- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
A massive ship converted into a “super skimmer” has arrived in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico to assist with cleanup of the BP oil spill, a government spokeswoman said Thursday.
The 335-meter-long ore and oil carrier, dubbed the “A Whale,” is being provided by the owner, TMT Shipping of Taiwan, and can collect 500,000 barrels per day of contaminated water, said Chris Coulon, a spokeswoman for the joint incident command.
Because the skimming process doesnt remove all the oil from the water.According to what I just saw on CNN, they are still assessing the environmental impact of returning the water back into the Gulf after this ship has skimmed it. THis I simply don't understand. Surely, returning nearly oil-free water to the Gulf can't be nearly as bad as leaving the oil in there....
Because the skimming process doesnt remove all the oil from the water.
Wouldn't it be better to remove MOST of the oil rather than leave it all in there?
Because the skimming process doesnt remove all the oil from the water.
Wouldn't it be better to remove MOST of the oil rather than leave it all in there?
It isnt done for the same reason we dont blow up an asteroid on an impact course for Earth; you take one big problem and turn it into thousands of smaller and harder to see problems.It doesn't remove all the oil, so let's just leave things as they are. That's trully brilliant.
It isnt done for the same reason we dont blow up an asteroid on an impact course for Earth; you take one big problem and turn it into thousands of smaller and harder to see problems.
Removing what you can see from the water doesn't guarantee that you've removed everything. You can leave behind residue that is harder to detect and harder to capture but will still cause environmental damage.
Removing what you can see from the water doesn't guarantee that you've removed everything. You can leave behind residue that is harder to detect and harder to capture but will still cause environmental damage.
Again, let's just do nothing...because...well...that would be like, better. The common sense definciency in our country blows me away.
And somehow, Libbos expect to be taken seriously. Incredible!
Uh, that's not what he said.
He's aganist replacing a smaller problem with a bigger problem. So yes, in that context, leaving the smaller problem in place is a preferable choice then replacing it with a larger problem.
You don't refinance your 5% mortgage with a 4.9% that comes with a string of rules, points and costs that makes it far less financially appealing then your current rate. If the outcome is worse then the current situation, doing nothing is preferable.
If you expect to be taken seriously you need to respond to what he said and not an obvious fabrication of your own design.
That's exactly what he said.
We're not talking about refinancing a mortgage. Perhaps you're on the wrong thread? Learn to read, for once. Thank you!
Replacing a smaller problem with a bigger problem? Let's see, removing oil from the water is going to make the GOM oil slick worse...how? If that's the idea here, then stupidity reigns supreme.
In what langugage? He clearly stated that the outcome of using chemical dispersents could result in a residue that is harder to remove and causes damage.
Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anal·o·gies
Date: 15th century
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin — compare
Analogy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Learn English comprehension for once.
So you don't actually care about what he said. You just want to attack him on your fabrications and deliberely not discuss what he posted. Got it. You want a discussion with yourself and don't like people pointing out how what you are responding to isn't what Hoplite posted.
The EPA wants the returned water to be 99.9985% pure.
I do not believe that oil saturated water can be cleansed to this degree of purity.
But hey, rules are rules.
If you clean your kitchen counter with a dish rag once and the grease isn't gone, what do you do? Go over it again, right?
Duuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
If it takes two passes, then make two passes. That's just some more-a-that-good-ole-common sense. I know it's hard for some folks.
If you clean your kitchen counter with a dish rag once and the grease isn't gone, what do you do? Go over it again, right?
You can leave behind residue that is harder to detect and harder to capture but will still cause environmental damage.
Duuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
If it takes two passes, then make two passes. That's just some more-a-that-good-ole-common sense. I know it's hard for some folks.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the chemical residues left over from cleans are easy to remove.
Perhaps reading and responding to what people actually wrote is too difficult for you. I do know it's hard for some folks to actually reply honestly to what other posters wrote and instead must concoct blantantly obvious fabrications to compensate for their lack of reading skills, honesty or skill.
So, the solution is just leave all of the oil in there?
No, just don't use the chemical disperments that leave a bigger problem.
I don't get why you people are having problems with this. See post #4.
"Doing nothing" in this case is not using methods that create bigger problems. Hence why we should go with Costner's oil centrifuges which I believe doesn't leave residues over using chemicals that do.
Again, let's just do nothing...because...well...that would be like, better. The common sense definciency in our country blows me away.
And somehow, Libbos expect to be taken seriously. Incredible!
No one is suggesting doing nothing, but what people dont want is to rush a solution that will only create bigger problems. I know this is a big Conservative "thing", but it's not a positive road to take.So, the solution is not to capture ANY of it and let ALL of it sit there in the Gulf, swirl around, get beached and possibly get caught up in the Gulf Stream... yeah, great logic....
Or, is this because some of you are too proud to accept help from a small island country on the other side of the world that doesn't speak English?!?!?
No one is suggesting doing nothing, but what people dont want is to rush a solution that will only create bigger problems. I know this is a big Conservative "thing", but it's not a positive road to take.
Rushing in with a solution that may make your problem worse is not a good way to solve problems.
We are not talking about chemicals that DISPERSE the oil, we are talking about a ship that REMOVES it...
Removing oil leaves behind contaminants that are difficult to detect or remove. If the mass of the oil stays in the water, these contaminants cling to the oilAnd removing oil makes the problem worse?!?!? Dispersants do make elements of the problem worse, and there was no rush to stop using those...
Removing oil leaves behind contaminants that are difficult to detect or remove. If the mass of the oil stays in the water, these contaminants cling to the oil
Removing oil leaves behind contaminants that are difficult to detect or remove. If the mass of the oil stays in the water, these contaminants cling to the oil
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?