Reply With Quote
Did he give a time-line?
Not sure if this has been posted yet:
Pundit Rush Limbaugh, who has a home on Florida's Palm Beach, suggested that the explosion could have resulted from Earth Day eco-sabotage by one of the rig workers. Limbaugh also said a cleanup was unnecessary.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there," Limbaugh said. "It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is."
Various sources, including http://joulesbeef.newsvine.com/_news...oil-rig-worker
---
Does anyone really believe this incompetent fool still? Even those of you who lean furthest to the right have to realize how stupid this man is with these kinds of statements.
Did he give a time-line?
Unless he's talking about decades or centuries, he's wrong. And decades or centuries wouldn't be really cleaning, it would be dispersal, and it would obviously do damage to the ocean that would be irreparable, perhaps forever. It could damage some species of ocean life enough that they might never recover.
Regardless of the timeline, this is not something you could ever consider being rid of by "natural" processes.
But according to scientists, while some oil is normal seepage can be handled by natural systems, it's doubtful that the ocean could simply assimilate so much oil. Instead, the oil if left unchecked would break down into a sticky "mousse" coating seabirds, killing fish and spoiling delicate marshes and beaches.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 05-18-2010 at 10:15 AM.
if he could be believed, then he wouldn't still be in the US.
He's absolutely correct. Give or take a million or so years but Mother Earth will take care of herself. She's been here a lot longer than we have and will be here when we are gone.
He needs to just go away and retire. I used to listen to him back in the early 90's but by 95 - 96 he had lost much of my respect. He used to talk about taking the high road and exposing the fallacies of the left by emperical data and discussion. He disliked many of the left's personal attacks on him and others of his kind. So what did he become? He became what he ranted about. A sniping politcal hack who used personal assaults against those who opposed him to make points.
He just got to big for his britches!
He's right, and it doesn't take centuries.
History of oil spills in the gulf:
Oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico has led to a number of disasters and near disasters over the past 31 years. In some cases, authorities were unable to stamp out fires or stop spills for months; in others, quick action and good luck prevented disasters from becoming worse than they could have been.
IXTOC (1979)
The IXTOC I was an exploratory well that blew up in the Bay of Campeche on June 3, 1979, after oil and gas feeding from the well ignited. At its height the well may have pumped upwards of 30,000 barrels of oil (1.26 million gallons) into the Gulf a day; currents eventually brought the oil to the Texas shore that August. Engineers were finally able to cap the well on March 23, 1980. The spill is the second-largest in history, behind the deliberate oil spills created at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Total cleanup costs are estimated at $498 million (about $1.4 billion in 2010 dollars).
Burmah Agate (1979)
As the Texas coastline struggled against the fallout from the IXTOC, a new disaster compounded the woes. The Burmah Agate collided with a freighter near Galveston, Texas on November 1, 1979, causing the ship to explode and killing 31 crew members. The ship spilled 2.6 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and burned for over two months.
Megaborg (1990)
Another Galveston oil disaster, this Norwegian tanker was transferring oil to smaller ships when it suffered an explosion in its pump room and caught fire, spilling or burning 4.2 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico over the next week. Crews initially could do little more than pour seawater onto the fire.
Tampa Bay Oil Spill (1993)
Early in the morning of August 10, 1993, three ships collided south of Tampa Bay and dumped 333,000 barrels of oil and jet fuel (nearly 14 million gallons) into the sea near Tampa Bay. A quick response and cooperative tides minimized the damage to the local ecology.
Um, what did you post that proves it doesn't take a long time? I don't see anything about portions of the Gulf left poisoned by the IXTOC spill.
Whats ironic, however, is that you claim Rush is right and it will clean itself up and then you post about quick efforts to contain and clean up the spills you list.
50,000 barrels (some estimate 70,000) a day at 29 days so far. That's 1,450,000 barrels.
Your examples, in barrels:
30,000+
61,905+
100,000+
333,000+
95,238=
Total:
620,143 barrels
Is there any comparison?
After intense cleanup efforts:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...tal-effects-of
Charles H. Peterson of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his colleagues compiled and analyzed the findings of dozens of previous studies. The results, Peterson says, "showed that oil has persisted in surprisingly large quan ies for years after the Exxon Valdez spill in subsurface reservoirs under coarse intertidal sediments. This oil was sequestered in conditions where weathering by wave action, light and bacteria was inhibited, and toxicity remained for a decade or more." Exposure to this oil, in turn, caused additional animal deaths. Salmon, for example, had increased mortality for four years after the spill because incubating eggs had come into contact with it. Larger marine mammals and ducks, meanwhile, suffered ill effects because their prey was contaminated. The team estimates that shoreline habitats such as mussel beds affected by the spill will take up to 30 years to recover fully.
The Exxon Valdez is a great reference point as opposed to something like IXTOC because of the level of study that has been done.
I just don't know why Darrin clings to these stupid talking points when he's contradicting them in his own post. Just ing admit the oil spill is a terrible thing and it will be OK. Jesus.
What kind of oil did the Valdez spill?
You know there are different kinds of oil, right?
But, I agree that this is a terrible thing, just not the end of the world. Perspective is a good thing.
The whales will clean it up.
Rush, instead of his broadcast, is the talking point now.
One little problem with your algorithm, admiral. IXTOC I spill 30,000+ barrels a day from June 3, 1979 to April 23, 1980.
That's 9,750,000 barrels from IXTOC I alone. You might want to recalculate.
And, Manny, The Exxon Valdez isn't a better comparison because, well, 1) the environmental and climatological conditions in Alaska prohibiting the usual forces of nature to revitalize the area do not exist in the Gulf. and 2) the size of the Gulf compared to the size of Prince William Sound is a significant factor in the environment's ability to disperse and mitigate the effects of the spill.
I think IXTOC I is a better comparison because of the level of reality involved.
Good eyes, Yoni. I keep making careless mistakes when I scan.
Who said it was the end of the world? YOU provide perspective?
No worries. I do agree, this is a significant spill and, yes, somewhat of a disaster but, nothing on the apocalyptic scale being described by some.
I remember seeing tar balls on the beaches near Corpus Christi for a couple of years after IXTOC I. Somewhat of a nuisance but, beyond that...it didn't stop us from going to the beach and by 1981-82, there were no signs it had ever occurred.
We will survive.
K, when you get the environmental impact studies that Mexico has done let me know. I never said they were the same Yoni. I said it was a good reference because of the level of study done on long term oil spill effects. If you have some specific reasoning to show that those same long term effects will be avoided in this spill then please share them.
nothing but a minor inconvenience... of course when the region suffers great job losses because of the spill yoni will be blaming obama for it...
Not when I went to the beach.
So you really think we could do nothing and it would be perfectly alright, even when scientists are racing to talk about the devastating consequences this could have on marine life?
Who said it was? Mostly it's been the right-wing calling this "Obama's Katrina" and trying to play up the histrionics. Do you have a problem with them doing so?
Which seems to be a far more prevalent at ude of the right, as I stated above. Who is calling this an apocalypse? Sources, please.
I'm sorry, do you have a degree in marine biology and a large amount of monitoring equipment that you can use to determine the impact of an oil spill on the ocean? Or do you just subscribe to the branch of science that says, "Well, if I can't see it, it must not exist."?I remember seeing tar balls on the beaches near Corpus Christi for a couple of years after IXTOC I. Somewhat of a nuisance but, beyond that...it didn't stop us from going to the beach and by 1981-82, there were no signs it had ever occurred.
Undoubtedly. However, the fortunes of likely billions or trillions of the members of species that inhabit the region will probably be far more dire. But you're right, it's more their problem than ours.We will survive.
I have been unable to find a long-term study on the area around that platform.
The only studies I have seen regarding it were of US coastal regions from the spill.
The other thing about this is the depth of the oil, and the possibility that it will be pretty widely dispersed if given time, causing a lot of damage in a lot of places.
so all the fishing industry along the gulf is to wait for nature to take its course. great. i mean who cares if good sections of vital fishing areas become dead zones. and thank goodness rush thinks endangered species are not significant.
the worst thing about rush and his zeal to dismiss science is that he basically committs his legions to scoff at empirical data and just assume that, in the end, we can be as wreckless as we care to be when it comes to the environment.
Last edited by rjv; 05-18-2010 at 03:41 PM.
This is seriously what you're basing your belief that there are no long term effects from a spill?
Going to a beach hundreds of miles from the incident and 30 years after the fact definitely signifies the lack of long term effects anywhere.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
