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
This is what the EPA said today:
August 2 – Results of the Phase II Testing
EPA has completed the second phase of dispersant testing to assess the acute toxicity of multiple concentrations of Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil alone, and combinations of Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil with each of the eight dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule. The results indicate that the eight dispersants tested are similar to one another based on standard toxicity tests on sensitive aquatic organisms found in the Gulf. These results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the Gulf, Corexit 9500A, is generally no more or less toxic than the other available alternatives.
The organisms tested were two Gulf of Mexico aquatic species: (1) the mysid shrimp, Americamysis bahia, an aquatic invertebrate, and (2) the inland silverside, Menidia beryllina, a small estuarine fish. These species are standard test organisms used in toxicity tests for a variety of pollutants. The tests were conducted on mixtures of Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil and eight dispersant products found on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule – Dispersit SPC 1000, Nokomis 3-F4, Nokomis 3-AA, ZI-400, SAFRON Gold, Sea Brat #4, Corexit 9500 A and JD 2000.
The results indicate that for all eight dispersants in both test species, the dispersants alone were less toxic than the dispersant-oil mixture. Oil alone was found to be more toxic to mysid shrimp than the eight dispersants when tested alone. Oil alone had similar toxicity to mysid shrimp as the dispersant-oil mixtures, with exception of the mixture of Nokomis 3-AA and oil, which was found to be more toxic.
These toxicity tests were conducted as part of an overall assessment of BP’s use of Corexit 9500 in response to the oil spill in the Gulf. These tests, coupled with EPA’s first round of dispersant tests show that dispersants are not distinguishable from one another based on the acute toxicity tests for sensitive aquatic organisms.
EPA’s first phase of test results, released on June 30th, indicated that none of the eight dispersants displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity. While the dispersant products alone – not mixed with oil – are roughly the same, JD-2000 and Corexit 9500 were generally less toxic to small fish and JD-2000 and SAF-RON GOLD were least toxic to mysid shrimp.
EPA believes dispersants should only be used sparingly and when absolutely necessary. Since the well was capped, only 200 gallons of dispersant have been applied to the Gulf, but constant monitoring continues. The results of the two phases of tests are helping to inform the Administration as the Federal Response Team evaluates the Congressionally-legislated oil spill response practices for future scenarios.
EPA will continue to update this page as additional data become available.
This discussion on Democracy Now is one of the best examinations of corexit I’ve seen:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/20/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_of_covering
Gyges–
“Now, onto more complex issues. Give me some actual science backing up your claims that the fact that oil consuming microbes exist some how mitigates a large amount of the impact of the oil spill.
“My dog drinks water. He can’t drink enough to compensate for my house getting flooded.”
**********
The devil’s in the details!
Gyges,
Sounds like you just need a bigger dog. 😉
AY,
Between you and me … my husband manages our finances and his philosophy has always been … invest during a democratic administration, sell and hold before a republican administration has begun.
He’s been following that strategy since the late ’60’s and we have never lost … only gained. We avoided the Reagen recession, the Bush1 recession, the Bush2 depression and all Savings and Loan, Real-estate mortgage, and Wall Street disasters. He did wonder, during the Nixon years, if perhaps he was making an error but then along came Watergate and Ford and his confidence was restored.
You can imagine how thrilling it was to experience the Clinton years!
In 2003 we took a trip to New Orleans and, even though we were in “hold mode”, I wanted to buy a small apartment in the French Quarter. He told me he would take me to New Orleans anytime I wanted for as long as I wanted but we were not going to invest money in property in a place that was below sea level and surrounded by water … no matter how much I loved the music. Two years later Katrina hit …
A Little Lewis Black–just for fun!
Lewis Black on Bush, Bible, Evolution, and Reality
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0gAcbAGPH4&hl=en_US&fs=1]
TraderB said:
“You need to read my first post on the exit polls. My statement about scientific knowledge was based on personal experience, especially on the blogs. Almost all liberals who responded rejected the idea of microbes, while conservatives seemed open to it.”
‘Rejected the idea of microbes’? Do you mean ‘rejected the existence of microbes’ or ‘rejected that microbes eat oil’ or ‘rejected that microbes eating oil in the gulf has cleaned everything up and is unqualified good news’?
The gulf ecosystem is a complex system which BP has just given a huge perturbation to – no one can possibly understand the what all of the effects of the oil and dispersants will be right now – the history of people making the type of argument you’re making suggests that you’ll make a lot of noise now, but when real data about the effects of oil and dispersants starts coming in, you’ll be strangely quiet…
Trader,
So we’re agreed, you don’t really have any proof about the scientific literacy thing, just an anecdote (which is fine as long as you admit to the fact) gathered from a sources with extreme selection bias?
Now, onto more complex issues. Give me some actual science backing up your claims that the fact that oil consuming microbes exist some how mitigates a large amount of the impact of the oil spill.
My dog drinks water. He can’t drink enough to compensate for my house getting flooded.
TraderB–
I was referring to your first post on the exit polls. Your second comment on polls was posted before I hit the “submit” button for my comment.
TraderB,
I was referring to creationists as people who want to teach things like the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs (and the equally ridiculous intelligent design) in schools – I thought that would be obvious from the context of this tread.
And your statistics seem to show that clear majorities of the most highly educated have voted democratic in the last two presidential elections…
TraberB–
Not sure it’s such a “fringe” issue. Three Republican candidates who campaigned for president in 2008–Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas–admitted that they didn’t belive in evolution.e
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ88l5ql_FQ&hl=en_US&fs=1]
Elaine,
“This exit poll shows the level of people’s scientific knowledge?
How so?”
You need to read my first post on the exit polls. My statement about scientific knowledge was based on personal experience, especially on the blogs. Almost all liberals who responded rejected the idea of microbes, while conservatives seemed open to it.
The polls on education are the best proxy I can find. I assume someone who goes to college has to take at least one course in science, although this may no longer be true.
TraderB: I don’t have time to respond to your comments in great detail at the moment, but I will offer the following:
1. I am not comfortable with simply relying on technical data published by the manufacturer of a product concerning which questions have arisen. We know that Nalco produced the product originally for use in cleaning up after the Exxon Valdez. We know that cleanup workers in that disaster wore serious protective clothing, and that many of them have suffered serious respiratory and internal organ illnesses over the years.We also know that BP has a financial stake in Nalco, which likely influenced its decision on choosing a dispersant. According to the EPA, Corexit is one of the least effective, and most toxic, dispersants available. http://www.epa.gov/eom/content/ncp/products/corex952.htm
2. The product has never been used in these quantities, and never in the Gulf to my knowledge. No one knows what the effects will be on fish and crustacean species over the long term. No one.
3. The issue of BP’s liability is much more complex than you suggest. First, the $75,000,000.00 liability limitation everyone mentions applies only to claims for economic damages (aside from actual cleanup costs). Moreover, the limitation does not apply to claims arising from acts constituting gross negligence or the violation of safety regulations. I am confident that competent lawyers will be able to work around the limitation without a great deal of difficulty. In short, I believe that the escrow fund, while a good idea for the purpose of funding the easy liability claims, like lost wages, was heavily motivated by a desire to limit liability in the harder cases by promoting good will. There is nothing unethical about that; it is a wise business decision. But under standard tort principles, BP’s exposure likely exceeds $20 billion. The extent to which the courts will recognize the chain of causation is a different issue, but one that courts have traditionally dealt with by cutting off claims they determine to be too remote.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/04/news/companies/bp_legal.fortune/index.htm
Anonymously Yours
1, August 2, 2010 at 12:10 am
So Blouise,
You did the mexican and came home, so how was it…..
Why the heck was Bryon stating that you are a multimillionaire, did I miss something or was he speaking from or out of the top while standing on his hands, again?
============================================================
AY,
Having traveled through the southwest and thus experienced some truly excellent Mexican cuisine … even in small “hole in the wall” places, I must admit that the new Mexican restaurant we just tried was damn good. It doesn’t compare to the places in the southwest but it comes close. Now, we wait to see if they can maintain.
Oh Byron was being the typical, modern day, republican, conservative. First some muddled non-facts followed by a few condescending remarks and ending with a curiosity as to how much money I had. Typical “Chamber of Commerce” cocktail party talk.
Slartibartfast
“What do you think the statistics of creationist voting would be like? I think that the vast majority of people who are anti-science vote Republican (just my opinion, I don’t a have any source to back this up).”
It depends on what meaning you give to the term. According to this definition from Wikipedia, most religions are creationist:
“Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency.”
If you mean people who propose that it should be taught in science class, I suspect that they vote Republican. I do not know of many conservatives who even address the issue, though. It is pretty much a fringe issue, like the birther movement.
TraderB.
This exit poll shows the level of people’s scientific knowledge?
How so?
The 2010 breakdown was affected too much by the heavy black turnout. 2004 is a better indicator. Except for postgraduate studies, the more educated people voted for Bush.
2004 Vote by Education
No High School (4%)
49% Bush
50% Kerry
H.S. Graduate (22%)
52% Bush
47% Kerry
Some College (32%)
54% Bush
46% Kerry
College Graduate (26%)
52% Bush
46% Kerry
Postgrad Study (16%)
44% Bush
55% Kerry
TraderB,
What do you think the statistics of creationist voting would be like? I think that the vast majority of people who are anti-science vote Republican (just my opinion, I don’t a have any source to back this up).
TraderB:”No, it is because he uses buzz words and they fall for it, without investigating further.”
that’s a cheap shot to conceal the fact that those ‘buzz words’ were being used to mislead and deceive.
TraderB: “I bet you get your info from secondary sources. Try listening for two weeks. He is not as right-wing as the MSM would have you believe. The gist of his show is entrepreneurial, as opposed to Big Government and Big Business. He comes up with a lot of original ideas.I bet you get your info from secondary sources. Try listening for two weeks. He is not as right-wing as the MSM would have you believe. The gist of his show is entrepreneurial, as opposed to Big Government and Big Business. He comes up with a lot of original ideas.”
I have listened…often I have to turn the station rather quickly because his style (or lack thereof…) is purely based on his ability to defame, blame and lambast some poor soul that managed to get in his sites and that he feels he can somehow exploit to his advantage. I listen because I don’t base my views on 1 sided assumptions….I will even admit that there may….MAY be things I could agree about w/Mr.Limbaugh but we will never know because I just don’t have it in me to develop the kind of calluses needed to listen to him at any great length.
Plus, honestly, I thought he was trying to be a commedian.
Gyges wrote:
“Alternately you could back up your original claim and show a study saying that the level of scientific knowledge in both conservatives and liberals is roughly equivalent.”
The statement was based on my experience. However, there are exit polls which show educational level. The first number is % voting for Obama, then McCain and then other/no answer. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1
Vote by Education
No High School (4%)
63%
35%
2%
H.S. Graduate (20%)
52%
46%
2%
Some College (31%)
51%
47%
2%
College Graduate (28%)
50%
48%
2%
Postgraduate (17%)
58%
40%
2%