Yes, I'm not a scientist, and I'm not an environmental expert

I have no credentials, and no knowledge of oil spills. But... I do.. have a fucking brain... and I have.. changed the oil on my car. Dozens of times. Now what did I do with the 5 quarts of oil? Well I couldn't dump it in, grass, or dirt or water because the shit just doesn't go away, it's OIL, GREASE, SLIME, you can't fucking get rid of it. . When I change my oil I have to take the old oil to a garage that recycles it because IT DOESN"T FUCKING GO AWAY. Now that's my 5 quarts of oil. Someone want to tell me how exactly 200 million gallons was just... and I quote: removed by various artificial or natural means. Natural means? Are you fucking kidding me? Do I seriously look that fucking stupid?
Well yes I guess I do look like a complete simpering idiot dolt because someone actually tried to tell me that 75% of a couple hundred million gallons of oil just disappeared, everything is all sunshine and rainbows. Shit they didn't even try that with the Valdez and that was a lousy 11 million gallons.

What were the burns for?

What do dispersants do?

What does the sun do?

But if you think I believe that they got rid of an undisclosed amount of oil that could be as small as 100 million and as big as 500 million gallons, doing what they were doing you are a fool. And how do you know what they were doing? I saw some talk but I certainly didn't hear from the clean up people. Or see any of it for myself except in those flyover photos. You don't find it suspicious that the media was kept off of public land so that no one could accurately report on what was going on?

I guess the difference between us is I've been burned enough by political lies and games to know when I'm being lied to.

They lied about the spill.
They lied about the amount.
They lied about the "dispersant"
They lied about the clean-up workers..

Gee I can't imagine why I would think they were lying.

I didn't understand that.

I don't know what you're going to complain about when the oil does degrade, because it will, it's a natural process based in science.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j548447544320npk/

and I 'll take my truth from people who have been there. Have a nice day.

and if there is no bright side, they make one up and go spouting it off religiously. I find it hilarious that these same people will bash Fox News for doing the same thing. ;)

sprayed over their homes , when it permeated their windows and doors and it enters their homes un-invited!

Seems you have a problem with truth! And would rather ignore truth at the cost of the health and well being and safety of your fellow Americans! Not even mentioning the Eco-System that will take decades and decades to recover! I won't live long enough to see that happen and neither will you! It would be a disgrace for me to ever think I could be friends with someone that had such skewed thinking as some around here these days! This shit was sprayed over my home..and millions of peoples homes in the Gulf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you really have such a low capacity of cognative thinking skills, and think the oil has dissapeared ..I have an alligator that doesn't bite for you! Cheap! Cute too! Could make a lovely pet for someone like you!Come on down, I will even leash it for you!!

Some of the people around here anymore make me as sick to my stomach..as sick as the corexit I had to breathe , as well as my family and friends and neighbors had to breathe! And be exposed to god knows what!!!!!!!!!!! WTF is going on with some of the people here at DU anymore?????????????

No one is this stupid..so it must be a sick pathetic agenda!

Toxic Corexit dispersant chemicals remained secret as feds colluded with Big Business
Friday, June 11, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com


NaturalNews) After weeks of silence on the issue, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally decided to go public with the list of ingredients used to manufacture Corexit, the chemical dispersant used by BP in the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. There are two things about this announcement that deserve our attention: First, the ingredients that have been disclosed are extremely toxic, and second, why did the EPA protect the oil industry's "trade secrets" for so long by refusing to disclose these ingredients until now?

As reported in the New York Times, Brian Turnbaugh, a policy analyst at OMB Watch said, "EPA had the authority to act all along; its decision to now disclose the ingredients demonstrates this. Yet it took a public outcry and weeks of complaints for the agency to act and place the public's interest ahead of corporate interests."

On the toxicity question, you could hardly find a more dangerous combination of poisons to dump into the Gulf of Mexico than what has been revealed in Corexit. The Corexit 9527 product has been designated a "chronic and acute health hazard" by the EPA. It is made with 2-butoxyethanol, a highly toxic chemical that has long been linked to the health problems of cleanup crews who worked on the Exxon Valdez spill.
A newer Corexit recipe dubbed the "9500 formula" contains dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, a detergent chemical that's also found in laxatives. What do you suppose happens to the marine ecosystem when fish and sea turtles ingest this chemical through their gills and skin? And just as importantly, what do you think happens to the human beings who are working around this chemical, breathing in its fumes and touching it with their skin?

The answers are currently unknown, which is exactly why it is so inexcusable that Nalco and the oil industry giants would for so long refuse to disclose the chemical ingredients they're dumping into the Gulf of Mexico in huge quantities (over a million gallons dumped into the ocean to date).
But it gets even more interesting when you look at just how widespread this "chemical secrecy" is across Big Business in the USA... and how the U.S. government more often than not conspires with industry to keep these chemicals a secret.

read the rest!

significant genotoxic damage still exist in species living in the impacted area."

Did you read your link? It does say YEARS. This means the short lived species in the "impacted area" would have to have continued exposure. No time frame was given for the biodergration of the oil. Do you have evidence to support your belief that unrefined oil could possibly biodegrade in less than a month?

You don't like negativity and cynicism? Did you read this bit? Please share the positives.

"Used oil was the most biodegradable, however, it was the most toxic. Also, all lubricants presented toxicity even after biodegradation due to 40% Eruca sativa germination inhibition and a low LC50 to Eisenia foetida (0.50–0.25 mL). Moreover, used automotive lubricants have a high toxicity because of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons concentration that establishes them as a potential carcinogen. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/science/earth/05microbe.html?src=me

The report may be exagerated or flawed, but it's certainly not impossible.

You have to listen carefully to how these comments are worded. I don't believe that anyone is saying that the subsurface oil is gone; they are mostly referring to the beaches and the surface oil. That being said, they ARE painting a much to rosey picture. If you want to get closer to reality, try to find reports from the locals.

Even if 75% of the oil had totally disappeared, the 25% that is left would still be enough oil to cause major destruction. Of course when it hits particular areas, locals are going to freak out and they should. We need them to keep reporting the oil locations so it can continue to be cleaned up.

But a Democratic administration has had a major success with this oil disaster. The reason the cap went on is because the administration insisted they keep looking for solutions and because they put Chu and his team of scientists on the job to find a solution.

The reason the beaches aren't black with oil is because of the constant pressure from this Administration on BP.

The reason the people impacted financially even have a chance to get full reimbursement is because of this Administration.

And the reason we may finally get a full wetlands rebuilding project in the Gulf will also be because of this Administration.

Yes there is a long way to go and nobody is denying that. But it looks like we may have avoided a completely dead Gulf, which is what I figured would be the result. Anything better than that looks pretty damn rosy to me.

And Democrats made sure of that, but DU is too stupid to claim the victory.

And I do believe that Obama's hands were greatly tied thanks in large part to republican legislation. It was ironic to hear republicans calling for Obama to take over BP...

these agencies are staffed by the same people and great deference was given to BP -same as would have occurred under Bush.

Moreover, Obama's made it all too clear that there will be few if any consequences for corrupt or incompetent behavior among these- so really, where's the difference?

I don't see it. Obama (just like Bush)- advocated offshore drilling got up and made idiotic statements about the safety of oil rigs- despite a massive spill occurring just six months earlier.

Obama could have called for a massive push to alternative energy- and stuck to the progressive re: offshore drilling (or better yet, cleaned up the regulaory agencies) and he would have looked like a visionary.

Instead, he's the goat. Again.

due to the dispersants.

Dispersants do? Poisoning the Gulf and surrounding Eco-systems and not even doing a good job of dispersing, mostly just for PR.


Sun do? lol! The sun will not do much when the oil is dispersed and sent to the ocean floor.

The fact is blue crab larvae are showing proof of exposure to petroleum. That means that known toxins have entered the food chain. That means we are in deep shit.

please include the sarcasm thingy next time, ok?

As far as I've seen, Carol Browner is the only person who used the word "gone" and she used it once and it was clearly the wrong term to use.

I simply asked the person what they think happens to oil when it is skimmed, burned, biodegraded and dispersed. What do you think happens to it?

:popcorn:

If the ocean is so good at processing oil we should all save our oil and take it to the nearest river or ocean and dump it in the water. Or just dump it down your drain because your city's water system would clean it up.

I haven't seen one verifiable source to back up those idiotic claims that 75% of the oil disappeared. We are being lied to. I know why BP is lying. But why is the government in collusion with them? Is EVERYONE in government on the take and prostitutes to big business?

And in my neighborhood, where the distance to the shore is about five miles, there are signs posted near the river and the storm drains leading to the river that specifically say DO NOT DUMP OIL! THIS DRAIN GOES DIRECTLY TO THE OCEAN!

I guess we could have saved money on these signs.

of the damage done and will help BP keep from paying 'too much' money to the millions of victims. History repeating itself etc.

Homeland security

The US Coast Guard

The FAA

NOAA

The EPA

I think they are all out to get the people they are supposed to help.

Question is valid - just your assumption crude oil is any thing near what engine oil is would be a major flaw in your approach

Try Googleing "Crude Oil Volatility"

That part of it is true. But if they don't clarify or they insist that the marshes aren't trashed and there is most likely a huge amount of sub-surface oil they are going to lose all trust from a lot of voters. As it now stands, something on the order of eighty percent of the people do not believe them.

No wonder I got all the "Crickets Chirping" replies

much of the oil was emulsified when it was discharged into the gulf. The result was subsurface plumes. How does that vaporize?

Most people think of crude oil as a single entity.

It is better to think of it as a soup of hydrocarbons.

The highly volatile stuff never emulsified in the water it simply rose to the surface and evaporated.

It would be like taking some CO2 gas (like used in sodas) and opening it under water and expecting that somehow it wouldn't just rise to the surface.

What did emulsify and get suspended in the water column was the heavier hydrocarbons. That is the component that will remain (at least long enough for microbes to consume it).

Yes, it contains some components that can evaporate, but also contains heavier components down into the tar and asphalt range that will be around forever. Additionally, the volatile components don't just disappear, the evaporate into the atmosphere where they are STILL toxic pollutants.

Do you know WHY the government passed legislation outlawing gasoline tanks that vented to the atmosphere?


The Government and its Owners are lucky to have so many here carrying their message.

Don't' Worry!
Be Happy!
The oil just went away!
WE have always been at war with EastAsia!
CONSUME!

1) If it ends up at or near the point of drilling, the impact will be minimal because past the continental shelf the ocean floor is virtually lifeless. 2) If it ends up inside the continental shelf, the impact will be greater because there is quite a bit of life there on the ocean floor. 3) If it ends up on the beach and inside inlets, the impact will be the greatest.

Right now the government is simply saying the chances of the third and most damaging scenario is becoming increasingly remote because the volatile compounds have cooked off to a large degree which means the compounds you mentioned sink to the bottom. Dr. Lautenbacher also said it remains to be seen what the impacts of #2 will be, and warns of significant environmental impact there.

Yeah, I know that was heavy and this is light sweet. Endless detailed discussions could ensue. Nonetheless Corexit was used there and all but a handful who came into close contact are dead. That's today. 20 years later. The oil isn't gone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/19obspill.html

I was in SB in '69. 20 years later I went back with my kids and the oil was still there. Is it STILL THERE NOW?

There's no "flaw" in the approach of recognizing similarities. I'll expand that to include BP's previous transgressions. Do tell me you are unable to establish a pattern of corporate behaviour. They don't behave so everywhere. Hmmm... Wonder what's different.

BP in Scotland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLu-Hp9--RU


You would be best advised imho to take safety pronouncements with a rather large grain of salt. REMEMBER THE 9/11 RESPONDERS!!! IIRC the Repukes recently put the kibbosh on supporting them now that they have been sick and dying from their service for 9 YEARS.

Of course, you are welcome to feast on Gulf seafood to "support the economy." I will NOT be joining you seeing that doing so would further contribute to our collective poisoning and REFUSAL to recognize just what is happening. Are our ocean's waters, the life cycles in it and food it provides us more precious than petroleum?

How 'bout those beef recalls, eh? Passed by yet another one coupla days ago.

We're ALREADY eating our plastics (that food chain thing again) and you think for a moment that spraying the Gulf with an additional toxin, the effects under the conditions are unknown, MAY have helped matters??? As if the Gulf were in healthy shape BEFORE this happened:

Losing Louisiana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQcPOQXc9vE

Call me ig'nant, but I ain't buying none of it.

While recognizing your comparison of crude and refined oil to be valid, it would seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

:shrug:

You don't need to be a scientist, but1 or 2 semesters of professional level chemistry would explain it.

The ground doesn't move, so the oil tends to stick together in a thick goo at the surface.

However, with 2 liquids -- both of which in constant motion -- the oil dispersed. First, as it spewed it was "emulsified," ie mixed through the water. And then has continued to move as the water circulates through the gulf and carries the oil with it.

There is a LOT more water than oil in the gulf. Somebody did the math last week -- something like 200 million gallons of water for every gallon of oil that was released into the gulf. Ultimately that oil will be dispersed through all the water in all the seas combined (5 quadrillion gallons of water).

When the oil is dispersed, it can be eaten by microbes. The Gulf of Mexico is host to oil-eating microbes due to its natural oil seepage and warm temperatures.

Also, when the oil is dispersed it *rises* because it weighs less than water. It rises and it spreads out -- that is the oil slick we could see. Once it is on top of the water, it evaporates. The thinner the slick, the faster it can evaporate. That is simple, simple chemistry.

So yes, much of the oil has disappeared. Some of it has evaporated. Some of it is so diluted that it is indetectable to our crude senses. Some of it has been eaten by microbes.

And a lot of oil remains behind, but most of that has been sucked up into the marshes. *That* is the bad news because that is where it can't be cleaned out and will take the longest to be got rid of.


BTW, a couple years ago I had thick gooey grease spread on the inside of my car thanks to a mechanic that didn't put the summer tires in plastic bags before putting them into the back of my car. When I pulled out the tires and saw the mess, I sprayed it with "Spray N'Wash" because that is what I had laying around and I needed to do something fast if only to kill the stench. The following spring, I discovered the grease was gone. Completely. Not even a stain.

but if you'll recall they started saying the water was fine during the July 4th weekend. We had images of children playing in the waves. However a local news crew took samples and found toxic levels of something on the order of 200/ppm...
No major media ran with the story...

The idea behind Corexit is to break down the oil into tiny particles so they can biodegrade faster.

What water were children in because most local counties closed beaches to children.

"Dilution is the solution to pollution" was the mantra in scientific circles decades ago. Of the 3/4s or so that has "disappeared," most has either evaporated or is so diluted as to be indetectable to our senses.

Corexit allows the oil to disperse more quickly. The faster and further it spreads -- the thinner the oil slick on the surface -- the faster it can evaporate. And the more dispersed under the surface, the faster microbes can process it.

Given the size of the spill, the 25%+ that remains is still a massive amount of oil -- 5x Exxon Valdez.

And it will be harder to get rid of because much of it has washed into the marshes, where it tends to be trapped and continues to kill.

monetary involvement in cleaning up and to minimize the fines they were going to have to pay.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x551888

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8888802&mesg_id=8888802

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8888711&mesg_id=8891851

is the amount of water in the Gulf.

http://www.gulfbase.org/facts.php

are in all the oceans combined. I was going from memory there....argh...now I'm wondering *what* was 5 quadrillion...

I thought there were rules against dupes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's the rules.

Personal attacks are against the rules as well.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

then get mad when there's a response.

Wow indeed.

FOR SHAME on you! :puke:

to be an original post

:shrug:

And as long as we play along they will continue to think that.

BP: "Well is Static" US: "Oil is Gone" Nothing to See Here. Move Along.

"The amazing thing is that not one reporter is informed enough to even ask what's going on.  They're more focused on the fantasy report issued this morning by NOAA & the USGS,
that remarkably claims that all but 26% is magically gone"

http://dailyhurricane.com/

This is a cover up on a HUMONGOUS scale that I'm sure the mafia is envious of since they are well known for disposing of dead bodies in secret!

Those BP bastards KILLED untold amounts of fish, turtles, birds and mammals-but everyone is in denial because they didn't see the dead bodies on the evening news!

Can you imagine the uproar if people actually saw the MASSIVE amounts of DEAD wildlife from this Ecocide?


:grr:

:cry:

We are being lied to..by BP, by the EPA, by the Coast Guard...and many others...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/28/us/20100428-spill-map.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/the-crime-of-the-century_b_662971.html





http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/gulf-lawyers-poised-to-jump-on-white-house-disconnect
Gulf lawyers poised to jump on White House 'disconnect'
One Louisiana lawyer is recording "video testimonies" to rebuke the Obama administration's position that the oil is mostly gone




http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/death-gyre-in-the-gulf





http://umpteenhorizons.org/wordpress/2010/08/07/citizen-rain-water-tests-in-louisiana-show-unsafe-levels-of-toxins/
Citizen Rain Water Tests in Louisiana Show Unsafe Levels of Toxins

check out the video here.

of them hiding all the dead fish. It's a landfill somewhere. Damn it I wish I had book marked that page. I'll see if I can find it...

just be absorbed and eaten by the environment, duh which way did he go George.

One of the persistent problems the entire time of the spill is hat no one even knew how much oil was released or where it was!

Now- poof! because the Obama administration, same folks who insisted oil rigs don't cause spill, say it's gone.

It's gone!

:rofl:

26% of the oil ... which is what the administration says has is not gone.... is 1.25 million barrels of oil.


So.... the administration claims that there are still 1.25 million barrels of oil in the gulf, and you are saying that the administration is saying the oil is "gone".

That's the very definition of straw man.



You've got a good point to make... so why lie about it? You're better than that, depakid.

Natural processes and the meager efforts of the skimmers could not in this amount of time come anywhere close to recapturing or degrading this amount of crude.

The critical point though is that they don't even have the data to be making such sweeping assumptions- and hence (based on this and previous statements), they have a serious credibility problem.

As the NY Times notes here:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/in-comments-on-oils-fate-an-air-of-mistrust/

None of them have made that claim.

Specifically, the greatest share is still right out there all thick and ugly and is called "residual" (26%).
Another 25% is estimated to have dissolved or evaporated, meaning it's changed form but it's still out there.
It's estimated that 17% was collected at the well head, OK, that's not "out there", but it's not disappeared either.
Another 16% dispersed by natural environmental action (not to say it's harmless, just that it's no longer 'residual') and it's still out there.
Chemical dispersion claims 8%, still out there, but dispersed.
5% was burned, and 3% was skimmed.

100% of it is still out there, as this report indicates, and only 26% exists in the 'residual' form that would make it easily collectible.

Zero percent "disappeared".



:patriot:

you might want to look up the other threads that will giv you your answers. It's funny. When scientists claim global warming is real, it's a government conspiracy to those on the right. When scientists claim 74% of the oil has been dispersed, those on the left think it's a government conspiracy. The logic is the same. I don't know how many righties I've seen start off a rant on global warming with "I'm not a scientist BUT, it snowed yesterday!"

and lets not forget the midterms so we'd best forget the oil or the Democrats might lose votes.

but I know I didn't come from some monkey's butthole!

Obviously they think everyone is dumb as the Teabaggers.

:crazy:

psychologically, they know that as soon as we hear "it's gone" many of us will tune out to any other messages.

it's the BIG lie, and you're right to call it out on these terms (i'm an average joe) b/c now that all the scientists have been bought off, the drumbeat is getting louder that we have to possess credentials in order to have an opinion about what's happening down here.

They are lying. I see sites that are still contaminated by fuel oil or diesel or gasoline from 1936. Yet somehow this crude oil is already gone? Maybe a Republican Fox News watcher would believe that...

For a toxic oil spill clean up company. He says the same thing. I have avoided saying so, because I have no link to proof... but if it were true that everything is fine, why isn't it fine in Alaska? Why can't we dump oil into the storm drains? If it evaporated, where will it come down?

I'm tired of being called ignorant when it doesn't take an environmental engineer to figure out they are lying. But it's nice to have one on your side :toast:

And if it evaporated, where is it going to fall. Everything that evaporates into the clouds ultimately comes down again.

See, this is the simple stuff. We can't get answers to the simple stuff at all.

Some of the oil has biodegraded from Alaska.

Also Alaska has a "slightly" different environment.

One the spill was in a sound limiting the dilution effect, two the spill happened very rapidly in a small area meaning most of the oil reached shore lines, three the colder temperatures, and lack of centuries of natural leaks mean that microbes are ill suited to break up the oil.

Is there oil in Alaska? Yes. Is there less oil in Alaska than on the day of the spill? Yes.
Is there oil in Gulf? Yes. Is there less oil in the Gulf than on the day the spill stopped? Yes.

"Some" could be a teaspoonful. "Some" is a ridiculous statement.

Where the hell did I say 100%? Please, your disingenuous support of the ridiculous is nauseating.

Pour a gallon of gasoline in a bowl, put it out on your driveway, wait 100 days ... would you be shocked if it dispated?

I wouldn't. Crude oil is a hodgepodge of various hydrocarbons. Some are dense and thick, some are very light and volatile.

Crude oil isn't motor oil. For some reason people think the substance called crude oil is the same thing as what comes in a quart container at AutoZone. What comes in that oil container is specifically chosen long chain hydrocarbons. They are chosen because of their resistant properties. Their ability to resist both heat and pressure.

It would be like reading headline:
"Company invents vest that stops bullets with Kevlar fibers" and then reaching the conclusion:
"I may not be a tailor but I have seen pants rip. No possible way fibers can stop a bullet".

And your post is disingenuous at best. Some of what is in the Gulf due to the oil gusher is exactly like motor oil... motor oil is derived from this crude oil.

Keyword. SOME.

Heavy hyrocarbons make up about 20% of crude oil by volume.

Nobody (not Obama, not EPA, not NOAA, not BP) is claiming all the oil dispersed rather that SOME of it has thus SOME remains.

The heavy hydrocarbons will be harder to break down much like motor oil. Even there the analogy fails. Natural oil will break down rather rapidly in a car engine thus motor "oil" is a really a combination of heavy hydrocarbons PLUS additives, stabilizers, and detergents to prevent the oil from breaking down too rapidly (before it can be changed).

Crude oil is a combination of hydrocarbons, like hydrocarbon soup. some of that soup (the lighter portions) has been diluted, evaporated, and eaten by microbes. Some (mostly the heavier hydrocarbons) remain. This if the fact that the OP finds unbelievable.

But when you say it, it's meaningful.

Whatever.

a lo evaporated. that tropical storm putting it in a blender might have helped. the dspersants were for show. not removal. and the bacteria that eats oil......

Unrefined crude oil has multiple hydrocarbon fractions - from low-molecular-weight (light fraction) to high-molecular weight (heavy fractions) each with own fate in the environment.

The light fraction of crude easily evaporates at the warm (30 degree C) temperatures in the summertime Gulf of Mexico and some dissolves in seawater - and the dissolved fraction remains there until it is oxidized by prokaryotes or sunlight

Refined lubricating oil does not evaporate and little - if any - is soluble in water.

Other fractions of crude oil are susceptible to photo-oxidation - lubricating oils do not rapidly degrade when exposed to sunlight.

Equating the fate crude oil and refined lubricating oil is unjustified and and wrong.

This is what the Federal Science Report stated about the fate of the spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico...

25% evaporated from the surface or dissolved in seawater - any unoxidized dissolved hydrocarbons are still in the Gulf and are being degraded by prokaryotes.

24% was naturally or chemically dispersed - which means it was transformed from visible aggregates into invisible colloidal (micron-sized) droplets - and any unoxidized dispersed oil is still in the Gulf.

17% was recovered from the wellhead, 5% was burned, 3% was skimmed - which means 25% was actually removed from the Gulf

26% is present on or near the surface as tarballs or sheen, buried on beaches or immobilized in marshes - and is still in the Gulf

the only fraction that really "disappeared" was the evaporated fraction and the recovered fraction..

all this talk that all the oil somehow "disappeared" is nonsense

yup

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I guess I shouldn't have cussed out the dude who was ragging on me for posting something that had been said already... :)

:rofl:

Your OP is your original content, not some link to an article or blog.

Unless you accidentally hit "post" twice, it's not a "dupe."

What is it about your OP that could possibly be so irritating? I rec'd it when it first appeared, although I didn't comment.

It is certainly worthy of a spot on the front page.

You can see upthread where my responses got deleted.. hehe it was one of my usual DU foes, upset because I'm not buying the lies. Honestly I thought I was in the minority so I gave up on the thread. Then, I find it on the front page today...

skepticism about over-optimistic claims of quick environmental "recovery," based on what we've learned from Exxon Valdez, and the greater scope of the current disaster.

Unless, unlikely as it seems, there are those for whom the issue itself is irrelevant, it's only value lying in political perception. THAT wouldn't happen on DU.

I wonder what percentage of various species of ocean life is still thriving.

How many times do we need to hear these ridiculous arguments?? It is OK that you don't believe the story that 75% of the oil is gone, but you should be more intellectually curious than this....and should not be so impervious to knowledge. I will try this again:

1....Crude oil and motor oil are completely different
2....Motor oil is only one, marginally volatile, fraction of crude oil (Look up information on "FRACTIONAL DISTILLATION" of crude oil)
3....Crude oil contains gaseous material (butane, propane, etc.), gasoline (octane), various fractions that are used as lubricants (like motor oil), tars, and more.
4....After 3000+ miles in your car, your oil will contain even fewer volatiles than it had when you bought it, due to temperature, degradation.
5....The Gulf is clearly different from the Alaskan coast......it is much warmer....making more of the oil volatile.
6....Not all crude oil is the same.....oil from the Valdez spill was different than that in the Gulf spill....you can look that up too.
7....Remember when Gulf residents complained of fumes from the spill......that mean EVAPORATION. No volatiles, no odor.
8....Why are tar balls washing up on shore?? Maybe because the rest of it has evaporated or has separated and floated off???
9....I am certain that there is some microbial degradation of oil, but wouldn't know how much that would be.

Again, I don't automatically believe that 75% of oil is gone and we no longer have an environmental problem in the Gulf. However, I do understand the obvious science and am willing to read and learn. You might want to try that.

The part in the Header where I claim I am ignorant or the part in the body of the post?

Yes I should be more intellectually curious about this, but I don't have the time. There are many more issues at hand, not to mention that I work 90-100 hours a week trying to keep my family afloat.
That doesn't mean I don't have a right to an opinion and it doesn't mean I am wrong. It just means that you can post all the shit you want and you aren't going to convince me that oil, and grease, in whatever form they come are not the hardest things in the fucking world to clean up, next to red dye #7, and that they got rid of 75% of what, a couple hundred million gallons of oil (no one even knows how much) in just a week after sealing off the well. Smells like bullshit to me. And that was all I posted. Sorry if it doesn't stand up to your intellectual scrutiny.

Delete away WTF!!?? I criticized Obama's unqualified opinion on the safety of the food we eat, in spite of scientific experts who say otherwise. It is the lead story on DU right now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100809/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_blue_crabs

Yet I'm not allowed to question Obama's qualifications or motives in making such a declaration? Fine. Whatever. Read it for yourselves:

Crabs provide evidence oil tainting Gulf food web:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100809/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_blue_crabs

Obama to serve Gulf seafood at birthday bash: aide

(AFP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama is confident in the quality of Gulf of Mexico seafood despite the BP oil spill and will serve some at a party Sunday to mark his 49th birthday, a top aide said.

"Later today at the president's birthday party, he's going to be serving his guests seafood from the Gulf of Mexico," White House energy advisor Carol Browner told NBC.