Reply With Quote
I don't know, pour 2.4 ounces in your pool blame it on BP and sue them maybe. Who knows but the story reads like someone trying to setup a lawsuit to me.
the professor!
I don't know, pour 2.4 ounces in your pool blame it on BP and sue them maybe. Who knows but the story reads like someone trying to setup a lawsuit to me.
Nothing to see here, move along..
Sometimes people do just that. I wouldn't yet suggest that, but did this guy have enemies that had access to the chemicals?
Ever see how many boats are in the area? Then... to test a marina for oil... Yes, we know it's there, just from boats!
I'll bet if I took water samples from the Columbia river in the Portland area, some would be that high too.
Just how do you assess how much the oil spill caused without a "before" sample?
Can someone find me some "before samples" please.
That chick from globalreport at :25 mark cracked me up. Talk about the typical liberal greenie chick stereotype. I thought she was going to start talking about schweaty balls.
Here is your trophy for Not Reading the Whole Article.
Congratulations, you're a winner!
(if you had bothered to read the whole thing you might have seen the mention of spraying aircraft in the area)
Here is your trophy for Not Reading the Whole Article.
Congratulations, you're a winner!
(if you had bothered to read the whole thing you might have seen the mention of spraying aircraft in the area)
How'd it get into a COVERED pool?
Also, if this theory is correct, would hundreds of pools in that area be similarly affected?
I think you're above the kind of paranoia that Nbadan and his ilk put out there.
So, in the face of first hand accounts, folks on the scene, lab reports and cited info throughout, you, WC, from all the way across the continent, with no first-hand knowledge whatsoever, are disputing this event as having any validity whatsoever.
And it just so happens to conflict with your own preconceived notions of what is going on with the spill.
And with your party affiliation's line as well.
It all adds up!
You will find a lot of hard-line libertarians are generally incapable of seeing past their own confirmation bias.
That isn't to say his criticisms are without merit. Even knee-jerk skepticism can be helpful in overcoming one's own confirmation bias, with the occasional salient point.
One thing that occurred to me to wonder about was the formation of a water-spout. Such waterborne tornados are capable of sucking water and fish out of bodies of water such as lakes and coastal regions, and pushing the contents of that water far into the sky, only to fall to the ground many miles away.
There are many accounts of fish and amphibians "falling from the sky" that are generally believed to be the result of this.
If such a dispersant were sprayed on the surface shortly before one of these events, then it would be present in high concentrations in the water sucked into the air.. Given the accounts of frequent rain storms in the area, it would seem to be to be a not-too implausible explanation for this.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/myster...ningfrogs.html
http://www.scienceline.org/2006/09/p...r-rainingfish/
It is not paranoid to think that accidents or acts of negligence occasionally happen, Darrin.
I doubt highly that, if an aircraft were indeed responsible for the contamination, it was intentional.
Ok, maybe not paranoid, but just devoid of common sense.
It's very unlikely an airborne toxin struck one man's COVERED pool.
10 to 1 odds they are upside down on their mortgage and faked it trying to stir up a class action lawsuit/settlement from the BP money.
Who could have poured oil in this hole after the little boy dug it? Sounds like Obama, or the little boy wants to sue....
DarrinS, I read the article yesterday, so maybe I forgot this, but how do you know it was covered? Also, isn't it possible that the 50.3 ppm was slightly higher than the average dispersal through the pool as the lab instructed the man to get the water from the filter?
very good call. The most likely logic I have heard so far.
And this coming after our own resident conservative scientist WC has tried to explain away the same thing 20 different ways, armed with only pure disbelief
Yeah, taking the sample from the pool filter was bull . It makes any ppm reading they got totally irrelevant. That would be like scraping the filter in your air conditioner to get an air sample.
I pointed out the problem with the sample location in the other thread yesterday.very good call. The most likely logic I have heard so far.
And this coming after our own resident conservative scientist WC has tried to explain away the same thing 20 different ways, armed with only pure disbelief
never read the other thread.
I would think that it wouldn't be quite like the air filter/air example that someone else gave since both substances in this case are liquid (of varying densities, I imagine). I do, however think that there would be SOME kind of effect.
Another Oil Rig has Exploded in the Gulf.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Please provide proof showing whether or not the pool was covered on each of the last 365 days.
Then provide proof of daily covering/non-covering of all the pools in the area, so we can adequately determine whether the covering of any given pool on the day a single photograph was taken is relevant.
Let's say it was wide open and 20 time bigger than it actually is.
Still doesn't make sense that this one guy was targeted by the magic mist.
So when you said:
You had no proof of how much or how often the man's pool is covered or not, other than one picture, is that correct?It's very unlikely an airborne toxin struck one man's COVERED pool
Let's say he had an olympic-sized poll (clearly it is not). It still doesn't make sense that the magic cloud of toxin only struck his pool.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
