Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AVyw93sf88annotation_id=annotation_934611feature=iv My *God*, the amount of misinformation in that video is staggering. And that's even though a good half of it, or more, repeats the same clips over and over and over. The insistent, deliberate repetition is what should tell you it's propaganda rather than honest reporting, even if you don't actually know what the facts are. Can you be more specific about what misinformation is given? Not without practically writing a book. But two quick points: It's not the case that almost all the folks who worked on the Exxon Valdez cleanup have died; and it's not the case that BP defied the EPA in continuing to use Corexit. BTW, the style of this video is to use various clips to make their point. So they start with a statement of position then refer back to it again when there is a contradiction. Nothing wrong with that. Sure maybe you prefer just a straight ahead report but this probably plays better to a younger crowd. It's a propaganda technique, Bhairitu. You'd realize this instantly if it were promoting something you disagreed with. And what is it that you disagree with? I don't think it's a propaganda technique but a form of video journalism. There are a lot of such videos on the web. It's become a popular form in the last few years. As for misinformation I've heard a lot about this over the past few weeks from people raising flags when Corexit was first sprayed in that what it does is sink the oil or clump it so it is not so visible. IOW, it is NOT really solving the problem but getting it out of the picture. Nobody ever said it solved the problem. It's a tradeoff between two problems: it disperses the oil so it doesn't kill the wetlands and marshes; but it creates oxygen-poor areas in the ocean where fish and other sea creatures spawn, killing them, and the oil and gas molecules that don't get eaten also kill the sea life. It doesn't make the oil clump together, it *disperses* it so the oil-eating microbes in the ocean can get at it more easily. That process is what depletes the oxygen. I've heard the contrary and I've also heard that the BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil because they want to salvage it. Dispersant is never a *good* choice, it can only be a *less- bad* choice. Current thinking is that the areas of the deep ocean affected by the dispersed oil will eventually be able to clean themselves up so that it will support sea life again, but once the marshes and wetlands are destroyed, there's no way to bring them back. And besides the birds and fish and other wildlife they support, they also help protect the Gulf Coast from hurricanes. I've heard this argument too but you really sound like a BP apologist though we all know you'll deny it as you have in the past. It's like you have a lot of stock in BP. You've also mentioned in the past that you don't like laissez-faire capitalism. This is a good opportunity to turn the masses against it and I hope it does. We'll be doing the oligarchs a favor otherwise there will be an uprising that will make the Bolshevik revolution look like at Sunday picnic.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf
authfriend wrote: Bhairitu, here's the EPA's FAQ on dispersant use in the Gulf: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#q7 Scroll about a third of the way down past the lists of documents and so on for the start of the FAQ. We all remember that the EPA told us the air around ground zero was safe, and it turned out not to be, but remember who was running the government back then. There are much better folks at EPA now than there were after 9/11. I'm not recommending blind trust, but I think there's reason to be less suspicious. I don't trust our government anymore. Too much lobbying by big money interests. The USA is effectively a zombie nation. I'll trust the folks I listen to on progressive talk radio and the folks they interview. Those include Thom Hartmann, Mike Papantonio, Robert F Kennedy, etc. Many of these folks have interviewed people in the oil business. But I don't have OCD about this either. My ego doesn't need to become an expert on the BP oil spill. :-D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: snip As for misinformation I've heard a lot about this over the past few weeks from people raising flags when Corexit was first sprayed in that what it does is sink the oil or clump it so it is not so visible. IOW, it is NOT really solving the problem but getting it out of the picture. Nobody ever said it solved the problem. It's a tradeoff between two problems: it disperses the oil so it doesn't kill the wetlands and marshes; but it creates oxygen-poor areas in the ocean where fish and other sea creatures spawn, killing them, and the oil and gas molecules that don't get eaten also kill the sea life. It doesn't make the oil clump together, it *disperses* it so the oil-eating microbes in the ocean can get at it more easily. That process is what depletes the oxygen. I've heard the contrary You heard wrong. Why do you think it's called dispersant instead of clumpant? Jeez. No, I didn't hear wrong. It's mentioned in the G4 report you obviously didn't watch. G4 is a gamers cable network I believe owned by Comcast. Gamers are a cynical bunch so they had to be more careful in their reporting. Yes it is also called a dispersant and I've also heard that the BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil because they want to salvage it. That's so absurd I don't know where to start. If BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil, it shouldn't let oil get in the water where they can eat it to start with. Once the oil's in the water, microbes will eat it whether or not dispersant has been applied. They'll just be able to eat it *faster* with the dispersant. Were you thinking that BP can salvage the oil if it gets clumped up? Because that's wrong too. It clumps up because it's gotten weathered, and then it's no longer usable as oil. Plus which, collecting even freshly spilled oil costs *way* more than they could get from selling what they collect. I think the argument (pardon the pun) holds water because they probably some other use for the oil. Some of the commentators have mentioned this. And they have also mentioned that the dispersant interferes with the microbes. Dispersant is never a *good* choice, it can only be a *less- bad* choice. Current thinking is that the areas of the deep ocean affected by the dispersed oil will eventually be able to clean themselves up so that it will support sea life again, but once the marshes and wetlands are destroyed, there's no way to bring them back. And besides the birds and fish and other wildlife they support, they also help protect the Gulf Coast from hurricanes. I've heard this argument too but you really sound like a BP apologist though we all know you'll deny it as you have in the past. It's like you have a lot of stock in BP. Well, of course I'll deny it, because it isn't true. That's a pretty dumb way to try to discredit what I'm telling you, Bhairitu. (And I have no stock in BP.) In any case, the above sure isn't an argument that puts BP in a good light. If it hadn't allowed the blowout to happen, the oil wouldn't be a problem, obviously. Now we're faced with nothing but bad choices; nobody--including BP--has ever planned for a spill like this, and we simply don't have effective ways to clean it up. If you want to discredit what I'm telling you, cite some verifiable facts. What are your facts? Who are your sources? Mine's the EPA--I gave you the link in another post-- but if you don't trust the EPA, here's a page on dispersants from the Wildlife Society: http://joomla.wildlife.org/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=670Itemid=321 http://tinyurl.com/24qcjjg Here's one from ProPublica: http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-gulf-oil-spill-dispersants-0430#14879 http://tinyurl.com/2a8acsq Do your homework. You have a major tendency to go off half-cocked; it's the basis for most of your conspiracy theories. You just don't bother to inform yourself. You listen to wild-eyed catastrophists who don't have the vaguest idea what they're talking about and swallow everything they tell you without questioning it. You are SO GULLIBLE and take yourself way TOO SERIOUSLY. It's fun to push your buttons and watch you go off. You're like a little windup toy. I bother to inform myself and from very good sources. You would do well to learn some humility but everyone on FFL knows it's not in your vocabulary. Maybe in the 10 more lifetimes. :-D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: authfriend wrote: snip It doesn't make the oil clump together, it *disperses* it so the oil-eating microbes in the ocean can get at it more easily. That process is what depletes the oxygen. I've heard the contrary You heard wrong. Why do you think it's called dispersant instead of clumpant? Jeez. No, I didn't hear wrong. *What* you heard was wrong. It's an idiom. Oh I see, up is down and down is up? It's mentioned in the G4 report you obviously didn't watch. G4 is a gamers cable network I believe owned by Comcast. Gamers are a cynical bunch so they had to be more careful in their reporting. BWAHAHAHA!! You're getting your information about dispersants from *gamers*?? No wonder you've got everything bassackwards. Which says you didn't watch the video. If that's an example, they need to be WAY WAY WAY more careful in their reporting. Yes it is also called a dispersant Dispersants are called dispersants because they *disperse* the oil. That's the whole point. Yeah, so? and I've also heard that the BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil because they want to salvage it. That's so absurd I don't know where to start. If BP doesn't want microbes to eat the oil, it shouldn't let oil get in the water where they can eat it to start with. Once the oil's in the water, microbes will eat it whether or not dispersant has been applied. They'll just be able to eat it *faster* with the dispersant. Were you thinking that BP can salvage the oil if it gets clumped up? Because that's wrong too. It clumps up because it's gotten weathered, and then it's no longer usable as oil. Plus which, collecting even freshly spilled oil costs *way* more than they could get from selling what they collect. I think the argument (pardon the pun) holds water because they probably some other use for the oil. Reread my last paragraph above, please. *Whatever* you're imagining they might use it for, it would *still* cost way more to collect than it would be worth. And that's in addition to the other two points. So you're now in the oil business expert? Sort of like being a TM expert? Some of the commentators have mentioned this. And they have also mentioned that the dispersant interferes with the microbes. You need to find some different commentators who know what they're talking about. These guys haven't a clue, if you're reporting what they said accurately. And you've listened to them or are you reviewing their opinions without listening to them? Wind, wind, wind... ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: COREXIT is Eating Through Boats in the Gulf
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AVyw93sf88annotation_id=annotation_934611feature=iv My *God*, the amount of misinformation in that video is staggering. And that's even though a good half of it, or more, repeats the same clips over and over and over. The insistent, deliberate repetition is what should tell you it's propaganda rather than honest reporting, even if you don't actually know what the facts are. Can you be more specific about what misinformation is given? BTW, the style of this video is to use various clips to make their point. So they start with a statement of position then refer back to it again when there is a contradiction. Nothing wrong with that. Sure maybe you prefer just a straight ahead report but this probably plays better to a younger crowd. As for misinformation I've heard a lot about this over the past few weeks from people raising flags when Corexit was first sprayed in that what it does is sink the oil or clump it so it is not so visible. IOW, it is NOT really solving the problem but getting it out of the picture. Rawstory report: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0710/toxicologist-shrimpers-exposed-oilcorexit-mix-suffered-bleeding-rectum/ And this site has a youth oriented excellent report by G4 (game channel) where some of the clips for the above video originated. http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/g4-corexitoil-eats-through-boat-hulls-kidneys-photosvideo And finally a bit of British humor regarding BP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig-SeZmL3YA BP: Biohazard Provocateurs
