It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Things don't appear to be as peachy keen in the Gulf of Mexico as they would lead you to believe

page: 2
37
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I'm not exactly a chemist, but from what I understand, oxidizing aromatic hydrocarbons at low temperatures does lead to acidification. Even motor oil kept in bottles in your garage will eventually go bad because of this if left open.

Then of course purposely add some stuff to break it down and increase its surface area (and speed up oxidation)...

Maybe a real chemist (with a background in organic chemistry) could chip in. I'd suspect they'd say such environmental damage is a big source of acidification (if not the biggest) in the region.




posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
The problem with the oysters in Apalachiola has nothing to do with oil it has to do with the limited amount of fresh wayer coming down the Apalachicola River into the Apalachicola Bay. This is a result of legal dispute between Florida, Alabama and Georgia. And things will not truly recover until that fresh water is allowed to flow freely again.


That may very well be. But this also means that if the Gulf waters are contaminated, then the salt water intrusion into the bay and river also brings along that contamination with it.

The low water record for the Apalachicola River was on 08-18-1986 (water.weather.gov...). But by all indications the oyster population did not suffer all that unduly (www.freshfromflorida.com...). So what is different about the condition of the water in that area NOW compared with how it was in 1986? BTW, that last link is rather interesting in that although it covers the period of the lowest river water level on record, the bay was NOT closed to oyster harvesting, and matter of fact, the low water level wasn't even mentioned in the entire document. It was written in reference to the impact of Hurricane Kate in September of 1985. If low water levels are now a severe factor, then why wasn't it a severe factor back at that time?

Do you think something is DIFFERENT now?



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Rich Z

I'm sorry to burst your bubble Rich Z, but the future will more than likely resemble the past, as it always does. The good news is that people like you still care about this disaster so when it happens again people will be prepared to understand that the totality of the situation doesn't blame monsters to be responsible for what happened. Of course, we all know it was those devlish seahorses hiding amongst innocent turtles who actually set off the nuke to start the thing. Now that humans got involved in the cleanup, we've actually touched those poor polluted beasts to make the problem threefold. Just imagine if our intelligence catches up with the devlish underwater beasts and we could actually take over the entire turtle population in a matter of minutes. Now that we have experience though, we know that we shouldn't even touch those seamonsters.

However, as human beings, we got involved personally with the ocean when we started using Corcirex to diffract sunlight without knowing that (by the rules of the ocean) sunlight has already been evolved into an entire new level. This may show that the turtle popluation is truly innocent because they surely must know that diffracted sunlight beats the odds of no sunlight. Chances are that humans may succumb to the next terroristic threat imposed by the Chicken Universe because we still stay glued to our television sets even after World War 2 blocked our glutamate from reaching a critically toxic level.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: firefirefly31
a reply to: Rich Z

I'm sorry to burst your bubble Rich Z, but the future will more than likely resemble the past, as it always does. The good news is that people like you still care about this disaster so when it happens again people will be prepared to understand that the totality of the situation doesn't blame monsters to be responsible for what happened. Of course, we all know it was those devlish seahorses hiding amongst innocent turtles who actually set off the nuke to start the thing. Now that humans got involved in the cleanup, we've actually touched those poor polluted beasts to make the problem threefold. Just imagine if our intelligence catches up with the devlish underwater beasts and we could actually take over the entire turtle population in a matter of minutes. Now that we have experience though, we know that we shouldn't even touch those seamonsters.

However, as human beings, we got involved personally with the ocean when we started using Corcirex to diffract sunlight without knowing that (by the rules of the ocean) sunlight has already been evolved into an entire new level. This may show that the turtle popluation is truly innocent because they surely must know that diffracted sunlight beats the odds of no sunlight. Chances are that humans may succumb to the next terroristic threat imposed by the Chicken Universe because we still stay glued to our television sets even after World War 2 blocked our glutamate from reaching a critically toxic level.


Speaking of bubbles being burst, I think you've had just one too many of yours done that way. But thanks for playing.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Rich Z

I have observed a total decimation of baby hermit crabs, when comparing pre spill, and post spill in the Pensacola area. Pre Spill don a snorkel mask you could probably find 10 skurrying on the bottom in a 10 square foot area. Post spill. Sometimes I don't find any, anywhere in the surf zone period.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Remember when coquinas used to liter the shoreline with every wave hitting the shore? And sand crabs scurrying along with those wave motions when the water would recede from the shore back into the Gulf? Yeah, you still see some of them, but no where near the numbers they used to be.

I'm sure that now that the Oil Company Protection act has kicked in to protect BP from further liability, the REAL story will start to slowly unfold when the non-disclosure agreements stop being funded.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
My bubbles have been bursted by mostly teenage women who considerably wink to me but never say hi. Anyway, on a more realistic note, if we were to use the Yarrow plant instead of Corcexit I may imagine that it would have a better and somewhat more environmentally sound effect on cleaning up oil disasters. That's just my guess, coming from a naturalist's perspective.




top topics



 
37
<< 1   >>

log in

join