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

Hope you've enjoyed your Gulf shellfish and clean beaches.......you might want to avoid them for a while after this weekend.

mainejeff wrote:





Hope you've enjoyed your Gulf shellfish and clean beaches.......you might want to avoid them for a while after this weekend.

I think we can put the expansion of drilling off the east coast & gulf coast of Florida on the shelf for the time being.. ..talk about your shitty timing....

Happy Earth Day!

Again, you realize more oil is leaked into the ocean naturally every year than is spilled by a LARGE margin.


Oil is a natural compound and isn't as bad for ocean life as you, and the rest of the econerds, want us to believe.

clenz wrote:Again, you realize more oil is leaked into the ocean naturally every year than is spilled by a LARGE margin.


Oil is a natural compound and isn't as bad for ocean life as you, and the rest of the econerds, want us to believe.

Not bad for ocean life at all.....

They don't have this problem in Iowa.... another benefit to living there

bandl wrote:They don't have this problem in Iowa.... another benefit to living there

Yup - still funny.

danefan wrote:

bandl wrote:They don't have this problem in Iowa.... another benefit to living there

Yup - still funny.

I don't see what's so funny about that statement. It's the truth. The only thing funny about any of this is that neither you or I have moved there yet. We're running out of excuses.

bandl wrote:

danefan wrote:
Yup - still funny.

I don't see what's so funny about that statement. It's the truth. The only thing funny about any of this is that neither you or I have moved there yet. We're running out of excuses.

Speak for yourself bub - I ordered my Pod this morning.

danefan wrote:

bandl wrote: I don't see what's so funny about that statement. It's the truth. The only thing funny about any of this is that neither you or I have moved there yet. We're running out of excuses.

Speak for yourself bub - I ordered my Pod this morning.

http://www.iowarealtyfarms.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know why anyone would want to sell their property in Iowa.

danefan wrote:

clenz wrote:Again, you realize more oil is leaked into the ocean naturally every year than is spilled by a LARGE margin.


Oil is a natural compound and isn't as bad for ocean life as you, and the rest of the econerds, want us to believe.

Not bad for ocean life at all.....

They were just getting ahead of themselves. How else would one cook the fish/birds without oil?

clenz wrote:Again, you realize more oil is leaked into the ocean naturally every year than is spilled by a LARGE margin.

By that rationale, you'd live beside a Nuclear waste dump? It's just like getting a bunch of x-rays....

Or better yet, let's dump all our used oil in this country in Iowa cornfields...it's a natural compound & you make popcorn with oil anyway....I'm sure it will still be less than the amount leaked out onto US highways annually...

That's not what I'm saying at all. Pick up a copy of the book Degrees of Disaster and you'll see what I mean

Appaholic wrote:

clenz wrote:Again, you realize more oil is leaked into the ocean naturally every year than is spilled by a LARGE margin.

By that rationale, you'd live beside a Nuclear waste dump? It's just like getting a bunch of x-rays....

Or better yet, let's dump all our used oil in this country in Iowa cornfields...it's a natural compound & you make popcorn with oil anyway....I'm sure it will still be less than the amount leaked out onto US highways annually...

Don't argue with folks from Iowa.

grizzaholic wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
By that rationale, you'd live beside a Nuclear waste dump? It's just like getting a bunch of x-rays....

Or better yet, let's dump all our used oil in this country in Iowa cornfields...it's a natural compound & you make popcorn with oil anyway....I'm sure it will still be less than the amount leaked out onto US highways annually...

Don't argue with folks from Iowa.

My bad..."ease his pain"....

clenz wrote:That's not what I'm saying at all. Pick up a copy of the book Degrees of Disaster and you'll see what I mean

Sorry clenz, but that is one of the most ASSININE arguments around. If that book is promoting it, the best use for it is toliet paper.

Yes, oil leaks naturally into the enviroment. The enviroment can handle small amounts dispersed over the entire planet.

But when you concentrate it all in ONE AREA, it is a FUCKING DISASTER.

Think of it this way - you can drink a beer. No problem. Every person in Iowa could drink a beer, no problem.

But if YOU tried to drink that much beer at once, you'd be DEAD. That is an oil spill.

I think any rational environmental scientist, chemist, and engineer (btw, I work for the EPA...dun dun dun) wouldn't tell people that we should halt drilling for oil and mining coal. Unless weened off, and by "weened off" I'm talkin' decades, our economy and the economy of many nations relying on us for oil and coal would be destroyed. However, we do have to start (and we have started) moving to other technologies and setting up the infrastructure for these technologies. The costs are still high now, but things like solar, tidal, and wind energy (wind being an admittadly limited technology) are cheaper in the long-run. However, small things like energy-star appliances, energy efficient windows, recyclable flooring, plants on roofs, recycling, rainwater wells, and geothermal heating (another limited technology) do help a lot. It's the small things that add-up. For example, gas lawnmowers 'cause something like 5% of air pollution in the US. If consumers opted for an electric or even solar one, they'd help the environment a whole bunch. That said, I don't know how cost-effective these lawnmowers are in the end for the consumer, and ultimately if we want to be truly environmentally friendly, it has to appeal to people's wallets, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Sorry for the rant. The environment and the delicate balance between environmental health and money is something I've studied deeply in college and at the EPA. Gotta be good to the environment 'cause it does provide us with almost everything in life, but forcing environmental issues is something can't force on people, especially if it costs them something that they don't want to spend. Fortunately, technology is getting better in lowering these costs and giving more bang for the buck.

btw, if anyone just wants to get into this stuff, I highly recommend the Earth Policy Reader.

dbackjon wrote:

clenz wrote:That's not what I'm saying at all. Pick up a copy of the book Degrees of Disaster and you'll see what I mean

Sorry clenz, but that is one of the most ASSININE arguments around. If that book is promoting it, the best use for it is toliet paper.

Yes, oil leaks naturally into the enviroment. The enviroment can handle small amounts dispersed over the entire planet.

But when you concentrate it all in ONE AREA, it is a FUCKING DISASTER.

Think of it this way - you can drink a beer. No problem. Every person in Iowa could drink a beer, no problem.

But if YOU tried to drink that much beer at once, you'd be DEAD. That is an oil spill.

Again, I'm not saying oil spills don't have some negative effect on the environment, but it isn't what people make it out to be. There are negative effects, and yes animals die as a result of it. However, oil can also be good (I know you won't believe me but you also won't read the book I'm telling you too) for environments.

For a small synopsis of the book

Sea otters, who sustain their high metabolisms through ravenous eating, were judged extremely vulnerable to breakdowns in the ecological chain. To help them, some scientists captured and scrubbed the oily otters clean, then implanted radio transmitters in their bellies to monitor their progress. But soon others claimed that a quick wash removed their natural insulation, worsening their chances in the wild. In the end, no one could determine whether the surviving otters were even ill. It was harder still to measure the impact on game fish populations: estimates of salmon returning to their Prince William spawning grounds vary from one to twenty million each year. In the face of such uncertainty, how could scientists plot the oil spill's precise impact?

The same was true for the toxicological damage of the spill: some petroleum compounds are more poisonous than others; some evaporate and disperse immediately; and some may sink to the seabed, a deadly long-term legacy of the accident. For example, inside the gashed hull of the Exxon Valdez, scientists were astonished to discover it was teeming with life. Dodging globs of oily matter in the wounded bulkhead, salmon, herring, and shellfish were flourishing; even the cloudy water, upon closer inspection, was revealed to be dense with bacteria and other microorganisms. This miniature ecosystem, perhaps ten times richer in biota than the water outside, should have been a poisoned and stagnant pool. But it wasn't.

Now, am I saying let all of the oil sit there? Hell no. Am I advocating that spilling millions/billions of barrels of oil is going to help the Earth? Hell no again. What I'm saying is that the oil, when the main part of the slick gets cleaned up, that is left isn't bad for the environment.

clenz wrote:That's not what I'm saying at all. Pick up a copy of the book Degrees of Disaster and you'll see what I mean

I know what you mean, Clenz, but let's not pooh-pooh the effects of this situation. The earth & the oceans will always heal themselves, but it just may be less usable for us humans. I've no doubt what you say is true as far as this amount of oil vs what is spilled worldwide annually, but there's a difference in where it's spilled....& in what qty...

Appaholic wrote:

clenz wrote:That's not what I'm saying at all. Pick up a copy of the book Degrees of Disaster and you'll see what I mean

I know what you mean, Clenz, but let's not pooh-pooh the effects of this situation. The earth & the oceans will always heal themselves, but it just may be less usable for us humans. I've no doubt what you say is true as far as this amount of oil vs what is spilled worldwide annually, but there's a difference in where it's spilled....& in what qty...

Agreed. However, here is the other issue with it. How are they going to clean it up? Are they going to let the scientists go in and say how it goes, or are the politics of it going to get in the way and cause the whole thing to become a giant cluster fuck and make it messier than it is.

clenz wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
I know what you mean, Clenz, but let's not pooh-pooh the effects of this situation. The earth & the oceans will always heal themselves, but it just may be less usable for us humans. I've no doubt what you say is true as far as this amount of oil vs what is spilled worldwide annually, but there's a difference in where it's spilled....& in what qty...

Agreed. However, here is the other issue with it. How are they going to clean it up? Are they going to let the scientists go in and say how it goes, or are the politics of it going to get in the way and cause the whole thing to become a giant cluster fuck and make it messier than it is.

More to the point...Can they clean it up? Not really, and that doesn't help the argument FOR offshore drilling, but rather, reaffirms most people's fears....

∞∞∞ wrote:I think any rational environmental scientist, chemist, and engineer (btw, I work for the EPA...dun dun dun) wouldn't tell people that we should halt drilling for oil and mining coal. Unless weened off, and by "weened off" I'm talkin' decades, our economy and the economy of many nations relying on us for oil and coal would be destroyed. However, we do have to start (and we have started) moving to other technologies and setting up the infrastructure for these technologies. The costs are still high now, but things like solar, tidal, and wind energy (wind being an admittadly limited technology) are cheaper in the long-run. However, small things like energy-star appliances, energy efficient windows, recyclable flooring, plants on roofs, recycling, rainwater wells, and geothermal heating (another limited technology) do help a lot. It's the small things that add-up. For example, gas lawnmowers 'cause something like 5% of air pollution in the US. If consumers opted for an electric or even solar one, they'd help the environment a whole bunch. That said, I don't know how cost-effective these lawnmowers are in the end for the consumer, and ultimately if we want to be truly environmentally friendly, it has to appeal to people's wallets, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Sorry for the rant. The environment and the delicate balance between environmental health and money is something I've studied deeply in college and at the EPA. Gotta be good to the environment 'cause it does provide us with almost everything in life, but forcing environmental issues is something can't force on people, especially if it costs them something that they don't want to spend. Fortunately, technology is getting better in lowering these costs and giving more bang for the buck.

btw, if anyone just wants to get into this stuff, I highly recommend the Earth Policy Reader.

Good post, goggles cubed.

Appaholic wrote:

clenz wrote: Agreed. However, here is the other issue with it. How are they going to clean it up? Are they going to let the scientists go in and say how it goes, or are the politics of it going to get in the way and cause the whole thing to become a giant cluster fuck and make it messier than it is.

More to the point...Can they clean it up? Not really, and that doesn't help the argument FOR offshore drilling, but rather, reaffirms most people's fears....

Here is the thing though, it doesn't NEED to be completely cleaned up. This is pointed out in that book I keep referring too. The toxicity of the oil through aromatics and what not evaporate after 48-72 hours. During that time is when the things will die. However, if they are past that point of the aromatics then they need to clean the surface of the water with skimmers (which they have to do this) and other ways to do it. If there are still aromatics in the oil they can put a drag in the oil, section of it off and burn the oil out of the water.

Like I've been saying trying to clean 100% of the oil only causes more problems, especially depending how you do it.


Seriously, pick up a copy of the book off of amazon for $10 it is worth the read. Wheelwright makes some really good points in terms of the science behind the whole thing. In terms of him touching on policies he misses the mark some, but overall it is a great read.

I don't know much about the chemical properties of oil, but I do know that they still find toxic oil in PWS, Alaska, and it's been 20+ years since the Valdez ran aground. PWS is not a superfund site (anymore?) which is what we mainly deal with in my department, but when weather permits for the field scientists, we still get data from that region as it's still tracked closely by the EPA.

clenz wrote:For example, inside the gashed hull of the Exxon Valdez, scientists were astonished to discover it was teeming with life. Dodging globs of oily matter in the wounded bulkhead, salmon, herring, and shellfish were flourishing; even the cloudy water, upon closer inspection, was revealed to be dense with bacteria and other microorganisms. This miniature ecosystem, perhaps ten times richer in biota than the water outside, should have been a poisoned and stagnant pool. But it wasn't.

I'm sure this scene is true, but the statement is very misleading if you think about it.

Again, Clenz - the author of that "book" is full of shit. Seriously.