Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Well--Tony Hayward had said at the beginning that the vastness of the ocean and natural forces of degradation would take care of most of the pollution and mix it in with all the rest of the other pollution by the side of which it was trivial.

Wow - don't tell me you actually buy this bullshit? Because frankly this is one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said regarding the oil spill.

Cycloptichorn

Apparently, though, Hayward turned out to be right.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Well--Tony Hayward had said at the beginning that the vastness of the ocean and natural forces of degradation would take care of most of the pollution and mix it in with all the rest of the other pollution by the side of which it was trivial.

Wow - don't tell me you actually buy this bullshit? Because frankly this is one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said regarding the oil spill.

Cycloptichorn

Apparently, though, Hayward turned out to be right.

Once again, are you kidding? Seriously?

A few points -

1, many of the wetlands on the coast are well and truly fucked from all the oil which has washed up into them.

2, we have no clue whatsoever how much oil is beneath the surface. But we do know that it is a gigantic amount. The dispersant (Corexit, which is highly toxic) made sure that it was spread throughout the ocean instead of on top; this made BP have to deal with less oil on beaches, but has totally destroyed much of the wildlife in the area and has spread the oil over a MUCH larger volume.

3, The dispersant used - Corexit - is highly toxic. If you swallow a mouthful, you will probably die. If you get it on your skin, you could have health problems which last a lifetime. If you breathe in the fumes of it, it can scar your lungs. It is toxic to wildlife and kills both fish and mammals.

And the gulf is now chock full of this ****.

In short: anyone who claims that this isn't a gigantic environmental disaster has not one single clue what they are talking about. Seriously. Go do some research before coming here and spouting such crap....

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Hear hear.

0 Replies

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2010-07-30-oil-spill-toxins_N.htm

The toxins in the oil are now working their way into the local ecosystem, which will be displaying signs of them for decades. You can't swim in the water safely anymore, not anywhere near where this spill is. The Gulf shrimp and crab industry is fucked.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Well--Tony Hayward had said at the beginning that the vastness of the ocean and natural forces of degradation would take care of most of the pollution and mix it in with all the rest of the other pollution by the side of which it was trivial.

Wow - don't tell me you actually buy this bullshit? Because frankly this is one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said regarding the oil spill.

Cycloptichorn

Apparently, though, Hayward turned out to be right.

Once again, are you kidding? Seriously?

A few points -

1, many of the wetlands on the coast are well and truly fucked from all the oil which has washed up into them.

2, we have no clue whatsoever how much oil is beneath the surface. But we do know that it is a gigantic amount. The dispersant (Corexit, which is highly toxic) made sure that it was spread throughout the ocean instead of on top; this made BP have to deal with less oil on beaches, but has totally destroyed much of the wildlife in the area and has spread the oil over a MUCH larger volume.

3, The dispersant used - Corexit - is highly toxic. If you swallow a mouthful, you will probably die. If you get it on your skin, you could have health problems which last a lifetime. If you breathe in the fumes of it, it can scar your lungs. It is toxic to wildlife and kills both fish and mammals.

And the gulf is now chock full of this ****.

In short: anyone who claims that this isn't a gigantic environmental disaster has not one single clue what they are talking about. Seriously. Go do some research before coming here and spouting such crap....

Cycloptichorn

Yes, the spill did damage, but Hayward did not deny that. But in now turns out that the oil spill is dissipating, and that the customarily dire predictions have not (so far) turned out to be true. Of course, they may turn out so in the future. But, then again, they may not. No one, not only an environmentalist should be afraid of admitting that he not only may be wrong, but that he was (so far) wrong in his predictions of dire consequences. For, as I pointed out, present evidence is that the spill is naturally decreasing, as Hayward predicted it would.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

Yes, the spill did damage, but Hayward did not deny that.

No, he just tried to downplay the damage - just like you are doing. You are both incorrect.

Quote:

But in now turns out that the oil spill is dissipating, and that the customarily dire predictions have not (so far) turned out to be true.

There was no 'spill' of oil. The slicks of oil from the well are dissipating, because that's what the dispersants do - they break the oil up and spread it throughout the volume of the ocean. You are being bamboozled by something essentially meaningless, as the slicks on the top have never represented a large portion of the oil coming out of the well.

What 'dire predictions' are you saying didn't turn out to be true? From what I can see, they all have come true.

Quote:

Of course, they may turn out so in the future. But, then again, they may not. No one, not only an environmentalist should be afraid of admitting that he not only may be wrong, but that he was (so far) wrong in his predictions of dire consequences. For, as I pointed out, present evidence is that the spill is naturally decreasing, as Hayward predicted it would.

I think it's safe to say that you have zero clue what you are talking about. When you say the spill is 'naturally decreasing,' what does that mean? Where is it going, that it somehow isn't a problem? You haven't mentioned one word about the dispersants and the environmental impact of them.

The idea that the ocean will 'clean itself' is a total joke. It does nothing of the sort.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The idea that the ocean will 'clean itself' is a total joke. It does nothing of the sort.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Were you going to respond to him?

1 Reply

Cycloptichorn has been right on target throughout the discussion. It is my way of letting him know I agree with his position without interrupting the argument's flow.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Were you going to respond to him?

As for me, my mother told me never to argue about politics or religion, and climate change is both.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

The idea that the ocean will 'clean itself' is a total joke. It does nothing of the sort.

Cycloptichorn

A forestry expert once told me that a stream cleans itself about every 150 feet. This happens because of gravity pulling water down into the sand which acts as a filter. Toxins remain in the sand to decay.

If the ocean doesn't clean itself in this same way, why not?

I'm not suggesting that millions of gallons of oil don't represent a natural disaster. I'm just asking out of some scientific curiosity because you appear to be fairly certain of your information.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Wow - don't tell me you actually buy this bullshit? Because frankly this is one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said regarding the oil spill.

Is that an argument Cyclo? It looks more like a reflex of the vocal chords to me.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

3, The dispersant used - Corexit - is highly toxic. If you swallow a mouthful, you will probably die. If you get it on your skin, you could have health problems which last a lifetime. If you breathe in the fumes of it, it can scar your lungs. It is toxic to wildlife and kills both fish and mammals.

Unlike the original disaster that one was deliberate and brought about by panic.

One assumes there was plenty of Corexit in stock. What was its intended use? And now a lot of it has been used up some more will have to be made to replenish stocks which is very good news for the manufacturers.

One might also assume the use to have been authorised and possibly ordered.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Cycloptichorn has been right on target throughout the discussion. It is my way of letting him know I agree with his position without interrupting the argument's flow.

Well, my asking you if you were going to respond, and your subsequent response, disturbed the argument's flow! Darn!

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
3, The dispersant used - Corexit - is highly toxic. If you swallow a mouthful, you will probably die. If you get it on your skin, you could have health problems which last a lifetime. If you breathe in the fumes of it, it can scar your lungs. It is toxic to wildlife and kills both fish and mammals.

Unlike the original disaster that one was deliberate and brought about by panic.

One assumes there was plenty of Corexit in stock. What was its intended use? And now a lot of it has been used up some more will have to be made to replenish stocks which is very good news for the manufacturers.

One might also assume the use to have been authorised and possibly ordered.

But the panic was not the doing of the oil spill. It reminds me of Obama's panic in ordering oil drilling to stop for 6 months. Luckily, the courts did not panic, and stopped him. In fact, in reminds me a little of the panic of the government, the media, and the environmentalists. Lesson. Don't panic.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

But ken, there is a name to be made with panic. One might strut and fret one's hour upon the stage.

But only with a receptive audience.

It might be thought that those grandstanding about the Gulf being "full of ****" might have raised their voice at 2,000 drilling platforms being located therein and the rivers pouring a dilute solution of pesticides and fertilisers running off the productive acres where cheap food is created, for decade after decade with no end in sight. Where was this mighty courage to speak out then?

0 Replies

Let's just torch the planet and go somewhere else. Showing the universe how selfish we are isn't necessarily a bad thing, is it?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

We couldn't if we tried Zeth. It is arrogance to suggest we could.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

We couldn't if we tried Zeth. It is arrogance to suggest we could.

We can certainly torch the outside of the planet with things like nuclear weapons. That isn't arrogant at all. It's the truth.

But, of course, that wouldn't be destroying the planet. I even said we don't have the capacity (as of yet) to do such a thing.

By the way, I was joking, spendius. I much like my home here on Earth.

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

I thought that likely Zeth but one can hardly respond to posts which might be joking.

1 Reply

Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know