BS: off shore oil rig spill and more

Subject: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: open mike
Date: 01 May 10 - 11:19 AM

Even as the oil slick from the ruined Deepwater Horizon creeps onto the Lousiana shoreline, Reuters is reporting that another offshore drilling rig has overturned- this time among the inland waters near Morgan City, LA.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 01 May 10 - 11:36 AM

There have been some science advancements on bioremediation of shorelines since Exxon Valdez, though they cannot turn back the damage from immediate impacts on coastal ecosystems:


http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/Publica

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 01 May 10 - 11:38 AM

Possibly, a better link:

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/Publications/article/2007/26-11-2007-eng.htm

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Charley Noble
Date: 01 May 10 - 04:18 PM

And this thread is duplicating, as Open Mike has kindly pointed out, what another thread has already covered "Spill Baby Spill."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:05 PM

Interestingly enough, the total casualty list in the US due to nuclear power plants is zero.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: open mike
Date: 01 May 10 - 08:10 PM

hmmm,when you count uranium and plutonium casualties, don't forget to
mining and disposal part of the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear weapons reprocessing.

Also don't leave out the Radioactive waste which comes from a number of sources.

Depleted Uranium is used in manufacturing weapons and other products,
and there are military records of veterans having mysterious diseases
after returning from areas where these are in use.

see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_accidents#Civilian_nuclear_accidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 08:18 PM

"Interestingly enough, the total casualty list in the US due to nuclear power plants is zero."

Interestingly enough, the total reported known immediate casualty list in the US due to nuclear power plants is zero. Those 'locals' who are suffering unknown long terms effects are just not worth bothering about, probably. Any effects of the mining and disposal part of the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear weapons reprocessing are also irrelevant....

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 May 10 - 08:56 PM

By 1984, 274 Canadian uranium miners had died of lung cancer. Ontario Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines.
www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html#die

"Uranium Mining and Lung Cancer in Navajo Men," Samet et al., New England Jour. Medicine; abst. from Clin. Cancer Research 15.

"Uranium: Its Uses and Hazards," IEER Fact Sheet.
www.ieer.org/fctsheet/uranium.html

etc.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 May 10 - 03:17 PM

If it happened in Canada, Obama won't have to take responsibility for it.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 May 10 - 03:23 PM

Navajo miners worked on uranium prospects in Arizona and New Mexico, not Canada. But all of this started long before Obama and Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 May 10 - 03:29 PM

I'm quite familiar with the hazards of nuclear power. I'm also quite familiar with the hazards of using other means of power generation, which appear to be even more serious.

I don't see any alternative energy sources in the near future except for nuclear energy that will be able to satisfy an apparently incurable demand for energy. Parenthetically, it should be noted that coal burning releases a much greater amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere than does a fission power plane. And that reprocessing used nuclear waste--as is commonly done in other countries--- greatly reduces the need for extensive uranium mining.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 May 10 - 04:15 PM

Dick Greenhouse is essentially right. Much can be done to develop so-called green sources for home and personal use, but industrial requirements need either the fossil fuels or nuclear energy.

Uranium mining, with proper equipment and training, can be safe. Miners in the early days of uranium mining were not properly fitted out or trained in handling the materials, and had no tradition behind them, as did coal and other long-standing mining enterprises.

Re-use of waste and research on the techniques required to handle the unusable portions will eventually diminish the problems associated with nuclear energy.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 02 May 10 - 04:40 PM

"I don't see any alternative energy sources in the near future except for nuclear energy that will be able to satisfy an apparently incurable demand for energy"

Part of the solution is changing our way of life for this incurable demand for energy.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 02 May 10 - 04:50 PM

"Part of the solution is changing our way of life for this incurable demand for energy"


That is a big task, since it impacts developing nations (ie China and India) with big populations and newer and growing consumer demands generated by industrial growth. We have seen the politics with Kyoto. While personal lifestyles is a factor, I suspect it is not only factor....and I note the posted message did refer to "part of the solution".

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Charley Noble
Date: 02 May 10 - 05:29 PM

There were in fact several civilian workers who died quite unpleasantly from exposure to radiation while working with experimental nuclear power plants in the States. The nuclear power plant advocates tend to exclude them from the body count. Then there was the utter disaster of Ukranian Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986, with three dozen workers almost immediately killed, and thousands more who have died since who lived in the surrounding area.

I'm still not convinced that nuclear power is worth the admittedly small risk of a catastrophic meltdown.

And it's my understanding that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods (high level radioactive waste) when successful still results in huge volumes of lower level radioactive waste.

The spent fuel pools which are now scattered around our country adjacent to nuclear power plants, or where the plants have been decommissioned, also make tempting targets for terrorists.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 May 10 - 06:06 PM

Charley, you don't have to worry for a while yet.
Coal and petroleum will continue to fuel most of our energy needs for quite a few years.

Admittedly, there are several unresolved problems with nuclear energy, that have yet to be solved. But they will be.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: open mike
Date: 02 May 10 - 06:08 PM

hmm...i posted a reply with info and links about casualties related to
uranium and plutonium exposure, in the mining, manufacturing and processing as well as Depleted Uranium (D.U.)

My aunt, who lived in Grand Junction colorado, lived in ahouse that
was built with uranium tailings in the mortar of the cement. She
had miscarriages, and later died from a rare form of cancer that
caused her extended misery. there are still problems in that town.

http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20091204/COMMUNITY_NEWS/912039976

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878989,00.html

"GREEN" does not mean glow-in-the-dark day-glo green, it means
natural, as in chlorophyll green.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 02 May 10 - 07:09 PM

And, then there is France:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: kendall
Date: 02 May 10 - 08:25 PM

I have grave concerns about nuclear power and the waste disposal, but I also wonder why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are so well and prosperous after 60 odd years after the nuclear blasts. Shouldn't those ares be radioactive?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 May 10 - 08:30 PM

"Shouldn't those areas be radioactive?"

The radiation level returned to normal one year after the bombing

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bobert
Date: 02 May 10 - 08:37 PM

The part that no one wants to talk about is our country's appitite for power... I mean, we burn lots of stuff because we think we can... Ya'll ever look at any major city from an airplane at night??? Lite up like a Christmas tree... Entire high rise buildings with virtually no one in them lite to the nines??? And heated and cooled to the nines, as well... Hey, there ain't no one in these buildings...

We drive because, ahhhhh, we can??? If everyone made one less trip a week then we could save one shit-load of energy...

But no one wnats to talks about conservation... That's was for Jimmy Carter... The jokes are endless by the Fat Cats who profit from our arrogant consumption about the Jimmy Carters of the world... Tree huggers!!! Socialists!!! No, worse... Liberals!!!

I mean, lets get real here, folks...

Sure, we gotta an energy problem but we also have a consumption problem and if we aren't willing to look at both then we are screwed...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 08:49 PM

True dat, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 02 May 10 - 09:14 PM

The United States could completely stop emissions of carbon dioxide from coal-fired electric power plants within 20 years
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100430081731.htm

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 May 10 - 09:20 PM

The speed with which it is done depends as much on the will of the people and their elected representatives as it does on the technology.
I hope it comes about. But who is that shouting about their increaed fuel bills??

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 09:36 PM

Who ISN'T shouting about increased fuel bills? I mean besides filthy rich megamillionares who have servants to handle such fiddly details.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 May 10 - 08:16 PM

Look at the cost in human lives to provide a given amount of coal power, compared to the SAME AMOUNT OF POWER from a nuclear plant.

Sure, include the cost of storage and long term radiation- BUT ALSO include the cost of mining the coal (black lung et al), and dealing with the ashes and acid rain. AND the radiation released by that coal- low level, but there is LOTS more coal used per Megawatt than uranium, so it adds up.

As Dick Greenhaus states,

"Parenthetically, it should be noted that coal burning releases a much greater amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere than does a fission power plane. And that reprocessing used nuclear waste--as is commonly done in other countries--- greatly reduces the need for extensive uranium mining. "

Even including the probable nuclear accidents (Estimated at 1 per 50 years per plant, which has been shown to be way high)) and cancer deaths, Nuclear is far safer than coal.




The only solution is to reduce energy use- which means to reduce population, or keep large parts of the world in primitive, pre-industrial conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 03 May 10 - 08:27 PM

Fortunately, given current birth rates, population reduction in the first world, where the energy pigs live, is coming soon.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 May 10 - 08:30 PM

Any volunteers for that Little Grass Shack in beautiful downtown Pittsburgh ?
Besides Bobert ?

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 04 May 10 - 06:03 PM

Not to worry. The population in the "first" world is growing and will continue to do so by increased longevity and immigration as long as there is wealth and room to grow. Conservation is part of the answer but nothing can provide peak loads as cleanly and nukes.

Nuclear is not particularly clean or safe, but it is a lot cleaner and safer than fossil fuels. The Hiroshima article posted by Foolestroupe seems to have made a good point. A lot of the current fear of nuclear was born out of ignorant speculation and fanciful imagination. According to the media, The Hulk, and Spiderman and Godzilla and melting dirt all the way to China are possible results of nuclear accidents. On the other hand, dead coal miners and acid rain barely get covered.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 May 10 - 06:08 PM

Ed T-
"The authors outline strategies to make that phase-out possible. They include elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels; putting rising prices on carbon emissions; major improvements in electricity transmission and the energy efficiency of homes, commercial buildings, and appliances; replacing coal power with biomass, geothermal, wind, solar, and third-generation nuclear power; and after successful demonstration at commercial scales, deployment of advanced (fourth-generation) nuclear power plants; and carbon capture and storage at remaining coal plants. (emphasis mine dg))
    It should be pointed out that the only factors mentioned that have demonstrated large-scale capacity to date are elimination of subsidies, charging for carbon emissions, improving efficiency of homes, vehicles, buildings and appliances, and nuclear energy.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 06:34 PM

If I remember correctly, we came within about 20 minutes of Three Mile Island becoming something similar to Chernoybl....though probably on a smaller scale.

Two points...oil & coal are finite, though still usable, while nuclear power is not. *IF* we must take chances, nuclear is always there, with the proviso that the more plants, the more possibility of an eventual serious accident. And we STILL have not dealt with the problem of long-term storage of nuclear waste. I lived in Kansas 35 years ago when they were sure they were gonna store it in old salt mines 40 miles from me. Turns out salt migrates over a few thousand years.

We need to SEE just how far we can go with wind, solar, geothermal, etc... and limit both population and need for the dangerous forms of energy.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 06:52 PM

Hanford, Washington- where much of the current waste is 'stored'.

A trench at Hanford in the 50s

"Until 1970, solid low-level and transuranic waste at the Atomic Energy Commission's nuclear weapons facilities (shown here is Hanford Reservation, circa 1950s) was frequently disposed of in cardboard boxes. Once filled, this unlined trench would have been covered with dirt, leaving the cardboard to deteriorate and allowing the waste to contaminate the soil and leach into the groundwater."

They STILL have leaking containers and areas where old waste has never been dealt with. They have not only the problem of where to store it, but of how to transport there and in what sort of containers.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 04 May 10 - 07:25 PM

The Gulf Stream will transport much of the oil to Europe in about 4 months.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 May 10 - 08:09 PM

Wind currents in the northern Gulf of Mexico where the well is flowing tend to drive north and northeast, hence onshore, before any of the Loop Current waters flow out between Cuba and Florida into the Atlantic portion of the Stream.
Coastal areas of the northern and eastern Gulf would be devastated before then. If the spill fluids do enter the Loop and on into the main Gulf Stream, eastern Florida beaches and shore biota would be devasted.

http://www.oceanweather.com/data

National Geographic News, May 4, 2010
http://news.nationalgeographic.com

From National Geographic News:
"There's no predicting the exact movements of the oil spill- which is growing ay at least 5,000 bbls./day. But winds could push the slick south, where oil might get swept into the current."
........"If oil is swept up in the Loop Current (1-2 meters/sec.) "there's essentially no way to stop it" (T. Sturges, Prof. Em. oceanography, Florida State Univ.).

The coast could be affected as far north as Cape Hatteras.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ed T
Date: 04 May 10 - 08:17 PM

Interesting
http://ocean.tamu.edu/Quarterdeck/QD4.2/latex-4.2.html

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 04 May 10 - 08:20 PM

Thanks Q


PS Q was my fav in STNG

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Donuel
Date: 04 May 10 - 08:31 PM

It seems we have Haliburton to blame for not buying a remote controled emergency shut off valve for the under sea oil well now leaking. They refused to put one in last year because it cost too much. It would have cost half a million dollars.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 May 10 - 09:16 PM

The government regulatory agency could have demanded that the latest shut-off devices be required, but they are not insisted upon in U. S. offshore drilling (see previous posts- but I understand Haliburton has put them on Norwegian offshore drillers.

A question in my mind-
This well, and two more like it drilled by BP are some 35,000 feet to source; water depth is great and this one entered a formation with very high pressure, apparently not predicted. Just how safe is drilling given these conditions ?

Crist and Swartzenegger are backing away from their call for offshore drilling.
Rubio points to the many Gulf offshore wells that have been completed successfully, but few were to this depth, in this depth of water, or encountered high pressure under these conditions. He seems to be comparing fleas to elephants.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 May 10 - 09:36 PM

Rush Limbaugh says we should just let it go, the ocean will take care of it. Of course, he says, some turtles may be affected but "So what" he says.

He also says that Prince William Sound where the Exxon Valdez gushed 11 million gallons in 1989 is now "pristine'.

It is NOT. Pick up a rock and there is sludge below it.

I know they say that Limbaugh is just an "entertainer" and should be listened to on that basis. I say he is a treasonous, ignorant, rabble-rousing loudmouth with a seriously flawed but elevated opinion of himself.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bobert
Date: 04 May 10 - 10:24 PM

Yeah, Eb, and he has millions of listeners who are just like him... That is tghe scarey part... Ignorant people seem to think that ignorance is the in thing...

Daddy Bush started all this kinda thinkin' and if anyone should be held for treason it is Daddy Bush who played the "elitist" card any time intellegent people called him on his policies... Now, it's second nature...

"Well, Ralph, these pinheaded intellectuals don't know squat about __________________..."

That's all Daddy Bush's....

So now we have sufficeintly dumbed down population who think that if the oil companies blame the liberals for the spill while telling folks "Don't worry, be happy" that the liberals will take the blame for anything bad that happens to anyone hurt by this spill???

This is just how insane America is!!!

Beam me up, Scottie... There just aren't too many people left who understand squat...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:55 AM

GUEST,JTS: Not to worry. The population in the "first" world is growing and will continue to do so by increased longevity and immigration as long as there is wealth and room to grow.

Nope. Do your homework. All the first world countries except the US are below replacement, with both native births and immigration/emigration taken into account. Read the book Fewer by Ben J. Wattenberg. It's well footnoted and he knows his stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 May 10 - 09:12 AM

The native population are below replacement, but those countries are beginning to experience the scourge of runaway immigration, just like the US. Why would you think the southern countries in Europe are the ones with economic problems, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal --that's where the illegals from Africa go first. It's something they share with California.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: mousethief
Date: 05 May 10 - 11:37 AM

Read the book. Even with immigration figured in, they're still below replacement. He did the research. You are just guessing.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 May 10 - 11:40 AM

When did he do his research? The situation in Europe is constantly changing, and Wattenberg is not the only authority.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: pdq
Date: 05 May 10 - 11:52 AM

Here is a book review...

                                                             Fewer by Ben J. Wattenberg

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Stu
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:02 PM

"Re-use of waste and research on the techniques required to handle the unusable portions will eventually diminish the problems associated with nuclear energy."

Yeah, like sticking it in a dirty bomb or whatever.

Only humans could be so stupid as to ignore the massive amount of free energy bathing this planet on a daily basis from the sort of nuclear power their puny minds can only dream of and still want to build their own.

Chernobyl? Three-Mile Island? Doh!

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:13 PM

I'm not sure what Wattenberg was researching, but not everybody agrees. This from Wikipedia:


Annual births have levelled at about 134 million per year since their peak at 163 million in the late 1990s and are expected to remain constant. However, deaths are only around 57 million per year, and are expected to increase to 90 million by 2050. Because births outnumber deaths, the world's population is expected to reach 9 billion between 2040 [4][5] and 2050[2].

The rapid increase in human population over the course of the 20th century has raised concerns about whether Earth is experiencing overpopulation. The scientific consensus is that the current population expansion and accompanying increase in usage of resources are linked to threats to the ecosystem,[6] such as rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Stu
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:25 PM

Thank the maker for wikipedia.

Specialist subject: The Absolutely Bleedin' Obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:26 PM

The oil mass--which is continuing to grow--is dangerously close to picking up the Gulf Loop current which would carry a lot of it around the end of Florida and along the East Coast via the Gulf Stream current.

If it goes much further south, as its presently seems to be doing, it may develop into a God-awful catastrophic mess that will make the Valdez look like a kindergarten accident, with long-range economic impacts.

A

Subject: RE: BS: off shore oil rig spill and more
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 10 - 01:38 PM

Parts of that review of Wattenberg bemuse me..

"Now most populations are in decline, include the Muslim world. With shrinking populations go declining defence budgets. America is the last remaining Western democracy that still has sufficient numbers to sustain a viable defensive structure.

That sounds very much like someone who is using supposed 'research' to support some political position.

" The global downward trend in fertility is both long-term and pronounced. The numbers are alarming. There are now 63 nations with below-replacement fertility.
The replacement level is a Total Fertility Rate of 2.1 children per women."

His 'total fertility rate', IF he is correct, is not a good indicator of 'alarming'. (I am highly suspicious of the figure given for China.)

IF the wikipedia figure are correct, the 'leveling off' point of 9 billion in 40-50 years is what is alarming. We are having problems feeding 6.5 billion.....and IF his projections and figures about TFR indicating an over all decline in population coming in the long run, we would STILL need many years to get below the danger zone we are in now!

   The only point he makes that I agree with is that the average age will rise for awhile, making an extra burden on the young supporting the old..until THAT levels out. But that is a matter of adjustment...in economics and attitude. (Yes, I realize that those whose basic concept OF economics demands growth will fight this idea. Pooh!)

Finally, one of the things humans have proven they can do well when the need arises is breed! There is little danger that we will just forget how, and disappear.

What we would have, if we did reduce the population to somewhere around 3 billion..(as it was about 1950 of so).. is technology developed to handle 5-6 billion, and more land & resources per capita. Not a bad deal.