Australia is facing a controversy that is all too familiar to Americans. Fundamentalists in state schools are teaching children that humans and dinosaurs lived together and Noah brought dinosaur eggs on to the Ark.
Children are also taught that Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs “because they were under a protective spell.”
This is consistent with Palintology — the new science advanced by Sarah Palin — which insists that man and dinosaur must have co-existed despite carbon dating and simple logic.
Source: News
Trader B, your on fire. Been watchin all day.
I thank you Byron.
Blouise:
“Blouise
1, August 3, 2010 at 2:49 pm
… I’m not overly impressed with the passive-aggressive style”
“Blouise
1, August 3, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Byron,
Oh brother … I was addressing a passive/aggressive ploy
but hey, I’m always open to misdirection!”
Style:
b : a distinctive manner or custom of behaving or conducting oneself
Ploy:
a : a tactic intended to embarrass or frustrate an opponent
Obfuscate:
1 a : darken b : to make obscure
2 : confuse
Elaine,
The second one is apparently Corexit 9500A, which was listed in 1994. They often refer to Corexit 9500A as just Corexit 9500, causing some confusion.
I was talking about the first part which mentions Corexit 9500
“Surface water samples collected July 23, 2010 along the Gulf Coast were measured for chemicals associated with dispersants but did not detect them.”
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/water.html
TraderB–
I was just posting the information the EPA provided. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the EPA–not me.
Elaine,
Corexit 9500A has a different formulation that Corexit 9500
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit
Byron–
Here’s something I found. It’s from 1999–so it is a bit dated.
Biodegradation of Dispersed Oil
Using COREXIT 9500
A Report Produced for
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
by
Jon E. Lindstrom1
Daniel M. White2
Joan F. Braddock1
1Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775
2Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775
30 June 1999
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/perp/r_d/biodeg.pdf
Conclusions
Our data suggest that addition of dispersant to oil increases total carbon mineralized, and numbers of hydrocarbon degraders. This suggests that dispersant increases oil biodegradation,
but total C mineralization data and hydrocarbon degrader data are together insufficient to evaluate whether this observed increase in oil degradation is consistent across chemical classes
of compounds contained in the oil. Our data indicate that dispersant may inhibit biodegradation of some components of the crude oil. At this point no data currently exist allowing evaluation of the effects of Corexit 9500 on biodegradation of the more acutely and chronically toxic components of crude oil. Following dispersant use, if the residual oil is selectively enriched in components of greater toxicity than those components biodegraded, the toxicity of the resulting oil residue (on an oil mass basis) may be increased.
**********
And this…
FROM EPA
http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants.html#gen2
What do we know about the biodegradation rate of the dispersant itself?
We are currently unaware of published scientific information in the peer reviewed literature about the biodegradation of the dispersant itself. We do have information about the individual components (ingredients) of the dispersant, provided by the manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). The available peer-reviewed literature indicates that the components biodegrade fairly rapidly. EPA is working to identify additional information to help us better understand the fate of dispersants in seawater.
Byron,
Oh brother … I was addressing a passive/aggressive ploy
but hey, I’m always open to misdirection!
I was surprised when I saw oceanographer Dr. Sylvia Earle on The Colbert Report last year and I heard her say that she no longer eats seafood. That really surprised me. Here’s a short video of her on another program.
Dr. Sylvia Earle
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxgQdx7Zf88&hl=en_US&fs=1]
You can learn about Dr. Sylvia Earle at this link:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/field/explorers/sylvia-
earle.html
Blouise:
for whatever it is worth, BobEsq is not passive/aggressive he will call you out but he does it nicely and tries to be educational as well.
He and Slarti went head to head on the 9/11 thread for at least 6 months, it was something to watch. They both lost their tempers a couple of times in the passion of some moments but for the most part it was a very interesting and lively thread.
They should publish that work, it would be an honest and fairly comprehensive look at both sides of the 9/11 debate.
Elaine M. wrote:
“I didn’t ask you to provide me with a BLM study. I asked you some questions.”
The post was not directed to you.
Here is a list of studies on IXTOC 1 references:
http://www.harteresearchinstitute.org/ixtoc-i-references/142-ixtoc-i-references
I cannot find any that show much permanent damage to the environment.
… I did like your spin 🙂
See … it’s an easy game to play!
Elaine:
not to steal TraderB’s thunder but I read some of those dispersant’s bio-degrade in 16 days. And sure even in 16 days something bad could happen. The question is what is it and how long will the impact last?
If this season crab larvae are messed up will it cause a genetic mutation that remains or is it just that 1 season of crabs cannot be consumed by humans.
I think Yissil said it best when he/she said the oceans are a very complex environment and we are all speculating at best.
Will it cause metaphysical devastation? I would vote no. Are there going to be decades long problems? Again I would vote no based on the Ixtoc-1 oil spill in 1979. Are there going to be short term problems (1-5 years)? I would vote yes. Would I eat shrimp, crabs, fish and oysters from the gulf in the next 6-12 months-no. Next summer most probably.
They should have thrown Ivory liquid detergent on it and been done with it. 🙂
Bob,
“However, rather than attack you personally” was superfluous as it was in direct contradiction to “your inane & inapplicable examples and analogies; e.g. your meteor impact and paper clip analogies.”
Had the “however” portion been omitted your, “for I am above such things” inference would have been lost … but … since it was not omitted … and this is what the “passive-aggressive” ploy always fails to recognize … it was lost anyway. Thus calling into question your claim of having turned the other cheek at all. Though the “insult me once” … “insult me twice” does attempt to inject more aggressiveness into the passiveness.
There is an inherent dishonesty, subtle though it may be, in the passive-aggressive style of debate as it sets up a fogging atmosphere behind which the one employing it believes his/her motives are hidden. They aren’t.
Either the Prosecutor is lying in not giving the jury the whole truth or the Prosecutor is not lying and giving the jury the whole truth … he/she can’t be doing both … unless, of course, the Prosecutor is dishonest …. which was the real motive behind the passive-aggressive remark. The defense atty. was just “too nice” to come out and say so … passive-aggressive … now please vote to acquit the nice guys.
TraderB–
“This is the BLM study on the IXTOC 1 spill.”
I didn’t ask you to provide me with a BLM study. I asked you some questions.
This is the BLM study on the IXTOC 1 spill.
http://invertebrates.si.edu/mms/reports/IXTOC_exec.pdf
TraderB–
Of course, nothing bad could happen to animal life in the Gulf or to coastal areas/marshes in just twenty-eight days.