Gulf Oil Spill Another Extinction-Level HOAX?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 57 times


reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 09:52 AM by getreadyalready
Doc...GREAT POST!

I disagree with you to some extent, but still a great first hand account.

I have also experienced what you describe, but that in itself is a crime! It should be unacceptable! The West, and the US in particular has a ton of fairly new health complications that are unexplained. We have been ingesting this stuff either through the air, water, or fish supply for years. It is still toxic and unacceptable.

Now, the current scenario has the added problem of gumming up 100's or 1000's of miles of shoreline, wetlands, nesting grounds, and killing mammals that breath by surfacing through the muck to get air. This will be devastating.

Just last night, some news channels were agreeing with you that it naturally disperses, and that a lot of sealife is capable of processing the crude without dying. For example, Oysters process this stuff, and it is retained in their flesh. It concentrates in about a 10:1 ratio. So, if they ingest a drop of it over and over through time, and then they get harvested in the Apalachicola Bay, and brought to my favorite Oyster Spot, Barnacle Bills, and I eat about 2 dozen of them, then that is 24 Oysters x 1 drop x 10:1 ratio, equals 240 drops of crude oil ingested! Now, if I also happen to eat some fish that week, and breath the ocean air, and swim at the beach, etc., etc. I wonder what my ingestion rate is. Am I consuming a quart a week? A gallon a month?

They will suspend all fishing and Oystering in these bays, and it will crush industries. Plus, there were already water-usage lawsuits in place. Apalachicola Bay for example is in a lawsuit with Atlanta, GA over watershed runoff. If they suspend Oystering in the Bay, Atlanta will use it as ammunition to keep more of the fresh water, and thus change the salinity of the Bay, and having a ton of unintended consequences.

This spill will destroy industry, wildlife, beaches, real estate and economies. Then, opportunists will take advantage of the situation to get their own special projects approved and destroy more of the coastline industries. Then, oil companies and insurance companies will capitalize on the opportunities presented. Then, the government will make a political statement by taking a hard stance and winning political points, all the while financing the very people they are regulating and punishing. EVERYONE INVOLVED GETS RICH EXCEPT THE WILDLIFE, RESIDENTS, AND BLUE COLLAR WORKERS, AND BEACH ENTHUSIASTS! WE GET SCREWED AS USUAL!!


reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 10:14 AM by Thepreye
reply to post by Doc Velocity




Ok Doc I heard today on the BBC that latest estimates are potentially more than 250000 BARRELS of oil that's what about 10000000 gallons of crude a day getting pumped up from 5000ft as it rises it pollutes the water it passes through.

I accept that oil is natural and biodegradable but how long will it take to clear 90 days worth of 10 000 000 gallons a day and how far can it spread before it biodegrades.

Saying it's natural nothing to worry about forgets that extinction is a natural event.


reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 10:37 AM by getreadyalready
reply to post by CDippa



Well, "one drop" isn't a very scientific measurement either, lol! That is the info from the MSNBC show that I was watching last night. Apparently the Oysters (they gave other examples, but I like Oysters) slowly ingest a little each day. Over time it multiplies in their body up to a certain point. As an example, they said a 10:1 concentration. If they ingest 1 drop, then it will become a 10 drop concentration in their flesh over time.

Lots and lots of fish and invertebrates serve as filtering media, so they will help to clean up the water supply, but at the same time they are poisoning the food supply? Now, if nature works as it usually does to undo man's mistakes, then we are looking a few years of banned seafood from the Gulf and nothing more. However, if we overwhelm these natural resources, then we are looking at a whole lot worse!


reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 10:52 AM by CDippa
reply to post by getreadyalready



Fair enough, I don't have evidence to dispute that, but I just highly doubt you would even be able to eat an oyster without vomiting if it had 10 drops of crude oil in it. I can believe they filter the crude oil, but the amount of oil you claim they contain does not seem right to me.



reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 11:26 AM by Unit541
reply to post by Doc Velocity



Seriously? A hoax? I think it's pretty well established that there's no hoax here. There really was an oil rig... really... a real one. It really did explode, there was fire and everything. It really was connected, with a real, tangible pipeline, to a massive, high pressure crude oil reserve. That real oil, is now really flowing into the sea, for real.

Maybe you should have titled your thread "Gulf Oil Spill: No big deal.". Then, your title would fit perfectly with your comments about how trivial the whole matter is. Maybe you could elaborate a little more though. Tell us how a nice, thick coating of crude helps the sea birds stay drier. Tell us all about how the nutrients found in the crude will supercharge the food chain in the Gulf. Just tell us it's all going to be fine, y'know, since you've seen oil in the Gulf your whole life.

Seriously. It's like you're saying forest fires are no big deal, because you've seen people light matches safely your whole life.


reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 11:33 AM by Primordial
Not that the oil spill/leak is a good thing but to put it into perspective...

sciedsociety.blogspot.com... into-ocean-documented.html

Twenty years ago, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez was exiting Alaska's Prince William Sound when it struck a reef in the middle of the night. What happened next is considered one of the nation's worst environmental disasters: 10.8 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the pristine Alaskan waters, eventually covering 11,000 square miles of ocean. Now, imagine 8 to 80 times the amount of oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez accident.

According to new findings by scientists from the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), that's how much oil has made its way into sediments offshore from petroleum seeps near Coal Oil Point off Goleta, Calif., in the Santa Barbara Channel. These natural seeps release some 20 to 25 tons of oil daily, "providing an ideal laboratory to investigate the fate of oil in the coastal ocean," says oceanographer David Valentine of UCSB.


www.csmonitor.com... 03-hfks.html

European explorers reported the seeps as early as 1775. In 1793, George Vancouver, an early European explorer to California, noted in his journal that the sea off Goleta, near what is today Santa Barbara, was "covered with a thick, slimy substance, which, when separated or disturbed by any little agitation, became very luminous...."



www.manhattan-institute.org...

www.searchanddiscovery.net... acts/hedberg2002/kvenvolden01/kvenvolden01.htm


Thus a revised estimate of the global seepage rate was calculated based on assumptions concerning the amount of crude oil known to be present that could seep over reasonable periods of geologic time. The new estimates ranged between 20,000 and 2,000,000 mt/a, with a ‘best estimate’ of 200,000 mt/a (2).


So the Earth has been seeping crude oil into the oceans at a rate of possibly millions of tons per year for centuries. While our spills are not a good thing, the Earth seems to be able to handle it. It may cause a mess but will hardly kill the worlds oceans.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Primordial]


[edit on 4-5-2010 by Primordial]


reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 11:36 AM by hdutton
reply to post by TruThS33Kr


Let me say, hello and welcome to the fray.

I don't consider myself a "greeny" but I could not agree with you more.

Maybe those who seem to think this blow out is not much of a deal should think of just opening up an artery the next time they get a paper cut.

I know such an action would not be very smart but neither would simply dismissing the possible devestation brought on by the current problem.

Just in case I have misread any of the previous posts, maybe the posters should re-read them in a better light.


reply posted on 4-5-2010 @ 11:38 AM by Unit541
reply to post by Primordial



And doctors and nurses have been pricking fingers to draw blood for a century.

So, what are you going to say when your doc walks in with a cleaver and says "don't worry, it seems that the human body can handle a little bleeding..."?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Human Seismograph Says: Big Earthquake Eminent
  Posted 19 days ago with 90 member flags
An unusual tree called Jaboticaba
  Posted 6 days ago with 77 member flags
Haunting pics of abandoned cities around the world
  Posted 2 days ago with 62 member flags
Strange Sounds (UK) published on youtube on 5/13/2012
  Posted 14 days ago with 53 member flags
Pole Shift Data You Shouldn\'t Ignore
  Posted 11 days ago with 46 member flags
Indian state says it\'s OK now to kill tiger poachers on sight
  Posted 3 days ago with 41 member flags