Merged Gulf oil spill more serious than reported

[Without Rights]

THis describes flight restrictions over the spill area except for those supporting the spill mitigation.

"All aircraft operations are prohibited except those flights authorized by ATC, routine flights supporting offshore oil operations; federal, state, local and military flight operations supporting oil spill recovery and reconstitution efforts; and air medical and law enforcement operations. "

My point was that they haven't evacuated because they are cleaning up the spill. They wear respirators. If toxins come ashore, like in LA, according to video I posted, http://www.businessinsider.com/gulf-...uisiana-2010-6
the people wont be wearing respirators like the cleanup crews do.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'm upset that you ignored the rest of the post. I know, it was too crazy or not worthy of comment or some other fallacy.

I'm sorry you're upset, but I thought I made it fairly clear that I felt there was no point in continuing a discussion with you. My most recent response was just an FYI.

 

[Without Rights]

So this explains why people have been dying out in the GOM

No, but respirators are why they stay alive.

and the EPA & government are recommending mandatory evacuation of the affected areas and Florida coastline, right?

Oh wait... yeah, that's not happening

Again...

 

[Without Rights]

I'm sorry you're upset, but I thought I made it fairly clear that I felt there was no point in continuing a discussion with you. My most recent response was just an FYI.

How convenient that must be for you. I canceled out your fallacious arguments so now you run for the hills.

He's gonna cry in the car.

 

[Nosi]

Not really necessary, as I don't find it difficult not to dwell on things I can't control.

If I did, I might worry about:

1. a killer asteroid that could hit us at any time,
2. a solar flare that could wipe out the power grid and with it, civilization as we know it,
3. eruption of the super-volcano at Yellowstone which would devastate the continental US,
4. collapse of the fragile levee system in California, which would result in the entire southern part of the state becoming uninhabitable,
5. climate change turning the Amazon basin into a desert,
6. Etc., etc.

There are many things we could choose to obsess over, if that is how we want to spend the paltry number of years we have on Earth. I prefer to focus on things I can do something about.

I have heard (can't link) rumors that there is a large, potentially explosive methane bubble just under the cracking sea floor of the Gulf where that BOP is sitting. If that thing pops, we have a tidal wave that can devastate all the Gulf states plus some of Mexico.

This is devastating, and we would need to evacuate the Gulf coast sooner rather than later if this is true. If we don't, the loss of Human life would exceed the 2004 tidal wave that hit Asia.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have heard (can't link) rumors that there is a large, potentially explosive methane bubble just under the cracking sea floor of the Gulf where that BOP is sitting. If that thing pops, we have a tidal wave that can devastate all the Gulf states plus some of Mexico.

This is devastating, and we would need to evacuate the Gulf coast sooner rather than later if this is true. If we don't, the loss of Human life would exceed the 2004 tidal wave that hit Asia.

Plus...methane is a wicked greenhouse gas. It caused a mass extinction several hundred million years ago.

 

[aggle-rithm]

How convenient that must be for you. I canceled out your fallacious arguments so now you run for the hills.

He's gonna cry in the car.

Heh! Funny.

 

[Without Rights]

Heh! Funny.

Yeah, it's funny cause it's true.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Yeah, it's funny cause it's true.

Wow, some people really do enjoy living in echo chambers of their own making.

Once more WR, and for the last time: if your goal is to convince the rest of us on this thread of your claims, you have failed utterly. Call that whatever fallacy you like, but long story short is that your arguments have been thoroughly unconvincing.

Good luck moving your family.

Cheers.

 

[EHocking]

Is that your response to my posts?

How thick is your skull? ...I see you cannot gather a legitimate position in your maximus head.

After all the begging I still get the same two fallacious arguments....of extension and ad hominem. Your bread and butter.

 

[EHocking]

My point was that they haven't evacuated because they are cleaning up the spill. They wear respirators. If toxins come ashore, like in LA, according to video I posted, http://www.businessinsider.com/gulf-...uisiana-2010-6
the people wont be wearing respirators like the cleanup crews do.

Unverified internet video is hardly conclusive evidence.

It is more likely that what was on the video was caused by drains backing up after heavy rain and oily water was flushed to the road surface.

There is no actual evidence for oily rain.
You are allowing internet rumour mongering to lead you to unneccesary panic.

 

[Without Rights]

Unverified internet video is hardly conclusive evidence.

I didn't say it was conclusive. Not to be discounted for no reason.

It is more likely that what was on the video was caused by drains backing up after heavy rain and oily water was flushed to the road surface.

I hardly think anything "backed up". If it had the people would have seen it and not reported that it was in the rain.

There is no actual evidence for oily rain.

Yes there is actual evidence. There are many eyewitnesses that say it was the rain. Why are they to be left out of the equation? Why didn't anyone see a back up that flooded oil all over their land? And they have a video.

You are allowing internet rumour mongering to lead you to unneccesary panic.

And you allow iron pigheadedness to rule you.

Is this "rumor mongering"?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/06/24/gulf.oil.storm/?fbid=zlsiFhFu3xh

Can I post that without offending you?

 

[Without Rights]

I made the concept clear to maximus, and I'll say it again.

Me: A point, an insult, a point, an insult.

You: Insult, insult, insult. The insults are the point and that is somehow good enough. I don't get it.


I stand completely behind

How thick is your skull? ...I see you cannot gather a legitimate position in your maximus head.

Because I begged for a legitimate argument and he still used tactics. Yes, he prefers to use insult as his primary argument, also he refuses to state a comprehensible position. Only arguing against my logic (albeit through insult). While refusing to establish a direct opinion on why toxins in the oil are not harmful to health of human beings around the gulf. Why is it absurd?

CNN reports;

High winds and seas could distribute the oil -- still gushing from a blown deepwater well -- over a wider area and storm surges could wash more oil ashore, according to a fact sheet prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

You're in deep-water denial.

 

[Without Rights]

Wow, some people really do enjoy living in echo chambers of their own making.

Once more WR, and for the last time: if your goal is to convince the rest of us on this thread of your claims, you have failed utterly. Call that whatever fallacy you like, but long story short is that your arguments have been thoroughly unconvincing.

Good luck moving your family.

Cheers.

And you know I will call it a fallacy. "Your not convincing", wow that's very compelling evidence. I see now, there is no need to worry. That argument is so awesome you used it twice, thoroughly you might say.

When tactics fail so do you.

I grow weary of being ignored and edited anyway so peace.

 

[EHocking]

I didn't say it was conclusive. Not to be discounted for no reason.

I hardly think anything "backed up". If it had the people would have seen it and not reported that it was in the rain.
Yes there is actual evidence. There are many eyewitnesses that say it was the rain. Why are they to be left out of the equation?

No one actually said they witnessed oily rain - only the supposed aftermath, which was merely video of water in a drain with an oily sheen.

Why didn't anyone see a back up that flooded oil all over their land?

The video shows a flooded gutter and standing water on a road - evidence that points towards a backed up drain.

Again, no one actually witnessed oily rain, they only came to this conclusion based on some puddles with an oil sheen that they witnessed after rain. None of these witnesses can actually point to evidence that these puddles are not merely oily run off from oily roads.

And they have a video.

So do Bigfoot proponents.

None of this is evidence, it is merely anecdotes.

And you allow iron pigheadedness to rule you.

Is this "rumor mongering"?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/06/24/gulf.oil.storm/?fbid=zlsiFhFu3xh

Can I post that without offending you?

Post away - it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of oily rain. Only conjecture on the consequenses of storms in the GoM washing oil ashore.

Again - nothing about oily rain.

 

[Without Rights]

None of these witnesses can actually point to evidence that these puddles are not merely oily run off from oily roads.So do Bigfoot proponents.

None of this is evidence, it is merely anecdotes.

Nor is there evidence of any other source of oil. You can't discount it. There is oil on the ground. Until a source is identified the Gulf spill is at least a suspect.

Post away - it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of oily rain. Only conjecture on the consequenses of storms in the GoM washing oil ashore.

Conjecture from NOAA. Don't oceanic and atmospheric scientists opinion amount to more than conjecture?

From the story;
"High winds and seas could distribute the oil...over a wider area and storm surges could wash more oil ashore"

So it doesn't have to mention rain. My point through this whole thread was that the oil spill has the ability to invade populations and cause health risks. Saying the story doesn't mention rain is meaningless.

Again - nothing about oily rain.

Rain is just one of the ways oil can come inland.

 

[Without Rights]

None of this is evidence, it is merely anecdotes.

It is not an anecdotal evidence. It is actual evidence of oil on the ground. Until a definitive reason is given for the oil, then it is too soon to try and explain it away with more unproven claims.

 

[Without Rights]

Plus...methane is a wicked greenhouse gas. It caused a mass extinction several hundred million years ago.

Now toxic gases are a problem? I thought that was loony-woo talk.

 

[EHocking]

It is not an anecdotal evidence. It is actual evidence of oil on the ground. Until a definitive reason is given for the oil, then it is too soon to try and explain it away with more unproven claims.

If it was rain - why was there no video of oil rain on the cars parked in the street or anywhere else.

All we have is an oily sheen on water in a flooded gutter and a drain.

No oily water on any surfaces, except for those in a drain or a flooded gutter.

Also, in a town of some 1 million people, only one loon with a video camera seems to have noticed this "oily rain".

Whereas, oily sheen has been observed on roads after rain and in drains and gutters after rain.

That and there is no scientific evidence at all that oil can be firstly evaporated into the atmosphere AND condensed into raindrops.

 

[MattusMaximus]