More Governement Needed!!!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Next naysayer.

Nay.

You attacked the soapy suds guy for his comment about the petroleum being "nutritious" to organisms in the environment. The man is correct.

I dunno about his business dealings and I am about to look into his specific product - but everything he said (at least everything he's been shown to have said here) has been correct.

[Jermyn Davidson]

To imply that crude oil is "nutritious" is a stretch-- for most scientists when discussing crude oil, they say it is simply toxic, without mention of its possible nutritional value to a few plants.

I think it has been addressed that even if crude oil was somehow good for you and the environment, the sheer volume of what we're discussing should lead you to believe that this can't be good for humans, our environment, or the local economy.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

"As for crude oils, a very decent analysis by the American Petroleum Institute shows that all are toxic, but their effects vary with thickness and with the different chemistry seen in say, oil from the Gulf of Mexico and oil from Kuwait. The best estimate I've seen for South Louisiana Crude - after hours of exasperated research - comes from thesis work done at Louisiana State University several years ago. For instance, the study found that Louisiana crude had an LC50 of 4250 ppm for the warm-water loving killifish.

This suggests that crude oil is less acutely poisonous than chemical dispersants. But here's the really interesting finding in that terrific little study. Adding a dispersant - specifically Corexit 9500 - made the oil more poisonous. A lot more poisonous."



Corexit- oil dispersant produced by NALCO.

NALCO- oil dispersant company with a former BP executive as a member on its Board of Directors



My quote is from the article linked below.

http://scienceblogs.com/speakeasysci...centration.php

Here's a video from NALCO explaining their product.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orjr2...layer_embedded

That annoying background music (sounds like something from the Exorcist film) prevented me from hearing some of the commentary.

The blog you quote is not written by a real scientist - but by a journalism professor who teaches "advocacy journalism" at UW-Mad. Just something to keep in mind there. She may be correct - but her angle appears to be very acute.

The justification for using the Corexit appears to have been based upon experience gleaned from the Exxon Valdez spill. Corexit was originally produced by Exxon and was used along with other agents all of whose results have been compared over the years.

From what I have seen Googling around, it appears that there is a constant whine coming from environmentalists about just how to clean up an oil spill. Most of the environmental sites appear to offer nothing but criticism of the clean up efforts without ever offering anything constructive. These are not good sources of information.

Oil is toxic in sufficient quantities to just about everything except bacteria. Bacteria themselves are toxic in sufficient quantities to everything including themselves. Yet, it is the bacteria that we rely upon to "clean up" all of nature's messes. They will consume the "nutritious" petroleum and eventually the Gulf will be pristine again (except for the toxic Red Tides of bacteria, but that's another matter).

All of the attacks against the evil people at BP, NALCO and everyone else seems to be politically motivated. And, I haven't seen the POTUS abandon his huge gas guzzling Chevy Suburbans. We all use this oil and all of our jobs and lifestyle are dependent upon it. Even the shrimpers can't get out in their boats without large quantities of smelly diesel fuel.

The problem belongs to everyone. Those who are trying to clean it up should not be attacked nor demonized.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

To imply that crude oil is "nutritious" is a stretch-- for most scientists when discussing crude oil, they say it is simply toxic, without mention of its possible nutritional value to a few plants.

I think it has been addressed that even if crude oil was somehow good for you and the environment, the sheer volume of what we're discussing should lead you to believe that this can't be good for humans, our environment, or the local economy.

It is only "nutritious" to bacteria. Don't put it on your plants - unless you want them to die.

We had an even larger oil spill from 1979-1980. The oil gushed out for almost a year. The oil company was presented a bill for clean up costs by the state of Texas and the US Federal gov't. The oil company just laughed at them and never paid a dime.

And yet, I'll bet you never even heard about that, and if you've ever been to South Padre Island you can't even tell that one of the world's largest "man made" disasters had hit those shores.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It is only "nutritious" to bacteria. Don't put it on your plants - unless you want them to die.

We had an even larger oil spill from 1979-1980. The oil gushed out for almost a year. The oil company was presented a bill for clean up costs by the state of Texas and the US Federal gov't. The oil company just laughed at them and never paid a dime.

And yet, I'll bet you never even heard about that, and if you've ever been to South Padre Island you can't even tell that one of the world's largest "man made" disasters had hit those shores.

So somehow what happened at that island justifies an, "oh well, too bad for the fish" response to this?

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

What a mess. Limbaugh wants to blame enviromentalists for forcing oil drilling far offshore and thus more dangerous. Ludicrous. Greed is to blame. Republicans are blocking the liability limits of oil companies from being raised from 75 million. We know who republicans stand for. Big oil, Big business and Big money. Hypocrites! should be tarred and feathered.

How many poor people provided you a job DM? Big Welfare, Big Social Security, Big Medicare?

Without "Big Oil" you wouldn't have affordable gasoline. Without "Big Business" you wouldn't have affordable products to buy. Without "Big Money" you wouldn't have much of a retirement. So get off the Democrat talking points and face reality!

BO and the Dems don't mind the campaign contributions from Big Oil, Business and Money, but then they sit on their high horse and rebuke these guys every chance they get. Who are the hypocrites?