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.

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.

Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/4/2010 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

From Yale. Good work. Didn't you graduate from Yale?

Drill here, drill now
 

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?

Drill here, drill now
 

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.

Drill here, drill now
 

In article ,
says...

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

NOAA says that everything is back to they way it was within 10 years of
the spill. That is a very fast recovery.

Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/4/2010 5:49 PM, hk wrote:
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 ultimate asshole. That would be you, and It's not an act.

Up until now I have had a pristine gulf to boat in unlike the cesspool
you boat in. And a job would interfere with the many pleasures in life I
enjoy. Sorry you need to work at your advanced age. But Karen's got
another twenty to work and you can't stop till she does. Do you think
you can make it? It must really suck awfully bad to be you. Snerk

Why don't you have a nice Kosher gherkin salad for supper. Your bride
could warm them up for you.

PS It's in the national interest to get that spill cleaned up post
haste. I hope your boy has a plan. It's getting pretty messy out there
and time's a wasting.

Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/4/2010 5:37 PM, anon-e-moose wrote:
On 5/4/2010 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

From Yale. Good work. Didn't you graduate from Yale?

You didn't graduate from Yale?

Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/4/2010 6:55 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleUbqdnRAMT_9NrX3WnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

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

NOAA says that everything is back to they way it was within 10 years of
the spill. That is a very fast recovery.


What! You aren't going to take Harry's word for it?

Drill here, drill now
 

In article ,
says...

On 5/4/2010 6:55 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleUbqdnRAMT_9NrX3WnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

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

NOAA says that everything is back to they way it was within 10 years of
the spill. That is a very fast recovery.


What! You aren't going to take Harry's word for it?

A great American once said trust but verify. However, in Harry's case it
is verify first and even then be skeptical.

Drill here, drill now
 

"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.

Drill here, drill now
 

On May 4, 9:31*pm, "A.Boater" wrote:
On *4-May-2010, anon-e-moose wrote:

*From Yale. Good work. Didn't you graduate from Yale?

You didn't graduate from Yale?

WTF would cause you to reach into your huge bag of confusion and pick some
assumption (out of all the schools on the planet) that I ever attended Yale?

Do you EVER get anything right?

This all reminds me of the first business I started, Rocky Mountain
Pressure Survey, Inc. Me and a two other oil field trash friends
leased two pressure guages and 10,000' of multi-conductor stainless
armored cable, some stainless strapping and a device to apply it
around tubing and we leased two of the old Osborne "portable"
computers (this was 1981). We were going to put the guages in wells
for months and then go around measuring them in real time with the
computers via phone line. The guages would be at the bottoms of the
wells and the cable strapped to the outside of the tubing as it was
run into the well. Knowing the pressure was critical to knowing how
the efforts to stimulate an old depleted oil field was responding to
injection from nearby wells. Our scheme was to instrument every well
in a field with each connected via phone to a computer.

We actually had an agreement with Chevron to test 5 wells in the
Midwest field north of Casper, WY but our timing was bad with the
collapse of oil prices so did our business and they cancelled the job
but they did pay for our equipment lease. I went back to grad school
and my friends both went to work offshore Argentina. Now, I know it
was all for the best that it failed because it it had sorta succeeded,
I'd still be in the oil business and that was a young mans game.

However, it did lead to my first patent attempt, a scheme to measure
fluid levels in wells using microwaves using the tubing as a
waveguide. By measuring the standing wave ratio, and its position on
a "Smith Chart" one could determine not only the fluid depth but the
nature of the gas/liquid interface. Being in grad school at the time,
I could not interest anybody in an oil patent so I had to drop it.

I figger that if the carbon credit scam ever got going, I'd buy up
abandoned oil wells near cement plants because cement plants produce
huge amounts of CO2 and inject the CO2 into one well to stimulate
production in another. Not only would I get the CO2 for free, I'd be
able to sell the carbon credit AND produce a small amount of oil
(about 3 barrels/day) for free.

Drill here, drill now
 

On May 4, 4:39*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
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!

Show where I've started any "political posts and rants".

Drill here, drill now
 

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

Drill here, drill now
 

"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
On May 4, 4:39 pm, I am Tosk wrote:
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!

Show where I've started any "political posts and rants".

Show where he said you "started" them.

Drill here, drill now
 

In article ,
says...

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.

I'd bet there is some physical abuse that goes along with the emotional
abuse.

Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/5/10 7:31 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleAZWdnczMNIfaP3zWnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

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.

I'd bet there is some physical abuse that goes along with the emotional
abuse.


You would, would you? You would be wrong on both counts. As a guy who
barely completed high school and couldn't get into college, and joined
the marines as a consolation prize, and never even got an overseas
posting, you sure have lot of ill-informed opinions. No wonder you're a
conserva-thug.


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

Drill here, drill now
 

In article ,
says...

On 5/5/10 7:31 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleAZWdnczMNIfaP3zWnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

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.

I'd bet there is some physical abuse that goes along with the emotional
abuse.


You would, would you? You would be wrong on both counts. As a guy who
barely completed high school and couldn't get into college, and joined
the marines as a consolation prize, and never even got an overseas
posting, you sure have lot of ill-informed opinions. No wonder you're a
conserva-thug.

You are just jealous because I own my home. I have a six figure income
and I've done more in my life then you will ever hope to do in your
life.

Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/5/10 8:02 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleYLednfdpaJzlnH_WnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

On 5/5/10 7:31 PM, BAR wrote:
In articleAZWdnczMNIfaP3zWnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

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.

I'd bet there is some physical abuse that goes along with the emotional
abuse.


You would, would you? You would be wrong on both counts. As a guy who
barely completed high school and couldn't get into college, and joined
the marines as a consolation prize, and never even got an overseas
posting, you sure have lot of ill-informed opinions. No wonder you're a
conserva-thug.

You are just jealous because I own my home. I have a six figure income
and I've done more in my life then you will ever hope to do in your
life.




Sure, Boatless Bertie...sure. I'm *jealous* of you and your lack of
educ-ma-cation, your overt prejudices, your lack of compassion for your
fellow man, your stuporstitions, and your six-figure income, which, by
the way, I've been making since the early 1980's, while you were in your
marine uniform, guarding the outhouse. snerk

Whatever makes you feel good.

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

Drill here, drill now
 

In article ,
says...

"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
On May 4, 4:39 pm, I am Tosk wrote:
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!

Show where I've started any "political posts and rants".

Show where he said you "started" them.

Really, I was referring to the "idiot Palin" and the various
"Teabagger" prejoritive used by he and several others here. It's exactly
the kind of bull**** he complained about when I finally said **** it
here. But I knew he wouldn't stop himself... Leftys are inherently bound
by double standards...

Later...




--
Pain is temporary, Glory is forever!

Drill here, drill now
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

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.

I'd bet there is some physical abuse that goes along with the emotional
abuse.

Yes, I am sure she beat his fat pussy ass regularly...

--
Pain is temporary, Glory is forever!

Drill here, drill now
 

On 5/6/10 5:21 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In articleRLKdnU3y7JBPSHzWnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

wrote in message
...
On May 4, 4:39 pm, I am 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!

Show where I've started any "political posts and rants".

Show where he said you "started" them.

Really, I was referring to the "idiot Palin" and the various
"Teabagger" prejoritive used by he and several others here. It's exactly
the kind of bull**** he complained about when I finally said **** it
here. But I knew he wouldn't stop himself... Leftys are inherently bound
by double standards...

Later...






What does you "finally said **** it here" mean? Obviously, it doesn't
mean you are leaving and not coming back because, like one of your bad
checks, you keep returning.

Oh. Palin is an idiot. And so are you.

"Teabagger" is a perfect descriptor for that movement, which is nothing
more than Republican basers who want to be obnoxiously vocal.

Have one of your usual nice, dumb days, bozo.


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