On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:49:08 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 24/05/2010 4:08 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2010 07:36:05 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Obviously, this oil spill has caused very little damage so far in
spite of being huge. IN relative terms, it's damage is far smaller
than a single weeks worth of tourism. So far, I am totally
unimpressed by any damage from the spill and I think this will
actually cause technology to be developed for spills that would be
problems.

gee. imagine if all the damage you did to your lungs by cigaret
smoking happened only in a month...

IOW you dont know what the hell you're talking about

In reality, oil isn't as bad as you think to the environment. It is a
naturally occuring substance and often leaks out anyway. Take the oil
sands, if not mined out, it might just wash into the arctic.

gee. we chemists think it's pretty bad. why?

well for starters it has ALOT of chemical energy...benzene...other
aromatic hydrocarbons that organisms can't digest.

as to it's 'naturally occurring'...gee. if you take a teaspoon of
cyanide, is that OK because it's not alot of cyanide?


That being said, it isn't good to release that much at once. But unlike
plastic bottles, cans, toilets, tires, boats, city garbage that still
exists in the gulf 20-70 years after they are dumped, oil will only take
a few years to disolve back into the environment.

yeah. tell it to the fishermen who lost their jobs courtesy of the oil
that doesn't affect anything