sounds to me like BP did you guys a favor.. eating seafood 5-7 days a week is not good for you...

However, i would caution your friends to not eat chinese more than twice a week.. the sodium content is very high... :thumbsup





.

FUCK LIMBAUGH! I get straight-up facts from Glenn Beck Himself!

There is no hope for some people... Just let the sheep be sheep

only post worth reading in this worthless thread.

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.

Yeah only 25% is left because the well was only spewing 1,000 barrels/day, remember! Don't believe the math. It's bullshit.

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?

Her is a story on the Mexican Oil Spill of 1979:

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index...ingly_fas.html


From what happened there, it appears that it may only be a couple of years for nature to turn that around! :)

EDIT: Unless I'm being fooled by those Oil Company bastards paying everyone off! :(

Limbaugh is a tool. That's all I'm contributing to this ridiculous notion that the oil is "just going away by itself".

you can say that sure but lets not forget, some of these same people were the ones who disregarded certain things that caused this whole mess in the first place.

regarding the gulf war spill, check this out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill

More recent scientific studies have tended to disagree with this 1993 assessment. Marshlands and mud tidal flats continued to contain large quantities of oil, over ten years later, and full recovery is likely to take decades.

Dr. Jacqueline Michel, US geochemist (2010 interview – transcript of radio broadcast):[8]
The long term effects were very significant. There was no shoreline cleanup, essentially, over the 800 kilometers that the oil – - in Saudi Arabia. And so when we went back in to do quantitative survey in 2002 and 2003, there was a million cubic meters of oil sediment remained then 12 years after the spill.... [T]he oil penetrated much more deeply into the intertidal sediment than normal because those sediments there have a lot of crab burrows, and the oil penetrated deep, sometimes 30, 40 centimeters, you know a couple of feet, into the mud of these tidal flats. There’s no way to get it out now. So it has had long term impact.

Dr. Hans-Jörg Barth, German geographer (2001 research report):[9]

The study demonstrated that, in contrary to previously published reports e.g. already 1993 by UNEP, several coastal areas even in 2001 still show significant oil impact and in some places no recovery at all. The salt marshes which occur at almost 50% of the coastline show the heaviest impact compared to the other ecosystem types after 10 years. Completely recovered are the rocky shores and mangroves. Sand beaches are on the best way to complete recovery. The main reason for the delayed recovery of the salt marshes is the absence of physical energy (wave action) and the mostly anaerobic milieu of the oiled substrates. The latter is mostly caused by cyanobacteria which forms impermeable mats. In other cases tar crusts are responsible. The availability of oxygen is the most important criteria for oil degradation. Where oil degrades it was obvious that benthic intertidal fauna such as crabs re-colonise the destroyed habitats long before the halophytes. The most important paths of regeneration are the tidal channels and the adjacent areas. Full recovery of the salt marshes will certainly need some more decades.

The Financial Times, in reference to the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, cited the 1993 optimistic assessment of the Gulf War oil spill as evidence that "Initial warnings of catastrophic environmental damage from oil spills can turn out to be overdone".[10]

via google.com

With the Mexico spill as is the case with most spills, it's near a poor coastline so the impact is never really measured.

The Saudi spill used enormous tankers/skimmers running side by side skimming the water. The same technology was turned down by BP during this spill in the gulf even though many people were asking for it.

look, it's a fact petro has a 1/2 life of ~ a week in water. so it's not bullshit that a lot of the oil has weathered away + what has been removed by workers.

that's good news, like it or not.

Rush Limbaugh right about certain things?!! WHAAAT?! Heaven Forfend! Please say it ain't so, Joe! ;)

No kidding. I love sushi, but no way would I eat it that frequently.

What happens when the rusted pipe bursts 1/2 mile down the pipeline from the pressure build up?
Actually I thought there was another leak whispered in the media?
What about all the massive flumes that seem to be caught in the middle of the sea, neither at the bottom nor the top, just a big wasteland of oil floating in the middle?

Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala...... not listening.... don't talk about that. It's magically "going away". That's the plan.

It's the same warped set of physics that "vaporized" the jumbo jet that "flew into the pentagon".

I was reading that the dispersant is probably why. It helped the microbes get rid of a lot of the oil. Why would a news organization give any credibility to Limbaugh as a source? He isn't a scientist who knows this shit. He makes shit up as he goes along. If you cared, you could probably find volumes of past stuff he's said that he was completely wrong about it.

I'm sitting here with my brother-in-law who is on leave for a couple of months. He just got back from serving in Kuwait and Iraq and is going to Afghanistan next.

I asked him if he had been to the beaches in Kuwait on the Persian Gulf. He said "yes".

BUT he said the water there is nasty as hell...but no way to know if that's from the first Gulf War because he said the arabs are just dumping shit non-stop into the ocean by the millions of gallons.

Oil, gas, chemicals, poison. He said they are just real nasty with it and just dump EVERYTHING into the ocean there including raw sewage and every toxic chemical known to man. :(

Why the hell don't any of the environmental agencies say anything about countries like that? Are they just plain out scared to have Muslims come after them and cut their heads off or something?

Also...if nature isn't capable of dealing with them pumping toxic shit into the ocean 24/7 over there...then why isn't this shit spreading all over the world after decades of the Kuwaitis doing that with ZERO cleanup effort?

I think Kuwait needs to be liberated :2 cents:

We did that...and then we occupied them ever since. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

For more info on that please reference the following countries: Germany, Japan, Korea, and around 80 other ones that don't make the news.

Let me give you one possible scenario. The warmer waters of the gulf allow the hungry microbes to flourish, unlike Alaska's chilly temperatures.

Thats because of the temperature. There was a much bigger spill then that in middle east (bigger then 1978 one) and there is pretty much no sign of it nowdays. It's very hot there.

Like Robbie said the water is nasty in the Persian Gulf, but the impact of the spill was minimal, thanks the warm weather and the high presence of this oil eating bacteria.

I didn't get this info from the media, but from the scientists dealing with the spill itself, can't really accuse them of being politically motivated, there wasn't any cameras around and if anything their best interest was that the spill be the worst possible, more contracts for them.

Anyway, the point wasn't that it will eat everything up and leave the water pristine, the point was that the bacteria isn't something new, if I knew about it surely many many others, including journalists knew too.

congrats on your launch!

bingo!!!