Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisjim
If you look at the behavior of BP as an indicator, then my guess is the only reason they used the dispersant was to hide the oil till after they settled everything in court. If it actually made the situation better, then it was totally by dumb luck.
They have been asking local scientists to sign agreements in which they get paid a six figure salary but they cannot testify against BP in any court for over a year. My guess is the internal BP experts know the problems will start to surface in about a year and they want to have everything settled in court before then.
But maybe BP really cared about people and the environment when they went against every other scientist at the EPA and local universities and sprayed those dispersants 24/7. Anything is possible I guess.
|
I'm still looking at the Mexico spill from 1979. There isn't any trace of much of anything wrong there. And I never even heard of it until now. Even though I lived in Fla. then and was in the Gulf Of Mexico constantly and even in Mexico over at Cancun.
Why is it that all of that oil is gone and there was no "decades" of "consequences" from that one right there in the Gulf Of Mexico?
Also what about the biggest one that mankind has ever known: The Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War in 1992? That one just dwarfs this one.
Yet, I have never heard any environmentalists raising hell about it, and I don't hear of anything at all wrong with the waters or the sea life in that area.
Do the environmentalists cherry pick what they consider "newsworthy"? Or is it actually fact that these oil spills really don't have much long term impact? At least in warmer waters?