RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

rulemylife -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/19/2010 5:19:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen


Is this situation no longer a "disaster" because we can't see the oil


Its no longer a "disaster" of the originally claimed magnitude because it was just another swine flu pandemic for the media to feed on and never was a disaster of that magnitude.


Maybe it's time to turn off Rush and see if you can find some information based on facts.



Lucylastic -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/19/2010 5:22:27 PM)

http://video.ap.org/?f=AP&pid=wqzxJOEgB1LPRkStNkcbgD_WvyNu8Z5g



Hillwilliam -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/19/2010 6:18:12 PM)

Sanity, you say you cant see it. there are things that can easily kill you and you cant see, taste or feel them, or at least. by the time you detect them, it's too late.. Ex chemist here.
The saying that the oil has been "fingerprinted" means that every major oil source has a slightly different mixture of petrochemicals. Even different wells within the same field will vary. This plume has been positively identified as coming from the well in question. You also claimed that it is dated info. Well, if you think that this week is dated info, you are right there but, in oceanography, that is as fast as you can get it.

By the way, why is the biggest ANTIenvironment person on topix having his picture taken in front of an old growth redwood? You seem to be more the clearcut type.



rulemylife -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/19/2010 6:39:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I seriously wonder if this ghost plume or whatever you want to call it has anything to do with the BP leak as you would have to assume that the Gulf currents would have carried these virtually undetectable traces of oil far away from the spill site by now.

Then again, as politesub pointed out, this is dated research so it probably is gone unless their ghost plume is from some of the naturally occurring seeps which are in the Gulf.

It seems like a lot of spin, as some people just arent happy unless theyre in the midst of crisis.



Yes probably.

Except the scientists specifically stated it was not naturally occurring and specifically stated it was from the spill.

But I'm sure you and Rush know better.





Archer -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 8:39:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


And as I pointed out above the head researcher was quoted as saying that the invisible, tasteless, odorless and virtually undetectable "plume"  would only last for months, as well.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

You do know this is based on research from two months ago ?  It hardly shows the current situation.



Great.  What about the chemical residue that is already finding its way into the food chain?

But then I'm sure lobster will taste much better seasoned with benzene, toluene and ethybenzene.



Oh come on man you can't just list those three you have to complete the big 4.
Breakdown chemicals for petroleum contamination BTEX Benzene Toluene, Ethyl benzene and Xylene.

LOL Just yanking your chain



Archer -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 9:15:33 AM)

Ghost Plume, LOL man what a silly length to go to just to try to minimize the facts presented.

FACT plumes of petroleum that are not visible DO still contain enough toxicity to kill plants and animals.






ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 11:53:51 AM)

Archer, you obviously know a lot about this subject. Let me ask you something - are you eating Gulf seafood right now? What are your thoughts on that? I'm having a lot of difficulty sorting through the bullshit to find the valid science on this. 



BoiJen -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 11:55:49 AM)

I think the big question is, will he be eating Gulf seafood in two months?

boi

PS. Congrats on the Pantheon award Archer.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 12:02:29 PM)

2 months, 6 months, 2 years... I'm really becoming very curious about this. I don't eat much seafood, but I do like shrimp and lobster. I'm just not comfortable buying anything that came from the Gulf right now, and I think it might be a long time before I am. I'm interested in seeing as much science about this as I can find.



BoiJen -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 12:08:16 PM)

I say two months because we're just entering the fishing season for bottom feeders of the Gulf. Getting close to the height of the season and we'll really see the impact...at least that's what I'm lead to believe in understanding chain reactions when it comes to food supplies.

boi



Sanity -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 12:21:20 PM)


The article says you can swim in it without even knowing its there, you need a mass spectrometer to detect what infinitesimal traces of petrochemicals there are. The people going to lengths are those of you who are trying to claim its a toxic plume of any known consequence, because all of the actually authoritative articles use lots of wiggle words when describing any "possible" dangers. Its interesting to note that Obama has been photographed of late swimming in the Gulf with one of his children, I suppose its the end for them according to all you doom-and-gloomers.

[image]http://media.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/photo/obama-swim-081410jpg-fe432594173a98e5_large.jpg[/image]

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/08/after_overhyping_oil_spill_oba.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Ghost Plume, LOL man what a silly length to go to just to try to minimize the facts presented.

FACT plumes of petroleum that are not visible DO still contain enough toxicity to kill plants and animals.







BoiJen -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 12:29:21 PM)

Dude, that photo has already hit the news as being staged after the water was tested in a specific area.

If the President feels the need to test the water before jumping in, shouldn't that be an indicator to you?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/08/president-obama-to-take-his-plunge-in-the-gulf-tomorrow-without-cameras.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/president-goes-for-a-swim-in-the-gulf-ndash-or-does-he-2053567.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1303532/After-BP-oil-spill-Obama-promotes-Gulf-Mexico-tourism-swimming-daughter.html

boi



Sanity -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 12:31:52 PM)


Do you really think they tested it with mass spectrometers? [:D]



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 12:31:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The article says you can swim in it without even knowing its there, you need a mass spectrometer to detect what infinitesimal traces of petrochemicals there are. The people going to lengths are those of you who are trying to claim its a toxic plume of any known consequence, because all of the actually authoritative articles use lots of wiggle words when describing any "possible" dangers.


You probably need a mass spectrometer or something similar to detect toxic levels of botulin in a glass of water as well, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to drink the water. Are you really not bright enough to grasp this, or is this just you - once again - refusing to admit you have  no fucking idea what you're talking about because you don't have the balls to admit you've lost yet another stupid argument?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Its interesting to note that Obama has been photographed of late swimming in the Gulf with one of his children, I suppose its the end for them according to you doom-and-gloomers.


And there's another of your favorite tactics - when you're getting your ass handed to you on the facts of the issue, you throw out a couple of straw men to see if you can change the subject. Even someone with your reading comprehension knows full well that nobody in this thread said anything about whether the water is safe to swim. The issue is whether it is poisoning marine life. Stick to one idiotic argument at a time.



flcouple2009 -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 12:33:47 PM)

So you believe what happens at the surface, and what is going on hundreds of feet below are the same thing? 

Are you really that dense?



BoiJen -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 12:34:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The article says you can swim in it without even knowing its there


Something about Carbon-monoxide is coming to mind....

boi



BoiJen -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 12:36:08 PM)

Oh yeah! I know what it was..."colorless, odorless, tasteless" and "dead". That's what it was reminding me of.

boi



Sanity -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 12:36:56 PM)


Sure, meaningless comparisons are almost as good as lowly personal attacks if you're really desperate for an argument...

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

Something about Carbon-monoxide is coming to mind....

boi




BoiJen -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 12:38:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


meaningless comparisons


"Meaningless" meaning that the comparison of chemicals that are extremely poisonous but virtually undetectable until something has died is not applicable to this situation because we're talking about liquids instead of gasses?

Got it.

Unless you have a better explanation of "meaningless comparisons" here...to which I would be HIGHLY interested in reading.

boi



Sanity -> RE: Deepwater oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico (8/20/2010 12:46:48 PM)


So youre claiming that the mass spectrometer findings which these breathless scientists are trying to rush through peer review (which, if they dont have an agenda why are they rushing things) are perfectly comparable to breathing a deadly atmosphere of carbon monixide?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


meaningless comparisons


"Meaningless" meaning that the comparison of chemicals that are extremely poisonous but virtually undetectable until something has died is not applicable to this situation because we're talking about liquids instead of gasses?

Got it.

Unless you have a better explanation of "meaningless comparisons" here...to which I would be HIGHLY interested in reading.

boi



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125