Posted on 11/15/2010 7:00:40 AM PST by kingattax
You are exactly right. Don’t you realize that you’ve made my point?
Corexita (known by other names) was used in massive amounts in this particular spill, and no other spill. It’s very DESIGN is to sink oil to the sea floor. While a snappy, aesthetic idea, to make things look good to the boaters & swimmers, it is a sentence of doom for seafood. Their eggs lie on the ocean floor. This is why I continue to warn everyone that this will not be felt for two or three years.
Quite honestly, I’m a tad puzzled here.
Are we conservatives going the way of the libs where we dismiss established science so we can hold to our political ideas? We conservatives rightfully reject the nutjob enviroscrewballs. But are we now going to reject long standing scientific fact (not theory), just for a political win?
I knew that global warming was a crock of shit within the first five minutes I heard the theory. To believe it would require every student of science to toss out everthing they ever knew, in order to buy it.
Let’s not give National Review credence on this; they are wrong. They are operating via reflex; “earth friendly = left wing libs”
We’re better than this, folks. It is truly possible to be earth friendly and conservative. Especially when you understand science.
What is wrong here is the current administration. This should be considered a national scandal.
I’ll add your screenname to my list.
You just watch, my FRiend.
I’m no enviro-panic nut. I look at this whole thing in a dispassionate way. Don’t live in the Gulf, don’t eat seafood, etc.
But I know what I know. And in a couple years, so will you.
That’s when I’ll use my list and say, “So...how’s tricks?”
Three years? Good grief. Just ask yourself, what is the lifespan of shrimp? I live right here on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and can tell you firsthand, the Gulf is teeming with NEW life! Baby shrimp, baby crabs, baby fish.
I’ll add you, too, kiddo.
:)
Oil in a normal spill contains heavier fractions that cling to the sea floor, as well as the lighter fractions that rise to the surface. The BP spill was not the first one in history to cover some of the sea floor. They all do that.
If the oil spill (either natural or 'Corexitised') had been large enough to cover the entire Gulf floor in a layer an inch thick then we could reasonably expect some impact on spawning. But one molecule of oil for every ~ 400 sq. miles of sea floor has simply negligible impact.
There are bacteria which eat the oil. The bacteria are in turn eaten by other microscopic sea life, which are in turn eaten by larger sea life, and so on up the food chain.
We all know that normal oil spills contain heavier elements. I am not disputing this.
One of the features of Corexia is to take the lighter fractions, that would normally cling to the surface (as you point out) and PUSH them to the ocean floor. Moreover, the amounts of Corexita were in excess of any amounts previously used AND in excess of the amounts authorized by the EPA. This administration used the Gulf as guinea pigs.
From what I understand, it is the enormous blast of Corexita that is causing the sickening human health problems in the Gulf. But I am going to wait for more solid information.
10-4, you do just that. In the mean time, you have any ideas on why I am seeing all this brand new baby sealife in the Gulf? Went out to Petite Boy Island the other day and the beaches were covered with tens of thousands of baby starfish. It was an awesome site.
On top of that, flounder as well as many other species are spawning right now meaning that there is no way for these fresh eggs to get coated. Three years from now I will send you a picture of my catch from the gulf. Deal?
When we talk about microbes "eating oil", we are talking about microbes ingesting the various components of oil, including benzene, and metabolizing them, ultimately breaking them down into CO2 and water. See, for example here. The benzene is not incorporated as benzene, it gets broken down.
Deal.
I suspect you are seeing brand new sealife in the gulf for the same reason fruit tree growers find stubborn trees finally bear fruit after a grove fire, after years of...nothing. Or for the same reason a person can own a lilac shrub for 20 years, without a single bloom, only to find it bloom the season after someone tried to chop it down.
It’s science, baby. And it’s about nature’s way of survival.
Nothing would tickle me more than to join you and fellow FReepers in the Gulf three years from now, to prove the science is wrong.
Bingo!
Nothing would tickle me more than to join you and fellow FReepers in the Gulf three years from now, to prove the science is wrong.
Prepare.
To.
Be.
Tickled.
Baby!
“
Sea Life Flourishes in the Gulf
“
A few months ago one of Glenn Beck’s researchers tracked down a
New York Times article concerning a hughmongous oil spill into the
Persian Gulf done as a vindictive act of Saddam and Co. during the
first Gulf War.
I can’t recall the exact proportion, but it was HUGH compared to
what happened to BP’s (and others) disaster in The Gulf of Mexico.
But even The New York Times noted that testing a year or so later showed that
there was no detecable negaive effects on the Gulf’s fish and vegetation.
I guess some folks just don’t realize that oil seeps from the ocean floor
LONG before man came along to drill for oil.
Seems like the fish etc. have learned to deal with the crude oil
over millions of year.
But don’t expect to hear that thesis from the thousands of professors
of enviromental sciences. Heck, they might not get tons of Federal money
in the shape of grants from the NSF, etc.
The name of the stuff is Corexit, not Corexia nor Corexita. It helps if you spell it correctly.
It's function is to break up globules of oil and disperse it through the volume of water where it can be attacked by oil-consuming bacteria. Taking it from being a slick on the surface is NOT the same as pushing it to the ocean floor.
If you refer to the WSJ link I posted earlier, you’ll find I spelled it correctly.
Unless you want to tell the WSJ that they got it wrong.
Kindest regards...
Now, dammit, you made me giggle.
Well done!
I am well aware of the colloquial names for this chemical. You’re not breaking any new ground here, nor are you giving me some sort of training on the name or its function.
I really didn’t need to hear from you in order to learn the “commoner” version of the name.
But you are magnificent at impersonating a self-important, non-contributing blowhard. Not one wise, new, important thing have you added to this conversation.
Congratulations.
This wasn’t the first large oil spill.
You stay with your theory of how the oil is applied to eggs.
I’ll stay with decades of real world experience and continue to eat Gulf Coast Seafood.
Ixtoc 1 flowed 30,000 BPD, flowed for about ten months and didn’t have a fraction of the clean up that was done this summer.
Take my challenge, don’t take my word for it.
Go to the garden center/hardware store and read the ingredient labels. Oil is on the top of every one that promises to “end your pest problems for years.”
The dispersants do not sink the oil. The break up the surface tension so the hydrocarbon molecules do not cling to each other as strongly.
Most of the hydrocarbon molecules are lighter than water and float to the surface. Some of those evaporate off.
The dispersants breakdown even faster than the oil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.