Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on August 9, 2010 at 9:15

You know there aren't going to be anymore Boudreaux and Tibideaux jokes?, Boudreaux died and left in his will he wanted to be buried at sea, Tibideaux drowned trying to dig his grave...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on August 9, 2010 at 18:50

Grump-O-Meter reading went down to a -2, but I have to add 2 "grump" points in case you upset the Boudreaux & Thibideaux families and a war-of-words erupts. That currently leaves you with a "0" grump reading.

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by S.H.M. on August 8, 2010 at 0:54

Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on August 9, 2010 at 5:11

Rushing the week, are we? What did you do, go to China and cross the International Date Line?

lol, 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on August 9, 2010 at 11:36

How toxic is crude oil in small concentrations?

I know that crude oil was used in medicines and cosmetics before we started producing it in quantities and using it for fuel. (Of course, so was radium.)

Used motor oil often has heavy metals in it from the engine, so that's definitely toxic, but how about raw, out of the ground crude oil?

Don't forget, crude oil is decayed plant matter, and it's 100% organic. 8-)

Oilfield workers are often coated with the stuff.

Yes, I know it's toxic in large quantities, especially if ingested or inhaled. I'm certainly not advocating ingesting it deliberately. I'm wondering what it really does if there's a small concentration in the water or food chain?

One very valid concern mentioned in one of the articles is that certain toxins tend to get concentrated as they move up the food chain.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on August 9, 2010 at 12:01

Mac,

It is common in Mexico at the big bus terminals and trucking company depots to use the used motor oil (including heavy metals) on the dirt roads around them to lay the dust. That could not be good for the people's health.

Down in the Southern oil fields around refineries and chemical plants, nothing (fish, frogs, animals, grass or seaweeds grows in the creeks and rivers due to the direct dumping of waste, including acids.

At the biggest gas treatment plant,in the Yucatan, Cactus-Reform,
The removed sulfur is moved about and piled up in the open by dozers. When the wind picks up it blows away over the villages.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on August 9, 2010 at 15:45

I agree crude oil is toxic in high concentrations, especially after it's been used or processed. I'm just wondering how toxic dilute solutions are. Some things are dangerous in high concentrations, but not in low concentrations. There's dilute hydrochloric acid in lots of drugs. A 10x overdose of Tylenol/acetaminophen will destroy your liver and lead to a horrible death. Vitamin A overdoses have very nasty effects. Small concentrations of alcohol are harmless and found in many foods, but large doses are fatal. Too much CO2 in the air will kill you. Fluoride in water can be toxic and have bad side effects, but it occurs naturally in many areas in lower concentrations and has no obvious bad effects.

I'm wondering if dilute crude oil is really all that toxic. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just wondering. It does naturally seep out of the ground in many areas and does get into the water naturally.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on August 9, 2010 at 18:33

Mac - I'll just say that I'll wait for the scientists to do their research. I'm going to side with their concern here, though, as I'm sure they know best. I don't think they're giving all those turtles & pelicans bubble baths just because they like to play in bubbles.

As for this article, I think the Brits just may have their knickers in a wad because they're not getting their dividends. Sure don't see them rushing over here to volunteer to help on the beaches or in the water, either.

Anyone want to volunteer to be a guinea pig and ingest the equivalent of crude & salt water proportional to what is being found in the blue crab?

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on August 10, 2010 at 3:40

sesport, you're deliberately twisting my words.

Yes, the animals that were oil coated and/or drowned were or are in in trouble. The animals that were killed are dead. There was lots of clear damage from floating oil and/or heavy concentrations of oil in the water. Lots of animals were probably poisoned from ingesting oil.

The animals that were killed are still dead.

The question I'm asking is how much ongoing damage is there from low concentrations of oil in the environment?

Seabirds drown and die if you coat them with oil. Now that there aren't oil slicks floating around, once any remaining underwater plumes (if any) dissipate and there's small concentrations of crude oil in the water and in the food chain, what are the effects? Will seabirds be dying in droves next month because the oil has worked its way up the food chain and the fish they're eating are full of toxic chemicals?

Shall we try and see what the real effects are, or should we just be fearmongers and declare that the Gulf is toxic forever and cause further economic damage to those who depend on the Gulf fisheries or tourism?

Your blue crab argument is a strawman argument. You're making up false arguments for the other side and refuting them. It's like me suggesting that you think we should stop drinking water entirely because the oil evaporated into the atmosphere and it's in the rainfall now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on August 10, 2010 at 4:26

Mac - I'm sorry, I don't intend for you to view it as I'm twisting your words. My attitude about this just isn't cavalier, and I view this article by a British tabloid to be such, as well as sensational and inflammatory, as far as the economic and environmental impact goes.

I won't suggest anything that you think, I'm only going by what you post. Again, I'm not trying to wad knickers. I guess I was just being a little "cheeky."

And I'll wait to see what US scientists from US universities have to tell us about what's going on in US waters.

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stevew on August 9, 2010 at 21:24

Pipeliner - mucho thanks for posting this article. I am really glad the well is capped and the oil seems to be gone (has it sunk to the bottom?)

It's the way leaders behave that's important at times like this - both the Brit's leaders and the US's leaders let them down. I watched local officials in South Louisiana cry on CNN, just stopping short of calling it Judgment Day. I am thousands of miles away so I might not have the insight that many of you do but I and have been very frustrated with leadership and the media on all levels.

What do you guys think of Jindal's leadership during this time? I thought it was excellent, but like lots of local officials he too fanned the Doomsday flames. I am NOT trying to start a political debate here - I just see a failure of leadership all the way around - and eleven dead men.

PS: as much as this thing has changed from disaster to near miss I am not sure who I trust anymore for accurate info. Perhaps it's partly my/our fault for wanting sound bite answers early in the game. Like seasport said, I want to hear what the scientists say in a few months - not that I trust them much either.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on August 10, 2010 at 3:04

Logger - As for the research, we would just need to be mindful of who may be funding, and possibly influencing, the research. But I think that this group of universities and researchers will do their best. And, of course, their results will be subject to peer review, ensuring a kind of checks & balances with constructive criticism.

thanks, 80)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page