Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... -ever.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ask Pensacola’s fretfully quiet seafront traders why the tourists have all stayed away and they angrily recall one chaotic day back in late June.

Then, hungry for dramatic TV footage to support Barack Obama’s announcement, that the BP - or, as he preferred, ‘British Petroleum’ - oil spill was ‘the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced’, news networks descended on their town.

They quickly found what they were looking for: shocking images of Pensacola’s famously white beaches thickly-coated with sticky, black crude oil and apparently beyond salvation.

The apocalyptic message was reinforced in doom-laden interviews with locals. ‘It’s damn near biblical. This place is done for!’ lamented 36-year-old Kevin Reed, whose family have swum and sunbathed in the area for generations.

His anguish was understandable.

Yet, as I saw this week, nothing could be further from the truth. Strolling along the beach for an hour, I found just one, pea-sized tar-ball which crumbled to nothing between my fingers.

When, as a young boy, I played on Morecambe beach in Lancashire, worse things often washed up from the nearby ICI refinery.

But as our team leader, 41-year-old scientist Stephane Grenon, told me as we skimmed across the shallows, using a craft able to reach the shore is the only sure way to tell whether oil is present.

This is because the wetland fringes in this region are always surrounded by a thick, dark-brown plant sediment known as ‘coffee ground’ for its resemblance to the dregs left at the bottom of the cup.

Even from a few feet away, this sediment can be very easily mistaken for oil, and often when passing boats or aircraft report spotting oil on the shore, this is what they have really seen.

This is one reason why the extent of the coastal oiling has been exaggerated. Indeed, Grenon, a veteran of 25 spills, says he is constantly amazed at how little pollution he finds.

He says: ‘I know it sounds ridiculous, but it’s probably the largest spill there has ever been and yet there’s hardly any oil.

According to Dr Ed Owens, the veteran British oil spill expert who runs the SCAT teams, there are several reasons why the Gulf appears to have escaped so incredibly lightly.

First, the type of light oil that leaked here dissipates far more quickly than the medium crude that pumped from the Exxon Valdez, particularly in these warm waters.

Second, powerful currents from the enormous Mississippi Delta swept much of the oil away from the shore. In addition, there is the undeniable success of the clean-up effort, which is far more sophisticated and effective than those used to tackle previous disasters.

The combined result of these factors is clear from the statistics. Although more than 9,000 miles of shoreline lies within reach of the Deepwater Horizon rig, just 369 miles have been oiled - and only 53 of them with what are classed as ‘heavy’ deposits.
Compare this with the Exxon when, though the spill was 20 times smaller, the oil was so persistent and spread so widely that more than 2,000 miles of coastline were hit - and even today lumps of tar are occasionally found trapped between the rocks.

So, given all THAT, why in the world would our Government keep bleating that it's the "worst environmental disaster ever to hit America"?

So, in Barack Obama’s words, which of these two terrible spills was ‘the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced’?

Back in mid-June, with approval of his presidency at an all-time low in the opinion polls, and critics drawing parallels between his mishandling of the BP crisis and the Hurricane Katrina fiasco that forever tarnished George Bush’s reputation, the answer was obvious.
Not only was it important for him to be seen to recognise the worst-case scenario - and appear to be doing everything he could to avert it - but he needed to find a scapegoat.

Thus, he turned on BP - a nominally British company, though half of its top executives and the majority of its workers are Americans - with a vengeance.

While I'm thrilled for the Gulf Coast and it appears to have dodged a much larger problem, the Brits' view of Obama is striking in its truthfulness. The comments following this story are priceless...

This can't be true....that would mean JSO's predictions were correct...

Nice revisionist history written by BP's public relations office.

Truth is, we won't know the full environmental impact for decades. The chemical dispersants used on the oil spills will likely turn out to be far worse than the oil itself.

The Oil Spill WAS, and STILL IS, and environmental disaster. Any attempts to spin otherwise is full of shit, and if you believe any of it, you are one dumb mother fucker.

dbackjon wrote:Nice revisionist history written by BP's public relations office.

Truth is, we won't know the full environmental impact for decades. The chemical dispersants used on the oil spills will likely turn out to be far worse than the oil itself.

The Oil Spill WAS, and STILL IS, and environmental disaster. Any attempts to spin otherwise is full of ****, and if you believe any of it, you are one dumb mother ****.

But the OBAMA EPA has gone on record saying the dispersants are safe....surely you believe the OBAMA EPA...

dbackjon wrote:Nice revisionist history written by BP's public relations office.

Truth is, we won't know the full environmental impact for decades. The chemical dispersants used on the oil spills will likely turn out to be far worse than the oil itself.

The Oil Spill WAS, and STILL IS, and environmental disaster. Any attempts to spin otherwise is full of ****, and if you believe any of it, you are one dumb mother ****.

So no dissenting opinions are allowed? Starting to sound eerily similar to the global warming/climate change debate. The whole "we're right and there's no way we're wrong" mentality.

And for the record, I agree with you, I think we won't know for the full story and impact for years to come. However, I disagree with you in that I don't mind other people having different opinions and that they could be right.

Col Hogan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Nice revisionist history written by BP's public relations office.

Truth is, we won't know the full environmental impact for decades. The chemical dispersants used on the oil spills will likely turn out to be far worse than the oil itself.

The Oil Spill WAS, and STILL IS, and environmental disaster. Any attempts to spin otherwise is full of ****, and if you believe any of it, you are one dumb mother ****.

But the OBAMA EPA has gone on record saying the dispersants are safe....surely you believe the OBAMA EPA...

They wouldn't know, they're too busy surfing porn and doing lunch with their corporate masters.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Nice revisionist history written by BP's public relations office.

Truth is, we won't know the full environmental impact for decades. The chemical dispersants used on the oil spills will likely turn out to be far worse than the oil itself.

The Oil Spill WAS, and STILL IS, and environmental disaster. Any attempts to spin otherwise is full of ****, and if you believe any of it, you are one dumb mother ****.

So no dissenting opinions are allowed? Starting to sound eerily similar to the global warming/climate change debate. The whole "we're right and there's no way we're wrong" mentality.

And for the record, I agree with you, I think we won't know for the full story and impact for years to come. However, I disagree with you in that I don't mind other people having different opinions and that they could be right.

We have a winner!!

Though I hope the impact of this spill turns out to be less than feared, I think it is way too early to make that kind of determination. I saw a demonstration where a guy poured a quart of oil into a container of water, then poured in oil dispersants and then threw a fish in the container. He mixed it up well and any visible sign of the oil disappeared. He then took the fish out of the container and asked, "you can no longer see any oil, but would you eat this fish?”

The jury is still way out on the long term impacts.

dbackjon wrote:Nice revisionist history written by BP's public relations office.

Truth is, we won't know the full environmental impact for decades. The chemical dispersants used on the oil spills will likely turn out to be far worse than the oil itself.

The Oil Spill WAS, and STILL IS, and environmental disaster. Any attempts to spin otherwise is full of ****, and if you believe any of it, you are one dumb mother ****.

Even a rigid pro-Obama apologist ant-capitalist progressive ideologue like yourself would have to admit from what we know right now that this disaster hasn't even come close to the doomsday scenario which was predicted by many so-called experts and members of the press.

Could Tony Hayward have been right from the start?

F'ing clenzy is a GD'ed GENIUS!!!!

andy7171 wrote:F'ing clenzy is a GD'ed GENIUS!!!!

That thought kept running through my head as I read the article...

There'll be no livin' with him now....

andy7171 wrote:F'ing clenzy is a GD'ed GENIUS!!!!

Nope....I was wrong


The world is fucked. The oil will spread to ALL of the worlds oceans, killing off the ENTIRE fishing industry throughout the world. Drinking water will be filled with oil and the cost of water will be $50 for a 20oz bottle.


WE ARE FUCKED!

SunCoastBlueHen wrote:Though I hope the impact of this spill turns out to be less than feared, I think it is way too early to make that kind of determination. I saw a demonstration where a guy poured a quart of oil into a container of water, then poured in oil dispersants and then threw a fish in the container. He mixed it up well and any visible sign of the oil disappeared. He then took the fish out of the container and asked, "you can no longer see any oil, but would you eat this fish?”

The jury is still way out on the long term impacts.

Bingo. It's pretty frightening to see the corporation booster club here wiping their hands of a disaster of this proportion.

"Looky here Jimbob! No more oil on the surface. It's all good now!!!"

I think the jury is still out also - I'll wait to see if the gulf coast has a sudden spike in conjoined twins before I call it over.

93henfan wrote:

SunCoastBlueHen wrote:Though I hope the impact of this spill turns out to be less than feared, I think it is way too early to make that kind of determination. I saw a demonstration where a guy poured a quart of oil into a container of water, then poured in oil dispersants and then threw a fish in the container. He mixed it up well and any visible sign of the oil disappeared. He then took the fish out of the container and asked, "you can no longer see any oil, but would you eat this fish?”

The jury is still way out on the long term impacts.

Bingo. It's pretty frightening to see the corporation booster club here wiping their hands of a disaster of this proportion.

"Looky here Jimbob! No more oil on the surface. It's all good now!!!"

What's sad is that THAT'S how you view any dissenting opinion. Twisting it into something that it's not.

OK, I'm not a fan of the EPA, but look at it this way - for years raw sewage and industrial waste flowed directly into rivers, bays, estuaries, the Great Lakes, etc. Then the Clean Water Act came along, among with other gubmit regulations and attendant regulatory bodies, and that all pretty much stopped. Over time the nation's waterways have gotten a whole lot cleaner. We ate fish then, we eat fish now - although the fish now are much lower in mercury and other fun chemicals than they were back when the life expectancy was in the high 60s.

A whole lot of oil flowed into the Gulf, and a whole bunch of dispersant was dumped on the oil. The sheer size of the Gulf and the currents/depth/temperature/biology of it will likely mean that given a reasonable amount of time the oil will all "go away".

But to say that this wasn't a disaster is kinda silly, no?

The irony here is that the folks who insist we wait before deciding what magnitude the disaster is are the same ones who were quick to dub this "the greatest environmental disaster in US history". For all we know, five years from now the effects of this spill might be even more inconspicuous than the effects of Exxon-Valdez that can still be detected today.

dbackjon wrote:Nice revisionist history written by BP's public relations office.

Truth is, we won't know the full environmental impact for decades. The chemical dispersants used on the oil spills will likely turn out to be far worse than the oil itself.

The Oil Spill WAS, and STILL IS, and environmental disaster. Any attempts to spin otherwise is full of ****, and if you believe any of it, you are one dumb mother ****.

DB, I'm tellilng you. I"ve been "out there" a number of times. Most recently I went out to look at an area that was made to sound like an absolute horror by a media report. It was nothing. While I was out I saw an Island surrounded by oil booms. There were probably more than a thousand pelicans there. Several hundred were sitting on the oil booms surrounding the Island. They were happy and healthy as can be.

I told the State officials with me that if I'd somehow just woke up from a three month sleep and there weren't oil booms and people messing with them I wouldn't have even noticed there was anything out of the ordinary going on.

I'm tellin' you, this has been much more of an economic and public perception disaster than a real environmental disaster. Now, maybe it would've been more of an environmental disaster is so much effort hadn't been put into fighting the oil. I'll never know. I commend the people who spent so much time and energy skimming and dispersing and cleaning. But the bottom line is that the impact wasn't that bad.

The dispersant thing? I've heard/read toxicologists repeatedly say they are no big deal. For some reason people seem determined to believe they're a big deal. But they're not.

Pwns wrote:The irony here is that the folks who insist we wait before deciding what magnitude the disaster is are the same ones who were quick to dub this "the greatest environmental disaster in US history". For all we know, five years from now the effects of this spill might be even more inconspicuous than the effects of Exxon-Valdez that can still be detected today.

...and for all we know it might still be the biggest be considerd the biggest disaster in U.S. history. WTF do you know? I have the answer for you...

not a fucking thing - yet.

The gulf fishing and tourism industries must be relieved that it didn't hurt their business.

kalm wrote:The gulf fishing and tourism industries must be relieved that it didn't hurt their business.

Sure, it hurt their business. But it was the perception that hurt their business.

...and for all we know it might still be the biggest be considerd the biggest disaster in U.S. history. WTF do you know? I have the answer for you...

not a **** thing - yet.

You'll see. I'm wondering: How long should we give it before we can say it wasn't that big of an environmental disaster?

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:The gulf fishing and tourism industries must be relieved that it didn't hurt their business.

Sure, it hurt their business. But it was the perception that hurt their business.

It was still a disaster for them.

Millions of gallons of toxic dispersants were pumped into the source of the oil leek for three months. Sure it helped control the visible signs of the gross amounts of oil leaking into the Gulf, but nobody know for sure what environmental effect the dispersants will have in tandem with all of the dispersed oil. I can't believe the long term effects will be very good. I think there will be large "dead zones" far around the source of the leak that will have a far reaching environmental and ecological effect that might not be realized for years to come.

"We can't see no oil, so everything must be good". Did it all just magically vanish? Small minded sentiment.

Crabs provide evidence oil tainting Gulf food web

Scientists watching Gulf of Mexico's blue crabs for evidence that oil is entering food chain

To assess how heavy a blow the BP oil spill has dealt the Gulf of Mexico, researchers are closely watching a staple of the seafood industry and primary indicator of the ecosystem's health: the blue crab.

Weeks ago, before engineers pumped in mud and cement to plug the gusher, scientists began finding specks of oil in crab larvae plucked from waters across the Gulf coast.

The government said last week that three-quarters of the spilled oil has been removed or naturally dissipated from the water. But the crab larvae discovery was an ominous sign that crude had already infiltrated the Gulf's vast food web — and could affect it for years to come.

"It would suggest the oil has reached a position where it can start moving up the food chain instead of just hanging in the water," said Bob Thomas, a biologist at Loyola University in New Orleans. "Something likely will eat those oiled larvae ... and then that animal will be eaten by something bigger and so on."

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0809/crabs- ... -food-web/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;