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.

 

Wetlands cleanup may be impossible

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Wetlands cleanup may be impossible


www.msnbc.msn.com

NEW ORLEANS - The gooey oil washing into the maze of marshes along the Gulf Coast could prove impossible to remove, leaving a toxic stew lethal to fish and wildlife, government officials and independent scientists said.

Officials are considering some drastic and risky solutions: They could set the wetlands on fire or flood areas in hopes of floating out the oil.

But they warn an aggressive cleanup could ruin the marshes and do more harm than good. The only viable option for many impacted areas is to do nothing and let nature break down the spill.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Well isn't this nice?

Now they probably won't even bother trying to clean up the marshes eh?

I always love it when they say that attempting to fix the problem will do more harm then good. They could at least try IMO.

I really hope the damage is repairable and that we don't see too much of an impact on the wildlife, but the situation is becoming increasingly dire by the day.

Thoughts?

~Keeper



www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I think the most viable response will be to burn the marshes. I can see where these marshes will pose big problems with removing this mess once the oil reaches them,which I think it has to an extent, then high tide carries the goo to the interior of the marshes,major problems then.

I have been in the marshes,they are unbelievably hard to walk in, very dangerous too,with quicksand and such,this whole situation is just terrible,terrible,terrible.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by nickoli
I think the most viable response will be to burn the marshes. I can see where these marshes will pose big problems with removing this mess once the oil reaches them,which I think it has to an extent, then high tide carries the goo to the interior of the marshes,major problems then.

I have been in the marshes,they are unbelievably hard to walk in, very dangerous too,with quicksand and such,this whole situation is just terrible,terrible,terrible.


I agree, burning the marsh seems to be the appropriate way forward, I can't really think of anything else.

Although burning also makes me cringe, the fact that we have the destroy them to make them better kind of seems like an oxymoron right?

~Keeper



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Pretty much the entire southeast would have to be evacuated before burning the oil, because once you light up one corner of it, the rest will catch. That will take weeks all by itself, and FEMA would make that into Katrinax10.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

... burning the marsh seems to be the appropriate way forward ...


That seems like the best thing to do at this point.

Drop naplam on the marshes and light 'em up.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Another idea I thought of was basically floating barges with excavators on board to dig off the first few feet of the marshes and ship the contanimated gunk off to incinerators. Anyway we go about this its going to difficult and expensive. This will probably take tens of years and doubtfully will it be totally effective. The marshes will be damaged forever and if it makes it to the Florida mangroves it will just as bad if not worse to clean up.

[edit on 5/23/10 by nickoli]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Because of the greater distance from shore than other coastal oil spills/leaks, and BP's insistence that this amount of oil is a '“relatively tiny” compared with the “very big ocean”', many at one point thought that maybe, maybe the coastal states had dodged a bullet. In fact, it has just been like viewing an accident or nightmare in slow motion.

Burning the oil would provide immediate relief, but air quality would be harmful, as well as the chance that the marshlands could not recover because the ecosystem is ruined. Waiting for nature to recover on its own....well, you might as well put a big Closed sign on the coast, walk away, and return in a few generations.

Yes, people walking on hard sandy beaches or rocky shorelines cleaning the crude goo is not to be in all places in this case.

And this only for what we see above the water.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


"Every drop" the BP Oil Exec said "every drop" will be cleaned up.

There are three methods all somewhat effective at absorbing the released oil and turning it into much less harmful substances, and I think we should use them all.

1. Hair (women gave up nylons for a war)
2. Granules infused with oil eating microbes turns it into organic compost
3. Prairie grass, highly absorbent turns it into fiberboard like product that can be scooped up and mulched

All (particularly the last two) lessen the damage to wildlife and fish.

I don't think we should wait for BP to decide to employ these cleanup methods. I think we should begin the process ourselves and charge them.




top topics



 
3

log in

join