be forced to
stop harvesting in traditional areas we’ve always relied upon is hard
to get over.”

FISHERIES
· * * * *Commercial salmon and herring fisheries closed in oiled areas
in 1989, including in Prince William Sound, most of Cook Inlet, and
most of the Kodiak area. *Shrimp, blackcod, bottomfish and crab
fisheries were also closed.

· * * * *Five years after the spill, 100 fishing boats blockaded
tanker traffic at Valdez Narrows for 2 days when wild pink salmon runs
plummeted. *These fish were the first wild runs that left Prince
William Sound during the oil spill. *Banks had already repossessed 70
Cordova fishing boats. *In 1993, the Pacific herring season in the
Sound was cut short when schools failed to show up, and in 1994 to
1996 the season never opened. *The herring fishery remained limited in
1997 and 1998.

· * * * * Ten years after the spill, and five years after a jury
ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion in punitive damages, Exxon has yet to
pay any of this judgement to injured fishermen, Native Americans, and
landowners.

HUMAN HEALTH
· * * * *20 communities were in the oil's path where it caused major
social and psychological impact like depression and Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder.[23] *This injury continues in places like Cordova
today.

· * * * *Cleanup workers faced average oil mist exposure 12 times in
excess of the regulatory limits, with a maximum exposure 400 times
higher during hot water beach washing. *In 1989, 1,811 workers filed
compensation claims, primarily for respiratory system damage,
according to National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.[24]

STATE OF THE SOUND

Toxic effects linger.

To the naked eye, Prince William Sound may appear “normal.” *But if
you look beneath the surface, oil continues to contaminate beaches,
national parks, and designated wilderness. *In fact, the Office of
Technology Assessment estimated beach cleanup and oil skinning only
recovered 3-4% of the Exxon Valdez oil and studies by government
scientists estimated that only 14% of the oil was removed during
cleanup operations.[15]

A decade later, the ecosystem still suffers. *Substantial
contamination of mussel beds persists and this remarkably unweathered
oil is a continuing source of toxic hydrocarbons.[16] *Sea otters,
river otters, Barrow’s goldeneyes, and harlequin ducks have showed
evidence of continued hydrocarbon exposure in the past few years.
[17]

The depressed population of Pacific herring – a critical source of
food for over 40 predators including seabirds, harbor seals and
Steller sea lions – is having severe impacts up the food chain.
Wildlife population declines continue for harbor seal, killer whales,
harlequin ducks, common loon, pigeon guillemot, and pelagic, red-faced
cormorant, and double-crested cormorants.

Exxon-funded scientists have repeatedly dismissed evidence of on-going
effects to wildlife from the massive 1989 oil spill by claiming that
oil seeps contribute a bigger background source of hydrocarbons in
bottom sediments in Prince William Sound.[18] *Yet, they dismiss coal
as a possible source due to ignoring location of known deposits and
other factors about its “fingerprint.” *A new study by the National
Marine Fisheries Service concluded that the source is coal, and that
coal hydrocarbons are not chemically available to impact wildlife.[19]

My info comes from NOAA, not industry. Here is the NOAA site:
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov...c_to pic%29=1

Herring populations 3 years after the spill recovered to record levels
and then OVERFISHING reduced them to 25% from which they are slowly
recovering.

Drill here, drill now
 

On May 4, 11:05*am, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 4, 10:39*am, Loogypicker wrote:





On May 4, 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

I think you should do some reading, there are still effects from the
oil spill in Alaska. You must have gotten your information directly
from that idiot Palin:

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Alaska/miller2.htm

Some parts herein:

Lasting Harm to Communities.

SUBSISTENCE

"The excitement of the season had just begun, and then, we heard the
news, oil in the water, lots of oil killing lots of water. *It's too
shocking to understand. *Never in the millennium of our tradition have
we thought it possible for the water to die, but its true."

-- The late Chief Walter Meganack, Port Graham, 1989[22]

· * * * *Subsistence harvests of fish and wildlife substantially
declined by Alaska Native communities after the spill and continue to
be affected.

· * * * *Villagers have been forced to rely on different resources
since there is still a scarcity of important subsistence resources
like harbor seals, herring, clams, and crab. *Hunters must travel
farther, spend more time, money and effort to feed their families.

· * * * *“The oil spill with its devastation affected our subsistence
way of life and resources,” said Gary Kompkoff from the village of
Tatitlek in 1999. *“Subsistence is too important to have recovered
from an incident caused by carelessness and negligence. *We always
have been able to rely on the land to provide for us—to be forced to
stop harvesting in traditional areas we’ve always relied upon is hard
to get over.”

FISHERIES
· * * * *Commercial salmon and herring fisheries closed in oiled areas
in 1989, including in Prince William Sound, most of Cook Inlet, and
most of the Kodiak area. *Shrimp, blackcod, bottomfish and crab
fisheries were also closed.

· * * * *Five years after the spill, 100 fishing boats blockaded
tanker traffic at Valdez Narrows for 2 days when wild pink salmon runs
plummeted. *These fish were the first wild runs that left Prince
William Sound during the oil spill. *Banks had already repossessed 70
Cordova fishing boats. *In 1993, the Pacific herring season in the
Sound was cut short when schools failed to show up, and in 1994 to
1996 the season never opened. *The herring fishery remained limited in
1997 and 1998.

· * * * * Ten years after the spill, and five years after a jury
ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion in punitive damages, Exxon has yet to
pay any of this judgement to injured fishermen, Native Americans, and
landowners.

HUMAN HEALTH
· * * * *20 communities were in the oil's path where it caused major
social and psychological impact like depression and Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder.[23] *This injury continues in places like Cordova
today.

· * * * *Cleanup workers faced average oil mist exposure 12 times in
excess of the regulatory limits, with a maximum exposure 400 times
higher during hot water beach washing. *In 1989, 1,811 workers filed
compensation claims, primarily for respiratory system damage,
according to National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.[24]

STATE OF THE SOUND

Toxic effects linger.

To the naked eye, Prince William Sound may appear “normal.” *But if
you look beneath the surface, oil continues to contaminate beaches,
national parks, and designated wilderness. *In fact, the Office of
Technology Assessment estimated beach cleanup and oil skinning only
recovered 3-4% of the Exxon Valdez oil and studies by government
scientists estimated that only 14% of the oil was removed during
cleanup operations.[15]

A decade later, the ecosystem still suffers. *Substantial
contamination of mussel beds persists and this remarkably unweathered
oil is a continuing source of toxic hydrocarbons.[16] *Sea otters,
river otters, Barrow’s goldeneyes, and harlequin ducks have showed
evidence of continued hydrocarbon exposure in the past few years.
[17]

The depressed population of Pacific herring – a critical source of
food for over 40 predators including seabirds, harbor seals and
Steller sea lions – is having severe impacts up the food chain.
Wildlife population declines continue for harbor seal, killer whales,
harlequin ducks, common loon, pigeon guillemot, and pelagic, red-faced
cormorant, and double-crested cormorants.

Exxon-funded scientists have repeatedly dismissed evidence of on-going
effects to wildlife from the massive 1989 oil spill by claiming that
oil seeps contribute a bigger background source of hydrocarbons in
bottom sediments in Prince William Sound.[18] *Yet, they dismiss coal
as a possible source due to ignoring location of known deposits and
other factors about its “fingerprint.” *A new study by the National
Marine Fisheries Service concluded that the source is coal, and that
coal hydrocarbons are not chemically available to impact wildlife.[19]

My info comes from NOAA, not industry. *Here is the NOAA site:http://response.restoration.noaa.gov...ry.php?RECORD_...

Herring populations 3 years after the spill recovered to record levels
and then OVERFISHING reduced them to 25% from which they are slowly
recovering.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What information that I posted do you find erroneous and why?

Drill here, drill now
 

On May 4, 11:05*am, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 4, 10:39*am, Loogypicker wrote:





On May 4, 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

I think you should do some reading, there are still effects from the
oil spill in Alaska. You must have gotten your information directly
from that idiot Palin:

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Alaska/miller2.htm

Some parts herein:

Lasting Harm to Communities.

SUBSISTENCE

"The excitement of the season had just begun, and then, we heard the
news, oil in the water, lots of oil killing lots of water. *It's too
shocking to understand. *Never in the millennium of our tradition have
we thought it possible for the water to die, but its true."

-- The late Chief Walter Meganack, Port Graham, 1989[22]

· * * * *Subsistence harvests of fish and wildlife substantially
declined by Alaska Native communities after the spill and continue to
be affected.

· * * * *Villagers have been forced to rely on different resources
since there is still a scarcity of important subsistence resources
like harbor seals, herring, clams, and crab. *Hunters must travel
farther, spend more time, money and effort to feed their families.

· * * * *“The oil spill with its devastation affected our subsistence
way of life and resources,” said Gary Kompkoff from the village of
Tatitlek in 1999. *“Subsistence is too important to have recovered
from an incident caused by carelessness and negligence. *We always
have been able to rely on the land to provide for us—to be forced to
stop harvesting in traditional areas we’ve always relied upon is hard
to get over.”

FISHERIES
· * * * *Commercial salmon and herring fisheries closed in oiled areas
in 1989, including in Prince William Sound, most of Cook Inlet, and
most of the Kodiak area. *Shrimp, blackcod, bottomfish and crab
fisheries were also closed.

· * * * *Five years after the spill, 100 fishing boats blockaded
tanker traffic at Valdez Narrows for 2 days when wild pink salmon runs
plummeted. *These fish were the first wild runs that left Prince
William Sound during the oil spill. *Banks had already repossessed 70
Cordova fishing boats. *In 1993, the Pacific herring season in the
Sound was cut short when schools failed to show up, and in 1994 to
1996 the season never opened. *The herring fishery remained limited in
1997 and 1998.

· * * * * Ten years after the spill, and five years after a jury
ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion in punitive damages, Exxon has yet to
pay any of this judgement to injured fishermen, Native Americans, and
landowners.

HUMAN HEALTH
· * * * *20 communities were in the oil's path where it caused major
social and psychological impact like depression and Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder.[23] *This injury continues in places like Cordova
today.

· * * * *Cleanup workers faced average oil mist exposure 12 times in
excess of the regulatory limits, with a maximum exposure 400 times
higher during hot water beach washing. *In 1989, 1,811 workers filed
compensation claims, primarily for respiratory system damage,
according to National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.[24]

STATE OF THE SOUND

Toxic effects linger.

To the naked eye, Prince William Sound may appear “normal.” *But if
you look beneath the surface, oil continues to contaminate beaches,
national parks, and designated wilderness. *In fact, the Office of
Technology Assessment estimated beach cleanup and oil skinning only
recovered 3-4% of the Exxon Valdez oil and studies by government
scientists estimated that only 14% of the oil was removed during
cleanup operations.[15]

A decade later, the ecosystem still suffers. *Substantial
contamination of mussel beds persists and this remarkably unweathered
oil is a continuing source of toxic hydrocarbons.[16] *Sea otters,
river otters, Barrow’s goldeneyes, and harlequin ducks have showed
evidence of continued hydrocarbon exposure in the past few years.
[17]

The depressed population of Pacific herring – a critical source of
food for over 40 predators including seabirds, harbor seals and
Steller sea lions – is having severe impacts up the food chain.
Wildlife population declines continue for harbor seal, killer whales,
harlequin ducks, common loon, pigeon guillemot, and pelagic, red-faced
cormorant, and double-crested cormorants.

Exxon-funded scientists have repeatedly dismissed evidence of on-going
effects to wildlife from the massive 1989 oil spill by claiming that
oil seeps contribute a bigger background source of hydrocarbons in
bottom sediments in Prince William Sound.[18] *Yet, they dismiss coal
as a possible source due to ignoring location of known deposits and
other factors about its “fingerprint.” *A new study by the National
Marine Fisheries Service concluded that the source is coal, and that
coal hydrocarbons are not chemically available to impact wildlife.[19]

My info comes from NOAA, not industry. *Here is the NOAA site:http://response.restoration.noaa.gov...ry.php?RECORD_...

Herring populations 3 years after the spill recovered to record levels
and then OVERFISHING reduced them to 25% from which they are slowly
recovering.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, and you are cherry picking data from that very site.....

Drill here, drill now
 

On May 4, 11:17*am, Loogypicker wrote:
On May 4, 11:05*am, Frogwatch wrote:



On May 4, 10:39*am, Loogypicker wrote:

On May 4, 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

I think you should do some reading, there are still effects from the
oil spill in Alaska. You must have gotten your information directly
from that idiot Palin:

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Alaska/miller2.htm

Some parts herein:

Lasting Harm to Communities.

SUBSISTENCE

"The excitement of the season had just begun, and then, we heard the
news, oil in the water, lots of oil killing lots of water. *It's too
shocking to understand. *Never in the millennium of our tradition have
we thought it possible for the water to die, but its true."

-- The late Chief Walter Meganack, Port Graham, 1989[22]

· * * * *Subsistence harvests of fish and wildlife substantially
declined by Alaska Native communities after the spill and continue to
be affected.

· * * * *Villagers have been forced to rely on different resources
since there is still a scarcity of important subsistence resources
like harbor seals, herring, clams, and crab. *Hunters must travel
farther, spend more time, money and effort to feed their families.

· * * * *“The oil spill with its devastation affected our subsistence
way of life and resources,” said Gary Kompkoff from the village of
Tatitlek in 1999. *“Subsistence is too important to have recovered
from an incident caused by carelessness and negligence. *We always
have been able to rely on the land to provide for us—to be forced to
stop harvesting in traditional areas we’ve always relied upon is hard
to get over.”

FISHERIES
· * * * *Commercial salmon and herring fisheries closed in oiled areas
in 1989, including in Prince William Sound, most of Cook Inlet, and
most of the Kodiak area. *Shrimp, blackcod, bottomfish and crab
fisheries were also closed.

· * * * *Five years after the spill, 100 fishing boats blockaded
tanker traffic at Valdez Narrows for 2 days when wild pink salmon runs
plummeted. *These fish were the first wild runs that left Prince
William Sound during the oil spill. *Banks had already repossessed 70
Cordova fishing boats. *In 1993, the Pacific herring season in the
Sound was cut short when schools failed to show up, and in 1994 to
1996 the season never opened. *The herring fishery remained limited in
1997 and 1998.

· * * * * Ten years after the spill, and five years after a jury
ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion in punitive damages, Exxon has yet to
pay any of this judgement to injured fishermen, Native Americans, and
landowners.

HUMAN HEALTH
· * * * *20 communities were in the oil's path where it caused major
social and psychological impact like depression and Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder.[23] *This injury continues in places like Cordova
today.

· * * * *Cleanup workers faced average oil mist exposure 12 times in
excess of the regulatory limits, with a maximum exposure 400 times
higher during hot water beach washing. *In 1989, 1,811 workers filed
compensation claims, primarily for respiratory system damage,
according to National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.[24]

STATE OF THE SOUND

Toxic effects linger.

To the naked eye, Prince William Sound may appear “normal.” *But if
you look beneath the surface, oil continues to contaminate beaches,
national parks, and designated wilderness. *In fact, the Office of
Technology Assessment estimated beach cleanup and oil skinning only
recovered 3-4% of the Exxon Valdez oil and studies by government
scientists estimated that only 14% of the oil was removed during
cleanup operations.[15]

A decade later, the ecosystem still suffers. *Substantial
contamination of mussel beds persists and this remarkably unweathered
oil is a continuing source of toxic hydrocarbons.[16] *Sea otters,
river otters, Barrow’s goldeneyes, and harlequin ducks have showed
evidence of continued hydrocarbon exposure in the past few years.
[17]

The depressed population of Pacific herring – a critical source of
food for over 40 predators including seabirds, harbor seals and
Steller sea lions – is having severe impacts up the food chain.
Wildlife population declines continue for harbor seal, killer whales,
harlequin ducks, common loon, pigeon guillemot, and pelagic, red-faced
cormorant, and double-crested cormorants.

Exxon-funded scientists have repeatedly dismissed evidence of on-going
effects to wildlife from the massive 1989 oil spill by claiming that
oil seeps contribute a bigger background source of hydrocarbons in
bottom sediments in Prince William Sound.[18] *Yet, they dismiss coal
as a possible source due to ignoring location of known deposits and
other factors about its “fingerprint.” *A new study by the National
Marine Fisheries Service concluded that the source is coal, and that
coal hydrocarbons are not chemically available to impact wildlife.[19]

My info comes from NOAA, not industry. *Here is the NOAA site:http://response.restoration.noaa.gov...ry.php?RECORD_...

Herring populations 3 years after the spill recovered to record levels
and then OVERFISHING reduced them to 25% from which they are slowly
recovering.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, and you are cherry picking data from that very site.....

Here is a study of degradation of oil spills by various mechanisms:
http://www.pjoes.com/pdf/11.5/555-559.pdf
Note that the combination of sunlight and biological activity did the
most. The UV index for most of the Prince William Sound area is about
4 and for the upper Gulf of Mexico is about 11, a factor of 2.75
difference in insolation. 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.

Drill here, drill now
 

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.

Drill here, drill now
 

On May 4, 11:37*am, hk 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.