CONKS from those areas want to be with "their kind".ASUG8 wrote:Within 40 feet of me here at work we have people from:
Pennsylvania
Minnesota
Ohio
Virginia
Rhode Island
Wisconsin
Delaware
Michigan
California
Maryland
Clearly the South sucks since it draws from all over. I NEVER see cars from out of state when I visit our beaches or mountains.
Apology accepted.
Yes.......we should have!Baldy wrote:i guess you dumbfucks should have given the South their independence when you had the chance.D1B wrote:Maybe there is a benevolent god? The American Southeast/Gulf States is without a doubt the anus of the worlld - full of racist, violent, stupid low brow motherfuckers who essentially elected ******* like the Bush's and Reagan. They got what they deserve.
I hope they never recover and I hope the spill ravages Florida and Texas more in the future. **** nuking Iran or N. Korea. We could solve alot of the world's problems by wiping Florida and Texas off the face of the earth.
Says the verbally abusive, biased man that is constantly starting threads about himself.D1B wrote:Ibanez wrote:Jeff, your freedom of speech should be revoked for it's incredible ignorance. Grow up, Peter Pan.
Fuck you. Southern man needs to go. Nothing better than an ecological disaster of biblical proportion or a never ending war to hopefully put you fuckers away for a while. You're a scourge to humanity - violent, stupid and self-centered.
AZGrizFan wrote:You're a racist, bigoted **** if you don't like those wonderful folks from the American Southeast.D1B wrote:
**** em. Time to take the gloves off and hold those pricks accountable. They'll ruin everything. Look at what those **** did to America.
And now you can enjoy decades of pollution and economic ruin.JohnStOnge wrote:We're going to be fine. We've enjoyed the economic benefits of being in an oil rich region for many decades.
No doubt that he does.......his anti Federal government diatribes wreak of a whiny dissatisfied Fed employee.Skjellyfetti wrote:Also, what do you do for a living (if you don't mind me asking)? It will be rich with irony if you turn out to work for some government agency.
Bivalve molluscan shellfish are considered good indicators of pollution problems because they are filter feeders that live by concentrating what's in the water around them and they are stationary (or sessile if one wants to use a fancy word). That is why NOAA's Mussel Watch uses them (http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/about/coast/ns ... watch.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). The over arching objective of the Mussel Watch project is to monitor trends in various potentially hazardous substances over time. They monitor trends in pesticides, heavy metals. hydrocarbons, and PCBs using mussels and oysters as 'sentinel" organisms.Skjellyfetti wrote:Would populations of mussels be the best gauge to the overall effect of the oil spill? Don't mussels live burrowed in mud?
Also, what do you do for a living (if you don't mind me asking)? It will be rich with irony if you turn out to work for some government agency.
Good choice. I didn't see the irony in the posts prior anyway. If you did work for a government agency and then pointed out things you don't like about government and their involvement then it would seem as if you would have good experience in the matter.JohnStOnge wrote:Bivalve molluscan shellfish are considered good indicators of pollution problems because they are filter feeders that live by concentrating what's in the water around them and they are stationary (or sessile if one wants to use a fancy word). That is why NOAA's Mussel Watch uses them (http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/about/coast/ns ... watch.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). The over arching objective of the Mussel Watch project is to monitor trends in various potentially hazardous substances over time. They monitor trends in pesticides, heavy metals. hydrocarbons, and PCBs using mussels and oysters as 'sentinel" organisms.Skjellyfetti wrote:Would populations of mussels be the best gauge to the overall effect of the oil spill? Don't mussels live burrowed in mud?
Also, what do you do for a living (if you don't mind me asking)? It will be rich with irony if you turn out to work for some government agency.
In an oil spill situation bivalve molluscan shellfish like oysters may be considered good indicators of what's going on because 1) they can't avoid the oil like species that can move (motile, if you want to use a fancy word) can, 2) they filter and concentrate what's in the water and 3) they can't metabolize hydrocarbons as efficiently as fish can so it takes longer for them to rid themselves of them. You can see a reference to that in the NOAA document at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/bo ... afood2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . It's a long document but I think just by kind of skimming through it you can see how bivavle molluscan shellfish is pretty much the most "vulnerable" group.
Mussels and oysters do not live burrowed in the mud. Mussels attach to things and oysters live in clusters or reefs. If they get covered by mud they die. Clams do live burrowed into the mud but they extend siphons to draw in water and filter it. Bottom line is that the major commercial species of bivalve molluscan shellfish in the United States all live by filtering water.
I prefer not to say what I do on message boards because if I did I would not feel as free to say what I really think as I do.
