They were slow to react and I am disappointed with the administrations decision, a few weeks before the spill, to open up the east coast to offshore drilling.
I also apologize for stating my opinion as fact. Something I recently have tried to stop doing in regards to music and arts. I need to include political opinions in that as well.
It's teh SoulStrut way, mang.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
just as offensive as I found the suggestions that the Bush presidency had anything to do with purposefully causing levees to fail after/during Katrina.
Offensive? Even though there is a historical precedent for that exact sort of thing happening during Hurricane Betsy circa 1965? As well as the Great Mississippi flood of of 1927?
Rock, I'm confused. I thought you ran a record store or something.
You're very confused.
I've never run or worked in a Record Store.
I've been employed for 30 years by a specialty chemical company and am in charge of their R&D Lab. I've posted some of the products that I have patents on here in the past that focus on environmental science.
just as offensive as I found the suggestions that the Bush presidency had anything to do with purposefully causing levees to fail after/during Katrina.
Offensive? Even though there is a historical precedent for that exact sort of thing happening during Hurricane Betsy circa 1965? As well as the Great Mississippi flood of of 1927?
The suggestion that the Bush & Obama administrations operated covertly to create these two disasters for political gain or evil intent, I do find ridiculous and offensive....but hey, that's just my opinion.
The dynamite used to blow up levees during the 1927 flood was an announced and recognized government plan that was SUPPOSED to help prevent flooding in N.O. It failed miserably and was determined to be the sole cause of flooding but by no means was it a covert operation.
As far as Hurricane Betsy goes.....(yes, this is on Wiki, but can be found in many accounts)
Evidence suggests that cheap construction and poor maintenance of the structures led to the failure of the levees. However, popular rumor persists that they were intentionally breached, possibly as a means of salvaging the more prosperous French Quarter.[7] This is, however, unlikely; even though the French Quarter is one of the geographically highest neighborhoods in the city, during the first eighty years of the 20th century, the French Quarter was, in fact, an unfashionable neighborhood, populated mostly by lower income people, who were not priced out of the market until well into the 1980s
I've been employed for 30 years by a specialty chemical company and am in charge of their R&D Lab. I've posted some of the products that I have patents on here in the past that focus on environmental science.
That's pretty cool... those polymer products you mentioned earlier sounded interesting. Also, you really should do a feasibility study on that giant straw/cotton candy thing. That's a billion-dollar idea right there.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
remember - this is Harvey you're talking to Rock
facts & logic don't work on him
Yeah, how dare I go in favor of local first-hand consensus over disconnected internet "law". My point anyway was merely that those claiming from local first-hand experience that possibly the levees were dynamited post-Hurricane Katrina are hardly entering far-fethced territory. But my point now is that you are complete dickface.
If others feel like this was handled well... I guess that's just a view point I can't understand.
OK, I'll bite - What should they have done?
I have no expertise. There has been a long chain of events. Best I can tell none of these events have had positive results.
The first thing they should have done is prevent the explosion. The rig was not designed to explode. That means that somewhere along the way someone made a mistake. A poor weld? Smoking around fumes? Cutting corners? Or a 100 other things. There is supposed to be a lot of redundancy built in. Welds need to be inspected. Mangers need to keep people from smoking around fumes. Cutting corners should not be allowed.
All of these indicate negligence on BP's part, not the governments.
It's impossible for the government to predict and prepare for every conceivable tragedy.
The government's role right now should be to compel BP to take every measure possible and lend what resources they have (ships etc) to the task - to be billed later, of course.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
you're mama is a dickface = you are mama is a dickface
I've been employed for 30 years by a specialty chemical company and am in charge of their R&D Lab. I've posted some of the products that I have patents on here in the past that focus on environmental science.
That's pretty cool... those polymer products you mentioned earlier sounded interesting.
Diesel fuel, transmission fluid & gasoline floating on water.
Applying the polymer
Bonds and creates a solid material with high BTU value that can be burned for energy.
Unfortunately on the rough seas we have to place the polymer in "socks" or "pillows" so it can be contained, which makes it work slower.
That is pretty freakin' cool (closet science geek, married to an even bigger out science geek).
How would this stuff be delivered to the spill site to quickly soak it up? Would it have to be done small areas at a time or could you drop it from say a fire fighting tanker plane they use for forest fires to coat a large area?
Do we even have enough of it to deal with the gulf spill this large?
Diesel fuel, transmission fluid & gasoline floating on water.
Applying the polymer
Bonds and creates a solid material with high BTU value that can be burned for energy.
Unfortunately on the rough seas we have to place the polymer in "socks" or "pillows" so it can be contained, which makes it work slower.
That is pretty freakin' cool (closet science geek, married to an even bigger out science geek).
Unfortunately it's almost impossible to use these polymers out in the open seas. They are used as the oil approaches the shore as a last line of defense.
What they are doing at the spill sight and surrounding areas are applying "dispersants" directly to the floating oil. These are chemical agents such as surfactants, solvents, and other compounds that are used to reduce the effect of oil spills by changing the chemical and physical properties of the oil.
By enhancing the amount of oil that physically mixes into the water, dispersants can reduce the potential that a surface slick will contaminate shoreline habitats. In other words they mix with the oil to create an emulsion that can then mix homogenously with the water instead of just floating on the surface.
We do not support the use of these dispersants as they create other ecological issues and are quite controversial.
So basically it will soak up the oil but because you have to do it close into shore you would have to hit it along a long stretch of water (lots of man/machine hours).
Not being able to do in on the open sea is a real bummer because the smallest area to treat would of course be the place its bubbling up at right now.
Still a very cool bit of science. Love that stuff.
Thanks for the heads up on dispersants.
On a related note if the product you showed in the pics was used what are the ecological downsides if it doesn't get picked up after application and finds it way into a marsh or shoreline?
On a related note if the product you showed in the pics was used what are the ecological downsides if it doesn't get picked up after application and finds it way into a marsh or shoreline?
That's why it has to be contained in some sort of boom or "pillow"....since it's hydrophobic it will always float and could create both pollution and food source contamination for wildlife. There are no easy answers or magic bullets for this type of thing.....yet!
Comments
So what exactly is your area of expertise and what was the last problem you solved?
It's teh SoulStrut way, mang.
Offensive? Even though there is a historical precedent for that exact sort of thing happening during Hurricane Betsy circa 1965? As well as the Great Mississippi flood of of 1927?
You're very confused.
I've never run or worked in a Record Store.
I've been employed for 30 years by a specialty chemical company and am in charge of their R&D Lab. I've posted some of the products that I have patents on here in the past that focus on environmental science.
C'mon son.....pay attention.
The suggestion that the Bush & Obama administrations operated covertly to create these two disasters for political gain or evil intent, I do find ridiculous and offensive....but hey, that's just my opinion.
The dynamite used to blow up levees during the 1927 flood was an announced and recognized government plan that was SUPPOSED to help prevent flooding in N.O. It failed miserably and was determined to be the sole cause of flooding but by no means was it a covert operation.
As far as Hurricane Betsy goes.....(yes, this is on Wiki, but can be found in many accounts)
Evidence suggests that cheap construction and poor maintenance of the structures led to the failure of the levees. However, popular rumor persists that they were intentionally breached, possibly as a means of salvaging the more prosperous French Quarter.[7] This is, however, unlikely; even though the French Quarter is one of the geographically highest neighborhoods in the city, during the first eighty years of the 20th century, the French Quarter was, in fact, an unfashionable neighborhood, populated mostly by lower income people, who were not priced out of the market until well into the 1980s
facts & logic don't work on him
That's pretty cool... those polymer products you mentioned earlier sounded interesting. Also, you really should do a feasibility study on that giant straw/cotton candy thing. That's a billion-dollar idea right there.
Yeah, how dare I go in favor of local first-hand consensus over disconnected internet "law". My point anyway was merely that those claiming from local first-hand experience that possibly the levees were dynamited post-Hurricane Katrina are hardly entering far-fethced territory. But my point now is that you are complete dickface.
All of these indicate negligence on BP's part, not the governments.
It's impossible for the government to predict and prepare for every conceivable tragedy.
The government's role right now should be to compel BP to take every measure possible and lend what resources they have (ships etc) to the task - to be billed later, of course.
You can't even deliver a ya mama rip right.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100505/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill
Did anyone bring up how the Russians use to handle this?
http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/
I've read a lot about this....lowering it accurately for a mile is definitely a challenge.
I wonder if they even expect it to work, or is it just a red herring so BP can say they're doing something.
That commie nuke shit is disturbing...
Plus, could there not be debris or large chunks of the Rig down there? Making it even tougher?
Diesel fuel, transmission fluid & gasoline floating on water.
Applying the polymer
Bonds and creates a solid material with high BTU value that can be burned for energy.
Unfortunately on the rough seas we have to place the polymer in "socks" or "pillows" so it can be contained, which makes it work slower.
Oh- that's, uh, that's just my polymer sock... yeah!
I'm confused.
I thought you played Banjo at the VA Hospital??
Virginia has more than 1 hospital, you know.
Now that was somewhat humorous!
That is pretty freakin' cool (closet science geek, married to an even bigger out science geek).
How would this stuff be delivered to the spill site to quickly soak it up? Would it have to be done small areas at a time or could you drop it from say a fire fighting tanker plane they use for forest fires to coat a large area?
Do we even have enough of it to deal with the gulf spill this large?
Unfortunately it's almost impossible to use these polymers out in the open seas. They are used as the oil approaches the shore as a last line of defense.
What they are doing at the spill sight and surrounding areas are applying "dispersants" directly to the floating oil. These are chemical agents such as surfactants, solvents, and other compounds that are used to reduce the effect of oil spills by changing the chemical and physical properties of the oil.
By enhancing the amount of oil that physically mixes into the water, dispersants can reduce the potential that a surface slick will contaminate shoreline habitats. In other words they mix with the oil to create an emulsion that can then mix homogenously with the water instead of just floating on the surface.
We do not support the use of these dispersants as they create other ecological issues and are quite controversial.
Not being able to do in on the open sea is a real bummer because the smallest area to treat would of course be the place its bubbling up at right now.
Still a very cool bit of science. Love that stuff.
Thanks for the heads up on dispersants.
On a related note if the product you showed in the pics was used what are the ecological downsides if it doesn't get picked up after application and finds it way into a marsh or shoreline?
That's why it has to be contained in some sort of boom or "pillow"....since it's hydrophobic it will always float and could create both pollution and food source contamination for wildlife. There are no easy answers or magic bullets for this type of thing.....yet!