Fuck what facts? You haven't given any facts other than some general numbers from the Gulf of Mexico and North American coastal waters.

And I did quote other source, I didn't just say something. Let me quote myself again:

"Seeps are generally very old and flow at a very low rate. The material that flows out is still very often toxic, but organisms some that live nearby are adapted to conditions in and around seeps. A few very unique species of animals are even able to use the hydrocarbons and other chemicals released at seeps as a source of metabolic energy. In addition, rather than being made up entirely crude oil, the material flowing from seeps is often heavily biodegraded by microbial action deep beneath the seafloor.

In contrast, the production, transportation, and consumption of oil by humans generally results in relatively short, high-volume inputs of oil and refined hydrocarbon products in places that have never experienced significant exposure to these chemicals and so do not have many natural defenses to them."

http://www.whoi.edu/oilinocean/page.do?pid=51880"

I didn't realize I was chatting with someone that doesn't even understand what a fact is.

I guess I should have realized that after your destroyed ecosystems comment combined with your thinking this didn't happen in a natural high seepage gulf.

So, if you want take that road, where are your facts? I didn't see any quote from some research, just some fucking pie diagrams those I can make up within 5 minutes. Not even a single link to the source.

Some reading:

http://www.forskningsraadet.no/CSSto...2004Bodkin.pdf

http://www.oil-spill-info.com/Public...bility_ESI.pdf

"The ecosystem response to the 1989 spill of oil from the Exxon Valdez into Prince William Sound, Alaska, shows that current practices for assessing ecological risks of oil in the oceans and, by extension, other toxic sources should be changed. Previously, it was assumed that impacts to populations derive almost exclusively from acute mortality. However, in the Alaskan coastal ecosystem, unexpected persistence of toxic subsurface oil and chronic exposures, even at sublethal levels, have continued to affect wildlife. Delayed population reductions and cascades of indirect effects postponed recovery. Development of ecosystem-based toxicology is required to understand and ultimately predict chronic, delayed, and indirect long-term risks and impacts"

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5653/2082.short

I'm not back in college here at gfy, I'm not going to footnote my posts for you. You've already shown a need to make shit up so you can over-exaggerate issues, I simply brought those comments back to reality.

but again, to counter your ridiculous and overexaggerated speculations-

1. ecosystems were not destroyed.

2. the gulf of mexico is a region that is loaded with natural crude oil seepage and the ecosystems there have adapted to that.

You just ignore every presented source and fact. You accuse me for not providing facts and when I ask about your facts you just made some fucking excuse.

I am done with this shit, talk to yourself.

what does the valdez spill into the pristine prince william sound have to do with the gulf of mexico bp oil spill? you should prolly do some research on the damage done there from the clean-up. have you been to either location? I have been to both. apples and oranges.

I grew up spending summers in Galveston, my mom lives there now. tar balls on the beach have been a part of the landscape there for decades and decades. In contrast, prince william sound is not a naturally occuring seepage zone.

I didn't accuse you of not providing facts. I began by asking you to fill us all in with the facts that support your silly claims of destroyed ecosystems, etc.

certainly you would agree that there is no need to overexaggerate the disaster right? to look at it as realistically as possible right?

Isn't that how realistic solutions are derived? How do we solve the issue if wild untrue claims leads the dialogue? saying fuck you to each other?

that's ********** reality.

Again, the oil seepage is not uniformly divided in Gulf of Mexico. And the oil spill volume/time frame per location is very different. And as we have seen the dead birds, corals and other affected marine animals, they don't seem to be very well adapted to the oil, if they were, they wouldn't have died.

And you can read about the long term effects from the Valdez. The birds and other bigger animals are not that different around there. Mammals and birds are quite uniform group regarding tolerance to oil.

I haven't exaggerating nothing, but you are constantly downplaying things, but of course there are no needs to overexaggerate.

I don't disagree with this. Again, my direct dialogue with you in this thread is a hashing out of the reality of the event and issues. yes, plants and animals died. i get that and I am not here undervaluing the damage, I am trying to more accurately portray the damage so the dialogue makes more sense to me.

I mean if we want to overexaggerate then discuss, let's make it fun and add some radioactive waste and godzilla.

feel free to point out a post of mine where I downplayed the severity of the disaster.

Just read every post of yours where you discuss about the oil spill.

like this one?

or perhaps this one?

No, some where you talk about the oil spill, not about some overexaggeration.

Hi Matt,

Some birds die due to wind farms, yes, but alot more die in the cities because they fly into buildings and skyscrapers. This is unfortunate, yes, but it is also very different. BP and other oil companies constantly spill their shit, and kill not just birds, but all kinds of other animals too, and ruin the land and water for generations at least, with the technology to clean it up limp at best.

My basic belief if you will, is that Big Oil, the most profitable industry on the planet, does not do nearly enough to protect the environment, which includes birds, animals, marine life, water, land, and people. With making so much money, I would think they could be doing more.

Lol!

You are seriously ignorant. Just stop talking and shut the fuck up until you grow some brain cells, asshole.

Lol!! Listen to me you godamn fucking toothless redneck: What possible point of the BP Disaster is over exaggerated? Fucking morons like you cherry-pick what they want to believe and dismiss the rest because they are too stupid to understand, or just don't want to understand.

Keep your little head in the sand, little man, and shut the fuck up.

**********, I fully understand your need to lash out. hell, i would too if i were you and i just spent $40,000 on a car just to dump 20 tons of pollution into the environment while I point my finger at others for polluting.

I get that.

nature - successfully overcoming disasters without man's 'help' since never, apparently. Lucky us humans are here to give it a hand, eh :1orglaugh

a picture for **********.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/electri...1667192007.jpg

and a quote

keep killing the planet while you point your finger at others for killing the planet

Depends about what you mean with "overcoming". The dinosaurs are still dead, and mass extinctions have killed much of the life many times. Nature doesn't overcome nothing, as it is not a living thing (just description), but some animals usually do overcome disasters, some don't. And if we (or some other specie) don't get the hell out of here at some point before the sun kills us all, nothing survives (on Earth). So, the so called "nature's" ability to survive is actually quite limited.

Don't worry about nature, worry about current ecosystems and animals.

there is gobs and gobs of research proofing that cleaning up spills like the bP and valdez spill exponentially make the pollution worse.

moreover, as of a year ago::::::::

"The bottom line from this research may be that the Gulf of Mexico is more resilient and better able to recover from oil spills than anyone thought," Hazen said. "It shows that we may not need the kinds of heroic measures proposed after the Deepwater Horizon spill, like adding nutrients to speed up the growth of bacteria that breakdown oil, or using genetically engineered bacteria. The Gulf has a broad base of natural bacteria, and they respond to the presence of oil by multiplying quite rapidly."


and that crystallizes my efforts to realistically portray the damage. If we continue to overdramatize the damage then we also will continue to do the wrong things to mitigate it.

Not sure why that's so offensive to some of you.

What do mean with cleaning? Shovel and a bucket? Hard to see how that makes things worse. And the main method, at least outside US, is to collect the oil from the surface. With special purpose ships and with a shovel and a bucket.

If you use some shitty methods around there, that is a different issue.

As previosly stated, I'm not here to do your research for you. if you are not already aware of the reports from valdez, then you really should not be engaged in this discussion and you certainly should have never brought the valdez spill into it.

So you talk some bullshit about facts, but you refuse to even shortly describe what is the problem with the cleaning, or even what you more precisely meant, not to mention the sources?

So what you exactly do in this thread? Why you write?

And this is not just about Valdez or Gulf of Mexico. America or that continent althogether is not the only place where has happened oil spills or where the subject has been researched.

again, it makes no sense to try and bring you up to speed. if you were truly interested in the topic, you would have already been familiar with the ongoing 25 YEARS of study on the valdez spill since it occurred in 1989

What speed? To talk about something without actually saying anything? Using some fucking telepathy?

Hah, this is so bullshit.

there is a level of understanding that needs to be met in order to have a meaningful discussion. If you are not informed enough to be at that level, attempting a discussion with you or even trying to help you get current on the latest infos is pointless.

You will simply continue to hold your uninformed position.

You are so full of bullshit. You make more effort denying information, if you have such in the first place, than would be needed to give that information.

Reality is that you have nothing. So please inform yourself so that you can leave your uninformed position. :)

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/index.cfm?FA=facts.QA

I alreeady pointed out you are not versed in reality of course you would think it's bullshit.

according to you, I bet my posts in this thread destroyed an ecosystem or 2.

:1orglaugh

Okay.

But back to issue. I just watched WWF's guide video for collecting oil from beaches after oil spills. Am I now enough qualified to discuss with you, or do I need to post some sort of certificate to you? :)

So 700,000 tons released in this one spill is the equivalent of 75 years worth and we did it in 5 months.

The fact is you fight with everyone and just throw out shit to support the unsupportable.

The wild life was not immune to the oil because they had already gotten used to it.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...318260912.html

Oops I forgot. Fox news for you as that would be acceptable I am assuming? - http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...spill-effects/

huh? what the fuck does fox news have to do with my keeping the thread on track with reality?
oh i know, that's all you can understand, simple things red or blue.


where the fuck did I say anything was immune to anything?


you and others sure prefer to assume, your word, rather than accept facts. keep assuming, it suits you.

you stupid mother fucker,

from your article

that's exactly what the fuck I am pointing out. you dimwitted dumbfuck. the cleanup is what caused the mutation in your fucking article.

jesus fuck.

Lol Dyna!! Just give up man. You are proving yourself to be a bigger idiot with every post you make. Just stop already. You are cherry-picking your "facts", and trying to justify to yourself and everyone here that it is "ok" to pollute in the gulf because it can "take it" somehow. You're ridiculous and a fool.

There is no other place i hang out, both virtu al and irl where attempting to have a pragmatic, unemotional approach to an issue causes such consternation and attempted ridicule.


Save the birds, ban windows and cats!

********** feel free to point out where i stated its ok to pollute the gulf.

"Scientists blamed the mutations on the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) released from the spill's submerged oil as well as the two million gallons of the dispersant Corexit that BP used in an attempt to clean up the spill."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...spill-effects/

To me it seems that the oil too has something to do about it. And again, that is not cleanup, dispersing is not cleaning. You blame solely "cleanup" and don't even take into account the methods used. You know, there are alternatives to methos used in these oil spills in US.

Not banning cats, but not left roaming around. That sounds like a plan. They are pretty much the only pets those can walk all freely nowadays. Some loophole.

I1. You are one of the few people here that can engage a hot debate intelligently. Regardless if we agree or not

2. Im not blaming solely cleanup. Here is what i am doing-

I am stating that it is counterproductive to the solution to not have as accurate depiction of the disaster as possible. Because when we do that, and we do that every spill, we exacerbate the problems. Adding to the damage from the actual spill by overcompenasating with clean up efforts that compound and extend the issue.

Oh and that ********** is a self-proclaimed troll so i troll him back.

Okay. By the way, I really watched WWF's guide for cleaning oil from shore. Besides using collecting ships at sea, it is small scoop and a bucket method when done at shore. Well, there was also other tools, but very similar in nature. Manual work. It seems that someone around there hasn't read the manual, since all the dispersants and stuff.

If you drive a car... You are responsable. Not BP.

Spill was made by BP, not by my car. And you don't have to drive car to use petroleum based products.

That's a real issue. In fact we refused a lot of help both international and private business. That sort of mentality makes things much worse. But at the same time one of the manual cleanup methods- high pressure washing killed a lot of microbes and bacteria that were important to the region and cleanup.

You are a BP apologist! Omfg



Save the birds buy Volt with no windows and run over a cat

That is not manual cleanup. Scoop and a bucket, that is manual. High pressure requires machinery.