- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
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.
But the contaminants that do remain are harder to detect and eradicate while being just as toxicBut there are fewer contaminants in the water than before it went through the skimming process....
I cant speak to operations already underway as I dont know the physical mechanism by which these ships work, if they return water back to the sea in a clean state or not.There are already some 500 skimmers working in the Gulf. This one is massive in comparison and can do more work than all of them combined... so, why not put it to work... it isn't American, or something? Afraid the Taiwanese can do something better than the Americans can?!?!?
But the contaminants that do remain are harder to detect and eradicate while being just as toxic
I cant speak to operations already underway as I dont know the physical mechanism by which these ships work, if they return water back to the sea in a clean state or not.
Removing the oil and returning the water to the ocean before it's been completely cleaned will make the problem more difficult to combat.So, taking most of the oil leaves it JUST AS TOXIC as not taking it out?
What is returned exponentially harder to fully clean and therefore means the damage to the environment will be greater as it cannot be effectively removed.It will return it in a CLEANER state than before. Isn't that a positive? Or the liberal response, it won't make it 99.9% pure so let's leave the oil in the Gulf... rediculous...
Removing the oil and returning the water to the ocean before it's been completely cleaned will make the problem more difficult to combat.
What is returned exponentially harder to fully clean and therefore means the damage to the environment will be greater as it cannot be effectively removed.
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.
I'm glad the Taiwanese ship has arrived. The spill is reaching outrageous proportions with all the new oil ejected each day. How it has been permitted to go on for this long is beyond me.
Now I hope we can cut through the bureaucratic red tape and put this ship to work. It would be nice to have this resolved before oil starts flowing to Canada. :roll:
It isn't often we agree, but on this one, I am in wholehearted agreement with you...
Oh Sisyphus, where art thou?It can't be fully cleaned as it is. We have no way of fully cleaning it. So, the solution is to let it remain in the Gulf until some super new technology comes about (in a hundred years or so that WILL fully clean it?!?!? Please, tell us what more effective method there is of cleaning this up RIGHT NOW than the Taiwanese A Whale skimmer! Please, the world would really like to know... How can ANY SOLUTION we have right now be any better than this?!?! Dispertants are better? You like dumping thousands of liters of disperants on it every day?!? Is that the better solution, because at the moment, that IS the solution -- save for those tiny boats skimming a small fraction of oil in the Gulf now and NOT skimming 100% of it either, for the record. Or, is this because some Taiwanese businessman put a PRIVATE, COMMERCIAL solution to a problem the government has not been able to solve!?!? Is that is?!?!?
I am having a problem believing the left can actually be this moronic...
I am having a problem believing the left can actually be this moronic..
Again, let's just do nothing...because...well...that would be like, better. The common sense definciency in our country blows me away.
Yeah, so sense we can't achieve 99.999999% purity, let's do nothing.
It can't be fully cleaned as it is. We have no way of fully cleaning it. So, the solution is to let it remain in the Gulf until some super new technology comes about (in a hundred years or so that WILL fully clean it?!?!?
And somehow, Libbos expect to be taken seriously. Incredible!
Speaking as one who has cleaned many a counter with many a rag I can say that your analogy is a complete reason of WHY Obvious Child is correct. If you have a rag and you wipe something with it and it's still not clean then wiping at it more and more might not help because your rag is probably dirty from doing so much work (it would be sort of like a giant skimmer using chemicals to try to take away one mess by replacing it with another). You can make as many passes as you want but until you're sure your rag is clean (or that your skimmer doesn't cause more harm then good) there is no reason to keep trying. You're just wasting time and energy which could be spent loading the dishwasher.
No one here has said or implied that the solution is to "do nothing" at all. NO ONE.
:roll:
Well, common sense would dictate getting a clean rag, just like, I'm sure, this skimmer ship has filters/scrubbers that require replacement when they are too contaminated to work. But, I know how common sense is a premium now-a-days.
Yes that would be the common sense thing to do. But what if you didn't know the rag was dirty? I'm not sure how the whole cleaning process works so I'm just going off of Obvious Child's statements and playing devils advocate. From what he said it sounds like they use powerful chemicals to clean the water then release it back. If we don't know how harmful the chemicals are or are not then we are blindly picking up a rag and wiping. So yes common sense says to not use a dirty rag and get a clean one. But what you're saying is we should blindly pick a rag and not check if it is dirty, then use it. We have a chance for success and a chance we just make a bigger mess. Obvious Child is saying that we should make sure we don't do the bigger mess bit.
I know thinking through analogies can be difficult but please don't just assume I'm leaving out common sense
No offense, but your last two posts totally suspend common sense and precludes that, as the Leftists have advocated since Day 1 of the spill, we do, nothing.
HOW do they not contain common sense? I'm not saying do nothing, I'm saying make sure you don't do something worse. That's about as sensible as common sense gets I would think. I'm all for cleaning up the spill, but if Obvious Child brings up a LEGITIMATE CLAIM then I'm going to defend it until someone can shoot it down with something else that is more logical and makes more sense (Just like I would defend you if you bring up what I believe to be a legitimate claim). Use logic please and debate the claim instead of trying to shoot down the messenger and getting stuck on petty little things such as analogies being imperfect.
You're not saying do something! I mean, how on earth, could a skimmer ship make thing worse? Skimmer ships don't use chemicals to seperate the oil. They either use filters, scrubbers, or seperate the oil and water using heater-treaters. Common sense can easily explain how either of those three methods won't make things worse. Meanwhile, while the treehuggers wring their hands, worrying about, "making things worse"--as if that were possible--the oil is steadily belching from MC 252.
I hope you're not one of those Libbos that always calls the Righties the, "party of no".
What spill response tactic/strategy have you supported/suggested? Seriously, aside from a buncha clowns doing a half-assed job of policing tarballs on the beach, what have you supported?
Did you support:
Burning?
Skimming?
Sand Berms?
Yes, so long as the toxicity of the pollution emitted by burning the oil is less damaging to the ecology and economy of the region than the oil that is being burned.
Yes.
Yes.
I also strongly support use of the Taiwanese "super skimmer," provided it actually works as advertised. Keep in mind, until a few weeks ago, this ship was an iron ore carrier. Its crew has no oil-skimming experience, the company is not in the business of separating oil from water, and skimming what's on the surface doesn't do diddly to what's roiling around beneath the water's surface. Surely you remember those magical "dispersants" we were spraying around willy nilly; we discovered too late that they only made our oil collection efforts that much more difficult. :doh
:roll:
You're not saying do something! I mean, how on earth, could a skimmer ship make thing worse? Skimmer ships don't use chemicals to seperate the oil. They either use filters, scrubbers, or seperate the oil and water using heater-treaters. Common sense can easily explain how either of those three methods won't make things worse. Meanwhile, while the treehuggers wring their hands, worrying about, "making things worse"--as if that were possible--the oil is steadily belching from MC 252.
I hope you're not one of those Libbos that always calls the Righties the, "party of no".
You should be mad as hell that Obama's crew totally ignored all of these approaches to containing the spill.
In actuallity, the dispersants were found to be far less toxic than the oil. Go figger!
EPA: Dispersants less toxic than oil | wwltv.com | Local News
However, he cautioned that more testing was needed to study how toxic the dispersants are when mixed with oil. This round of testing only studied the chemicals not mixed with oil.
You should be mad as hell that Obama's crew totally ignored all of these approaches to containing the spill.
Although the manufacturer's safety data sheet on Corexit concludes that "The potential human hazard is: Low,” they also admit that "No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product." Nalco advises that workers applying Corexit should wear breathing protection and work in a ventilated area.
Environmentalists have worked to compel Nalco to publicly reveal the chemical compound and concentrations of each chemical are in the product, but although Nalco has divulged the chemical constituents, they have refused to release any data about concentrations. The company claims that the information is proprietary and considers that information to be a trade secret. They also claim to have shared that information with the EPA.
One chemical found in Corexit 9527, 2-butoxyethanol, was identified as having caused lasting health problems in workers involved in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, including "respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders".
The government's Deepwater Horizon Response website reports that more than more than 1.62 million gallons of dispersants have been used thus far, including more than 1.03 million gallons of surface dispersant and more than 590,000 gallons of subsea dispersant. --Environmental effects of oil dispersant used in Gulf, concerns
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?