Texas A&M: Large Dead Zone Forming In The Gulf
- Thread starter PandaBear
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure the tons of Corexit that BP dumped in the waters has nothing to do with it. Basically a very poisonous substance to all living marine animals. Interesting how that study mentions NOTHING of that issue.
Probably that Texas A&M study was funded by BP. LOL
Probably that Texas A&M study was funded by BP. LOL
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
When I click the link it says "Article can't be found".
^^^Yes, there are cycles that occur naturally over eons. With our short lives we simply cannot relate.
But someone will spin this hugely for their own agenda, guaranteed.
Never let a good crisis go to waste!
But someone will spin this hugely for their own agenda, guaranteed.
Never let a good crisis go to waste!
Except in times before complex unnaturally occurring chemical levels, nature was able to fairly rapidly recover from these cycles. A lot of these chemicals are very complex and not easily decomposed by time and nature.
Corexit is DEADLY and complex!
I still to this day have NEVER heard a reasonable explanation as to why BP used this stuff in such huge quantities to break up the oil, which IS a natural occurring substance. What a HUGE mistake! It would have been far wiser to simply let the oil break down naturally, certainly safer for the environment in the long run.
Corexit is DEADLY and complex!
I still to this day have NEVER heard a reasonable explanation as to why BP used this stuff in such huge quantities to break up the oil, which IS a natural occurring substance. What a HUGE mistake! It would have been far wiser to simply let the oil break down naturally, certainly safer for the environment in the long run.
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I'm sure the tons of Corexit that BP dumped in the waters has nothing to do with it. Basically a very poisonous substance to all living marine animals. Interesting how that study mentions NOTHING of that issue.
Probably that Texas A&M study was funded by BP. LOL
Well, if you recall. BP had the most response to the spill, as it was its responsibility, and it mobilized every/i] resource to combat it.................
Other marine interests had better things to do.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2010/06/15/bp-oil-spill-what-is-the-jones-act.htm
The White House and the Coast Guard have said publicly that foreign ships trying to help in the gulf oil spill disaster were turned away.
I'm sure the tons of Corexit that BP dumped in the waters has nothing to do with it. Basically a very poisonous substance to all living marine animals. Interesting how that study mentions NOTHING of that issue.
Probably that Texas A&M study was funded by BP. LOL
Well, if you recall. BP had the most response to the spill, as it was its responsibility, and it mobilized every/i] resource to combat it.................
Other marine interests had better things to do.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2010/06/15/bp-oil-spill-what-is-the-jones-act.htm
The White House and the Coast Guard have said publicly that foreign ships trying to help in the gulf oil spill disaster were turned away.
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Except in times before complex unnaturally occurring chemical levels, nature was able to fairly rapidly recover from these cycles. A lot of these chemicals are very complex and not easily decomposed by time and nature.
Corexit is DEADLY and complex!
I still to this day have NEVER heard a reasonable explanation as to why BP used this stuff in such huge quantities to break up the oil, which IS a natural occurring substance. What a HUGE mistake! It would have been far wiser to simply let the oil break down naturally, certainly safer for the environment in the long run.
Nature (the oceans) did not "rapidly" recover from those cycles. Everything but anaerobic bacteria died in the oceans during those periods. It was a long slow process to re-oxygenate the oceans and for new species to evolve and fill the oceans again.
Also, oil breaking down naturally in the ocean creates the oxygen depleted areas, too.
Except in times before complex unnaturally occurring chemical levels, nature was able to fairly rapidly recover from these cycles. A lot of these chemicals are very complex and not easily decomposed by time and nature.
Corexit is DEADLY and complex!
I still to this day have NEVER heard a reasonable explanation as to why BP used this stuff in such huge quantities to break up the oil, which IS a natural occurring substance. What a HUGE mistake! It would have been far wiser to simply let the oil break down naturally, certainly safer for the environment in the long run.
Nature (the oceans) did not "rapidly" recover from those cycles. Everything but anaerobic bacteria died in the oceans during those periods. It was a long slow process to re-oxygenate the oceans and for new species to evolve and fill the oceans again.
Also, oil breaking down naturally in the ocean creates the oxygen depleted areas, too.
According to everything I've read there are huge amounts of oil naturally leaking into our oceans worldwide.
Somehow we all survived...
Somehow we all survived...
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
According to everything I've read there are huge amounts of oil naturally leaking into our oceans worldwide.
Somehow we all survived...
slow, gradual pollutions over a long period of time (i.e. million of years) means the surrounding lives have evolved to survive in that environment. Pelican have salt gland that discharge excessive salt and can survive ok without fresh water, but if you put a duck in a salt water pond in the middle of a desert, it will die instead of suddenly grow a salt gland.
Oxygen depleted zone suddenly appear when we start using chemical fertilizer instead of farm waste and feces / urine based fertilizer. Coincident?
According to everything I've read there are huge amounts of oil naturally leaking into our oceans worldwide.
Somehow we all survived...
slow, gradual pollutions over a long period of time (i.e. million of years) means the surrounding lives have evolved to survive in that environment. Pelican have salt gland that discharge excessive salt and can survive ok without fresh water, but if you put a duck in a salt water pond in the middle of a desert, it will die instead of suddenly grow a salt gland.
Oxygen depleted zone suddenly appear when we start using chemical fertilizer instead of farm waste and feces / urine based fertilizer. Coincident?
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
According to everything I've read there are huge amounts of oil naturally leaking into our oceans worldwide.
Somehow we all survived...
slow, gradual pollutions over a long period of time (i.e. million of years) means the surrounding lives have evolved to survive in that environment. Pelican have salt gland that discharge excessive salt and can survive ok without fresh water, but if you put a duck in a salt water pond in the middle of a desert, it will die instead of suddenly grow a salt gland.
Oxygen depleted zone suddenly appear when we start using chemical fertilizer instead of farm waste and feces / urine based fertilizer. Coincident?
No it's definitely not likely that this is coincidence.
I have seen the damage that run off does in fresh water lakes and such in Florida, and it's always worse where there is farming.
I was speaking to the issue of blaming only BP and oil released from their accident...
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
According to everything I've read there are huge amounts of oil naturally leaking into our oceans worldwide.
Somehow we all survived...
slow, gradual pollutions over a long period of time (i.e. million of years) means the surrounding lives have evolved to survive in that environment. Pelican have salt gland that discharge excessive salt and can survive ok without fresh water, but if you put a duck in a salt water pond in the middle of a desert, it will die instead of suddenly grow a salt gland.
Oxygen depleted zone suddenly appear when we start using chemical fertilizer instead of farm waste and feces / urine based fertilizer. Coincident?
No it's definitely not likely that this is coincidence.
I have seen the damage that run off does in fresh water lakes and such in Florida, and it's always worse where there is farming.
I was speaking to the issue of blaming only BP and oil released from their accident...
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Except in times before complex unnaturally occurring chemical levels, nature was able to fairly rapidly recover from these cycles. A lot of these chemicals are very complex and not easily decomposed by time and nature.
Corexit is DEADLY and complex!
I still to this day have NEVER heard a reasonable explanation as to why BP used this stuff in such huge quantities to break up the oil, which IS a natural occurring substance. What a HUGE mistake! It would have been far wiser to simply let the oil break down naturally, certainly safer for the environment in the long run.
Nature (the oceans) did not "rapidly" recover from those cycles. Everything but anaerobic bacteria died in the oceans during those periods. It was a long slow process to re-oxygenate the oceans and for new species to evolve and fill the oceans again.
Also, oil breaking down naturally in the ocean creates the oxygen depleted areas, too.
I'm speaking in relative terms when speaking of rapidly.
The fact is that the ecosystem has no "defense" against some complex chemical formula that was devised in a lab during the past few decades. It will seriously retard the renewal process.
And like I mentioned previously, although oil damages plants and animals, nature has had millions of years to find a way to deal with it.
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Except in times before complex unnaturally occurring chemical levels, nature was able to fairly rapidly recover from these cycles. A lot of these chemicals are very complex and not easily decomposed by time and nature.
Corexit is DEADLY and complex!
I still to this day have NEVER heard a reasonable explanation as to why BP used this stuff in such huge quantities to break up the oil, which IS a natural occurring substance. What a HUGE mistake! It would have been far wiser to simply let the oil break down naturally, certainly safer for the environment in the long run.
Nature (the oceans) did not "rapidly" recover from those cycles. Everything but anaerobic bacteria died in the oceans during those periods. It was a long slow process to re-oxygenate the oceans and for new species to evolve and fill the oceans again.
Also, oil breaking down naturally in the ocean creates the oxygen depleted areas, too.
I'm speaking in relative terms when speaking of rapidly.
The fact is that the ecosystem has no "defense" against some complex chemical formula that was devised in a lab during the past few decades. It will seriously retard the renewal process.
And like I mentioned previously, although oil damages plants and animals, nature has had millions of years to find a way to deal with it.
Propflux01
$100 Site Donor 2025
JHZR2
Staff member
Bad news: For whatever cycles occur - chemical fertilizer facilitates algae blooms and creates new dead zones.
Worse news: When a "natural" dead zone occurs, we may well be toast. None of us know enough about any of it to speculate that it will be OK, nor dire. But it is better risk management to assume it is dire. And we better darn well know how to deal with, reverse and engineer solutions around this stuf, instead of just playing ostrich.
Other news: Mexico has surpassed the USA as the most obese nation, so if we stopped using chemical fertilizer, ate a few less corn chips, and grew our own vegetable gardens with some manual labor thrown in, we would all be better off.
Worse news: When a "natural" dead zone occurs, we may well be toast. None of us know enough about any of it to speculate that it will be OK, nor dire. But it is better risk management to assume it is dire. And we better darn well know how to deal with, reverse and engineer solutions around this stuf, instead of just playing ostrich.
Other news: Mexico has surpassed the USA as the most obese nation, so if we stopped using chemical fertilizer, ate a few less corn chips, and grew our own vegetable gardens with some manual labor thrown in, we would all be better off.
I don't think "we" are going to evolve fast enough to adapt to our changing environment. Like the video said, this is the new normal and just a fact of life right now. I've always been on the band wagon that greenhouse gases and global warming are just natural cycles, but living with record amounts of tornadoes these past couple of years and more violent thunderstorms, I'm starting to become a believer.
Originally Posted By: Schmoe
I don't think "we" are going to evolve fast enough to adapt to our changing environment. Like the video said, this is the new normal and just a fact of life right now. I've always been on the band wagon that greenhouse gases and global warming are just natural cycles, but living with record amounts of tornadoes these past couple of years and more violent thunderstorms, I'm starting to become a believer.
not to veer off topic but last year had the lowest tornado count on record in the USA.
I don't think "we" are going to evolve fast enough to adapt to our changing environment. Like the video said, this is the new normal and just a fact of life right now. I've always been on the band wagon that greenhouse gases and global warming are just natural cycles, but living with record amounts of tornadoes these past couple of years and more violent thunderstorms, I'm starting to become a believer.
not to veer off topic but last year had the lowest tornado count on record in the USA.
Oh why let facts ruin a good "crisis"?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
