# Where did all that spilled gulf oil go?



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Clean up crews are having trouble finding any to clean up. Makes one wonder if the whole thing wasn't over-hyped. They have also re-opened part of the gulf to fishing. Some experts predicted nature would take care of most of the oil and perhaps they were right. Some say the oil has been reabsorbed into the environment. I would guess the warm water of the gulf broke it up and dispersed it.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

That stuff the airplanes sprayed made it sink,I think.:cowboy:I never figured why they wanted to break it up.Seems to me if they left it on the surface it would be easier to get it up.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

It's tough to keep a good crisis going.
Wonder what they'll come up with next to distract us dum dums?


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

You are right, Eddie.
If they had left it alone and let is stay on the surface it could have gotten cleaned up.. but we could have seen the extent of the spill.
So, they sprayed the heck out of it and broke it into tiny little particles that are floating around below the surface and sinking to the bottom... 
They even sprayed Lake Pontchatrain and the bays and bigger bayous.
No oil to see here. No big deal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So, they sprayed the heck out of it and broke it into tiny little particles that are floating around below the surface and sinking to the bottom


Actually it broke it into tiny droplets which increases the surface area and allows bacteria to *decompose* it at a much faster rate. That's WHY they did it

Also, the fact that the new cap never built up as much pressure as they thought COULD mean they overestimated how much oil was truly released.

Another factor is *natural evaporation*, which could eliminate up to 40%.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually it broke it into tiny droplets which increases the surface area and allows bacteria to *decompose* it at a much faster rate. That's WHY they did it
> 
> Also, the fact that the new cap never built up as much pressure as they thought COULD mean they overestimated how much oil was truly released.
> 
> Another factor is *natural evaporation*, which could eliminate up to 40%.


??? Do you mean evaporation into the air? If it evaporates where does it go? Doesn't it have to come down with rain somewhere?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> ??? Do you mean evaporation into the air? If it evaporates where does it go? Doesn't it have to come down with rain somewhere?


Yes it goes into the air, and NO it does not come back down.

The different components evaporate at different rates, and cannot recombine to form "oil" again. Most of them are vapors at normal temperatures and pressures

Up to *75% *of the total mass of Light Crude can evaporate in a *FEW DAYS*

http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/120/120BG.PDF


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

There's also the fact that the well is at the bottom of 5000 feet of water. There's plenty of water for the oil to disperse itself in.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

More info straight from the source:

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/829055/



> We know that a significant amount of the *oil has disbursed and been biodegraded by naturally occurring bacteria*. Bacteria that breaks down oil are naturally abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water there and the conditions afforded by nutrients and oxygen availability.





> While there&#8217;s more analysis to be done to exactly quantify the rate of biodegradation early indications show that the* light crude *oil is being, is *biodegrading quickly*. *When oil is dispersed into smaller bits from the use of dispersants or by weathering it&#8217;s even easier for the bacteria to get to it and to consume it*





> We do know that over *600 miles of the Gulf coast shoreline have already been oiled* and some remains on the surface although the amount on the surface is less and less as our very aggressive efforts to contain it have been successful.
> 
> Recent satellite imagery indicates surface oil is continuing to break up into smaller scattered patches, observations from over flights indicate these patches are predominantly light sheens containing little recoverable oil.


I guess it's not going to be the "end of life in the entire Gulf" after all.

Only 600 miles of coastline was contaminated, while LA ALONE has close to 1400 miles of coastline.

Most recreational fishing waters have been reopened, and over 10,000 sq miles of Federal waters have been reopened.

Still NO OIL in the Gulf Loop
Still NO OIL on the West or Southern coasts of Florida. Only in the Panhandle
Still NO OIL even NEAR the Gulf Stream

Conditions improve every day that goes by.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

And now the regime will have to find another disaster to take advantage of. This one is just about milked dry. Wonder what company is going to get 'greased' next? I'm sure they already have a list compiled.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More info straight from the source:
> 
> http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/829055/
> 
> ...


So, the entire thing is done? That's great. The economy of the gulf coast should just bounce right back and the people who are still saying they haven't gotten any of those payments probably have the checks in the mail.:bored:


----------



## silverbackMP (Dec 4, 2005)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> That stuff the airplanes sprayed made it sink,I think.:cowboy:I never figured why they wanted to break it up.Seems to me if they left it on the surface it would be easier to get it up.


Breaks it into smaller chunks for bacteria food. Unfortunately I believe a good chunk of it sunk and most of the oil consuming bacteria live closer to the surface (because of the warmer water).


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The economy of the gulf coast should just bounce right back and the people who are still saying they haven't gotten any of those payments probably have the checks in the mail


Yes it will "bounce back" as soon as people realize the entire region isn't coated in oil, as some liked to imply.

As to the payments, they will get them eventually.
That really has little to do with how much oil is left.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

I'd say the oil isn't "all gone" either, as some people are trying to imply. Not all of the oil that leaked has evaporated, or been eaten by bacteria, and will probably continue to impact the area for decades. In addition, the chemical BP sprayed on the oil to disperse it is considered pretty toxic, too. 
Anybody here gonna volunteer to go swim in the area any time soon?:hrm:
I'd say the fact that people are still broke and out of jobs in the area has a LOT to do with how much oil is left.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Cornhusker said:


> It's tough to keep a good crisis going.
> Wonder what they'll come up with next to distract us dum dums?


Ok then, so where's all the oil at? 

They can't seem to find any to skim up and the beaches have some, but not nearly what has come out of the hole.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

FourDeuce said:


> So, the entire thing is done? That's great. The economy of the gulf coast should just bounce right back and the people who are still saying they haven't gotten any of those payments probably have the checks in the mail.:bored:


As of today, they still have 4,300 vessels still addressing the oil spill.

No one said it was over. It was just stated that it is difficult to find oil that can be recovered.

Fishing etc., should be resumed. The seafood should be tested and if contaminated, then go from there. It might not be.

Sitting around and waiting for the Gulf, to be "clean", is really not an option.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

FourDeuce said:


> I'd say the fact that people are still broke and out of jobs in the area has a LOT to do with how much oil is left.


The media and the Government, did about as much to hurt businesses, (by endless sensational stories and premature fishing bans), as the oil spill itself did.

Of course, they will never admit it, which the same thing can't be said for BP, which knows they will pay big.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"As of today, they still have 4,300 vessels still addressing the oil spill."

Whose count is that? BP's? By now everybody should be aware of exactly how honest BP has NOT been all through this incident.
Aside from that, how many of those 4300 vessels are trying to clean anything that's not on the surface? BP sprayed a few thousand gallons of a toxic chemical to disperse the oil and make it sink. Despite all the people pretending, that oil won't magically disappear, and neither will the dispersant. 

"No one said it was over."

Actually, somebody started a thread on Homesteading Today titled, "Where *DID* all that spilled gulf oil go?" Speaking about it in the past tense sure looks like somebody considers it over.
People sure are acting like it's over, though. I haven't heard any stories about tourists flocking to the Gulf Coast, though. Has anybody? Many people are talking about how little of the coast was covered in oil(as if the ONLY concern is the beach), but how many of THEM are going swimming in the gulf? It's easy to talk about some "minor" problem when it's in somebody else's back yard. When it happens in their backyard, suddenly it seems to become a much bigger problem.

"Conditions improve every day that goes by."

Especially for the people and animals that are far away from the Gulf.:nanner:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> Ok then, so where's all the oil at?
> 
> It's in the Gulf of Mexico, a fairly large body of water. You might notice it if you look at a map of the southeastern US.
> 
> They can't seem to find any to skim up and the beaches have some, but not nearly what has come out of the hole.


The well that exploded was in 5000 feet of water about 41 miles off the coast of Louisiana. A little math should show that there is plenty of room for the oil to spread out without ALL of it having to go to the beaches. Even if none of the oil ended up on the beach it could still contaminate a large piece of the Gulf of Mexico.
Oil generally disperses in every direction from the source, with some longer plumes flowing out if any current is present.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> The media and the Government, did about as much to hurt businesses, (by endless sensational stories and premature fishing bans), as the oil spill itself did.
> 
> *You sound almost exactly like the mayor in the movie, Jaws. You remember him? The guy who didn't want to go back in the water? The one who wanted to ignore the warnings because it would hurt business(even if ignoring the warnings could cause some deaths).*
> 
> Of course, they will never admit it, which the same thing can't be said for BP, which knows they will pay big.


They made BIG profits. So far they've paid a few billions out of the many billions profit they've made. As long as businesses can do that, they will continue to do it. Paying back a small percentage of huge profits still leaves them with plenty of profit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Whose count is that*? BP's? By now everybody should be aware of exactly *how honest BP has NOT been *all through this incident.


Probably Thad Allen, the Coast Guard commander who is in charge.

The Govt (NOAA and the Coast Guard) were the ones doing the flow estimates and news conferences for most of the incident.

Over 45 million gallons were recovered or burned
Out of what's left, somewhere between 40 and 75% could have evaporated already.

The MOST concentrated "plume" they have measured is only 1000 parts per BILLION
That's about 1 gallon of oil for every *1 million *gallons of water
Others are 1/3 to 1/2 that concentrated..

The more it disperses, the faster bacteria can digest it, which totally eliminates it


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

as has been pointed out many times the oil suspended in the water will show up and have lasting effects.
Out of sight doesnt mean all is well or that its anywhere near done, carefully tossing those shrimp on the barby they may be flamable .
speaking of long term effects I suggest getting your water checked for lead and heavy metals


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> That stuff the airplanes sprayed made it sink,I think.:cowboy:I never figured why they wanted to break it up.Seems to me if they left it on the surface it would be easier to get it up.


EDDIE, I was woundering just the other day... are they spraying something to make it sooo hot. Chem Trails???


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

FourDeuce said:


> The well that exploded was in 5000 feet of water about 41 miles off the coast of Louisiana. A little math should show that there is plenty of room for the oil to spread out without ALL of it having to go to the beaches. Even if none of the oil ended up on the beach it could still contaminate a large piece of the Gulf of Mexico.
> Oil generally disperses in every direction from the source, with some longer plumes flowing out if any current is present.


OK, can we NOW get to the part ....why the rig blew up?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

just watched anews report about the oil spill. They showed some marsh land with some oil and showed the same place now. Nothing to indicate there was ever an oil leak. Also mentioned there has been 2800 oil soaked birds found. Half of these died. Compared with 250,000 oil soaked birds after the Valdez.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> just watched anews report about the oil spill. They showed some marsh land with some oil and showed the same place now. Nothing to indicate there was ever an oil leak.


CBS showed some video of marshland that was covered with oil a little over a month ago.

Now there are just some dark stains on the grass, and new green shoots are coming up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> A little math should show that there is plenty of room for the oil to spread out without ALL of it having to go to the beaches


No one ever suggested it all went on the beaches.
It's much better that it didn't since it will decompose naturally in the open water.

If the media would stop showing the old file film of heavy sheets of oil in the water, maybe people WOULD start flocking back to the beaches there

There's still a lot of good beach weather left in the year, and still lots of *unaffected *coastline


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> CBS showed some video of marshland that was covered with oil a little over a month ago.
> 
> Now there are just some dark stains on the grass, and new green shoots are coming up.


Is it because it was what you called 'sweet' crude oil, would that make it less toxic to plants than the heavy black crude oil? (like that horrible black crude that just got spilled in China, it looked like thick black mud and that poor man drowned in it).

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Is it because it was what you called 'sweet' crude oil, would that make it less toxic to plants than the heavy black crude oil?


That makes a big difference.
"Light" crude evaporates a LOT faster than the heavier oils

This explains a lot of it: ( and Its a* Canadian *scientist) LOL

http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/120/120BG.PDF


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one ever suggested it all went on the beaches.
> 
> *No. People are just asking "Where DID all the oil go?" and then ONLY mentioning the oil found on the surface and on the beaches. *
> 
> ...


*And there's still a lot of oil floating around in the water. Claiming that some of it evaporated and some of it was recovered doesn't get rid of the oil in the water.*

"The Govt (NOAA and the Coast Guard) were the ones doing the flow estimates and news conferences for most of the incident."

*Actually there were several sets of "estimates". Some of them were from BP until people realized that BP seemed to be consistently underestimating the flow and couldn't be trusted.*

"While there&#8217;s more analysis to be done to exactly quantify the rate of biodegradation"

*Translation: What follows is a guess*. 

"early indications show that the light crude oil is being, is biodegrading quickly."

*Great. What about the REST of the oil, since not ALL of the oil leaking is light crude oil. Can we just ignore everything else and have it go away?:*eek:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Great. What about the REST of the oil, since not *ALL of the oil leaking is light crude oil*.


What makes you think all the oil from the well isn't the same type?



> Actually there were several sets of "estimates". Some of them were from BP until people realized that BP seemed to be consistently underestimating the flow and couldn't be trusted


*ALL *the estimates were done by *NOAA*. If you can show any that weren't, feel free to post the source



> And there's *still a lot *of oil floating around in the water. Claiming that some of it evaporated and some of it was recovered doesn't get rid of the oil in the water.


"A lot" is a vague relative term.

It's uncertain how much *actually* came out of the well, so it's impossible to say how much is still in the water. 



> Can we just ignore everything else and have it go away?:


Yes, pretty much, since there is no way to recover it.
So far. no one can even FIND it.

The lower estimates were near 95 million gallons, and half that amount has been accounted for. It's pretty certain a large percentage of the remainder has already evaporated, and continues to do so


Why is it so hard to accept the fact that it's getting better?


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What makes you think all the oil from the well isn't the same type?
> 
> *The fact that most wells don't produce just one kind of oil.*
> 
> ...


*Who said that was hard? Whether it is getting better(speaking of vague terms) or not, there is STILL a LOT of oil in the water. This thread reminds me of the crowd admiring the Emperor's new clothes.*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This is a chart from Wikipedia(not my favorite source, but *they did put ALL these estimates together*


Those are the estimates NOAA did. It doesn't say BP did them. In fact it tells you that just below the chart



> Official estimates are being provided by the Flow Rate Technical Group&#8212;scientists from USCG, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and outside academics, led by United States Geological Survey (USGS) director Marcia McNutt.[61][62][63]





> Internal BP documents worse case (*with no BOP*),


That's a *fantasy scenario *that never happened



> The fact that most wells don't produce just one kind of oil.


Got a source for that? Generally entire REGIONS produce the same type of oil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_crude_oil



> The largest reserves of heavy oil in the world are located north of the Orinoco river in Venezuela[2], the same amount as the conventional oil reserves of Saudi Arabia[3], but 30 or more countries are known to have reserves. *Heavy crude oil is closely related to oil sands, the main difference being that oil sands generally do not flow at all*. Canada has large reserves of oil sands, located north and northeast of Edmonton, Alberta.
> 
> Physical properties that distinguish heavy crudes from lighter ones include higher viscosity and specific gravity, as well as heavier molecular composition. Extra heavy oil from the Orinoco region has a viscosity of over 10,000 centipoise (10 PaÂ·s)[citation needed] and 10Â° API gravity [4]. Generally a diluent is added at regular distances in a pipeline carrying heavy crude to facilitate its flow.





> What about the higher estimates? Are you trying to suggest(without actually saying it) that they are all wrong


They are no more likely to be correct than the lower estimates
They gave a RANGE, not a single figure, meaning either could be correct



> I guess it must also be impossible to say it's all gone, too, isn't it?


LOL No one has said it's "all" gone. But quite a bit of it appears to be gone, if it was ever there to start with



> Whether it is getting better(speaking of vague terms) or not, *there is STILL a LOT of oil in the water*


Maybe, maybe not. Possibly one day they will have a more accurate figure on the actual total

But with every day that passes there is LESS


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Quote:
What about the higher estimates? Are you trying to suggest(without actually saying it) that they are all wrong 

They are no more likely to be correct than the lower estimates

*Are they? Based on what? The fact that you hope the lower estimates are correct? Where did you find out that they are no more likely to be correct? Is that one of those 67.5% of statistics that are just made up?*

"They gave a RANGE, not a single figure, meaning either could be correct"

*And yet you picked the lower estimate to do your "calculations" on for some reason, and then completely ignored any other estimate? You didn't even bother to perform your calculations on the higher estimates. It appears you just dismissed them at the beginning of your calculations, since you didn't even bother doing the calculations with them.
Any reason for slanting your claims like that? You like the Emperor's outfit?
Or did you just "forget to present the rest of the story?*

"But with every day that passes there is LESS"

*Not quite. On the day before the rig exploded there was much less. During the 2 months+ every day that passed there was more. Since they've put the cap on it's getting less(not counting the assorted leaks they mention), but that doesn't get rid of all the oil that's still there(and neither does ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist because they "can't find it" They, of course, being BP and they do have a vested interest in not finding any oil) It's like sending a fox into the henhouse to check for foxes.*

"Those are the estimates NOAA did."

*Are they? That isn't what the chart says. It says some of the estimates were done by BP, some by the US Coast Guard, and the rest were done by official sources.*

"It doesn't say BP did them. In fact it tells you that just below the chart"

[Official estimates are being provided by the Flow Rate Technical Groupâscientists from USCG, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and outside academics, led by United States Geological Survey (USGS) director Marcia McNutt]

*You mean that part? That doesn't refer to the estimates which are clearly labeled BP and BP estimate. It refers to the official estimates, as it says at the beginning of the paragraph.*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Are they? *Based on what? *The fact that you hope the lower estimates are correct? Where did you find out that they are no more likely to be correct? Is that one of those 67.5% of statistics that are just made up


Based on REALITY. It's just common sense



> And yet you picked the lower estimate to do your "calculations" on for some reason, and then *completely ignored any other estimate*?


How is that different than you assuming it's the higher?



> Not quite. On the day before the rig exploded there was much less


Now your arguments are starting to sound ridiculous. We are talking about NOW.



> That doesn't refer to the estimates which are clearly labeled BP and BP estimate


The "1000 gallon per day" was BEFORE they found all the leaks.
The "without the BOP" was a *SCENARIO* asked for by the GOVT.

You claimed BP did them ALL, which is not the case

No matter how much you repeat "There's a lot of oil in the water", the amount is STILL less every day, and the huge majority of the Gulf and it's coastline was not affected at all

Let me know when you find your source for "different types of oil from the same well".
Otherwise, you're just repeating your opinions and speculations.

Lets stick to data that can be verified


----------



## mullberry (May 3, 2009)

I think the commie chinese STOLE it so they can restock wal mart with plastic junk.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

The oil is still there except for the part that evaporated. That will come down in the rain. The portion that isn't visible will continue killing for quite a while. Oil will also be in the food chain for decades especially in long lived species like turtles and whale.

BP used the out of sight out of mind strategy. It seems to be working after reading some of the posts here on HT. Hopefully Congress will not be so easily fooled although the oil industry has lots of purchased "friends" who will stick it to American taxpayers if given a chance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The oil is still there except for the part that evaporated. *That will come down in the rain*


.

No, it will NOT come back down in the rain.
It's impossible for those substances to magically recombine into "oil"


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> .
> 
> No, it will NOT come back down in the rain.
> It's impossible for those substances to magically recombine into "oil"


Dang. I wish you had posted this earlier. I read his post and set a 5 gallon bucket out to try and catch some free oil. :grump:


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

I'm reading a lot about the oil, but what about the poisons they pumped into the well? Where did that stuff go? What are they spraying? Where is that stuff and what is that stuff? 

I don't worry near as much about the oil as I do about the stuff they are doing because of the oil.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Spinner said:


> I'm reading a lot about the oil, but what about the poisons they pumped into the well? Where did that stuff go? What are they spraying? Where is that stuff and what is that stuff?
> 
> I don't worry near as much about the oil as I do about the stuff they are doing because of the oil.


You mean the dispersants they were spraying on the oil until the government told them to stop because it was too toxic? Oh, that stuff just magically disappears too. We're BP. Trust us.:teehee:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"You claimed BP did them ALL, which is not the case"

*I did? When? Show a quote, please. Actually, you claimed NOAA did them ALL, which is obviously not the case.*

"Based on REALITY. It's just common sense"


*In other words, you have no evidence or proof for your claim. You just HOPE the lower estimates are more accurate. I hope so, too, but I don't base my life on what people hope. I stick with facts as much as possible. One fact which has been obvious for a long time is that BP lied many times during the whole incident.*

"Lets stick to data that can be verified "

*Yes, let's do that.*

"How is that different than you assuming it's the higher?"

*Mostly it's different because I didn't do that(and you DID). I think I see the problem here. You seem to be reading things which were never said. Read my posts again, and see if you can find a quote of me assuming that.*

"Now your arguments are starting to sound ridiculous. We are talking about NOW."

*Not quite. When you claim things are better, you are comparing at least 2 things. In this case you are comparing conditions now to conditions before.*

"the huge majority of the Gulf and it's coastline was not affected at all"

*That's what they call cold comfort. I'd say the effects are still going on(in spite of your use of the past tense), but BP will appreciate your help spinning things for them. They always enjoy having unpaid spokespersons.*:buds:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FourDeuce said:


> You mean the dispersants they were spraying on the oil until the government told them to stop because it was too toxic? Oh, *that stuff just magically disappears too*. We're BP. Trust us.:teehee:


Yes , it does disappear, but it's not magic. It's just chemistry and physics.
A little research would have shown you that.





> Corexit 9500 was found to be less toxic to some marine life than other dispersants and to *break down within weeks*, rather than settling to the bottom of the ocean or collecting in the water


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes , it does disappear, but it's not magic. It's just chemistry and physics.
> 
> *That's strange. I've studied some chemistry and physics, and I haven't seen many examples of things just disappearing. I've seen chemicals evaporate and break down, but that doesn't make them disappear. It just moves them around or makes them break down into other chemicals(sometimes more toxic than the original ones)*
> 
> ...


Here's that statement:
Corexit 9500 was found to be less toxic to some marine life than other dispersants

*That's nice, but when you look at it logically, it's like saying sulfuric acid is less toxic than prussic acid. It's true, but doesn't make much difference to the victims.*

"and to break down within weeks, rather than settling to the bottom of the ocean or collecting in the water"

*Ah, so the animals living in the gulf ONLY have to live in it for "weeks". Not a problem. I'm sure they can hold their breath for a few weeks with no problem. Aside from that, "chemicals breaking down" doesn't always mean they become harmless. Some chemicals break down to compounds that are more toxic than the original chemicals were. I notice they also employ the "trick" of totally ignoring what the chemicals break down INTO. *

You posted earlier:
"No, it will NOT come back down in the rain."

*When chemicals evaporate, what happens to them? You seem to be implying that they just disappear, since you don't address them any more. Out of sight, out of mind, just like the millions of gallons of oil? So what magical property do THESE chemicals have which makes them different from all the other chemicals which enter the atmosphere?
Chemicals which evaporate into the atmosphere can and do come down in the rain if they are in the air where it's raining. Ever hear of acid rain? That's one example of chemicals which were sent into the atmosphere coming back down with rain.*

"It's impossible for those substances to magically recombine into "oil" "

*Whether they "magically recombine into oil" is irrelevent. Just because they have broken down(fractionated) into other compounds doesn't mean they are harmless. They still exist in the atmosphere even after they are no longer "oil". You want to live in a cloud of benzene and all the other hydrocarbons which used to be oil? If so, I recommend you move to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. You can live next door to a whole bunch of chemical plants and oil refineries. They call it Chemical Alley, and you can spot the cars of the people who live and work there. The "non-oil" chemicals(which you completely ignore) which they make from oil eat the paint and finish off the cars. Near one of the refineries the smell of chemicals is so strong that shutting the windows in your car won't stop it from getting in.
Oh, and you can often spot the people who work in the plants. They spend a LOT of time visiting doctors and hospitals.
Maybe you could tell them that as long as it's not oil, it's ok to live in it*.:hand:
BTW, I'm still waiting for those quotes you claimed I said and assumed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That's strange. I've studied some chemistry and physics, and I haven't seen many examples of things just disappearing.


Then you didn't LEARN about decomposition.
Corexit is biodegradable

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/44573153/Oil-Spill-Dispersant-COREXIT-EC-A-and-EC-A-Information



> Maybe you could tell them that as long as it's not oil, it's ok to live in it


I see long posts of opinions and theories and anecdotal examples
I see no data to back any of it



> I notice they also employ the "trick" of totally ignoring what the chemicals break down INTO.


And you're using the trick of *implying *it will be something worse, while showing no evidence at all



> Whether they "magically recombine into oil" is irrelevent


Not when the subject was whether or not "oil" would fall with the rain.



> Ever hear of *acid rain*? That's one example of chemicals which were sent into the atmosphere coming back down with rain.


Thats a chemical reaction when sulfer dioxide combines with water to become sulfuric acid.

And since the Sulfer Dioxide *no longer exists*, you could reasonably say it has DISAPPEARED

*Show us your DATA *on which components of crude oil can "fall back with rain" instead of just repeating your claim that it "can"
Otherwise you're just theorizing while offering no evidence



> BTW, I'm still waiting for those quotes you claimed I said and assumed


I'm still waiting for your source on different types of crude oil from one well (among other things)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#appl2



> EPA has advised continuing to allow BP to apply dispersant undersea because it *appears to be having a positive effect on the oil at the source of the leak and thus far has had no significant ecological impact*. BP has not yet been able to identify a less toxic alternative to the current dispersant in use. EPA continues to demand further analysis be conducted on other options, as EPA continues to apply its own science to this issue. While BP continues use of the dispersant, EPA will continue to aggressively ensure that BP monitors the impact of these chemicals on the environment, water and air -- and EPA will retain the right to stop all use at any time. EPA also continues to post all data on its Web site,


www.epa.gov/bpspill


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Here are the quotes you asked for:



> Actually there were *several sets of "estimates*". *Some of them were from BP *until people realized that BP seemed to be consistently underestimating the flow and couldn't be trusted.





> they did put *ALL these estimates *together





> It says *some* of the estimates were *done by BP*, some by the US Coast Guard, and the rest were done by official sources.



You've shown *ONE* estimate by BP, and it was done before all the leaks were discovered. The second one you *claim *was an estimate was done BEFORE the rig exploded, and had nothing to do with the spill at all



> *What about the higher estimates*? Are you trying to suggest(without actually saying it) that they are all wrong. If you just ignore them, do they go away?


That sure sounds to me like you're wanting to use just the highest. 



> You didn't even bother to perform your calculations on the higher estimates


It doesnt change the figures I used in any way. If you think it does, feel free to show how


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#appl2
> 
> 
> 
> www.epa.gov/bpspill


Oh, great! They're gonna let BP monitor the environmental impact. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse. BP has been so honest so far I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to trust them even more.:smiley-laughing013:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Oh, great! They're gonna let BP monitor the environmental impact. Talk about the *fox guarding the henhouse*. BP has been so honest so far I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to trust them even more.


They are not "letting" them
They ordered them, and the EPA will review the results

Lose the rhetoric and stick to the facts


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Here are the quotes you asked for:
> 
> You've shown *ONE* estimate by BP, and it was done before all the leaks were discovered. The second one you *claim *was an estimate was done BEFORE the rig exploded, and had nothing to do with the spill at all
> 
> ...


*I never said it would change the figures you USED. My point was that you conveniently ignored EVERY figure except the ones you arbitrarily chose as "the ones you think and hope are most accurate based on nothing but your opinion". The ONLY figures you used were the ones you arbitrarily picked as the "most accurate". You ignored all the other figures and didn't USE them for anything, as if they didn't even exist. *

"Quote:
they did put ALL these estimates together"

*I see you missed what I was referring to there. The "they" in that statement is referring to Wikipedia, the place I found the chart with ALL those estimates. Here's the sentence as I typed it: "This is a chart from Wikipedia(not my favorite source, but they did put ALL these estimates together." I wouldn't think anybody could miss who "they" were.
*.:teehee: 

"You've shown ONE estimate by BP, and it was done before all the leaks were discovered. The second one you claim was an estimate was done BEFORE the rig exploded, and had nothing to do with the spill at all'

*Actually, the chart I referred you to had 3 estimates by BP, 1 by the US Coast Guard, and 4 listed as official estimates. If you have a problem with the chart, Wikipedia is the source.* 

"That sure sounds to me like you're wanting to use just the highest."

*Maybe to a person trapped in "black or white" thinking. Actually, what I want is to not ignore ANY of the estimates. In my experience, the truth is often somewhere in the middle, but wherever it is, it won't be found by arbitrarily picking whichever numbers "sound" best. *

"Then you didn't LEARN about decomposition."

*You learned in chemistry or physics classes that decomposition involved something disappearing? That's strange. In the chemistry and physics classes I took they said nothing EVER disappeared. Things can be converted to other substances or matter can be converted to energy, but nothing ever just disappeared. Maybe I should have tried tossing some "disappearances" into the chemical equations. It sure would have made some of them easier than having to account for every element involved. *

"And since the Sulfer Dioxide no longer exists, you could reasonably say it has DISAPPEARED"

*No, that would not be a reasonable statement at all. The sulfur dioxide has contributed to the formation of the acid rain. It hasn't disappeared, as the acid erosion it causes shows.*

"I'm still waiting for your source on different types of crude oil from one well (among other things)"

*Here's ONE reference I found with a little searching which shows different types(viscosities) of crude oil in one place:*The largest oil field in the world, Saudi Arabia's Ghawar field, produces light crude oils ranging from 33Â° API (860 kg/m3) to 40Â° API (825 kg/m3)

Another from Wikipedia:
Oil sands are reservoirs of partially biodegraded oil still in the process of escaping and being biodegraded, but they contain so much migrating oil that, although most of it has escaped, vast amounts are still present&#8212;more than can be found in conventional oil reservoirs. The lighter fractions of the crude oil are destroyed first, resulting in reservoirs containing an extremely heavy form of crude oil, called crude bitumen in Canada, or extra-heavy crude oil in Venezuela.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> My point was that you conveniently ignored EVERY figure except the ones you arbitrarily chose


That's your spin. I talked about the RANGE of estimates the whole time



> Actually, the chart I referred you to had *3 estimates by BP*, 1 by the US Coast Guard, and 4 listed as official estimates. If you have a problem with the chart, Wikipedia is the source.


No it did not. It only had ONE estimate done after the rig explosion.
One was done for the PERMIT to drill, and the other reference was wheen CONGRESS released the same information. Go back and read your chart again



> No, that would not be a reasonable statement at all. The sulfur dioxide has contributed to the formation of the acid rain. It hasn't disappeared, as the acid erosion it causes shows.


The sulfer dioxide *no longer exists*, therefore it has "disappeared"
And none of this has much to do with the components of crude oil. I'm still waiting for your DATA to back those claims



> Here's ONE reference I found with a little searching which shows different types(viscosities) of crude oil in one place:The largest oil field in the world, *Saudi Arabia's Ghawar field, produces light crude oils *ranging from *33Â° API *(860 kg/m3) to *40Â° API *(825 kg/m3)


LOL Look at what it REALLY says.

None of that is "heavy crude"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_crude_oil


> Heavy crude oil has been defined as any liquid petroleum with an *API gravity less than 20Â°*


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> .
> 
> No, it will NOT come back down in the rain.
> It's impossible for those substances to magically recombine into "oil"


yeah right and acid rain never fell over the east coast and canada either .
no it wont come down as oil it will come down as benzine tourline, and other volitale hazardous chemical compounds combined with other pollutants .
but have no fear our clueless oil drilling and eviro expert keeps spouting and siting old data along with dis-proven theories .
he might understand the evaporation and condensation of compounds if he ever made a solar still or had a clue how a thunderstorm works , most six year olds understand the basics , though it seems to complicated for some people 
rather like the fact that just because oil isnt floating on the surface doesnt mean its gone . Hydro carbon levels in the water up more than 400% dont mean a thing :help:
spent way to much time attempting to explain the realities to some one who refuses to use common sense . 
the piggy still cant sing but it keeps right on squealing like it has a clue what its squealing about :1pig::1pig::1pig:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> no it wont come down as oil it will come down as *benzine* *tourline*, and other *volitale* hazardous chemical compounds combined with other pollutants


If your going to *pretend* to know chemistry, at least learn how to spell them
*Show* the *data *to prove your theories
(But we know you won't)

The rest is your usual tired, boring rhetoric and childish name calling:



> the piggy still cant sing but it keeps right on squealing like it has a clue what its squealing about


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

there it goes again


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

It's actually still there:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...utraged-over-reports-of-oil-in-gulf-vanishing


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Aw c'mon. You know if everybody just keeps admiring the Emperor's new clothes we'll all be able to appreciate how fine they are.:teehee:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

I see they want to assume the HIGHEST estimates are the only accurate ones



> "If you go back and look at the sheer amount of oil dumped -- 60,000 barrels a day for 87 days -- you get about 220 million gallons," Radar said. "Of that, 11 million gallons were burned and 30-some million were collected, meaning about 50 million gallons were eliminated. That leaves you about 175 million gallons of oil-based pollution loose in the Gulf. And when it degrades from the thick stuff you can see, that doesn't mean it's all gone. There's still an untold amount of toxins from that oil in the marine environment."


Also note that the source is a BLOG

If those people are seeing oil, all they have to do is radio the Coast Guard and report it to have it cleaned up



> there it goes again


No data, no credibility (3 or less)


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If those people are seeing oil, all they have to do is radio the Coast Guard and report it to have it cleaned up


You make it sound like it's a spill on Aisle 3 and the janitor can just come with a mop and bucket and clean it up......
:hrm:


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

I vote that someone spill a couple tankers of oil on BFFs farm and he can tell us all how easy it was to clean up . just 5000 barrels since that is the number he chose to accept for so long . when he has it "cleaned" up he can tell us how easy it was and how there are no lasting effects .
until that point Im going to stick to my opinion that he hasnt got nor ever had a clue what the gulf is facing and site that so fact every time hes chosen to defend something on the subject its been proven wrong by the facts


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You make it sound like it's a spill on Aisle 3 and the janitor can just come with a mop and bucket and clean it up......


Not at all. I just post facts.
How you interpret it is all in YOUR mind


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> until that point Im going to stick to *my opinion *that he hasnt got nor ever had a clue


I give you LOTS of opportunities to SHOW FACTS to prove my information is wrong, and you always fail to do so, just as you're doing now. 



> site that so fact every time hes chosen to defend something on the subject its been proven wrong by the facts


LOL That's pretty incoherent, even for you.............................(2)


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

" I just post facts."

Like the "fact" that millions of gallons of oil can evaporate up into the sky and NEVER come down? :smiley-laughing013:
Maybe you should let the world know about that, since they've been saying for years that anything that evaporates eventually comes down.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Like the "fact" that millions of gallons of oil can evaporate up into the sky and NEVER come down?


I showed the data to back it up.
Where's yours to prove it's wrong?



> since they've been saying for years that anything that *evaporates* eventually comes down


I've never heard anyone say *that* other than you. 
If it's true, it shouldn't be too hard for you fo fiind an example of the quote to *show*

*Rewording* common phrases doesn't help prove your points any more than renaming features on a map.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

common sense what goes up must come down . proof is in the chemical compounds dropped in rain from volcanos blanketing the earth , sulfurs, hydro carbons, and such, acid rain from cars and industrial pollutants .
the proof is very well proven and documented


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> proof is in the chemical compounds dropped in rain from volcanos blanketing the earth hydro carbons, and such, acid rain from cars and industrial pollutants


We aren't discussing volcanoes, cars, or industrial pollutants. 
We're discussing oil spills



> the proof is very well proven and *documented*


Then why is it you can't seem to find anything to* SHOW? * 
You just keep talking about it in vague terms, but never providing any * specific evidence * 

I've found lots of documentation to back what I've stated (1)


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Since we are looking at facts here I will throw out a couple:

1. Satellite pictures still show huge swaths of oil on the surface.
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-30-reports-of-bp-disasters-death-are-greatly-exaggerated/

2. There is now a huge controversy over the dispersants because they have made the oil particles so small they are being found in blue crab larvae which means they have entered the food chain.
http://www.fox8live.com/news/local/...tic-of-dispersant/IJoKO4b-W0GsfjK1L_SkAQ.cspx

3. As for the parts of the oil that did evaporate they are toxic and they will come back down:



> There's a bigger concern than oil visibly raining from the sky; it's the toxins you can't see. Gases in oil that can evaporate are known as volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. A 2003 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report notes that light crude can lose up to 75 percent of its initial volume due to evaporation of VOCs after a spill. That study also notes, troublingly, that "despite the importance of the process, relatively little work has been conducted on the basic physics and chemistry of oil spill evaporation."
> 
> The most problematic VOCs in oil are hydrogen sulfide, benzene, and naphthalene, writes NRDC senior scientist Gina Solomon, though she lists a number of other troublesome compounds in oil as well. Hydrogen sulfide smells like rotten eggs and can cause headaches, confusion, and respiratory problems. Benzene and naphthalene are known carcinogens. The bigger concern than rain is that these VOCs are being carried ashore by wind currents. The EPA is monitoring the VOCs in the air, and Solomon says that her study of that data finds "some levels that could raise health concerns." Exposure to the crude oil itself, either on land or in the water, is also not particularly good for humans. There's also concern that storms in the Gulf could sweep up the oil and push more onto land, and hurricane season is already upon us.
> 
> We also know that one of the dispersants that has been used in the Gulf carries its own health concerns. Corexit EC9527A contains 2-butoxyethanol, which can cause headaches, vomiting, reproductive problems, and "liver and kidney effects and/or damage." More than 300 cleanup workers have already reported feeling ill, describing symptoms ranging from vomiting and stomach pain to headaches and chest pain.


http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/06/raining-oil-gulf-oil-spill-BP


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I give you LOTS of opportunities to SHOW FACTS to prove my information is wrong, and you always fail to do so, just as you're doing now.


everyone and their brother has proven your statement wrong countless times and you still refuse to admit it . ignorance is easily cured with education. the choice to remain ignorant is stupidity . as is the inability to accept the facts when they have been presented by numerous sources . You have consistently shown your in ability to accept the facts and truth on many many subjects . even when presented with documentation . 
The oil spill is just the latest example 
even your strongest allies have stepped back shaking their heads at the bogus carp you've posted on the subject but please by all means keep it up I like nothing better than watching you make a complete idiot of yourself great work :thumb:
I love that solvents and evaporated compounds dont condense in your mind . your knowledge of gas pressure, volume, evaporation and condensation , engineering and so far anything to do with the spill are a true site to behold . Its an excellent example of how our education system needs some serious work :hysterical:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually it broke it into tiny droplets which increases the surface area and allows bacteria to *decompose* it at a much faster rate. That's WHY they did it
> 
> Also, the fact that the new cap never built up as much pressure as they thought COULD mean they overestimated how much oil was truly released.
> 
> Another factor is *natural evaporation*, which could eliminate up to 40%.


I would be very surprised of anywhere near 40% of the crude could evaporate at room temperature in this short of time, but certainly some has evaporated.

The oil is still in the gulf for the most part. It has been emulsified by wave action and dispersant, but it hasn't gone anywhere. The good thing is that it won't beach. However, the oil & dispersant is a toxic brew in the water that will kill its share of sea life. But there isn't a lot anyone can do about that now.

We'll live with the effects. Fishing will open-up, since no visible signs will be present from here on out. A lot of the shrimp & fish will have measurable amounts of oil, but we'll eat it and probably suffer no ill effects.

BP will pay up what's owed so far, then write the bill off of their taxes. That means that we'll foot about half the bill. Then people living on the gulf can get back to living their miserable existence again.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> BP will pay up what's owed so far, then write the bill off of their taxes. That means that we'll foot about half the bill. Then people living on the gulf can get back to living their miserable existence again.


Nearly all those people on the gulf coast who have been living a " miserable existence " love it down there and much prefer their existence to living in a hell hole like Las Vegas and I agree with them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Nearly all those people on the gulf coast who have been living a " miserable existence " love it down there and much prefer their existence to living in a hell hole like Las Vegas and I agree with them.


The point is, now that the oil is part of the water as an emulsion nothing can be done. That's the beauty of the dispersants. Out of sight, out of mind.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

FourDeuce said:


> The well that exploded was in 5000 feet of water about 41 miles off the coast of Louisiana. A little math should show that there is plenty of room for the oil to spread out without ALL of it having to go to the beaches. Even if none of the oil ended up on the beach it could still contaminate a large piece of the Gulf of Mexico.
> Oil generally disperses in every direction from the source, with some longer plumes flowing out if any current is present.


Ok, so what are they supposed to do about it? 

They can't find enough to skim up and there is not a whole lot on the beaches.

Are they just supposed to write out checks, to everyone that says they need one?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Ok, so what are they supposed to do about it?
> 
> They can't find enough to skim up and there is not a whole lot on the beaches.


That's correct. Very little oil will come ashore and there is no longer anything to skim. Most of the damage will occur out at sea where we won't see it.



plowjockey said:


> Are they just supposed to write out checks, to everyone that says they need one?


That's about it, except that BP will write it off on their taxes so we can reimburse them for half what they pay.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

FourDeuce said:


> They made BIG profits. So far they've paid a few billions out of the many billions profit they've made. As long as businesses can do that, they will continue to do it. Paying back a small percentage of huge profits still leaves them with plenty of profit.


What do "big" profits have to do with anything, really? 

There was a MAJOR oil spill. BP said they would take care of it. They did. It's going to cost them big-time, for sure.

*Remember, it was THE GOVERNMENT and THE MEDIA, that said "Run for your lives, there is a major oil spill and we are here to help"*

Anybody remember the endless "news" footage of the empty hotels bars/resturaunts, with beaches outside that were PERFECTLY CLEAN! The media could not wait for a "tarball" to hit a beach anywhere in the gulf.

Or when the Government banned all fishing, clamming and shrimping "for our own safety". No need to test to see if the seafood was actually contaminated.

The government and media have a lot of responsibility for job and business losses in the gulf.

BP has plenty of responsibility too, which they should not dismiss.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Satellite imagery from July 27 and 28 -- as the stories of disappearing oil were being filed -- show a vast region still discolored by *slicks and sheen*, little diminished from previous weeks:


Yes there are still THIN layers of oil on the water.
No on said it was ALL gone



> As for the parts of the oil that did evaporate they are toxic and they will come back down:


The source you posted never says it will "come back down". In fact it states 2 times rain is NOT a concern
It says WIND can "carry it ashore" Wind can also disperse it to harmless concentrations

The EPA has been monitoring air quality along the coasts the whole time, and has found no concentrations of VOC's high enough to issue any alerts or warnings

As noted by YOUR source, the concentrations would have been highest when there was the most oil on the water, as noted below:



> A 2003 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report notes that light crude can lose up to 75 percent of its initial volume due to evaporation of VOCs after a spill





> There is now a huge controversy over the dispersants because they have made the oil particles so small they are being found in blue crab larvae which means *they have entered the food chain*.


No, that is NOT what it REALLY says It's a very vague MAYBE:



> Researchers at Tulane say *it appears *they've detected a* Corexit sort of fingerprint i*n the orange blobs found lodged in the bodies of tiny blue crab larvae collected from marshes that stretch from Texas to Florida. Researcher Erin Grey said the results, while *not conclusive*, are likely.


By the time they reach a conclusion, it will probably have degraded

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/53434



> In June 2010, the EPA reported toxicity tests of 8 dispersants (not combined with crude oil), including those being used in the BP spill. The dispersants were roughly similar to one another in toxicity when tested on the EPA-standard test organisms, mysid shrimp and silversides fish. The dispersants were also generally *less toxic than oil*, and they were expected to* biodegrade in weeks or months *rather than years as is the case for oil.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I love that solvents and evaporated compounds dont condense in your mind


I note* you *STILL haven't posted ANY proof of any of *your *claims

Without proof, you have NO credibility.

If you will look at the last replies of mine with the *numbers in parentheses*, that was my prediction of how many posts you would make before falling into your *normal *ranting and name calling tirade.

You'll see I was correct on that also


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I would be very surprised of anywhere near 40% of the crude could evaporate at room temperature in this short of time, but certainly some has evaporated


I don't know why it would surprise you when it's been studied
Patt was even so kind as to post another source to verify it:



> A 2003 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report notes that light crude can lose up to 75 percent of its initial volume due to evaporation of VOCs after a spill





> A lot of the *shrimp & fish will have measurable amounts of oil*, but we'll eat it and probably suffer no ill effects.


Strange that they haven't found any yet, and they have reopened most of the waters to fishing.



> The oil is still in the gulf for the most part. It has been emulsified by wave action and dispersant, but* it hasn't gone anywhere*.


Yes there is still SOME oil in the water. And everyday that passes means there is LESS
Milliions of gallons *have* "gone" somewhere. Go back and read the sources already posted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The point is, now that the oil is part of the water as an emulsion *nothing can be done*. That's the beauty of the dispersants. *Out of sight, out of mind*.


That's nice parroted rhetoric, by you well know that by emulsifying the oil, it allows the bacteria to digest it more quickly, which means it will be GONE sooner



> Most of the damage will occur out at sea where we won't see it.


Not with the concentrations they are now finding.
And as SHOWN below, much of it has ALREADY biodegraded:

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#q9



> What do we know about the biodegradation rate of non-dispersed oil?
> *Extensive laboratory and field research has been done on the biodegradation of crude oil*. The South Louisiana crude in the Gulf spill is considered a &#8220;light&#8221; crude oil and is known to degrade at a faster rate than heavier weight oils from other locations such as Alaska. Some studies suggest that *the half-life for Louisiana crude is 12-70 days in seawater*. There are a number of factors that affect the biodegradation rates of oil, such as water temperature, oxygen content, and presence of micro-organisms.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't know why it would surprise you when it's been studied
> Patt was even so kind as to post another source to verify it:
> 
> _A 2003 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report notes that light crude can lose up to 75 percent of its initial volume due to evaporation of VOCs after a spill_


While I don't know the precise properties of the crude in this spill, I know that typically only about 45% of the gasoline pool comes as "straight-run" gasoline. Even at that, gasoline has a boiling range up to about 450 F. Unless this is extraordinary crude, 75% evaporation is absurd. I would be very surprised if even 25% has evaporated.

Given a lot of time crude can evaporate to become black tar blobs, but it's got to be baked in desert sun for decades for that to happen.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's nice parroted rhetoric, by you well know that by emulsifying the oil, it allows the bacteria to digest it more quickly, which means it will be GONE sooner


It takes years for bacteria to digest oil, and it's never completely gone.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The source you posted never says it will "come back down". In fact it states 2 times rain is NOT a concern
> It says WIND can "carry it ashore" Wind can also disperse it to harmless concentrations
> 
> The EPA has been monitoring air quality along the coasts the whole time, and has found no concentrations of VOC's high enough to issue any alerts or warnings
> ...


The article was originally written about the video that circulated about oily rain falling in LA. That was debunked and the article states that OIL will not fall in rain. It does not say that VOC's will not fall in rain and VOC's are what we have a problem with after it evaporates. It is far more likely to be carried by wind though than rain and people have been sickened by VOC's already.




Bearfootfarm said:


> No, that is NOT what it REALLY says It's a very vague MAYBE:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow you are really good at selectively quoting! 

On the Blue crab larvae the researcher said:
"Researcher Erin Grey said the results, while not conclusive, *are likely*. She's waiting on two other independent tests."

She needs 2 other scientists to verify her findings which should take a few days and she feels it is likely her findings are correct. She can't say for sure until she has verification but she isn't going to report the findings unless she is fairly sure they are correct.

Keep in mind as has been stated repeatedly including in that article that the level of dispersants used is unprecedented and we are now seeing results that are unexpected. Makes sense since we have no prior data to tell us what would happen under these exact circumstances. What we do know is that the oil is not gone, it is still there in the water column. Some of it will resurface as slicks and some of it is so small it is going goodness only knows where. All of that information is in those three links.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I showed the data to back it up.
> 
> *You showed data to back up your claim that millions of gallons of oil could evaporate into the sky and not come back down? Yes, I saw your claim that it could not come back down AS OIL, but that doesn't mean it doesn't come back down. I understand your way of "understanding" is to make a claim and ignore any inconvenient facts, so to your "reasoning", if it doesn't come back down AS OIL, it doesn't matter, right?*
> 
> ...


*So, if chemicals going up into the air are not a threat, I can't understand why anybody got upset about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or any of the other examples of air pollution. Maybe you could explain to everybody how substances evaporating into the air means they don't matter any more, so nobody will ever have to worry about air pollution.:buds: It would be nice to know that all those years spent worrying about air pollution have been unnecessary.*

"Also, the fact that the new cap never built up as much pressure as they thought COULD mean they overestimated how much oil was truly released."

*It could mean that(which you are welcome to prove if you can), or it could mean they NEVER had a clue how much oil was leaking and NONE of the estimates are accurate. You haven't shown ANY evidence to back up your claim that the lowest estimates are the "most accurate". *

"Some studies suggest that the half-life for Louisiana crude is 12-70 days in seawater."

*And that's ALL you need to use that as FACTS, isn't it? I've noticed all through this thread that you've been using those rose-colored BP brand glasses to view everything. Too bad reality doesn't issue everybody a pair of those glasses.*


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"There was a MAJOR oil spill. BP said they would take care of it.

*All through the incident, BP has said many things, and many people have noticed that much of what BP said was "creative truth-telling", AKA lying.*
"They did."

*DID? Looks to me like it isn't finished yet, and as others have pointed out, the oil will be polluting the Gulf of Mexico for years to come. I would say this spill is far from being "taken care of".* 

"It's going to cost them big-time, for sure."

*Yes, as I said before, BP made many billions of dollars of profit, from which they will pay as little as possible. I'd bet that when(IF) the spill is ever REALLY taken care of, BP will still show a nice profit.*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Even at that, *gasoline has a boiling range up to about 450 F*. Unless this is extraordinary crude, 75% evaporation is absurd. I would be very surprised if even 25% has evaporated.


You can deny it as much as you like but the studies say you're wrong.

Lets see a *source *that states the boiling point of gasoline is that high


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I understand your way of "understanding" is to make a claim and ignore any inconvenient facts, so to your "reasoning", if it doesn't come back down AS OIL, it doesn't matter, right?


I answered that one already Try to keep up



> It's not up to me to prove your claims wrong. It's up to you to prove they are right


I've done that. Now you prove THIS one:



> It's the process where water(and other* chemicals) evaporate *into the sky and then *return to the surface as rain*.





> So, if chemicals going up into the air are not a threat, I can't understand why anybody got upset about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl


LOL We are talking about *OIL VAPORS* not radioactive PARTICLES. 

You said you wanted to stick to facts, but you keep trying to switch to totally different subjects. 



> You've NEVER heard anyone say that chemicals can come down with rain?


Now you're *rewording *again. I asked you to SHOW a *QUOTE* since you claimed it had been said for years. 



> it could mean they NEVER had a clue how much oil was leaking and* NONE of the estimates are accurate*


I've said that since the first week of the spill



> I've noticed all through this thread that you've been using those rose-colored BP brand glasses to view everything.


And I notice you'd rather make snide comments than find opposing DATA.

Those studies didn't come from BP, and you'd know that if you'd bothered to read them



> You haven't shown ANY evidence to back up *you claim that the lowest estimates are the "most accurate*"


That's because you're making that one up. I never said any such thing.

You're beginning to sound a lot like Pyro


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lets see a *source *that states the boiling point of gasoline is that high


Heh, I guess it depends on what kind of gasoline it is and what the elevation is. This chart says gasoline boils between 100 to 400 * F.

And methane boils at minus 258.7 F, which I thought was interesting. 

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-boiling-point-d_936.html

.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Back to the OP. I know, into the ocean! Hic! Cheers!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can deny it as much as you like but the studies say you're wrong.
> 
> Lets see a *source *that states the boiling point of gasoline is that high


The crude unit produces three grades of gasoline stock; light, medium, and heavy naphtha. The reason they produce those different streams is that they are treated differently in clean-up (sulfur & nitrogen removal) and octane quality boosting. Having those fractions also provides blend flexibility.

Your question involves the boiling range of heavy naphtha, which is typically in the range of 400 to 450 F, depending on the refining strategy at the plant it's being processed at. The wiki puts the high boiling range of heavy naphtha at 200 C (392 F), but I know that to be low. That's probably dated information from before we did as much octane boosting as we do today.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Heh, I guess it depends on what kind of gasoline it is and what the elevation is. This chart says gasoline boils between 100 to 400 * F.
> 
> And methane boils at minus 258.7 F, which I thought was interesting.
> 
> ...


That's about right. Also remember that only about 20% of crude can vaporize at the high gasoline boiling point (around 400 F), even though 40 to 45% of crude oil will ultimately become gasoline. That's because less than half of the gasoline produced was found in the crude oil to begin with. More than half of the gasoline will come from the various cracking processes in the refinery, which existed in crude oil as materials at much higher boiling ranges, sometimes over 1000 F.

Raw gasoline that was found in crude oil is called "straight run" naphtha. Gasoline that was formed by cracking (splitting large molecules into smaller molecules) is called "crackate", or by specific names for the particular process that produced it (i.e., "heavy coker naphtha"). Again, more than half of the finished gasoline pool comes from crackate.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Heh, I guess it depends on what kind of gasoline it is and what the elevation is. This chart says *gasoline boils *between 100 to 400 * F.


LOL That's just one of Nevada's diversionary tactics, since the "boiling point" of gasoline has nothing at all to do with the VAPOR point, which determines EVAPORATION rates.

He's switched the topic to REFINING while trying to steer it away from evaporation and natural decomposition .



> Your question involves the boiling range of heavy naphtha, which is typically in the range of 400 to 450 F, depending on *the refining strategy *at the plant it's being processed at


He's sneaky like that. You have to pay close attention to his wording


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He's sneaky like that. You have to pay close attention to his wording


Fine, we'll go with 400 F. Even if 400 F boiling range material can evaporate at sea, that only removes about 20% of the crude.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

nevada you cant teach that pig to sing either . it squeals a lot but its made a choice to remain ignorant .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It is far more likely to be carried by wind though than rain and people have been sickened by VOC's already


The only reports I've heard of people showing ill effects have been from those ON THE WATER working in the middle of the spill.

Once the vapors have time to spread, the* concentrations* are no longer dangerous.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Fine, we'll go with 400 F. Even *if* 400 F boiling range *material can evaporate *at sea, that only removes about *20%* of the crude


There are no "ifs" involved. You KNOW it evaporates at normal temporatures, and the "boiling point" has no bearing at all


> 20%


It can lose that much in the first 24 hours

http://emergency.cdc.gov/gulfoilspill2010/light_crude_health_professionals.asp



> Light crude contains volatile organic compounds which evaporate. Thus, light crude oil *will lose up to 10 to 15% of its volume immediately*, *and up to 25% of its volume within 24 hours*


You can keep denying it and giving your OPINION on how much evaporates, but I'm more incliined to believe the published research 

http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/120/120BG.PDF


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The only reports I've heard of people showing ill effects have been from those ON THE WATER working in the middle of the spill.
> 
> Once the vapors have time to spread, the* concentrations* are no longer dangerous.


Nope it has been reprted by residents onshore too. The EPA is monitoring it and they say:

http://epa.gov/bpspill/air.html

EPA has observed odor-causing pollutants associated with oil on the shore in the gulf region at low levels. Some of these chemicals may cause short-lived effects like headache, eye, nose and throat irritation, or nausea. Some people may be able to smell several of these chemicals at levels well below those that would cause short-term health problems.

EPA is also conducting additional air monitoring for ozone and airborne particulate matter. The air monitoring conducted through July 28 has found levels of ozone and particulates ranging from the "good" to "unhealthy for sensitive groups" levels on EPA's Air Quality Index.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can keep denying it and giving your OPINION on how much evaporates, but I'm more incliined to believe the published research


That's nonsense. In 24 years of processing crude oil I've never seen VOCs over 3%. Someone is full of it.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's nonsense. In 24 years of processing crude oil I've never seen VOCs over 3%. Someone is full of it.


I had a feeling you would know more than the CDC and NOAA. Those 2 organizations should be disbanded and government should just email you for advice.ound:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> I had a feeling you would know more than the CDC and NOAA. Those 2 organizations should be disbanded and government should just email you for advice.ound:


I used to produce crude oil into open top tanks. The fact is that crude oil is pretty stable stuff.

Don't be too surprised at the government going against common knowledge. I remember the Coast Guard being upset that the Valdez captain lit a cigarette after the spill, fearing that he might ignite the crude. Anyone familiar with North Slope crude can tell you that you couldn't light that nasty black gack on fire with a blow torch.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> EPA has observed *odor-causing pollutants *associated with oil on the shore in the gulf region *at low levels*.





> CDC also put out a consumer fact sheet which says the following about the &#8220;smells&#8221;along the Gulf coast:
> 
> People may be able to smell the oil spill from the shore. The smell is similar towhat you can smell at a gas station. It comes from &#8220;Volatile OrganicCompounds&#8221; (VOCs) in the oil. *You can smell these VOCs at levels well below those that would make you sick* VOCs are also in the gas you burn in your car every day and can include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene andnaphthalene.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...rcentage+light+crude&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"Low levels" doesn't mean "harmful levels"
Theres nothing there saying anyone GOT sick onshore
It's just the standard "may cause" warning.

They have been testing air samples all along, and have issued no warnings or alerts.
It's all right there in the chart on the page you linked to


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That's nonsense. In 24 years of processing crude oil I've never seen VOCs over 3%. Someone is full of it


VOC's aren't the only things that evaporate.
Once again, should we believe YOU, or published research from the National Academy of Science?
I've known you to "embellish" things before.




> Oil is semi-volatile, which means that it can evaporate into the air and create a vapor thatunder some weather conditions stays near the surface - in the human breathing zone. A report from the *National Academy of Sciences* (NAS) estimated that: &#8220;Within a fewdays following a spill, light crude oils can lose up to 75 percent of their initial volumeand medium crudes up to 40 percent.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...rcentage+light+crude&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

They have no agendas, and you've *shown* nothing to support your claims

This shows 36% of this oil is thinner than kerosene, so it should easily evaporate:
http://discovery.kcpc.usyd.edu.au/9.2.1-short/9.2.1_CrudeOil.html



> *Someone* is full of it


On this ( in red) we are in total agreement. The "who" is the sticking point


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I used to produce crude oil into open top tanks.


Then you know oil in a tank doesn't evaporate at the same rate as oil in the water.



> Anyone familiar with North Slope crude can tell you that you couldn't light that nasty black gack on fire with a blow torch.


The Gulf spill is NOT "North Slope Crude", and the Valdez oil wasn't direct from the well

Apples and oranges


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Gulf spill is NOT "North Slope Crude", and the Valdez oil wasn't direct from the well
> 
> Apples and oranges


I didn't try to equate the two crudes. It was an example of how mistaken the government can be.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then you know oil in a tank doesn't evaporate at the same rate as oil in the water.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*North Slope North Slope crude oil has a specific gravity of 29.9 API at 60 | F | C While South Louisiana light crude oil has a specific gravity of 35.9Â° 
Anybody can see they're not even close. On the scale where most values are designed to fall between 10 and 70 API gravity degrees, 29.9 and 35.9 are obviously miles apart. * :smiley-laughing013:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It was an example of how mistaken the government can be


One (hearsay) example of one persons statement doesn't negate a TEAM of scientist's conclusions in a study

I think it's just more diversion myself. 
Heavy crude in cold water has nothing to do with this topic.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Low levels" doesn't mean "harmful levels"
> Theres nothing there saying anyone GOT sick onshore
> It's just the standard "may cause" warning.
> 
> ...


People have reported getting sick from it. http://socialequality.com/content/louisiana-residents-report-oil-spill-related-illnesses

The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals reported last week that there have been 109 incidents of health complaints related to chemical exposure from the oil spill. Seventy-four of the reports were from workers involved with the cleanup, and 35 were from among the general population, according to the health agency.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> North Slope North Slope crude oil has a specific gravity of 29.9 API at 60 | F | C While South Louisiana light crude oil has a specific gravity of 35.9Â°
> Anybody can see they're not even close. On the scale where most values are designed to fall between 10 and 70 API gravity degrees, 29.9 and 35.9 are obviously miles apart.


Same apples and oranges.
Funny little icons don't translate to pertinent data

I'm still waiting for your link to a well that produces both light and heavy crude at the same time


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I answered that one already Try to keep up
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And you're beginning to sound desperate.:cowboy:
You keep posting things which go against physics, chemistry, meteorology, and any other science which says something you disagree with. Oops, let's not forget math.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Same apples and oranges.
> Funny little icons don't translate to pertinent data
> 
> *Neither does "bending" scientific principles.*
> I'm still waiting for your link to a well that produces both light and heavy crude at the same time


That's because you didn't read(and comprehend) what I posted. Go back, read it again, and then come back if you still can't figure out what I posted. I'll try to type slower and use smaller words.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *People have reported *getting sick from it. http://socialequality.com/content/lo...ated-illnesses


I could walk into a Dr's office here and SAY I was sick from the oil spill, and someone would put those results online too
The vast majority had *direct exposure *to the fresh oil

This is just *hearsay* on a questionable source:



> Socialist Equality Party


Find some verified cases on a REAL media outlet and it might be credible


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I guess your "education" didn't teach you that vapors are composed of PARTICLES? Yes, oil vapor PARTICLES behave differently from other particles when they evaporate into the atmosphere, right?


A vapor is a *gas*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor



> A vapor (American spelling) or vapour (see spelling differences) is a substance in the* gas *phase





> Here's your quote(which you have NEVER proven true):
> They are no more likely to be correct than the lower estimates


LOL Thanks for proving you *made up* what you *claimed* I said.
I don't see the phrase "most accurate " in there at all. Do you?

This is what you REALLY said and the quotation marks are yours too:



> You haven't shown ANY evidence to back up you claim that the lowest estimates are the "most accurate"





> They are no more likely to be correct than the lower estimates


And there is no need to "prove" the obvious. If you can't understand probabilities I can't help you


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You keep posting things which go against physics, chemistry, meteorology, and any other science which says something you disagree with.


LOL I'm not the one claiming vapor is "particles".
You've posted 2 links in the entire thread, and neither of them proved what you said they did.



> And you're beginning to sound desperate.


If I were desperate, I'd resort to name calling and thinly veiled insults instead of just showing PROOF that can be verified.

But I don't need to do that


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A vapor is a *gas*


Sometimes. All vapors are gases, but not all gases are vapors.

A vapor is a gas phase substance that is normally a liquid or solid at ambient conditions. So, for example, steam is water vapor, since water is normally a liquid at ambient conditions and has undergone a phase change. Gaseous nitrogen, on the other hand, is not a vapor, since it is normally a gas at ambient conditions and has not undergone a phase change.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If I were desperate, I'd resort to name calling and thinly veiled insults instead of just showing PROOF that can be verified.


Why do you find it necessary to be so obtuse about this topic?


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I could walk into a Dr's office here and SAY I was sick from the oil spill, and someone would put those results online too
> The vast majority had *direct exposure *to the fresh oil
> 
> This is just *hearsay* on a questionable source:
> ...


So you are saying that you won't accept evidence from:

Dr. Michael Kotler, director of Plaquemines Medical Center 

The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals......

Well I would say this conversation is pointless then.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL I'm not the one claiming vapor is "particles".
> 
> *So, vapor is NOT particles? You better inform the entire field of science(especially physics and chemistry). They've been saying vapor is composed of particles for centuries.*
> You've posted 2 links in the entire thread, and neither of them proved what you said they did.
> ...


Or maybe you'd just try to claim things like "vapor is not composed of particles", and "substances which evaporate into the atmosphere don't exist any more".

"If you can't understand probabilities I can't help you"

*If you DO understand probabilities, then you should be able to SHOW how probabilities prove your claim that "the higher estimates are no more likely to be true than the lower ones"(which, BTW, doesn't prove that the lower estimates are more accurate).*
Just another of your claims that you haven't produced any DATA for.

"LOL We are talking about OIL VAPORS not radioactive PARTICLES."

* You get so many things wrong it's hard to catch them all at the same time.
I recommend you do some research into nuclear reactor explosions. MANY of the products released into the atmosphere are gas vapors. I realize you work under the philosophy of "out of sight, out of mind", but that won't work for convincing other people that you are telling the truth.*


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Patt said:


> So you are saying that you won't accept evidence from:
> 
> Dr. Michael Kotler, director of Plaquemines Medical Center
> 
> ...


Were ANY of those noted authorities able to say for certain these people were sick from the oil spill. I heard figures that 25,000 people were working on the spill and we know there are millions more living on the coast. Why are only a little over a hundred sick? I sure don't know, but I do know out of that many people, some will get sick from viruses or other things even without an oil spill. I also know full well that out of that many people, some will try to take advantage and get some money from BP.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

poppy said:


> Were ANY of those noted authorities able to say for certain these people were sick from the oil spill. I heard figures that 25,000 people were working on the spill and we know there are millions more living on the coast. Why are only a little over a hundred sick? I sure don't know, but I do know out of that many people, some will get sick from viruses or other things even without an oil spill. I also know full well that out of that many people, some will try to take advantage and get some money from BP.


So you are saying now that there is a conspiracy including Doctors, hospitals and the Louisiana Dept of Health and Hospitals to declare people ill from the oil spill just so they can get benefits from BP? Seriously? 

Not everybody will get sick for any number of reasons, those with certain illnesses like asthma would be more susceptible, the concentrations in the air will vary, all sorts of factors at work. Not everyone will go to the Doctor even if they are sick. BP told the workers it was not the dispersant making them sick it was food poisoning. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Just like there was after the Gulf War when soldiers started getting sick and after 9/11 when workers started getting sick.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Patt said:


> So you are saying now that there is a conspiracy including Doctors, hospitals and the Louisiana Dept of Health and Hospitals to declare people ill from the oil spill just so they can get benefits from BP? Seriously?
> 
> Not everybody will get sick for any number of reasons, those with certain illnesses like asthma would be more susceptible, the concentrations in the air will vary, all sorts of factors at work. Not everyone will go to the Doctor even if they are sick. BP told the workers it was not the dispersant making them sick it was food poisoning. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Just like there was after the Gulf War when soldiers started getting sick and after 9/11 when workers started getting sick.


Did I say there was a conspiracy? I know if you go to the doctor with random symptoms, they will usually blame the latest disease going around. I also know some people are paranoid. The road department used big tank truck to spray water on a gravel road by us because a family had a kid with asthma and they complained of the dust. Two of the kids got sick a couple days later and they blamed the county for spraying oil on the road. They raised a stink about it and the county had to have samples taken to prove they only sprayed water.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Sometimes. *All vapors are gases*


That's what I said... vapor is a gas, NOT a "particle'



> Why do you find it necessary to be so obtuse about this topic?


LOL Good one!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So you are saying that you won't accept evidence from:
> 
> Dr. Michael Kotler, director of Plaquemines Medical Center
> 
> ...


You didn't show any evidence. You showed HEARSAY. It's likely those actually on the water near the oil WERE affected by it, but I highly doubt anyone onshore really was, and there was no "evidence" offered to show the actual cause.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So you are saying now that there is a conspiracy including Doctors, hospitals and the Louisiana Dept of Health and Hospitals to *declare people ill from the oil spill *just so they can get benefits from BP? Seriously?


Where did they "declare" anyone "ill from the oil spill"?

It said people TOLD them it was from the oil
No conspiracy, just no clinical data shown to back what they said



> There is a lot of misinformation out there


Yes there is. That's why someone's blog isn't a reliable source, and hearsay isn't proof of anything


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

so now gases cant have a liquid or solid form?? 
come on BFF are you sure you have any idea what the difference between a particle and a molecule ?
Its like trying to explain 21st century tech to someone from the middle ages who is still convinced the world is flat


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's what I said A vapor is a gas, NOT a "particle'


That's not really correct either, since some vapors are condensing. For example, fog is a condensing vapor that is suspended water particles.

The physics of it is that if a particle is small enough it's mass to cross sectional area ratio becomes so tiny that the particle's terminal velocity is effectively zero. Therefore the particle can't fall. That's because cross sectional area of a sphere shrinks by a power of 2 while the volume (and therefore mass) shrinks by a power of 3.

Suspended vapor particles is the scourge of the refinery engineer, since it's responsible for entrainment in distillation columns. I spent a good part of my career studying that problem. There's just not a lot we can do about a certain amount of entrainment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You get so many things wrong it's hard to catch them all at the same time.
> I recommend you do some research into *nuclear reactor explosions*. MANY of the products released into the atmosphere are gas vapors. I realize you work under the philosophy of "out of sight, out of mind", *but that won't work for convincing other people that you are telling the trut*h.


You're trying to change the subject again. This isn't a nuclear incident. It's an *oil spill*

As for the "truth" I've provided sources to back up my statements. You keep saying it's "not true", but you haven't SHOWN anything that disproves any of it.



> you should be able to SHOW how probabilities prove your claim


Like I said, if you can't understand how both the high and low figures in an estimate have the SAME *probability* of being correct, no amount of "proof" will make you understand it



> Or maybe you'd just try to claim things like "vapor is not composed of particles",


In the context of THIS discussion, vapors are NOT particles
If someone starts a thread on Quantam Physics, then it would apply



> You get so many things wrong


Then why not show *your* data that proves it wrong instead of repeating yourself?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That's not really correct either, since some vapors are *condensing*. For example, *fog is a condensing vapor *that is suspended water particles.


Nope. Fog is LIQUID water droplets suspended in air.
It's* no longer *a "vapor". It's ALREADY condensed, usually around dust PARTICLES
But we all know that already. You'e just rambling now LOL

It doesn't exist in both states at the same time


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> so now gases cant have a liquid or solid form??


Did anyone say that?


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Lemme see if I can summarize your arguments so far:
SOME estimates are lower than others, so you pick the ones you agree with and ignore the rest.
SOME of the oil can evaporate, so you talk about that oil and ignore the rest.
SOME substances evaporate into the atmosphere, so you talk about that, but ignore the ones that come back down with the rain.
SOME of the products of a nuclear reactor explosion are not vapors, so you talk about those and ignore the rest.
SOME of the people living and working around the Gulf haven't gotten sick, so you talk about them and ignore the rest.
SOME of the oil which pollutes the Gulf has been recovered, so you talk about that and ignore the rest.

I'm beginning to see a pattern there.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nope. Fog is LIQUID water droplets suspended in air.
> 
> *Would you call a DROPLET a particle or something else? Is there a name for these "non-particles" which are droplets?*
> 
> ...


Would you call molecules "particles" or something else? Maybe waves? At the molecular level, they are usually referred to as particles, but I'm sure you'd call that wrong, too, if it didn't agree with your favorite "ideas".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Would you call a DROPLET a particle or something else? Is there a name for these "non-particles" which are droplets?


A droplet is NOT "vapor"


> Would you call molecules "particles" or something else?


In THIS *context*, vapor is NOT a "particle" no matter how you try to spin things
In the context of Quantam Physics, eveything material is "particles" 



> I'm beginning to see a pattern there.


I see a pattern too. You ramble a lot but don't provide any *real information *at all.
Lots of spin with little substance


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A droplet is NOT "vapor"
> 
> *You're not a lawyer, are you? You seem to really enjoy splitting hairs and discussing everything but the subject.*
> 
> ...


*Interesting claim coming from somebody who follows the Ostrich Plan. There's some DATA for you to plug into your "calculations".*
:cowboy:


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You didn't show any evidence. You showed HEARSAY. It's likely those actually on the water near the oil WERE affected by it, but I highly doubt anyone onshore really was, and there was no "evidence" offered to show the actual cause.


Official reports made by official State Health Departments are not hearsay. They are facts.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

FourDeuce said:


> Lemme see if I can summarize your arguments so far:
> SOME estimates are lower than others, so you pick the ones you agree with and ignore the rest.
> SOME of the oil can evaporate, so you talk about that oil and ignore the rest.
> SOME substances evaporate into the atmosphere, so you talk about that, but ignore the ones that come back down with the rain.
> ...


:thumb:


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/news.asp?ID=378&Detail=1669

Louisiana DHH Releases Oil Spill-Related Exposure Information



334 Exposure-Related Cases; Officials Continue to Monitor Health Impacts

BATON ROUGE - Three hundred and thirty-four oil spill exposure-related cases have been reported to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) since April 18, 2010, according to its ninth surveillance report released today. Two hundred and fifty of those cases involved workers on oil rigs or workers involved in the oil spill clean-up efforts, while 84 were reported by the general public.

The Department is gathering data reported through its surveillance network of doctors, clinics, emergency care locations and medical facilities, which are reporting illnesses and injuries related to the oil spill for inclusion in its database. Each exposure-related complaint is followed up on by DHH Office of Public Health staff.

This week's report also includes updated summaries of air surveillance data generated by state and federal agencies, including the EPA, the Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health, a private company working with BP and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 

Breakdown of Cases by Category:

Of the workers who reported illnesses, 221 were male, 29 were female. Of the general public, 32 were male, while 52 were female. Most of the individuals who reported illnesses were between the ages of 18 and 64.

Most workers and members of the general public either utilized an emergency room, hospital, an urgent care center, clinic or physician's office. Ninety-three individuals called the Louisiana Poison Center's hotline. Seventeen individuals with mild symptoms had short hospitalizations.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Official reports made by official State Health Departments are not hearsay


Your first source had no "official reports"

The second source is STILL going by what people TOLD them
For it to PROVE it's oil related, there would have to be studies done to see if complaints were higher then normal foor this time of year.



> 84 were reported by the general public


That's hardly enough to suspect it's from the oil, when *millions* would have been exposed at the same levels

The symptoms would be the same as most allergies, and folks could be ASSUMING it's from the oil
In the end, it's still based on what people TOLD tehm when they walked into the Dr's office

It's like last year when everyone who had a runny nose was diagnosed with "swine flu" , even though they weren't actually TESTED for it


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You're not a lawyer, are you? You seem to really enjoy splitting hairs and discussing everything but the subject.


Words have meanings that aren't interchangeable.
I've discussed the oil spill the entire time.
You've talked about volcanoes, acid rain, nuclear explosions...etc



> At the *molecular level*, they are usually referred to as particles


That's your attempt to divert the actual subject once again.

You devote too much energy to what *you* think are witty comments games, and too little to emperical data



> Interesting claim coming from somebody who follows the Ostrich Plan. *There's some DATA *for you to plug into your "calculations".


LOL You haven't posted any *data *since your link that *didn't* prove the "two types of oil from one well" theory


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your first source had no "official reports"
> 
> The second source is STILL going by what people TOLD them
> For it to PROVE it's oil related, there would have to be studies done to see if complaints were higher then normal foor this time of year.
> ...


Considering the length of time we've been working with petroleum, you don't think we already know its toxic effects?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Considering the length of time we've been working with petroleum, you don't think we already* know its toxic effects*?


I'm sure they do

I also know this "report" is not based on any *testing to confirm *the cause of the symptoms, but only on what the patients SAID was the cause.

Some of the so called "cases" reported it over the PHONE



> Ninety-three individuals *called* the Louisiana Poison Center's hotline


If there was enough "oil" in the air to cause effects, it's logical to assume it would affect MORE people
than 84


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your first source had no "official reports"
> 
> The second source is STILL going by what people TOLD them
> For it to PROVE it's oil related, there would have to be studies done to see if complaints were higher then normal foor this time of year.
> ...


It is a perfectly valid source and you choose to ignore because you have already decided what you believe and you have no interest in the truth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It is a perfectly valid source


It's a "valid source" that's based the conclusions on *patient reported* infomation

I have a lot of interest in the *truth*, but that report doesn't show any big problems with people not in DIRECT contact with the oil

The truth is EPA air quality data doesn't show enough pollution to cause these symptoms, as SHOWN on one of the links YOU posted

I'm not "ignoring" it, but I don't see it as being an indication of severe pollution problems


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...environmental-disaster-Gulf-Mexico-hyped.html



> 'I have no interest in making BP look good - I think they lied about the size of the spill - but we&#8217;re not seeing catastrophic impacts. There&#8217;s a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it.&#8217;
> 
> Geochemist Jacqueline Michel added: &#8216;The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared.&#8217;


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Patt said:


> It is a perfectly valid source and you choose to ignore because you have already decided what you believe and you have no interest in the truth.


You post a link to the Socialist Equity Party and call it a valid source? Look at their web site and see their plain agenda.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

poppy said:


> You post a link to the Socialist Equity Party and call it a valid source? Look at their web site and see their plain agenda.


I posted a link to the actual report on the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals website. I think it is safe to say they do not have an agenda.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

there are none so blind as those who refuse to see .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I posted a link to the actual report on the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals website. I think it is safe to say they do not have an agenda


No, they don't have an agenda.
But their report is NOT conclusive.

It's merely one step in determining the actual CAUSE of the illnesses, and it's too early to know if the *onshore* illnesses are related to the oil at all



> CDC, with state and local health departments, is conducting surveillance across the four Gulf States for health effects possibly related to the oil spill using national and state-based surveillance systems. These surveillance systems are being used to track symptoms related to the eyes, skin, and respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and neurological systems, including worsening of asthma, cough, chest pain, eye irritation, nausea, and headache. If the surveillance systems *identify groups of people with these symptoms*, state and local public health officials will be able to follow up as needed to *investigate whether there is an association between the symptoms and the oil spill*. This follow-up is important because the same symptoms *could be related to a cause unrelated to the oil spill*.


http://www.bt.cdc.gov/gulfoilspill2010/2010gulfoilspill/health_surveillance.asp


No one is saying your information is "false", but that it is incomplete


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Considering the length of time we've been working with petroleum, you don't think we already know its toxic effects?


What toxic effects? Don't you understand? If we ignore them, there ARE no toxic effects.:hammer: Just like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. If we can waste time talking about whether any vapors were released or not, we'll never get around to whether they contaminated large stretches of land.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"'I have no interest in making BP look good - I think they lied about the size of the spill"

*Me too.* :thumb:

"- but weâre not seeing catastrophic impacts."

*Well, that's good. As long as we are "not seeing" any catastrophic impacts, that surely means there aren't any(and won't be any in the future). That's how reality works. If you bury your head in the sand, stick your fingers in your ears and say "Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal", then there are a lot of things we won't have to see and hear. I still haven't found any oil here in the Ozarks, so I guess that means there is no problem in the Gulf.
Is everybody admiring the Emperor's new suit?*

"Thereâs a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it.â 
Geochemist Jacqueline Michel added: âThe impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared.â "

*Did she show her permission card where she was authorized to speak for everyone? I insist that she show that before I accept her authority to speak for everyone.*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If you *bury your head in the sand, stick your fingers in your ears *and say "Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalal", then there are a lot of things we won't have to see and hear


That's what you're doing by ignoring real data and substituting derision.
I won't bother to respond to it anymore since it's obvious some can't have an* adult *conversation. Ramble on


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Saw on the news that the EPA said there wasn't any problems with the dispersant. If there was a problem you would think they would be in the front of the line complaining.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

That's funny. The news I saw said the chemical dispersant that BP sprayed on the oil was "no *more *dangerous than the oil". Sounds good until you think about what was said(and what was NOT said). They didn't say the dispersant wasn't dangerous. They didn't say it was any less dangerous than the oil.
People who engage in Doublespeak(like Bill Clinton and Michael Moore tried to do) often count on the fact that most people aren't really paying attention. 
To use an analogy to the news story, I could say "Getting shot with a second bullet is no more dangerous than getting shot with one bullet." and I wouldn't be technically lying.
I'm reminded of the way PT Barnum got people to keep moving through his circus tent. At the end of the line of exhibits was a sign over a door. It said, "This way to the Egress." People always wanted to see the "Egress", so they went through the door and saw the Egress.:lookout:

"If there was a problem you would think they would be in the front of the line complaining."

Maybe if it wasn't for the fact that the EPA is letting BP do some of the "monitoring" for problems. Sure the foxes can guard the henhouse, especially after they've done such a good job taking care of it already.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

pancho said:


> Saw on the news that the EPA said there wasn't any problems with the dispersant. If there was a problem you would think they would be in the front of the line complaining.


Of course they would. The last thing Obama wants is to be hung out to dry because his administration covered up health problems. The doomers can't live without some conspiracy to hang their hat on. The dispersant Corexit is nothing more than a detergent. There is a lot of ignorant hupe going on. Here's a site with detergent ingredients.

http://www.diaperjungle.com/detergent-ingredients-glossary.html

How many of those chemicals do you think can be harmful? We know some people are allergic to some of them. Are the doomers screaming for detergent to be banned or are they merrily washing their clothes and dishes in them?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

FourDeuce said:


> The news I saw said the chemical dispersant that BP sprayed on the oil was "no *more *dangerous than the oil".


The statement just doesn't make sense. Oil and dispersant are very different substances that create very different problems. On thing is for sure, adding dispersant to oil creates certain problems that oil alone won't have.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Nevada said:


> The statement just doesn't make sense. Oil and dispersant are very different substances that create very different problems. On thing is for sure, adding dispersant to oil creates certain problems that oil alone won't have.


It makes sense to advertisers. If you listen carefully, you hear advertisers make claims like that all the time.
"No other product has been shown to work better than OURS!"

Of course, that doesn't mean their product works any better than any other product either, but they wouldn't sell much if they advertised by saying "OUR product works just as well as everybody else's.":buds:
The whole idea behind "truth in advertising" is to be as creative as possible with the truth and bend it as much as you can without actually lying.
You don't have to fool all of the people all of the time.:banana02:

So, the EPA/BP claim that the dispersant is no *more* dangerous than the oil may be technically true even though the combination can be twice as dangerous as the oil alone. Charles Durning singing "I Love to Dance a Little Sidestep" keeps running through my head when I hear claims like that.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I won't bother to respond to it anymore since it's obvious some can't have an* adult *conversation. Ramble on


They sure cant with someone like yourself who denies simple laws of chemistry and physics , volitile vapors dont condensate , oil present no health hazards and 15 million CF of methane takes the same volume at over 6000 psi as it does at sea level . 
Obvious no one can have an intelligent adult conversation with you or even an adolescent conversation until you complete a fourth grade science class .
At first I thought you were simply posting foolish statements trolling but the really sad thing is you actually dont have a clue and think you know what your talking about . 
The spill doesnt deal much with opinion but with proven science, mathematical facts . I also fully understand you have no use for facts or the truth when it differ's from your opinion


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

PyroDon said:


> They sure cant with someone like yourself who denies simple laws of chemistry and physics , volitile vapors dont condensate , oil present no health hazards and 15 million CF of methane takes the same volume at over 6000 psi as it does at sea level .
> Obvious no one can have an intelligent adult conversation with you or even an adolescent conversation until you complete a fourth grade science class .
> At first I thought you were simply posting foolish statements trolling but the really sad thing is you actually dont have a clue and think you know what your talking about .
> The spill doesnt deal much with opinion but with proven science, mathematical facts . I also fully understand you have no use for facts or the truth when it differ's from your opinion


Rubbish. You have posted nothing of substance and when BFF posts actual portions of texts you guys use a proof, you pretend you don't see them. You are only posting YOUR opinions. Did a few people get sick because of working in the oil spill? Possible, but there is zero proof. What do you want to bet some of these workers have lit a smoke or put a wad of snuff in their mouths with contaminated hands? Don't say it didn't happen. I have seen good garmers do it with insecticides or herbicides on their hands. The fact is, you don't know the truth and neither does anyone else.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"when BFF posts actual portions of texts you guys use a proof, you pretend you don't see them."

When he posts texts which only address half the problem and ignores the rest, what do you recommend doing? Forget about the half he ignored? I'm sure he'd like that, but solving half a problem doesn't make the other half disappear, no matter how much you wish it did.:grumble:

"The fact is, you don't know the truth and neither does anyone else."

Including bff?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Rubbish. You have posted nothing of substance and when BFF posts actual portions of texts you guys use a proof, you pretend you don't see them. You are only posting YOUR opinions.


Look, there's no mystery about dispersant. It's an industrial detergent designed to do what we all use dish washing detergent for. They drop detergent onto oil from aircraft, in the hope that an emulsion will result. That emulsion allows the oil to mix with water instead of floating on the surface as a separate phase. People in the oil industry call a dispersant treatment 'sinking the oil', because the purpose of the treatment is to get the oil out of sight. It's good because it can prevent oil from beaching, but it introduces a toxic brew into the water.

So what is detergent, and is it bad for sea life?

Detergent is an oil that has been treated with both lye (as in the making of soap) and also is treated with sulfuric acid. If you ever wondered about "pH balanced" shampoos; then now you know that they are detergents instead of soap. Most of us are pretty familiar with working with strong detergents, since we use them on our clothes and dishes on a daily basis.

So how about sea life? Without question, detergent adds more oil to the problem, and the resulting emulsion comes with its own problems. Quite frankly I'm not sure of the consequences. But how much dish washing detergent do you think would be safe to add to your home aquarium? I'm guessing that most people with home aquariums would hesitate to add even a single drop. After all, I don't want detergent in my eyes, so I suspect that fish might feel the same way about it.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Nevada said:


> So how about sea life? Without question, detergent adds more oil to the problem, and the resulting emulsion comes with its own problems. Quite frankly I'm not sure of the consequences. But how much dish washing detergent do you think would be safe to add to your home aquarium? I'm guessing that most people with home aquariums would hesitate to add even a single drop.


Good point.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They sure cant with someone like yourself who denies simple laws of chemistry and physics


LOL What have YOU added to this thread?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The statement just doesn't make sense. Oil and dispersant are very different substances that create very different problems


Their point is the surfactants aren't any worse than the oil alone, and it broke up the oil so it would both dissipate faster, and NOT reach the beaches and marshland


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So how about sea life





> The oil in the water is light and degradable, the Gulf of Mexico is warm, which helps to break it down, and although rescue teams have collected nearly 3,000 dead birds, fewer than half had oil covering them and some may have died from eating oil contaminated food.
> 
> Only three oiled carcasses of mammals such as dolphins have been pulled from the water.
> 
> ...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...environmental-disaster-Gulf-Mexico-hyped.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm guessing that most people with home aquariums would hesitate to add even a single drop.


The Gulf isn't an aquarium. Why make unrealistic analogies?

Yes, they could have just let the oil go on the beaches were it would do a lot more harm, but instead they did the best thing *under the circumstances*


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

well i knew he couldnt keep his word 
especially about it being his last post on the subject .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> well i knew he couldnt keep his word
> especially about it being his* last post on the subject *


LOL Still *fabricating* things I said



> 15 million CF of methane takes the same volume at over* 6000 psi *as it does at sea level


And fabricating numbers too


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

poppy said:


> Rubbish. You have posted nothing of substance and when BFF posts actual portions of texts you guys use a proof, you pretend you don't see them. You are only posting YOUR opinions. Did a few people get sick because of working in the oil spill? Possible, but there is zero proof. What do you want to bet some of these workers have lit a smoke or put a wad of snuff in their mouths with contaminated hands? Don't say it didn't happen. I have seen good garmers do it with insecticides or herbicides on their hands. The fact is, you don't know the truth and neither does anyone else.


Your right I havent posted any links because I know BFFs game Ive seen it before . edit out anything that doesnt support his claim and ignore any documentation that proves him wrong . Many others have supplied the links and as usual the MO hasnt changed one bit.
He did the same thing on WMDs and AQ reaining camps even after bush said none were ever found , he ignored the NSA reports , the CIA, and every other intel report in favor of a single report written in 1997. the pattern is typical as well as the laxk of any real knowledge other than the talking points bulletin, 
He might know how to milk a goat but he sure doesnt know basic science as has been shown by his posts .


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Their point is the surfactants aren't any worse than the oil alone


I suspect that industrial surfactants are far more toxic than crude oil. Crude oil is a mess, but not particularly toxic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Your right *I havent posted any links* because I know BFFs game Ive seen it before . *edit out *anything that doesnt support his claim and ignore any documentation that proves him wrong


LOL If I post a LINK, how can I "edit out" anything ?

If YOU post a LINK, how can I "edit out" anything ?

I don't have to make up claims and numbers, I don't need to call names, and I've never tried to rename features on a map to cover my errors. I don't have to lie about what others have said

I just stick to the *topic* and post sources to back up what I say. 

If you'd try that, you might gain some credibility


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I suspect that industrial surfactants are far more toxic than crude oil. *Crude oil *is a mess, but *not particularly toxic*.


LOL Careful or you're going to get dizzy from all that SPIN


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Today government says 75% of spilled oil is gone. Burned, skimmed, broken down by nature, it is gone. Could some of you experts tell me why this can't be true? Feel free to post links to " OMG, The Oil Spill is the End of the World.com " if you need to.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

""Great. What about the REST of the oil, since not ALL of the oil leaking is light crude oil. Can we just ignore everything else and have it go away? ""

Just what solution do you suggest to go find it at the bottom of the Gulf? Maybe the human waste and raw garbage dumped into the Gulf by the surrounding communities will combine with it and render it harmless, or even increase it's toxicity. Why worry about shrimp when 16 lbs of "by catch" are sacrificed for each lb of shrimp gotten from the trawl? Fact is we buy the petro products to run our F-350's and Prius's. There are certain risks that come with the territory. Not to worry though, our government who is expert in all matters of business, will fix it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that industrial surfactants are far more toxic than crude oil. *Crude oil *is a mess, but *not particularly toxic*.
> ...


That's not to say that crude oil can't kill sea life though. It can seal the water surface, preventing oxygen exchange. I suspect that it can clog fish gills, and can certainly entrap fish & birds. If sea life ingests enough crude oil it can also probably kill.

But to compare crude oil, which is really just heavy mineral oil, to the toxicity of detergent is just not true. I'm sure that detergent can make fish go belly-up a lot faster than crude oil can.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Here is some more information some of you will try to deny:

http://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spi...-still-planned-as-permanent-solution/19580325



> The government, meanwhile, announced today it believes that only about a quarter of the oil that gushed from BP's blown-out well since April still remains in the gulf or on its shores, and that it's so diluted that it doesn't pose a serious threat.
> 
> "It was captured. It was skimmed. It was burned. It was contained. Mother Nature did her part," White House energy adviser Carol Browner told NBC's "Today" show. Her comments are based on a government assessment first reported by The New York Times that shows only three-quarters of the oil has already disappeared. "We've turned an important corner here for people in the Gulf."


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The government, meanwhile, announced today it believes that only about a quarter of the oil that gushed from BP's blown-out well since April still remains in the gulfhttp://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spi...-still-planned-as-permanent-solution/19580325


I don't know how they can say that with any confidence.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But to compare crude oil, which is really just heavy mineral oil, to the toxicity of detergent is just not true. I'm sure that detergent can make fish go belly-up a lot faster than crude oil can


All the studies done so far say you are wrong. If what you claim is true, it seems you could find some proof of it. I notice you're also one who rarely backs your opinions with empirical data
Add to that the fact that in a few more weeks there won't be anything left of it, and your arguments are moot.

Many are going to have to eventually face the fact that this was NOT the killer "doomsday" catastrophe it was* hyped *up to be


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

More GOOD news:



> Andrea Watkins: Andrea Watkins from FOX 26 News here in Houston. *What areas have been reopened to fishing, and how is the FDA making certain that the fish is actually safe for consumption,* because we understand that even the fishermen in the area are concerned that the smell test is not enough.
> 
> Admiral Allen: Well let me give you a general overview and then we'll provide the actual diagram. I didn't bring that with me this morning. But *we recently opened almost 25,000 square miles* on the eastern side &#8211; southeastern side of the closed area to fishing, and that was approximately a week, week-and-a-half ago. And we are continuing to aggressively take a look.
> 
> ...


http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/842579/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Great. What about the REST of the oil, since *not ALL of the oil leaking is light crude oil*


Where's the proof of that? Evey soruce I've see says it's the same type of oil

Duece tried to use that one too, but his source didn't confirm it and he stopped trying.
Maybe you can find a source ?



> Can we just ignore everything else and have it go away? ""


Yes. It's called "biodegradation" 

In a few months most of what's left will be GONE, unless of course someone can SHOW something to prove otherwise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't know how they can say that with any confidence.


You didn't doubt their credibility every time they *raised* the spill estimates
You were POSITIVE they were correct then

They have hundreds if not thousands of boats in the water LOOKING for oil, and NOT finding it, so I'd say the confidence factor would be pretty high


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More GOOD news:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/842579/


I'll reserve judgment on the article until our resident experts tell us why it is a load of carp. Shouldn't be long. By the way, I noted the article says one of the tests they do on the fish is a sensory test. Have our resident experts ever had their senses tested?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'll reserve judgment on the article until our resident experts tell us why it is a load of carp.


It's got to be true because Nevada just told us the "oil isn't really that toxic " anyway.

I guess they got excited over nothing


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Interesting how today this comes to light, when just within the past few days that Carp and Trade bill under a different name was passed. Now it doesn't matter if the truth is the spill wasn't as bad as it was manipulated to be, or if it was...the administation stood firm next to their saying, "Don't let a good crisis go to waste," spun those number til everyone was dizzy, and gained another step of complete control. Truth can come out now, one way or the other, since it doesn't matter anymore. Now it is just an inconvenient fact rather than dire end of the world emergency. And yes, I believe significant amounts were lost, and yes I believe animals died from it...I am just not as likely to believe it to be as bad as initially thought because of the quiet and dirty underhanded double dealings to get another bill past without anyone knowing it. This admin is as slick as any oil spill ever reported, that is for sure.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

Ahh I see BFF is using the same logic that was used to justify the iraq war repeat false data often enough and maybe some one will believe it as fact . If not just keep repeating it and claim it is fact .
when proven wrong repeat and continue to claim as fact .

wow Im glad he made his last post on this subject yesterday


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

PyroDon said:


> Ahh I see BFF is using the same logic that was used to justify the iraq war repeat false data often enough and maybe some one will believe it as fact . If not just keep repeating it and claim it is fact .
> when proven wrong repeat and continue to claim as fact .
> 
> wow Im glad he made his last post on this subject yesterday


As usual, you give no facts. Can you show the government is not checking fish and finding them okay before they open more of the gulf to fishing? You admit you post no links, which is admitting you operate on the theory that your opinion is correct and anything that differs with your opinion is false. Are you related to Obama?


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Duece tried to use that one too, but his source didn't confirm it and he stopped trying."

That's because he realized it was another of many red herrings and wasn't even worth the trouble. Some people prefer to use smoke and mirrors to keep conversations going around in circles about unimportant points rather than coming up with facts about the subject. :baby04:

"They have hundreds if not thousands of boats in the water LOOKING for oil, and NOT finding it, so I'd say the confidence factor would be pretty high"

Yeah, a bunch of boats sitting on TOP of a mile of water have to find oil if there is any at any depth.
Everybody "knows" if there's any oil in the water, it will all be sitting pretty right on the surface for everybody to see. If you can't see it, it must be gone. How can anybody argue with "facts" like that?


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More GOOD news:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/842579/


And of course we all believe anything certified safe by the FDA must really be safe right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And of course we all believe anything certified safe by the FDA must really be safe right?


You wanted us to believe YOUR Govt sources
Why is this one different now?

I already said some of you would try to deny it. You're just proving my points for me again


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Because the FDA has a long track record of letting things go without proper research and they wind up making people sick or it even kills them. The Federal gov't has every reason to wrap this up and say see look it wasn't that bad. The sources I cited were a State medical group and a Hospital. Also independent scientists are finding problems with the seafood.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Because the FDA has a long track record of letting things go without proper research and they wind up making people sick or it even kills them. The Federal gov't has every reason to wrap this up and say see look it wasn't that bad. The sources I cited were a State medical group and a Hospital. Also independent scientists are finding problems with the seafood.


LOL More denial. Actually the Govt has every reason to make it appear WORSE, so as to get more money from BP

I'm sure there will be reports by "independent scientists" that say all sorts of things.
That is what the reporters look for when they need a good headline.

I read "reports" from "independent scientists" that said the well was going to collapse into a hole and flood the entire Gulf with oil for years

Reality is they are taking water samples at the surface *AND at various depths*, and they are NOT finding oil in concentrations enough to be considered harmful.

You can believe it or not. I don't really care. Reality isn't dependent on your belief


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Here are some details on how they are collecting *DATA from all depths*

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7090804.html



> They have found *no monster plumes of oil *extending dozens or hundreds of miles, as had been feared.
> 
> *"I'm not aware of a single sample that shows we found oil underwater*," acoustics specialist Lt. Sam Greenaway said.





> The Thomas Jefferson won't map the full extent of underwater oil by itself, Smith said.
> 
> "We'll be looking at a piece of the puzzle; other research ships will be looking at other parts," he said, "But taken together, all of these observations can help the scientific community understand and estimate the nature and extent of any* subsurface oil*."
> 
> ...


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/01/95170/noaa-research-ship-to-search-gulf.html


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Through a chemical fingerprinting process, University of South Florida researchers have definitively linked clouds of underwater oil in the northern Gulf of Mexico to BP's runaway Deepwater Horizon well â the first direct scientific link between the subsurface oil clouds commonly known as "plumes" and the BP oil spill, USF officials said Friday.

Until now, scientists had circumstantial evidence, but lacked that definitive scientific link.

The announcement came on the same day that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that its researchers have confirmed the existence of the subsea plumes at depths of 3,300 to 4,300 feet below the surface of the Gulf. NOAA said its detection equipment also implicated the BP well in the plumes' creation"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100724/sc_mcclatchy/3575927
Boy, that was tough to find. I had to type in oil plumes and do a search. Sometimes it's just too easy.:hobbyhors

""I'm not aware of a single sample that shows we found oil underwater," acoustics specialist Lt. Sam Greenaway said."

Well, as long as HE is not aware of them, they don't exist(and he didn't technically lie). Of course, uninformed people will quote his statement as proof that there ARE no plumes of oil underwater.:umno:

"Actually the Govt has every reason to make it appear WORSE, so as to get more money from BP"

Yeah, that's why they let BP do the monitoring. :huh:


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL More denial. Actually the Govt has every reason to make it appear WORSE, so as to get more money from BP


Obama got reamed out for his handling of the whole situation, maybe in your selective News reading you ran across a few of those articles? He has every possible reason to want it to be not so bad really. Then he can say look I acted calmly and cooly and it all just went away, end of story.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/3575927



> According to the report, which was reviewed by 19 scientists known as the Joint Analysis Group , data collected by five research ships deployed in the Gulf from *May 19 to June 19 *showed oil suspended in the water between 1,000 and 1,300 meters &#8212; about 3,280 feet to 4,265 feet.





> The NOAA scientists detected the oil by measuring its fluorescence &#8212; many of the *droplets are too small to detect otherwise *&#8212; and said that that measurement linked it to the BP well.


The most concentrated "plumes" were 1 part per MILLION
Oil is toxic at 11 PPM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060801850.html



> In Washington, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco announced that the agency's Weatherbird II research vessel has found subsurface oil at three sites, but in low *concentrations of less than 0.5 parts per million*.



And that was a month ago, so those MICROSCOPIC droplets would have been consumed by bacteria by now




> Yeah, that's why they let* BP *do the monitoring.





> Through a chemical fingerprinting process, *University of South Florida researchers *have definitively linked clouds of underwater oil in the northern Gulf of Mexico to BP's runaway Deepwater Horizon





> *National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration *announced that its researchers have confirmed the existence of the subsea plumes at depths of 3,300 to 4,300 feet below the surface of the Gulf.





> According to the report, which was *reviewed by 19 scientists known as the Joint Analysis Group* , data collected by five research ships deployed in the Gulf from May 19 to June 19 showed oil suspended in the water between 1,000 and 1,300 meters



LOL YOUR source shows BP had *nothing* to do with the research.
It also shows you'll say anything to "prove" your version of reality, even when YOUR sources say something totally different



> Sometimes it's just too easy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

The latest report doesn't look like good news.

[ame]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38565781#38565781[/ame]

Here is where they say the oil is.



33% Recovered, Burned, or Dispersed
25% Evaporated or dissolved
16% Broke down naturally into microscopic droplets
26% On or just below the surface, on shore, or collected on shore.

In the first category (33%) it was either recovered, burned, or dispersed. The dispersed oil is still in the gulf, it's just that we can't see it. While they didn't say how much of the 33% was dispersed, we can't really discount the presence of that material.

The next category (25%) is oil that either evaporated or dissolved. That's believable. One poster in this forum was claiming that 25% evaporated, but that figure seemed unreasonably high to me. When the dissolved oil is included I can accept that number. But the dissolved oil is still in the Gulf.

16% broke down naturally into microscopic droplets. Clearly, all of that oil is still in the gulf.

Finally, 26% is just below the surface, on shore, or was recovered on shore. It's too bad they didn't give more detail with a breakdown estimate, since we have no idea how much is still in the Gulf below the surface.

The problem is that the majority of spilled oil is still in the Gulf in one form or another. The fact that it's out of sight does not mean that there isn't a toxic brew out there. The consequences are anyone's guess.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"LOL YOUR source shows BP had nothing to do with the research."

Guess you're so busy imagining people say things they don't say that you don't have time to read what they actually say.:hand:
And "my source" also shows there is plenty of evidence of oil plumes extending out from the well, too, in spite of "your source" which claimed he "wasn't aware" of any oil plumes. Of course, I realize he never said there were none. Gotta keep the weasel room in there. Bill Clinton loved that "I am not aware" claim, since it's not technically a lie unless somebody can prove he was aware of the truth. Dishonest people like that sort of statement, since they can come back later(when they are shown to be wrong) and point out that they didn't deny the truth. They just weren't "aware" of the truth. Maybe your source should have done an internet search so he could have been aware of the truth instead of burying his head in the sand, too.:banana02:

"The most concentrated "plumes" were 1 part per MILLION"

*Well at least you're not trying to deny there ARE any plumes any more.* 

Oil is toxic at 11 PPM

Water is toxic at high concentrations, too. Like many other chemicals, they can also be dangerous at concentrations which aren't considered toxic. Maybe they should talk about other "more dangerous" chemicals. That would help take the heat off of them, like the "dispersant is no more dangerous than the oil" propaganda.

"It also shows you'll say anything to "prove" your version of reality, even when YOUR sources say something totally different"

Maybe it just shows that your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The fact that it's out of sight does not mean that there isn't *a toxic brew *out there


But you said it's "basically mineral oil", and not particularly toxic"
Make up your mind



> But to compare crude oil, which is really just heavy mineral oil, to the toxicity of detergent is just not true.





> Crude oil is a mess, but not particularly toxic




Instead of using MSNBC, let's look at the *ACTUAL REPORT*, which goes into DETAIL about *what the terms mean*

Then you'll find that "dissolved" and "dispersed" mean the droplets are so small and the concentrations so low that they are *no longer considered harmful*, and will quickly


> biodegrade


.

http://www.wkrg.com/document/pdf/08-04-2010_noaaoil


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> "LOL YOUR source shows BP had nothing to do with the research."
> 
> Guess you're so busy *imagining people say things *they don't say that you don't have time to read *what they actually say*.


Did *someone else *type this in your post?:

*Yeah, that's why they let BP do the monitoring*



> Maybe it just shows that your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.


You're still devoting too much time to the *lame little insults*, and not enough time to paying attention to what YOUR *sources* really say.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> biodegrade


That may or may not be a good thing. Here is a statement from the Corexit wiki, which is the dispersant being used by BP. 

******
None of the eight products tested are "without toxicity", according to an EPA administrator, and *the ecological effect of mixing the dispersants with oil is unknown, as is the toxicity of the breakdown products of the dispersant*.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit#cite_note-CNNBreakup-21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did *someone else *type this in your post?:
> 
> *No, they didn't. I'm wondering when and where anybody claimed what you were arguing about:*
> "LOL YOUR source shows BP had nothing to do with the research."
> ...


And you're STILL devoting all your time to tossing out red herrings and smoke and mirrors trying to keep attention distracted from the real issues. Just keep ignoring any facts which don't agree with your preconceived notions, and I'm sure you'll be able to fool some of the people some of the time. Hey, that's enough for Bill Clinton and Michael Moore.:smiley-laughing013:


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Hello...why is no one even acknowledging the sneaky back door Cap and Trade Bill that was passed under the guise of this disaster? Is it possible people don't know...even the radio shows I listen to on my way to and from work haven't said as much as a peep. Why can't we add two and two and get that this was a foot in the door for the original agenda? And now that the bill has passed, unbeknownst to the vast majority of people (and with devastating taxes to the average joe, go figure, huh?) all of a sudden...we can't find the oil leavings. Give me my tinfoil hat, cause this REEKS of conspiracy to further an agenda, using a convenient tragedy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And you're STILL devoting all your time to tossing out red herrings and smoke and mirrors


Some of these "Red Herrings" were topics YOU brought up, such as the "two types of oil from one well, which your source failed to confirm

It's obvious you are just rambling, since you don't seem to remember who said what



> Just keep ignoring any facts which don't agree with your preconceived notions


LOL I have no preconcieved notions. I'm just posting data and you're pretending none of it exists. 

Until YOU can *show* some more data, I'll leave you once again to ramble some more


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Hello...why is no one even acknowledging the sneaky back door Cap and Trade Bill that was passed under the guise of this disaster?


Somebody already started a thread about it

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=362017


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Sorry, BFF...I meant in THIS thread. Shoulda clarified! Seems the libs oughtta have some input on this one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Seems the libs oughtta have some input on this one.


Let's hope it's more enlightening than the oil spill data


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Ouch .....Bearfootfarm single -handedly performed a major tush kicking.


----------

