Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: D-fendr
"Ixtoc was in 50 ft of water and did not hit the shoreline in anything what this one seems to be doing."

Actually, Ixtoc was in 135 ft of water, but I'll buy that that isn't all "that" different from 50 ft. What you don't seem to grasp is that the shallower water makes the effects WORSE. Like it or not, dilution "does" have an effect on pollution.

"I’m hopeful that this one is stopped soon and its effects are limited to a mere 5 years. But it looks far worse to me now in size and effect."

Yeah, that's what the media are painting it as, but the numbers don't support that conclusion. The press seems to be "one-upping" each other to find some commentator, no matter how ill qualified, to spout an ever-larger catastrophe. Nobody seems to actually be checking facts (apparently other than me).

The "plumes" are yet another un-substantiated story at this point. They may not even be oil-related.

138 posted on 06/01/2010 1:28:58 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies ]


To: Wonder Warthog

Another difference between Ixtoc is the area hit. South Texas beaches versus the marshes.And booms were effective. Some oil escaped around, but Impacts to the estuaries were minor.


140 posted on 06/01/2010 3:15:51 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson