Oil on the barrier islands now

95 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Just an update to counter some of the misinfo being fed to the public.

Oil has now reached Cat Island and probably by tomorrow the other barrier islands will be affected. "Officially" the oil isn't there - if you are standing there you see it and you smell it and you can scoop it up along with the oil drenched white sand at the edge of the water.

The political spins on this are making me sick. We've had almost 4 dozen dead sea turtles - most them endangered species - washed up on the beach. Dolphins in distress have been documented in the gulf and several small sharks have also washed up on the shore.

Another turtle was filmed as it died in the slick. They come to the surface for air and drink the oil-laced water. But now the govt agency says "the sea turtles may have been damaged by shrimpers.

How stupid can the feds get - shrimpers know how to use the gulf, the bays and the bayous with respect for the wildlife there - which is more than I can say for oil companies and the govt. Just more spin for the masses who'll believe anything.

Lawyers and their ads are thicker than fleas trying to round up business.
I don't think either the govt or most people realize just how much damage is being done to the food supply and the economy from this spill.

I got into one of the basic courses this weekend - only to be told to wear gloves, not put oil on my face or in my mouth and watch out for snakes. Well, duh, I knew that!

The main training is still in planning stage - will be two 12 hr days and perhaps one additional day. I've volunteered to transport animals and work in the staging areas if they need me.

kay
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Of course there is political spin. We no longer have a free press - it's ALL corporate owned and they only report a bit of light dirt now and again to make it SEEM like you have a free press.

    Unfortunately - this time they are going to cause millions of animals to die rather than report the truth so volunteers will go where needed. It's all word of mouth Kay - Blog it and report it and ask for help. Enlist anyone else with a computer in your area to help spread the word. It's the only way that word will get around. People have to depend on something besides the corporate presses now.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2065816].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Kay,

    I really wish I could help. But I'm sure everyone here realizes how the animals must be feeling and, HOPEFULLY, that it really IS bad for us and the land.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2066163].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      All I'm hearing up here is how they think they can cap it tomorrow and what a great job the govt., and BP have be doing fighting it
      Oh yeah they showed one bird someone saved.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2066175].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        There's more than one bird that being cleaned.

        I have a site I put up just after katrina - just a place to talk to myself more than anything about what I'd seen and how things were here. Surprisingly, that little ugly site got a good bit of traffic and still has visitors even though I haven't maintained it worth a hoot.

        I decided today to move the katrina info to a folder and redesign the site around the oil spill. I'll let you know when it's working.

        kay
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2066581].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          There's more than one bird that being cleaned.
          I know everyone knows that. I think ThomM was simply saying that they spoke about it so PURELY from the standpoint that THEY did such a great job, etc... and actually cared so little about the wildlife, that they spoke so little about the wildlife.

          I have a site I put up just after katrina - just a place to talk to myself more than anything about what I'd seen and how things were here. Surprisingly, that little ugly site got a good bit of traffic and still has visitors even though I haven't maintained it worth a hoot.

          I decided today to move the katrina info to a folder and redesign the site around the oil spill. I'll let you know when it's working.

          kay
          The sad part about the spill is how long do you think it will take between stopping it, and anyone on the coastline even noticing the difference?

          They are supposedly headed out now.

          Expedition to contain oil leak begins in Gulf - Yahoo! News


          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2067352].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author atvking
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    We've had almost 4 dozen dead sea turtles - most them endangered species - washed up on the beach. Dolphins in distress have been documented in the gulf and several small sharks have also washed up on the shore.
    i wish i could be there to help...

    and all this over a 500.000$ safety mechanism they wanted to save money over this is just outrageous...i hope they make an example out of BP and financially crucify them over this and every other company that is to blame...theres no excuse for their irresponsibility
    Signature

    ...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2067371].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author stefffff
    this is outrageous! we are supposed to be the most evolved race on the planet, yet all we know is kill, destroy and murder everything that's beautiful ... all for the money!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2067702].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      I know everyone knows that. I think ThomM was simply saying that they spoke about it so PURELY from the standpoint that THEY did such a great job, etc... and actually cared so little about the wildlife, that they spoke so little about the wildlife.
      The way the news sorry was told was like they had only saved one bird because it was the only animal covered with oil.
      I don't know if that was their intent, but that is how it came across.
      If all I watched was the local news on this I'd be asking you all why your that concerned.
      Naturally I do know better, it sorta seems like it's being downplayed somewhat so we all won't be as outraged as we should.

      Kay I trust what you have been telling us way more then what I've seen on the news. You are providing us with one of the few sources of honest information, unfortunately because you are experiencing it first hand.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2067855].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by stefffff View Post

      this is outrageous! we are supposed to be the most evolved race on the planet, yet all we know is kill, destroy and murder everything that's beautiful ... all for the money!
      Who even really can say we are the most evolved? And most evolved doesn't mean perfect.

      NOPE, we CAN'T destroy such things so well. Only cause something to release something we can't control, like fire, radioactivity, or oil. 8-(

      Don't take this to mean I am making excuses. In a way, I am saying humanity isn't even really capable of doing even THAT right!

      BTW it turns out that that ship, though they said a ship MIGHT cause an explosion, really does NOTHING! The ship that will actually use the piece, now waiting there, will come by LATER! Shouldn't they have had ONE ship do this, considering the potential for danger?

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2067874].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        The way the news sorry was told was like they had only saved one bird because it was the only animal covered with oil.
        That's what I meant - the cable and network news keeps reporting "a bird". So far there haven't been a lot of birds - this will change as the slick nears the shoreline.

        I've been watching the events in Greece today and yesterday - if we don't shape up - that could be us. When a country reaches the point where it has to save itself by cutting services in half and doubling taxes, the people will not tolerate it.

        The media and govt heads are counting on this 4-story "building" to stop the oil from the largest leak. Got my fingers crossed but it's never been tried in deep water and an error in placing it could make the situation worse, not better.

        A reporter on cable news was talking about the "dome" and said "it looks like a farm building" - guess she's never seen a farm....

        kay
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2067995].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MCDavies
          Thanks for reporting this and calling it like you see it.

          I just read the latest news about them trying an experiment by dropping chemicals on the oil spill in order to break up the oil and have it sink to the bottom before it reaches land.

          This hasn't been done on this scale so there no telling what kind of damage this can have on the seafloor. What ever the case, it's not going to be good.

          I still can't believe that 200,000 gallons of this yucky stuff is still leaking each and every day.

          This really makes me sick to my stomach.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2068074].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author atvking
            Originally Posted by MCDavies View Post

            I just read the latest news about them trying an experiment by dropping chemicals on the oil spill in order to break up the oil and have it sink to the bottom before it reaches land.

            This hasn't been done on this scale so there no telling what kind of damage this can have on the seafloor. What ever the case, it's not going to be good.
            .
            god i hope they dont do this...instead of containing the contamination just to the surface they now want to sink it and destroy the entire food chain!! + i bet that chemical is also toxic i mean if it breaks down crude oil one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out...sinking millions of gallons of crude oil and their chemicals to the sea floor is probably the only thing they can do to actually make this worse...

            as for the guy who said it looks like "chocolate milk" maybe he should drink some...
            Signature

            ...

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069029].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by atvking View Post

              god i hope they dont do this...instead of containing the contamination just to the surface they now want to sink it and destroy the entire food chain!! + i bet that chemical is also toxic i mean if it breaks down crude oil one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out...sinking millions of gallons of crude oil and their chemicals to the sea floor is probably the only thing they can do to actually make this worse...
              I had heard earlier that they WERE going to do that. If not, I'm glad they didn't.

              as for the guy who said it looks like "chocolate milk" maybe he should drink some...
              Earlier, I was GOING to suggest similar things, but they had the potential to spread polution, like maybe put it on his carpet, etc... THEN he could cry over "spilled milk". 8-( After all, cleaning up milk isn't all that bad if you do it quickly enough. Oil is another story. It would probably be better to just replace the carpets.

              Oh well, I LIKE your idea, though somehow I think he'd decline!

              heysal,

              That is scary. ESPECIALLY since more restraint(like with that device they want to use) could cause increased pressure that could cause any damaged areas to burst. I hope they thought this through, etc....

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069293].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                heysal,

                That is scary. ESPECIALLY since more restraint(like with that device they want to use) could cause increased pressure that could cause any damaged areas to burst. I hope they thought this through, etc....

                Steve
                Thought it through? You mean like the whole drilling issue in the first place? Um....LOL...I don't think that's going to help much. They aren't known for being real handy for thinking things through. My hope is that the politicians will just keep their stupid butts out of it and let scientists handle it.
                Signature

                Sal
                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                Beyond the Path

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069361].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by atvking View Post

              god i hope they dont do this...instead of containing the contamination just to the surface they now want to sink it and destroy the entire food chain!! + i bet that chemical is also toxic i mean if it breaks down crude oil one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out...sinking millions of gallons of crude oil and their chemicals to the sea floor is probably the only thing they can do to actually make this worse...

              as for the guy who said it looks like "chocolate milk" maybe he should drink some...
              ATV read my post above.
              they decided it is to toxic to use.

              As for the chocolate milk guy, hopefully his constituents will remember that line in Nov.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069436].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                They got worried about the toxicity AFTER they used it.

                is this idiot your congressman???
                Yes - and that comment shocks me. He's usually one of the few common sense politicians and doesn't toe party lines much of the time. One of the big problems is the oil spill is having a devastating effect on tourism. Many of the MS politicians are giving upbeat scenarios in the hopes of rescuing tourist season here. (a/k/a lying through their teeth)

                Chocolate milk? Don't think so. The part that was treated with chemicals is sort of like orange snot ....and it's mixed with untreated oil. Cameras under the surface of the water show globules of crap floating through the water several feet below the surface.

                Several hundred dead bait fish (small fish) washed up today. Official line is "we don't know that this is connected to the oil spill" - yeah, right.

                What got to me today was a local reporter filming at one of the "booms" stretched out along the coast. On the outside edge of the boom was oil and orange junk. Because the sea was calm today, the other side of the boom didn't yet have an oil slick but just beyond it on the island were dozens of nesting brown pelicans. Only a matter of time before waves rise and the oil flows over that boom line.

                kay
                Signature
                Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069571].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                  They got worried about the toxicity AFTER they used it.



                  Yes - and that comment shocks me. He's usually one of the few common sense politicians and doesn't toe party lines much of the time. One of the big problems is the oil spill is having a devastating effect on tourism. Many of the MS politicians are giving upbeat scenarios in the hopes of rescuing tourist season here. (a/k/a lying through their teeth)

                  Chocolate milk? Don't think so. The part that was treated with chemicals is sort of like orange snot ....and it's mixed with untreated oil. Cameras under the surface of the water show globules of crap floating through the water several feet below the surface.

                  Several hundred dead bait fish (small fish) washed up today. Official line is "we don't know that this is connected to the oil spill" - yeah, right.

                  What got to me today was a local reporter filming at one of the "booms" stretched out along the coast. On the outside edge of the boom was oil and orange junk. Because the sea was calm today, the other side of the boom didn't yet have an oil slick but just beyond it on the island were dozens of nesting brown pelicans. Only a matter of time before waves rise and the oil flows over that boom line.

                  kay
                  I was just taking a wild guess because you come from the coast.

                  I had no idea which state.

                  But I had no idea he is actually your man in Washington.

                  TL
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2071588].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          That's what I meant - the cable and network news keeps reporting "a bird". So far there haven't been a lot of birds - this will change as the slick nears the shoreline.

          I've been watching the events in Greece today and yesterday - if we don't shape up - that could be us. When a country reaches the point where it has to save itself by cutting services in half and doubling taxes, the people will not tolerate it.

          The media and govt heads are counting on this 4-story "building" to stop the oil from the largest leak. Got my fingers crossed but it's never been tried in deep water and an error in placing it could make the situation worse, not better.

          A reporter on cable news was talking about the "dome" and said "it looks like a farm building" - guess she's never seen a farm....

          kay

          Kay,

          is this idiot your congressman???


          Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) ...

          ...suggested over the weekend that people shouldn't be "scared" about the Gulf Coast oil spill and in justifying his claim compared the massive slick to "chocolate milk."


          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2068448].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Our local channel 10 just had some news on it.
            First they where talking about not using the chemicals to cause the oil to sink because it is to toxic.
            Then they talked about the funnel thing.
            Then a BP exec. said they really don't have any idea of just how much oil is actually spewing out every day.
            They also talked about the claims and lawsuits against BP.
            One person said he put in a claim and was given a claim number and told it would be two weeks before he would hear anything.
            In other words, get in line and take a number.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2068474].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author myob
            I heard that the threat is much worse to the coral and eventually to the entire food chain as globules of oil sink to the bottom and are even carried by currents into the Atlantic.
            Signature
            “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2068489].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    Thank God for the internet. Otherwise we wouldn't know the extent of this tragedy, or the fact that they are still finding bodies in Nashville. Where's the coverage of that?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2067866].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    From what I have seen, this isn't even really a CAP, but a sort of FUNNEL! In fact, that article I pointed to said the same thing:

    The containment box has a dome-like structure at the top that's designed to act like a funnel and siphon the oil up through 5,000 feet of pipe and onto a tanker at the surface.
    They spoke of ALL SORTS of things that could happen to cause the problem AGAIN, and what they are doing to try to prevent it.

    That process presents several challenges because of the frigid water temperature — about 42 degrees Fahrenheit — and exceptionally high pressure at those depths. Those conditions could cause the pipe to clog with what are known in the drilling industry as "ice plugs." To combat that problem, crews plan to continuously pump warm water and methanol down the pipe to dissolve the clogging.

    They are also worried about volatile cocktail of oil, gas and water when it arrives on the ship above. Engineers believe the liquids can be safely separated without an explosion.

    Asked to handicap the odds of success, Bob Fryar, a senior executive vice president for BP's Deep Water Angola, offered up this assessment: "This has never been done before. Typically you would put odds on something that has been done before."

    Fryar also said BP is exploring a technique in which crews would reconfigure the well that would allow them to plug the leak, but that effort is a couple weeks off.
    So they don't expect to actually cap it for WEEKS! Shouldn't that capability have been built into this device?


    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2068311].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rft123
    I'm not too worried about the politicians and the oil companies. They will always be around.

    The biggest concern should be for the Gulf and for the ecosystem. 200,000 gallons of oil a day spilling in to the water is going to make it a pretty ugly scene for the sea life. They are going to need a lot of volunteers helping to repair the damage that has already happened and will definitely get worse.

    Not sure where to go to volunteer, but if anyone knows, I would definitely like to help.
    Signature
    Click Here to learn how to get TONS of dirt cheap traffic to your site
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069581].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by rft123 View Post

      I'm not too worried about the politicians and the oil companies. They will always be around.

      The biggest concern should be for the Gulf and for the ecosystem. 200,000 gallons of oil a day spilling in to the water is going to make it a pretty ugly scene for the sea life. They are going to need a lot of volunteers helping to repair the damage that has already happened and will definitely get worse.

      Not sure where to go to volunteer, but if anyone knows, I would definitely like to help.

      What gets me is that people have to volunteer. We need jobs and here's some jobs. Why shouldn't BP pay people to clean this up? Everyone that volunteers should be sent a check from BP.
      Signature
      Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
      Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069621].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        What gets me is that people have to volunteer. We need jobs and here's some jobs. Why shouldn't BP pay people to clean this up? Everyone that volunteers should be sent a check from BP.
        Well, I don't know about THAT, especially since they would be TEMPORARY jobs, but it IS interesting that one major "charity"(for want of another name) had "volunteers" during hurricane isabel. Basically just to answer questions and help coordinate things if isabel got too bad.

        The interesting thing is that the volunteers came from all over the US. They happened to stay where I stayed(a residence inn by marriott), and I spoke with some. Surprisingly, the NON PROFIT company had the UNPAID volunteers FLOWN IN, put up in a nice hotel, and FED at THE ORGANIZATION'S EXPENSE! I don't think I discussed other things of this nature with the volunteers, but THAT amazed me! I mean if *****ANYONE***** in the US wanted to be a volunteer, they didn't have to worry about ANYTHING else if they were accepted, and had time away from work.

        BTW THIS probably cost the company over $1900 USD retail per volunteer. Of course, they COULD have maybe used a deal through the airlines to maybe get it for much less. So even WITHOUT pay, it was an expensive proposition.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069716].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          Well, I don't know about THAT, especially since they would be TEMPORARY jobs, but it IS interesting that one major "charity"(for want of another name) had "volunteers" during hurricane isabel. Basically just to answer questions and help coordinate things if isabel got too bad.

          The interesting thing is that the volunteers came from all over the US. They happened to stay where I stayed(a residence inn by marriott), and I spoke with some. Surprisingly, the NON PROFIT company had the UNPAID volunteers FLOWN IN, put up in a nice hotel, and FED at THE ORGANIZATION'S EXPENSE! I don't think I discussed other things of this nature with the volunteers, but THAT amazed me! I mean if *****ANYONE***** in the US wanted to be a volunteer, they didn't have to worry about ANYTHING else if they were accepted, and had time away from work.

          BTW THIS probably cost the company over $1900 USD retail per volunteer. Of course, they COULD have maybe used a deal through the airlines to maybe get it for much less. So even WITHOUT pay, it was an expensive proposition.

          Steve
          So because the jobs are "temporary" BP shouldn't be responsible for cleaning up? Plus, I have a feeling this clean up could employ some people for a very long time before it's all cleaned up.

          Here's another case where the free market system doesn't include the true costs.

          Steve, please explain why you contend BP shoudn't pay for all aspects of clean up? This isn't a logistical question, it's a moral one.
          Signature
          Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
          Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069740].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            So because the jobs are "temporary" BP shouldn't be responsible for cleaning up? Plus, I have a feeling this clean up could employ some people for a very long time before it's all cleaned up.

            Here's another case where the free market system doesn't include the true costs.

            Steve, please explain why you contend BP shoudn't pay for all aspects of clean up? This isn't a logistical question, it's a moral one.
            Temporary jobs of this nature could last a while I believe.
            BP should pay for their housing and travel to get there and back home again.
            Here's an article from 2006.
            Remember they are talking about net profit.
            In October, ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, announced net income of $9.9 billion for the most recent earnings quarter, eclipsing analyst expectations and dwarfing the $5.68 billion reported for the same quarter in 2004. It was the largest quarterly profit ever for a U.S. company. For Oil Giants, Pricey Gas Means Big Profits - ABC News
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069813].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Just picked this up form another forum.
              Seems there are volunteers an other areas helping out.
              Bay Area Hair Being Turned Into Oil Cleanup Booms
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069849].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                Just picked this up form another forum.
                Seems there are volunteers an other areas helping out.
                Bay Area Hair Being Turned Into Oil Cleanup Booms
                I saw one article that spoke of similar ideas. One government, at one point, apparently collected chicken feathers and hay to do such a thing, was going to send it out, and THEN felt it would likely make things worse. Can you imagine how much those booms would weigh after the oil and water? YIKES!

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069998].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            So because the jobs are "temporary" BP shouldn't be responsible for cleaning up? Plus, I have a feeling this clean up could employ some people for a very long time before it's all cleaned up.

            Here's another case where the free market system doesn't include the true costs.

            Steve, please explain why you contend BP shoudn't pay for all aspects of clean up? This isn't a logistical question, it's a moral one.
            I wasn't saying that at all, merely that the jobs wouldn't be ones people could depend on.

            I didn't say they shouldn't pay for the cleanup, they SHOULD pay for it. But it would be better if the goal were to CLEAN IT UP, SECURE THE SITUATION, and TRY TO PREVENT FUTURE PROBLEMS, as opposed to looking to create something that could TEMPORARILY be considered a job.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2069980].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    They could send the cast of Jersey Shore out there for a daily oil change.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2070114].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      They could send the cast of Jersey Shore out there for a daily oil change.
      HEY, THERE YOU GO! Think of it! The publicity, story line, etc... WOW! And they help save the planet! Speaking of which, where is ed begley here? al gore? Maybe the noble committee? I mean come on folks, here's your chance!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2070137].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Some of the stuff being suggested sounds strange - hair in the water, peat moss in the water, hay.

        Sounds to me like what you would get is a blob rather than a slick with some of those.

        The head of BP is the only person being honest about the chances of this "dome building" working. It's been used at 400 feet deep - never at 5000 feet.

        He says the next thing to try if the dome doesn't work is to try to dump stuff into the broken pipe to clog it. I'm beginning to think we're not nearly as high tech as we give ourselves credit for....

        Not sure where to go to volunteer, but if anyone knows, I would definitely like to help.
        Go to wlox.com and there are phone numbers and emails address on there. One big organization working on this is the Audubon society.

        kay
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2070511].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
          I think you guys are missing the big picture.

          Think about all the 110 pound humans who are driving around in 6,000# vehicles who need that oil badly to keep their life style in status quo.

          So a bird get a reprieve from ultraviolet rays for a time. Big deal.

          How many birds get oil on them at KFC?

          What about those SUVs that keep our economy at the top of the food chain. That's what we should be worried about.

          Where the heck are your priorities?

          Birds? They're food, for cryin' out loud.

          Think about it for a moment...

          They can't vote.

          They contribute nothing to the campaign coffers.

          They don't shop at Wally World.

          They pay no taxes.

          If your house was on fire I guarantee not a single bird will be there to help you.

          When was the last time you saw a bird change a flat tire for a little old lady?

          I thought so.

          Ever see a bird clean up its' own poop?

          Didn't think so.

          You bird lovers are just jealeous because birds can fly.

          I think I've made my point.

          ~Bill

          (can't wait to see where this ranks on Google...858 viewers on the OT the other night. Good grief...)
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2070694].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
            Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

            I think you guys are missing the big picture.
            Gotta side with Bill on this.

            There is no species on this planet except us that thinks its job is to look after anything else.

            They all use whatever resources they find, in whatever quantity they can get them, to benefit themselves and their own kind.

            If that will make the life of some other species difficult, they don't care.

            When the dodo went extinct, not one of the predators that sent it there shed a single tear. The one and only thing they thought was "okay, so what do we eat now?"

            So I honestly don't see why we're crying over the turtles and the birds and the pretty white sand. Oops. We got some oil on them.

            I agree that this is not a good thing, and that it needs to be cleaned up, and that it's quite sad some animals are dying in the process.

            But come on, folks. Perspective. Ten years from now, the problem will be over - and there will not be any appreciable reduction in the quantity of turtles and birds and pretty white sand. It will be like this never happened.

            And as far as "save the planet" is concerned, our planet is perfectly prepared to live another four and a half billion years, so the wink of an eye that humans are cavorting around polluting the environment and killing things is just irrelevant.

            The planet was just fine with no life on it before, and will be just fine with no life on it later.
            Signature
            "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2070722].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

              Gotta side with Bill on this.

              There is no species on this planet except us that thinks its job is to look after anything else.
              Guess who's never had a rottweiler.
              Signature
              Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
              Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2071004].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              What's your point here? Since the planet will outlast humans most likely we might as well pollute to our hearts content now? Following that logic nobody should wipe their asses because we all are going to die some day anyways and we don't use our noses when we are dead.

              Also, caring about animals and the environment is just part of a civilized society. "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man" ~ Mahatma Gandhi

              Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

              And as far as "save the planet" is concerned, our planet is perfectly prepared to live another four and a half billion years, so the wink of an eye that humans are cavorting around polluting the environment and killing things is just irrelevant.

              The planet was just fine with no life on it before, and will be just fine with no life on it later.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2071065].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                What's your point here? Since the planet will outlast humans most likely we might as well pollute to our hearts content now? Following that logic nobody should wipe their asses because we all are going to die some day anyways and we don't use our noses when we are dead.

                Also, caring about animals and the environment is just part of a civilized society. "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man" ~ Mahatma Gandhi
                You mean you wipe your arse? I thought that your $hit didn't stink?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2071550].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                What's your point here? Since the planet will outlast humans most likely we might as well pollute to our hearts content now?
                No, the point is primarily that the PLANET is not in danger.

                We are.

                We could kill everything on the planet, and the planet wouldn't care. Forty thousand years of nuclear winter would not bother the planet one bit. Everything else might die, but the planet would be right here, revolving around the sun just like always.

                So this "save the Earth" BS is just that... BS. It's not about "save the Earth," it's about "save our own lily-white arses."

                Following that logic nobody should wipe their asses because we all are going to die some day anyways and we don't use our noses when we are dead.
                How long have human beings been wiping their arses anyway? A few hundred years, is it? Looks like we were doing just fine before that. We built the pyramids.

                Also, caring about animals and the environment is just part of a civilized society.
                Honestly, I don't see how it makes you more civilised if you go clean oil off seagulls while other human beings are starving and cold. A lot of these environmental jackholes are going around talking about how insensitive it is to leave turtles to die, and have never spent a single night volunteering in a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen.

                That turtle is more equipped to help itself in the natural environment than a human being is to help itself in the vast machine of human civlkisation.

                You want me to think you're civilised and care? Go help other human beings. Turning your back on your own kind so you can save the baby gay whales isn't noble, it's offensive.
                Signature
                "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072151].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Yeah, I've heard that many times. From George Carlin first. It was a joke with him. Of course the planet will survive. Animals, humans and the environment that supports them may not. Saving the planet isn't a phrase to be taken literally.

                  Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                  No, the point is primarily that the PLANET is not in danger.
                  You know, it is possible to care about other animals/environment and other people at the same time. It's not an "either or" type of deal.

                  You want me to think you're civilised and care? Go help other human beings. Turning your back on your own kind so you can save the baby gay whales isn't noble, it's offensive.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072225].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                    Caliban,
                    That turtle is more equipped to help itself in the natural environment than a human being is to help itself in the vast machine of human civlkisation.
                    One might point out that the turtle's natural environment doesn't include massive quantities of crude oil floating about, but that seems to be lost on you. As is the impact of these sorts of issues on human beings.

                    All those issues aside, you may want to find less incendiary ways to make your preferences known. I can see no purpose to be served by using this kind of language in this circumstance.


                    Paul
                    Signature
                    .
                    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072299].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                      Caliban,One might point out that the turtle's natural environment doesn't include massive quantities of crude oil floating about, but that seems to be lost on you.
                      Actually, it does. That turtle lives on this planet, with human beings, who drill for oil, and sometimes it spills.

                      That's perfectly natural. Insisting that whatever human beings do isn't "natural" is a peculiar conceit of our species.

                      When a bear reaches into a beehive for honey, that's natural, right? Same thing when we drill for oil. Just like the bear might drop some honey on the forest floor, we might spill some oil in the ocean, and it's perfectly natural for everything else to end up dealing with the inconvenience either creates.

                      It is civilised for us to clean up our mess, of course, but it is not some horrible thing that we've made one. That bear isn't going to clean up the honey it spilled on the forest floor, because it's not civilised. But it's not the mess that makes it uncivilised - it's the failure to clean it up.
                      Signature
                      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072624].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                        Caliban,

                        Using your "logic," the turtle is better able to deal with the impact of radioactivity in the water from fallout of some kind than humans are.

                        That's quite... interesting.


                        Paul
                        Signature
                        .
                        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072668].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author garyv
                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        Actually, it does. That turtle lives on this planet, with human beings, who drill for oil, and sometimes it spills.

                        That's perfectly natural. Insisting that whatever human beings do isn't "natural" is a peculiar conceit of our species.

                        When a bear reaches into a beehive for honey, that's natural, right? Same thing when we drill for oil. Just like the bear might drop some honey on the forest floor, we might spill some oil in the ocean, and it's perfectly natural for everything else to end up dealing with the inconvenience either creates.

                        It is civilised for us to clean up our mess, of course, but it is not some horrible thing that we've made one. That bear isn't going to clean up the honey it spilled on the forest floor, because it's not civilised. But it's not the mess that makes it uncivilised - it's the failure to clean it up.
                        Natural is derived from the word nature, or of Nature. When man introduces man made tools to drill and extract things from the earth that are naturally (or in nature) meant to be below the surface, then that becomes un-natural. That much oil on the surface is unnatural. Nature didn't make it there. Animals that live above the surface have evolved a tolerance to their surrounding. Oil causes them to die, which is a pretty good sign that it's not natural.

                        Yes every man made thing can be broken down into something that came from nature. However once you take it out of it's state in nature, it be comes unnatural. Otherwise - why even have the word?
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072728].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        Actually, it does. That turtle lives on this planet, with human beings, who drill for oil, and sometimes it spills.

                        That's perfectly natural. Insisting that whatever human beings do isn't "natural" is a peculiar conceit of our species.

                        When a bear reaches into a beehive for honey, that's natural, right? Same thing when we drill for oil. Just like the bear might drop some honey on the forest floor, we might spill some oil in the ocean, and it's perfectly natural for everything else to end up dealing with the inconvenience either creates.

                        It is civilised for us to clean up our mess, of course, but it is not some horrible thing that we've made one. That bear isn't going to clean up the honey it spilled on the forest floor, because it's not civilised. But it's not the mess that makes it uncivilised - it's the failure to clean it up.
                        CD,

                        News for you, "natural" isn't a defense for everything. In nature, if one doesn't fit in with their species, they are outcast or killed. It's "natural" for a wolf pack to kill any wolf that doesn't fit in and obey their rules.

                        You don't look like most of us and you don't have the same concepts as most of us....Should you be killed or exciled? That's the natural system you're defending.

                        Do you eat an all-natural diet? Stuff like uranium and arsenic. They're natural, so they must be OK.

                        And in nature it's "might makes right". Should we change our laws to constantly favor the physically bigger and stronger person? I guess this also means you're for wife-beating, since violence is in our nature? After all, kicking someone's butt to get your own way is completly natural, it's the way every other species does things and settles things in their "societies.

                        Male bears will kill and often eat the young of a female, so the female will come into heat faster, so the male can mate. Do you kill and eat kids so you can mate quicker? After all, a bear did it so it must be OK for you to do, too.


                        Nature, gotta love it...Spilling a drop of honey is natural. Spilling millions of barrels of oil isn't.
                        Signature
                        Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
                        Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072807].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                          News for you, "natural" isn't a defense for everything.
                          That's true. It's only a defence for things people claim aren't natural, when they actually are natural.

                          It doesn't absolve them of all things. Just the accusation that they are unnatural.

                          Let's talk about wife-beating, for example.

                          Actually, that's not offensive and prejudiced enough. Imagine that Hitler is on trial for beating Eva Braun, and the judge and the jury and all the lawyers are Jewish. Oh, and all of them and their families have been in Auschwitz.

                          Now, imagine that one of the attorneys says that wife-beating is wrong because it is unnatural.

                          Just a minute there, bucko.

                          Wife-beating is not unnatural.

                          That doesn't mean it's right. It's still wrong. But it is not wrong because it is unnatural. It is wrong for a big laundry list of other reasons. And in any case, the judge and jury only care whether one of those reasons happens to be "it is against the law." Because if it's not against the law, the court cannot convict him.

                          Those are the rules. And the rules, amazingly enough, are not natural. They are artificial.

                          Being natural doesn't make things right... and being artificial doesn't make them wrong.

                          You clearly understand this. You grasp that one shouldn't eat uranium and arsenic, and you grasp that wife-beating and infanticide shouldn't be condoned by society. You understand that all of these things are natural - but still wrong.

                          So why don't you grasp the fundamental problem that calling human industry "unnatural" doesn't make it wrong?
                          Signature
                          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072907].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                            Here's your problem...You think I'm not grasping the point when in reality it is you isn't quite grasping my point.

                            Here's your "logic":

                            1 Bear spills honey so man spilling oil is ok.

                            Therefore (I added):

                            2 Bear kills cubs so man killing child is OK.

                            Logic dictates that if #1 is true, so is #2.

                            You're the one that brought up the bear story...The funny thing is, this last post of yours shoots down your own "logic" with the bogus honey analogy.

                            I hate analogies when having a logical debate. Just the mere use of a made up story shows a lack of logical thought. Anyone with a little intelligence can create a story to "prove" their point.

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            That's true. It's only a defence for things people claim aren't natural, when they actually are natural.

                            It doesn't absolve them of all things. Just the accusation that they are unnatural.

                            Let's talk about wife-beating, for example.

                            Actually, that's not offensive and prejudiced enough. Imagine that Hitler is on trial for beating Eva Braun, and the judge and the jury and all the lawyers are Jewish. Oh, and all of them and their families have been in Auschwitz.

                            Now, imagine that one of the attorneys says that wife-beating is wrong because it is unnatural.

                            Just a minute there, bucko.

                            Wife-beating is not unnatural.

                            That doesn't mean it's right. It's still wrong. But it is not wrong because it is unnatural. It is wrong for a big laundry list of other reasons. And in any case, the judge and jury only care whether one of those reasons happens to be "it is against the law." Because if it's not against the law, the court cannot convict him.

                            Those are the rules. And the rules, amazingly enough, are not natural. They are artificial.

                            Being natural doesn't make things right... and being artificial doesn't make them wrong.

                            You clearly understand this. You grasp that one shouldn't eat uranium and arsenic, and you grasp that wife-beating and infanticide shouldn't be condoned by society. You understand that all of these things are natural - but still wrong.

                            So why don't you grasp the fundamental problem that calling human industry "unnatural" doesn't make it wrong?
                            Signature
                            Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
                            Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2073381].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author myob
                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            Let's talk about wife-beating, for example. ...

                            Wife-beating is not unnatural. ...

                            You clearly understand this. You grasp that one shouldn't eat uranium and arsenic, and you grasp that wife-beating and infanticide shouldn't be condoned by society. You understand that all of these things are natural ...
                            I'd say this is a sure bet.
                            Signature
                            “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2078193].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                    You want me to think you're civilised and care? Go help other human beings. Turning your back on your own kind so you can save the baby gay whales isn't noble, it's offensive.
                    Oddly, mainstream people that are concerned about wildlife management often do help other people, too. In my experience, people I've known who have objected to helping wildlife usually don't help others themselves but are just waiting in line with their hand out.

                    The ecosystem is a balance and destroying that balance can destroy OUR lifestyle, too. The fragile wetlands protect the coast in many ways and provide a living for millions of people.

                    Those are PEOPLE who work every day to take care of their families, to provide food to the rest of us - and who take responsibility for themselves.

                    It's true that species develop and disappear - but no one kills off species like humans do. There is beauty in nature that you can't find in the human species. There are people who can never get beyond thinking of what they want, what they need, and what they are owed.

                    Other species kill to survive in a food chain that is natural and ongoing. We kill because we can - we kill because of greed - we kill because we don't plan ahead or test for safety. Then we pat ourselves on the back and think how great we are.

                    We plunder other species for their fur, their bones, their meat - as long as we do that we have an obligation to respect those species.

                    There are some who can't relate to the wellbeing of anything outside their own personal space - and some who just think they look smarter if they try to create controversy. They don't.

                    kay
                    Signature
                    Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                    Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072308].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Good points Kay. I found this page before which echos some of your points and has a few others about why we should care about endangered species:

                      http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/W..._July_2005.pdf

                      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                      Oddly, mainstream people that are concerned about wildlife management often do help other people, too. In my experience, people I've known who have objected to helping wildlife usually don't help others themselves but are just waiting in line with their hand out.

                      The ecosystem is a balance and destroying that balance can destroy OUR lifestyle, too. The fragile wetlands protect the coast in many ways and provide a living for millions of people.

                      Those are PEOPLE who work every day to take care of their families, to provide food to the rest of us - and who take responsibility for themselves.

                      It's true that species develop and disappear - but no one kills off species like humans do. There is beauty in nature that you can't find in the human species. There are people who can never get beyond thinking of what they want, what they need, and what they are owed.

                      Other species kill to survive in a food chain that is natural and ongoing. We kill because we can - we kill because of greed - we kill because we don't plan ahead or test for safety. Then we pat ourselves on the back and think how great we are.

                      We plunder other species for their fur, their bones, their meat - as long as we do that we have an obligation to respect those species.

                      There are some who can't relate to the wellbeing of anything outside their own personal space - and some who just think they look smarter if they try to create controversy. They don't.

                      kay
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072408].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Yeah, I've heard that many times. From George Carlin first. It was a joke with him. Of course the planet will survive. Animals, humans and the environment that supports them may not. Saving the planet isn't a phrase to be taken literally.

                    You know, it is possible to care about other animals/environment and other people at the same time. It's not an "either or" type of deal.
                    I know...Taking a joke from Carlin and twisting it to fit a pecular philosophy is one thing, but thinking we didn't hear the same Carlin routine is another.

                    I've seen the skit myself a couple of times...Carlin's point wasn't that the Planet was going to die, it was that we better take care of ourselves.
                    Signature
                    Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
                    Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072775].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                      Taking a joke from Carlin and twisting it
                      I'm aware that Carlin already said a lot of this stuff to be funny, and just in case any of you have heard the routine, I would really rather not quote it directly.

                      So I've altered the wording slightly, not because I'd like to "twist" Carlin's material, but because I'd like not to use it.

                      That might create the misapprehension that I am telling some sort of joke. If I wanted to tell a joke, I would do my own extensive original stand-up bit about appeasing the mighty Earth-spirit before it destroys us all, because it's a whole lot funnier and Carlin never said anything remotely like it.

                      After all, the science has spoken, and it says we must make proper sacrifice unto the nature-gods lest they smite us with hurricanes and tidal waves and uncomfortably warm summers.
                      Signature
                      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072852].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        I'm aware that Carlin already said a lot of this stuff to be funny, and just in case any of you have heard the routine, I would really rather not quote it directly.

                        So I've altered the wording slightly, not because I'd like to "twist" Carlin's material, but because I'd like not to use it.

                        That might create the misapprehension that I am telling some sort of joke. If I wanted to tell a joke, I would do my own extensive original stand-up bit about appeasing the mighty Earth-spirit before it destroys us all, because it's a whole lot funnier and Carlin never said anything remotely like it.

                        After all, the science has spoken, and it says we must make proper sacrifice unto the nature-gods lest they smite us with hurricanes and tidal waves and uncomfortably warm summers.
                        Again, you think it's me that doesn't understand....When in fact is it you.

                        I'll explain my comment to you, so there won't be any doubt. And sense it's my comment, try not to be so bold as to again tell me what I meant.

                        My point to TIM was that you act like you've come up with some brand new concept. And no, I never thought you were joking, only trying to twist Carlin's message.

                        Of course the Earth will outlive this problem. But I don't give a damn. My life expectancy is probably about another 15 years. That's what I care about, and for the friends and relatives I have that will live past me.

                        PS...Now you're funnier than Carlin? I'm laughing, but not with you.
                        Signature
                        Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
                        Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2073389].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                          Now you're funnier than Carlin?
                          I'll bet I get more laughs out of this post than Carlin got in the past year.
                          Signature
                          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2076244].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                            I would take that bet. Carlin will be getting laughs for decades to come. Even though he is dead his videos still get tens of thousands of views on Youtube every month.

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            I'll bet I get more laughs out of this post than Carlin got in the past year.
                            Signature
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2077581].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  OK, I was going to let this one go butt... I'm not sure why you think this practice has only been around for a few hundred years. You think Aristotle and Pluto were too dumb to figure out they should wipe their arse after taking care of business? Of course google has all the answers. Here's what I found after searching "history of ass wiping":

                  "What did people use before toilet paper was invented?

                  *Newsprint, paper catalogue pages in early US
                  *Hayballs, Scraper/gompf stick kept in container by the privy in the Middle Ages
                  *Discarded sheep's wool in the Viking Age, England
                  *Frayed end of an old anchor cable was used by sailing crews from Spain and Portugal *Medieval Europe- Straw, hay, grass, gompf stick
                  *Corn cobs, Sears Roebuck catalog, mussel shell, newspaper, leaves, sand- United States
                  *Water and your left hand, India
                  *Pages from a book, British Lords
                  *Coconut shells in early Hawaii
                  *Lace was used by French Royalty
                  *Public Restrooms in Ancient Rome- A sponge soaked in salt water, on the end of a stick
                  *The Wealthy in Ancient Rome-Wool and Rosewater
                  *French Royalty-lace, hemp
                  *Hemp & wool were used by the elite citizens of the world
                  *Defecating in the river was very common internationally
                  *Bidet, France
                  *Snow and Tundra Moss were used by early Eskimos"

                  Tim

                  Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                  How long have human beings been wiping their arses anyway? A few hundred years, is it? Looks like we were doing just fine before that. We built the pyramids.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2075544].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    *Coconut shells in early Hawaii


                    Now I know why they named it Preperation "H".

                    I never knew there was a Hawaiian connection...

                    ~Bill
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2075579].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author myob
                  Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                  ...We built the pyramids ...
                  So why has all this been such a problem?
                  How to Build a Pyramid
                  Signature
                  “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2076510].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author mike3
                  Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                  No, the point is primarily that the PLANET is not in danger.

                  We are.

                  We could kill everything on the planet, and the planet wouldn't care. Forty thousand years of nuclear winter would not bother the planet one bit. Everything else might die, but the planet would be right here, revolving around the sun just like always.
                  Yeah, the idea is like "save the life on the planet", not "save the planet itself" (as in the 12,700 km wide ball of rock and metal beneath our feet.). It's not THAT literal.

                  Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                  So this "save the Earth" BS is just that... BS. It's not about "save the Earth," it's about "save our own lily-white arses."
                  Except of course not all human beings are white. I find it odd, you *seem* to criticize humans for saving their butt, then you say:

                  Honestly, I don't see how it makes you more civilised if you go clean oil off seagulls while other human beings are starving and cold. A lot of these environmental jackholes are going around talking about how insensitive it is to leave turtles to die, and have never spent a single night volunteering in a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen.
                  (Why can't one do those things AND also do the "environmental" stuff? Do you do BOTH, or are you using this as an excuse to NOT tackle the "environmental" issue?)

                  That turtle is more equipped to help itself in the natural environment than a human being is to help itself in the vast machine of human civlkisation.

                  You want me to think you're civilised and care? Go help other human beings. Turning your back on your own kind so you can save the baby gay whales isn't noble, it's offensive.
                  This is the problem. You seem to "slam" humanity for saving its butt, then you go tell people to help save it. How do you rationalize this seeming serious self-contradiction?

                  Also, saving the ecology does help saving human beings, as you yourself essentially admitted with the "it was never about saving the 'planet' but our own ass" comment.

                  Remember, ecologic damage causes harm to human beings (esp. in the poorer places that are less well-equipped to handle it), thus if one does something about it, that helps human beings. It's not the whole solution, but it cannot be dissed either!
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2126701].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Don Schenk
            [QUOTE=Bill Farnham;2070694]
            They contribute nothing to the campaign coffers.

            They don't shop at Wally World.

            They pay no taxes.

            If your house was on fire I guarantee not a single bird will be there to help you.

            When was the last time you saw a bird change a flat tire for a little old lady?

            I thought so.

            Ever see a bird clean up its' own poop?

            Didn't think so.
            QUOTE]

            I thought you were talking about politicians.

            :-Don
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2129678].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Don Schenk View Post


              I thought you were talking about politicians.

              :-Don
              Let's see....

              They contribute nothing to the campaign coffers.

              They don't shop at Wally World.

              They pay no taxes.

              If your house was on fire I guarantee not a single politician will be there to help you.

              When was the last time you saw a politician change a flat tire for a little old lady?

              I thought so.

              Ever see a politician clean up its' own poop?

              Didn't think so.

              YEP, I think you're right!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2129813].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Some of the stuff being suggested sounds strange - hair in the water, peat moss in the water, hay.

          Sounds to me like what you would get is a blob rather than a slick with some of those.

          The head of BP is the only person being honest about the chances of this "dome building" working. It's been used at 400 feet deep - never at 5000 feet.

          He says the next thing to try if the dome doesn't work is to try to dump stuff into the broken pipe to clog it. I'm beginning to think we're not nearly as high tech as we give ourselves credit for....



          Go to wlox.com and there are phone numbers and emails address on there. One big organization working on this is the Audubon society.

          kay
          Well, this is kind of like the aortic replacemnt I had. It sounds simple enough. It IS simple! The PROBLEM is installing, making sure the connection is TIGHT, and hoping nothing else bursts. Of course, all people tend to be SIMILAR in the plumbing and chemical reactions. The oceans aren't. 8-(

          Yeah, the absorbing "booms", with hair, hay, etc... sound the SAME way to me. They can't absorb THAT much oil and will be that much harder to remove. At least the current plan, to "cap" the well, if it works, can save the oil, and keep the problem from progressing. It may STILL be months or more to clean up what has already been let out and it may take years or decades for the environment and populations to recover, if they ever do.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2071371].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author garyv
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          He says the next thing to try if the dome doesn't work is to try to dump stuff into the broken pipe to clog it. I'm beginning to think we're not nearly as high tech as we give ourselves credit for....


          kay
          I was going to say that Dubai could help out w/ several dozen of those huge Dredgers that they use to build islands with to come over and dump onto the leak. But I forgot that the leak is about a mile under water. A dredger would have nothing to dredge.

          And besides - someone from congress would halt it for fear of the man made island tipping over - lol.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2071589].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            TL - I live a block from the water in coastal MS...should have mentioned that.

            One of the better protections I've noticed is on Dauphin Island just off Alabama. They've used construction equipment to dump addition sand on the beach and pushed it into high berms.

            Theoretically (and it makes sense) if the oil washed up on the island it will be absorbed into the tall sand dunes they have built. That might protect the grasses and nesting sites behind the dunes. Later, the same equipment could remove that polluted sand along the waters edge.

            They are lowering the dome now - but it will be Sunday or even Monday perhaps before we know if it will help.

            kay
            Signature
            Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

            Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072048].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              I bet that dome is going to work. I don't see why it wouldn't. Supposedly they designed that and built it within a week. Whoever came up with that idea deserves a good bonus.

              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              They are lowering the dome now - but it will be Sunday or even Monday perhaps before we know if it will help.

              kay
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072066].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                I bet that dome is going to work. I don't see why it wouldn't. Supposedly they designed that and built it within a week. Whoever came up with that idea deserves a good bonus.
                Having not seen it in person (not that I'm an expert) or really knowing how it was built, I can think of a couple of reasons why it may fail.
                I sincerely hope it doesn't, but there are variables such as water pressure, materials, etc. that could cause a problem.
                It's also only a temp. fix that if successful, should buy them enough time to find a permanent solution.

                Tim did you watch that video I posted a link to about the hair and San Fransico? Good job stepping up and helping out.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072185].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Jon Stewart did a very technical recreation of how this huge device is going to work. Check it out at about the 6 minute mark:

                  Video: Family Research Council's European Gaycation | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

                  Yeah, I did watch that video about the hair. I love the good old Bay Area!

                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  Having not seen it in person (not that I'm an expert) or really knowing how it was built, I can think of a couple of reasons why it may fail.
                  I sincerely hope it doesn't, but there are variables such as water pressure, materials, etc. that could cause a problem.
                  It's also only a temp. fix that if successful, should buy them enough time to find a permanent solution.

                  Tim did you watch that video I posted a link to about the hair and San Fransico? Good job stepping up and helping out.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072257].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author scriptkiddies
                hope it get better ...
                Signature
                Best Cloaking Tools & IP Delivery Service
                Black Hat Cloaker is one of the most advanced doorway & cloaking tool
                IP Delivery Service is the most accurate IP List database available on the market
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2081152].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SEOpie
    I hope it gets better with time !
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2071301].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brandon Sheley
    This is so sad, hope they figure something out quick!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2071568].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Hobo82
    Hey Kay,

    Thanks for providing us with the truth. We use to think that covering up and mis-information at at this kind of level was left to other countries such as communists, dictatorships and so on. That is not true anymore. What runs this country and the world today is $$$$. Hang in there Kay.

    Hobo82
    Signature

    >>>>>>Creative Writing and More>>>>>>>>

    ****Don't Settle For The Same Old Same***
    http://writerarm.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2071569].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I guess everything is natural to CD.

    On Kurt's recent thread about "Am I Racist If... "

    CD declared that even racism is natural.

    I thought he was getting racism mixed up with prejudice and inquired a bit more but I don't think so.

    I'm not saying CD's a racist but he believes it is also natural.

    If I'm wrong CD, please correct me.

    All The Best!

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072682].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author betsyanne
    I am glad that people here are talking about this really bad environmental crisis.

    I got an email recently from an action group. They suggest banning more rigs until we can figure out how to better prepare for future disasters and have some kind of safety system to prevent oil spills from getting all the way into shores.

    I think we need to immediately require an extra safety net so we don't have this kind of environmental disaster happen again.

    The Yahoo site has a posting on it right now to help people who want to take action. The National Wildlife Fund has a letter to the President, and the Sierra Club has a proposal to stop all offshore drilling on our coasts. I think this may be a wise idea, at least until we can have better plans to stop oil when there is an accident.

    I thought, like many of us, that there were sufficient safeguards nowadays to prevent this; but obviously there weren't.
    Signature
    Elizabeth Sheppard
    My SEO for Beginners Page
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2072923].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by betsyanne View Post

      I think we need to immediately require an extra safety net so we don't have this kind of environmental disaster happen again.
      I don't disagree with this, in theory, but people seem to forget that these kinds of accidents are exceptional and rare.

      Let's use an analogy.

      You are a child, sitting in the living room watching television, while your younger brother is in the kitchen finger painting. Your mother is downstairs doing the laundry.

      Finished with his picture, your brother picks it up to show it to you. He does this all the time, and just like always, he brings it into the living room.

      At this precise moment, your mother comes up from the basement, and the sound of the door opening startles your brother. He trips, as children sometimes do, and manages to get finger paint from his painting all over the back of the couch, the carpet, and his own clothes. The painting - needless to say - is ruined.

      How should your mother respond to this situation?

      A) Finger painting is clearly irresponsible. We don't have sufficient safety mechanisms to prevent the finger paint from getting all over upholstery and carpeting. Do you know how long it will take and how hard it will be to clean up all this mess? Your brother should not finger paint anymore. In fact, YOU should not be allowed to finger paint anymore. NOBODY should be allowed to finger paint anymore. Not until we all come up with a proper mechanism to prevent any finger paint from ever getting on anything anywhere ever again.

      B) Oh, honey, your picture! Are you all right? Are you hurt? Here, you can paint another picture while I clean this up. It will be okay. These things happen.

      I think pretty much all of us can agree that (B) is the preferable answer, and that (A) is not. Indeed, many of the people calling for environmental cleanup would say it's probably the abusive ranting of an unfit parent.

      So why are those people just fine with making substantially the same rant about oil drilling? Industrial accidents happen, and they create environmental hazards that need to be cleaned up. It's certainly a good idea to put some sort of policy or procedure in place to make it easier to clean them up, but in the interim... hasn't the status quo been just fine up till now? Why such a radical restriction?
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2073008].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
      Originally Posted by betsyanne View Post

      The Yahoo site has a posting on it right now to help people who want to take action. The National Wildlife Fund has a letter to the President, and the Sierra Club has a proposal to stop all offshore drilling on our coasts.
      Curious...are they also advocating that we stop throwing our might around to the point where millions of innocent people are harmed by our incessent need to drive heavy cars that guzzle gas while the majority of the rest of the world drives smaller cars that are more fuel efficient?

      Or are they taking the stance that others should shoulder the burden of our need for 25% of the worlds' energy resources knowing full well that there are many avenues available for us to conserve those resources yet we allow large corporations to dictate policies that prohibit those conservation methods.

      In other words...are they addressing the problems or the symptoms?

      Outlawing sneezing will hardly lead to long term benefits for anybody. Yet it could be argued by those that are doing it that they are taking action which trumps inaction.

      I'm not buying it...

      ~Bill
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2073087].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Tim - Thanks for that link. It's a good read that I hadn't seen before.

        I don't join causes or write letters to officials. I'm not against oil drilling. In this case I'm against failure of regulators and leaders and the ability of oil companies to keep safeguards from being required. The costs of an accident are too high to pay for cheap gas.

        What I'm against is taking action that could impact the lives of millions of people and thousands of species without using every safeguard that is available and without testing to make sure the worst scenario can be avoided or effectively managed.

        Spilling may be natural - but drilling certainly isn't an act of nature.

        kay
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2073451].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Spilling may be natural - but drilling certainly isn't an act of nature.

          kay
          Tell that to any fourteen year old male...

          ~Bill
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2073817].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            It seems if you look at the definition of natural you can think anything humans do is natural, however look at the definition of unnatural and it may clear some things up for some:

            "
            -adjective
            1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.
            2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
            3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.
            4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.
            5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.
            6. Obsolete. lacking a valid or natural claim; illegitimate.

            In regards to both the claims about this oil spill and wife beating being natural I think definitions 2,3 and 4 go against this train of thought. I mean saying wife beating is natural is just wrong on so many levels.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2075510].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              The official explanation in today's paper about what caused this explosion/spill:

              Deepwater Horizon was an exploratory well and was being changed over to a production well. Seven BP executives were on the rig to celebrate the safety record of the platform.

              Halliburton had placed cement which was apparently part of the transition from exploratory to producing well.

              Workers removed pressure from the drilling column which involved adding heat to set the cement seal around the wellhead. A chemical reaction created by the heat destabilized the seal allowing a gas bubble to form in the pipe.

              The bubble was methane gas which is crystalline beneath the sea floor but as it rose up the pipe the reduction in pressure activated the methane and it broke through safety barriers.

              A small bubble became a large pocket of gas as it rose to the surface. Workers on the platform report seawater in the drill column shooting 240 ft into the air followed by gas and then oil.

              One drill-rig worker said what they know is that swish is the gas, boom is the explosion and run is what you should be doing. He said swish,boom,run is one of the first things you learn.

              This scenario has not been verified by BP but came from engineers on a panel of oil pipeline safety who worked for BP in risk management in the 90s.

              That might explain why several such events (much smaller) have happened hours after halliburton added concrete. But I also wondered how on earth you apply "heat" one mile below the ocean. More chemicals?

              kay
              Signature
              Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

              Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2075612].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


                That might explain why several such events (much smaller) have happened hours after halliburton added concrete. But I also wondered how on earth you apply "heat" one mile below the ocean. More chemicals?

                kay
                Thanks for the explanation. There is an area off the US coast(near california as I recall, but the area isn't THAT important here) where several ships have VANISHED! They came up with a few funny theories but you will NEVER guess what the most plausible apparently is.

                In the bermuda triangle, where similar things have happened, it is apparently due to drug smugglers who hijack the boat, change the identifying characteristics, and use it to transport drugs. The old owners are killed.

                In at least one case, in the area I am talking about, they found that one boat apparenttly just SUNK, with NO damage, and did so QUICKLY, so nobody could escape or ask for help. It happened kind of close to the coast so the usual culprits don't fit, and it was NOT due to smuggling. Their idea? METHANE gas was released from the oceans floor, bubbled up around the ship affecting its buoyancy, and it just SUNK!

                So methane certainly isn't that rare. Then again, you would EXPECT it in crude oil, one would think, since they come from the same sort of things.

                One article I read said that this NEW gadget will use heated water to heat the pipe(to avoid "ice plugs"). Of course, water can never get hotter than 212F or 100C, BUT, it COULD start a chemical reaction with some things that could get far hotter. It is also probably MORE than hot enough to make methane a gas. With the latest effort, they were afraid of an explosion or fire, even though most of the more explosive things have dissipated.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2075924].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  In the bermuda triangle, where similar things have happened, it is apparently due to drug smugglers who hijack the boat, change the identifying characteristics, and use it to transport drugs. The old owners are killed.
                  Steve just curious here, but how does that explain all the planes that have disappeared there over the years?
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2076111].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    Steve just curious here, but how does that explain all the planes that have disappeared there over the years?
                    For the bermuda triangle, I only discussed boats because at least some were PROVEN to be due to smugglers. It was just a tangent. For the planes, WHO KNOWS? I have heard MANY theories there, but none have been proven or disproven, to the best of my knowledge. For boats, several were proven, in the bermuda triangle, to be smugglers.

                    GOOD POINT THOUGH, especially since many seemed to predate the likely smuggling problems.

                    NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    BTW JUST ANNOUNCED! The latest attempt is DELAYED for a couple days due to hydrate buildup! In other words, the problem kay was talking about having caused the leak is NOW preventing the sealing of it.

                    BTW The problem they say is being caused NOW is that it is making the cap BUOYANT, and plugging the oil outlet.

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2076196].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                      For the bermuda triangle, I only discussed boats because at least some were PROVEN to be due to smugglers. It was just a tangent. For the planes, WHO KNOWS? I have heard MANY theories there, but none have been proven or disproven, to the best of my knowledge. For boats, several were proven, in the bermuda triangle, to be smugglers.

                      GOOD POINT THOUGH, especially since many seemed to predate the likely smuggling problems.

                      NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      BTW JUST ANNOUNCED! The latest attempt is DELAYED for a couple days due to hydrate buildup! In other words, the problem kay was talking about having caused the leak is NOW preventing the sealing of it.

                      BTW The problem they say is being caused NOW is that it is making the cap BUOYANT, and plugging the oil outlet.

                      Steve
                      I figured with the boats some could be because of smugglers.
                      As for your statements on the leak. Reading them got me thinking the biggest problem here is lack of experience. I believe this is the deepest well to do this, so they don't have any real world experience dealing with it.
                      Everything they're trying is a guess, granted an educated guess but a guess just the same.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2076226].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        As for your statements on the leak. Reading them got me thinking the biggest problem here is lack of experience. I believe this is the deepest well to do this, so they don't have any real world experience dealing with it.
                        Everything they're trying is a guess, granted an educated guess but a guess just the same.
                        Yeah, they are comparing this to Apollo 13! Ironically enough, there are a LOT of parts that haven't been investigated on the planet because of the water. There is even an island that, last I knew, was supposed to have a burried treasure that is worth a LOT, but they never found it because it has a number of traps and is under water! And HERE, you have a high pressure hose that is pushing noxious chemicals at you as well.

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2076300].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                          Yeah, they are comparing this to Apollo 13! Ironically enough, there are a LOT of parts that haven't been investigated on the planet because of the water. There is even an island that, last I knew, was supposed to have a burried treasure that is worth a LOT, but they never found it because it has a number of traps and is under water! And HERE, you have a high pressure hose that is pushing noxious chemicals at you as well.

                          Steve
                          That island you're talking about is up off the Newfoundland coast I believe.

                          I hope they get lucky with what they are trying. Some of their attempts defy logic to me, but having a well leak a mile deep in the sea does also.
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2076381].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                            That island you're talking about is up off the Newfoundland coast I believe.

                            I hope they get lucky with what they are trying. Some of their attempts defy logic to me, but having a well leak a mile deep in the sea does also.
                            I CHECKED! It looks like you're right. That was enough to limit the google trash, and it was OAK ISLAND! It says even FDR was involved! One trap was MERCURY, and as of 2009, it has NEVER been retrieved! It was first discovered apparently in 1795.

                            Let's hope they have better luck with the mile deep gusher. 8-(

                            Steve
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2076511].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    OK, "DAMAGE CONTROL"!!!!!!

    They are saying that MOST of the oil in the waters is NATURAL SEEPAGE and amounts to 10s of millions of gallons a year. Most of the rest, they attribute to "civilization". 4% is to oil tanker accidents. 1% is OIL PLATFORMS(like the latest disaster)!

    Well, we ALL knew it would happen!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2076838].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    They are now saying it may be a few MORE days to do anything! ALSO, they are talking WAY too much about a "junk shot". Ironically, that will be the OPPOSITE of what they are now claiming to be attempting! NOW they are claiming they are trying to CONTROL the well, and siphon off oil, etc.... The PROBLEM is that the line is getting clogged! The next FULL plan is a JUNK shot which is to push junk into the line to CLOG it, and basically, from an OIL use standpoint, it may be as if they NEVER found the well. EITHER way, of course, they have to clean up the preexisting pollution.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2080082].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      The head of BP here is saying if the dome doesn't work, it will be a couple more weeks before they can try to cram stuff in the well (that's not the term he used, of course). That was from an interview last night.

      The big problem for BP and govt is that in the past 10-15 years they have been drilling deeper under the ocean and deeper into the earth. The technology advances have allowed them to do this - but the safety precautions have not developed at the same pace.

      When you consider "stuffing" the hole they drilled, consider they have no idea how big that oil field is...the know the oil is under great pressure but not quite how much pressure. The pipeline is bent greatly - how would they "stuff" it without cutting it which they've already said would create a gusher in the Gulf.

      There are talking heads everywhere claiming that the problem is being controlled - or will be handled - or that maybe all that black shiny stuff isn't really oil at all. Only proof to me of the lack of intelligence in high places.

      Some of the shenanigans of the Marine Management Agency are becoming public knowledge - and what we're descending into are a bunch of pols and lawyers pointing fingers at everyone else, talking about investigations, blah blah.

      As far as I'm concerned the best thing to stuff in the oil pipe are politicians and all the lawyers trawling for business here. That might clear up more than one problem.
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2080434].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        The head of BP here is saying if the dome doesn't work, it will be a couple more weeks before they can try to cram stuff in the well (that's not the term he used, of course). That was from an interview last night.
        I said "junk shot" ****ONLY**** because that is the term I keep hearing. I heard it in the very beginning as an option, all the time since, and last night, from different sources. Last night, it was from a briefing as I recall. I heard it SO many times last night that I figure one of two things. Either they figure we may consider that the most likely, and so they are trying to appease us, or THAT is really what they want to do. I really think it is the latter.

        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        The big problem for BP and govt is that in the past 10-15 years they have been drilling deeper under the ocean and deeper into the earth. The technology advances have allowed them to do this - but the safety precautions have not developed at the same pace.
        Yeah. They have gotten a LOT of suggestions as to how to stop the gusher. ONE was an EXPLOSION! UNDERWATER!?!?!?!? And the only time I have heard of an explosion used, it has been to put a fire out. OBVIOUSLY, this thing has a LOT of pressure behind it, so debris from an explosion would have to be VERY deep to limit it. Heck, the pipe could be considered debris, and I heard that shut hundreds of feet into the air.

        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        When you consider "stuffing" the hole they drilled, consider they have no idea how big that oil field is...the know the oil is under great pressure but not quite how much pressure. The pipeline is bent greatly - how would they "stuff" it without cutting it which they've already said would create a gusher in the Gulf.
        Yeah, frankly, I wouldn't have tried something this deep, and I have no idea how they can reliably stop it. I never even considered writing any suggestions. Apparently that is too deep even for a sub.

        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        There are talking heads everywhere claiming that the problem is being controlled - or will be handled - or that maybe all that black shiny stuff isn't really oil at all. Only proof to me of the lack of intelligence in high places.
        Yeah, I heard one time they said some of it was nothing to worry about because it is algae! Well, that much algae means WASTE, STAGNATION, or that fish and other animals can't get there so EVEN if it is algae, it is a BAD sign. Besides, it blocks off light, and affects the ecosystem underneath.

        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Some of the shenanigans of the Marine Management Agency are becoming public knowledge - and what we're descending into are a bunch of pols and lawyers pointing fingers at everyone else, talking about investigations, blah blah.
        YEAH, like the blame is REALLY going to solve things! The BEST(sarc) thing I have seen so far is how they spoke about the relative safety. What they TRIED to say is that the wells were SAFE because they only represent(It is IMPOSSIBLE to get such statistics quickly, so they REALLY said representED) 1% of all leaks!

        How did I interpret that? I interpreted that as "They WERE safeR but NOW they represent possibly over 4% of the leaks, and that is increasing by perhaps 2% or more EACH DAY! SO, in 50 days, give or take, we COULD be up to 100% of all spills or leaks WORLDWIDE in the average year!"!

        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        As far as I'm concerned the best thing to stuff in the oil pipe are politicians and all the lawyers trawling for business here. That might clear up more than one problem.
        Well, on that you have MY [gulp] vote!

        HECK, the government is even saying it will pay money to businesses for the damage, etc... Sounds great, but it is OUR money! And they are BROKE! And money really doesn't help in the long run ANYWAY! THAT is why they have businesses! It isn't like selling their homes, ships, etc... will "make them whole"(legal term for set all right or makeup for it).

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2081076].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    A news program on its teaser just said that "shoot it full of garbage" may be the latest attempt suggestion. So they are STILL pushing it.

    If they DO, I hope it holds! BTW HOW are they going to shoot SO much down there under SO much pressure? You would think they could do the reverse easier. Doing the reverse would basically end up in a WELL!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2081110].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jgand
    The oil spill is a big mess, we don't know yet the ultimate effects of this oil spill on the area, I'm sure the oil spill is covering the entire bottom of the ocean in that area and is now spilling out beyond that area. Animals aren't mean't to breathe oil, I'm sure that whole area will be devestated.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2129503].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by jgand View Post

      The oil spill is a big mess, we don't know yet the ultimate effects of this oil spill on the area, I'm sure the oil spill is covering the entire bottom of the ocean in that area and is now spilling out beyond that area. Animals aren't mean't to breathe oil, I'm sure that whole area will be devestated.
      Even if they COULD breathe the oil, byproducts on the eggs and them will cause problems and they may not even be able to swim. But most fish breath OXYGEN! The water is merely a conduit. The level of oxygen in the local water has DROPPED! So even WITHOUT oil on the floor, they are SUFFERING, to say the least. It is like someone removed one of your lungs.

      And someone spoke about florida being a long way away. Well, there is an old saying. Water seeks its own level. The SAME can be said of oil. Once oil gets to a certain height, which is relatively low, it will spread out over the top of the ocean. For heavy crude, that height may be inches. For THIN oil, is may be a fraction of a millimeter. So the ocean doesn't even need to move. If everything were deathly still, the oil would STILL spread.

      Their next attempt will be one they said they wanted to try this last week, but they won't try until next TUESDAY!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2129642].message }}

Trending Topics