Merged Gulf oil spill more serious than reported

[quadraginta]

Well then, is it oil build up on roads or is it oil from the asphalt? Because first you said asphalt, being petroleum, would seep oil. Now is it the cars, or does asphalt produce it's own oil and "build up" in dry spells?

Your right, you didn't actually say it. But when you jumped in the conversation between me and rwguinn, sounded like you were defending his position, which was asphalt comes from petro and can leak oil on the road by itself.

I agree it could be oil from cars. It's not something I would suspect be a problem in a small city, with less traffic and all. Maybe used oil being disposed of improperly. One thing is for certain, if it was oil rain we will see it again.

It depends on circumstances. It could be either, or even both.

Freshly installed asphalt has a high oil content. It's very nearly gooey. This is why, even when laid as a pre-mix from a batch plant there is some "curing" time required. Traditional application, still seen in many rural areas, involved spreading successive layers of pea gravel on a road surface and binding them by spraying on an oily tar. As the asphalt weathers over time it becomes drier. When it rains it gets flushed off. Ultimately it will quit exuding any significant amount.

Simultaneously, but entirely unrelated, leaking fluids from motor vehicles can and will build up on road surfaces (asphalt or concrete) until it is disturbed by weather. It may not be obvious on the road surface, in the sense of seeing spills, but it is there and it does accumulate. It is most significant when there have been extended dry spells punctuated by heavy rain. The phenomenon is quite familiar to any insurance actuary, and justly feared by any experienced motorcycle owner.

If you really want to find out how oily your rain is then put up a rain gauge or some other collector, and check that.

 

[EHocking]

I live in Prescott Arizona and my mother lives in the neighboring city of Chino. She has serious lung issues as do I. Is the Gulf oil situation at all possible to spread here?

I am very ignorant of the situation...so please forgive me if this is a 'dumb' question.

It is extremely unlikely.

The EPA has not noted any exceptional air quality issues even for the Gulf states that might affect people long term. They do caution that brief exposures (i.e. hours, not days) may give discomfort to some, but they have not observed any such exposures.

If you are not familiar with it, try this site, AIRNow which issues up to date air quality measurements and probably forecasts for each state and region.

I notice that the current air quality along the Gulf coast, according to this site, is all rated "good". So even those states have little to worry about at the moment.

 

[macdoc]

ouch

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/?gclid=CJfB2di-_IoCFSOZEAod2hYXGg

 

[Without Rights]

Disastrous effects of the oil spill, obviously.

It's like I'm back in the fifth grade, taking a pop quiz on sentence diagrams.

I agree, your answer is of fifth grade caliber. Unfortunately I was asking for specifics.

 

[Without Rights]

You're asking me? Those are your words.

Let me make my position clear: I would be happy to agree with you that we are facing a major health problem if you provide compelling evidence that this is true. Simply telling us what you believe is not compelling evidence.

That's different then my opinion being irrational and all in my imagination. You said my position was crazy an based on nothing. I say it's based on basic scientific principles. Such as toxins being dangerous to humans and the ability of nature to bring them from ocean to land. You said it's crazy. I am asking why?

 

[Without Rights]

I live in Prescott Arizona and my mother lives in the neighboring city of Chino. She has serious lung issues as do I. Is the Gulf oil situation at all possible to spread here?

I am very ignorant of the situation...so please forgive me if this is a 'dumb' question.

Prescott is more than 1500 miles from the spill. In my opinion outside a 200 mile radius would be safe.

 

[Without Rights]

It depends on circumstances. It could be either, or even both.

Freshly installed asphalt has a high oil content. It's very nearly gooey. This is why, even when laid as a pre-mix from a batch plant there is some "curing" time required.

That is incorrect. Emulsifiers are added that give asphalt its gooey texture.

 

[quadraginta]

It depends on circumstances. It could be either, or even both.

Freshly installed asphalt has a high oil content. It's very nearly gooey. This is why, even when laid as a pre-mix from a batch plant there is some "curing" time required.

That is incorrect. Emulsifiers are added that give asphalt its gooey texture.

No it isn't "incorrect". I said nothing about why it is gooey.

You'd be wrong anyhow. Emulsifiers are added to maintain the workable texture of an asphaltic aggregate compound which is not being applied at the higher temperatures needed for 'hot' asphalt application.

Have you ever been around freshly laid asphalt? Try it sometime. Try walking on a hot applied road surface right after it's been rolled down, and then climb into your car. Let me know what kind of detergents you use to get the "emulsifier" stains out of the carpet.

When we talk about road surfaces the term "asphalt" is really a colloquialism for "asphaltic aggregate", or "asphaltic concrete". The asphalt component is used as a binder. That "asphalt" is what is left when crude oil is processed and all of the other useful fractions that can be distilled out separately are gone.

If you want to be picky about it (Emulsifiers, sheesh!) the "asphalt" in your roads not only has oil in it, it is the oil in it. You and your fellow taxpayers have been paying for the local DOT to spread crude oil debris all over your landscape for years.

And probably complaining when they don't do often enough.

 

[aggle-rithm]

That's different then my opinion being irrational and all in my imagination. You said my position was crazy an based on nothing. I say it's based on basic scientific principles. Such as toxins being dangerous to humans and the ability of nature to bring them from ocean to land. You said it's crazy. I am asking why?

Here's how I see your line of reasoning:

Premise #1: The oil spill is more serious than reported.
Premise #2: Toxins are dangerous to humans.
Premise #3: Nature can bring toxins from ocean to land.

Your conclusion: GET THE HELL OUT OF FLORIDA!!!

I have no problem with the premises, but the conclusion doesn't follow from them. Am I missing something?

 

[Without Rights]

No it isn't "incorrect". I said nothing about why it is gooey.

You'd be wrong anyhow. Emulsifiers are added to maintain the workable texture...

Yeah, workable texture. When you said;

Freshly installed asphalt has a high oil content. It's very nearly gooey. This is why, even when laid as a pre-mix from a batch plant there is some "curing" time required.

Having the statement "it is gooey" in the middle of a point about oil content of asphalt insinuates that's why it is gooey. Otherwise what was your point in saying it's gooey?

Have you ever been around freshly laid asphalt? Try it sometime. Try walking on a hot applied road surface right after it's been rolled down, and then climb into your car. Let me know what kind of detergents you use to get the "emulsifier" stains out of the carpet.

My uncle owns a asphalt company and I worked for him when I was 17. I just lived with my stains. The stains did not resemble oil stains in any fashion.

When we talk about road surfaces the term "asphalt" is really a colloquialism for "asphaltic aggregate", or "asphaltic concrete". The asphalt component is used as a binder. That "asphalt" is what is left when crude oil is processed and all of the other useful fractions that can be distilled out separately are gone.

right

If you want to be picky about it (Emulsifiers, sheesh!) the "asphalt" in your roads not only has oil in it, it is the oil in it.

not right.
The oil is removed. In that logic all particles that are refined from crude are oil also. Asphalt is bitumen, not oil.

You and your fellow taxpayers have been paying for the local DOT to spread crude oil debris all over your landscape for years.

No, they are payed to spread bitumen extracted from crude. No benzene, H2S, hexane, toluene, xylene or petroleum. Your point is moot.

And probably complaining when they don't do often enough.

True that.

 

[Without Rights]

Here's how I see your line of reasoning:

Premise #1: The oil spill is more serious than reported.
Premise #2: Toxins are dangerous to humans.
Premise #3: Nature can bring toxins from ocean to land.

Your conclusion: GET THE HELL OUT OF FLORIDA!!!

I have no problem with the premises, but the conclusion doesn't follow from them. Am I missing something?

Then we have no argument. You just think I am crazy and irrational because I am moving my family just in case. You have no argument against the fact that it is possible. Forget the fact that there is an 80% chance of a hurricane to hit the gulf. Do you suppose that worrying about that threat is also "crazy" and "irrational"?

 

[Without Rights]

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/14383/benzene-cancer-leukemia-fda-2.html?ref=rss

Lawyers are already betting on problems from toxins.

 

[rwguinn]

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/14383/benzene-cancer-leukemia-fda-2.html?ref=rss

Lawyers are already betting on problems from toxins.

And if they can't find real ones, they'll "manufacture" some.

 

[Without Rights]

And if they can't find real ones, they'll "manufacture" some.

The point is that it is not just Without Rights on an internet forum.

 

[EHocking]

The point is that it is not just Without Rights on an internet forum.

In the case of the link you gave, it is a group of ambulance chasing lawyers trying to drum up business. There are adverts on each of their pages suggesting,

FREE CASE EVALUATION

Send your Benzene claim to a Lawyer who will review your case at NO COST or obligation. CLICK HERE​

 

[Without Rights]

In the case of the link you gave, it is a group of ambulance chasing lawyers trying to drum up business. There are adverts on each of their pages suggesting,

FREE CASE EVALUATION

Send your Benzene claim to a Lawyer who will review your case at NO COST or obligation. CLICK HERE​

The fact that they are working on a contingency means they believe there will be some health issues related to the spill. Ambulance chasing makes no sense if there is no damages to prove.

 

[EHocking]

The fact that they are working on a contingency means they believe there will be some health issues related to the spill. Ambulance chasing makes no sense if there is no damages to prove.

Riiiighhtt..... No one has ever attempted to defraud an insurance company through litigation.

Lawyers are all pure as the driven snow and are only interested in proof....

 

[Without Rights]

Riiiighhtt..... No one has ever attempted to defraud an insurance company through litigation.

Lawyers are all pure as the driven snow and are only interested in proof....

I never said they're pure as snow.

However lawyers don't create false problems, they exploit problems that exist. If there ends up to be no health issues related to the spill then these lawyers will not profit a dime. If there are issues their ad will pay off. In other words, they are betting on health problems.

 

[Without Rights]

And if they can't find real ones, they'll "manufacture" some.

I don't think so. BP's insurance company will certainly employ a hefty defense. You would have to be pretty cocky to challenge lawyers working for BP with a intentionally false claim. Cocky and stupid as they are very likely to expose you with extensive investigation.

 

[quadraginta]

I never said they're pure as snow.

However lawyers don't create false problems, they exploit problems that exist. If there ends up to be no health issues related to the spill then these lawyers will not profit a dime. If there are issues their ad will pay off. In other words, they are betting on health problems.

Two words.

Dow Corning

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, class-action lawsuits claimed that Dow Corning's silicone breast implants caused systemic health problems. The claims first centered around breast cancer, and then migrated to a range of autoimmune diseases, including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and various neurological problems. This led to numerous lawsuits beginning in 1984 and culminating in a 1998 multi-billion dollar class action settlement. As a result, Dow Corning was in bankruptcy protection for nine years, ending in June 2004.

A number of large, independent reviews of the scientific literature, including the U.S. Institute of Medicine, have subsequently found that silicone breast implants do not appear to cause breast cancers or any identifiable systemic disease.[1][2] [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Corning#cite_note--2

As you can see, it ended up that there were no health issues related to the implants, at least none that the lawsuits alleged.

Do you believe that none of the lawyers involved profited from the fourteen years of litigation or the multi-billion dollar settlement?

I don't think so. BP's insurance company will certainly employ a hefty defense. You would have to be pretty cocky to challenge lawyers working for BP with a intentionally false claim. Cocky and stupid as they are very likely to expose you with extensive investigation.

Dow was not exactly a second string lightweight at the beginning of the '80s. Quite the opposite. Cocky lawyers still managed to bring it to its knees and put in receivership for nearly a decade with no empirical evidence at all.

The only exposure threatening those plaintiffs' lawyers is from the sun they get on the yachts they bought with those dimes you believe are so unreachable.