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
Slarti/Buddha:
I just want the truth about what happened and what the effects are going to be. If the entire Gulf eco-system is wiped out then we ought to look at shutting down offshore drilling and with good reason.
But if it only amounts to a year or 2 of bad fishing and crabing then I dont think putting thousands of people out of work is the answer.
Buddha:
Is the spider OK? 🙂
Slarti–
“I’m not trying (and don’t want) to shut down the oil business (at least not in the short term), I just want a transparent and above board look at the risks and rewards involved (including who’s being risked and who the rewards will accrue to) and a safety policy based on solid science rather than lies (BP said it could handle a larger spill). We shouldn’t be looking at this saying “it’s not so bad” or “oh my god, it’s horrible”, we should be asking “how bad is it?” I don’t know the answer, but I’m pretty sure that the answer BP is pushing is way too optimistic (and I’m guessing we’ll end up nearer the ‘horrible’ end of the spectrum).”
Well, I agree with nearly everything you wrote–except that I find myself very close to “oh my god, it’s horrible” end of the spectrum.
I believe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Should we just go back to drilling as usual before we address the kinds of problems that can be caused by oil accidents–such as the one that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico–and by looking for better ways to prevent such accidents in the future?
Byron–
“I guess for the same reason people are trying to use the oil spill to shut down drilling offshore and the oil business generally.”
I don’t see it that way…at least not for all people. Some of us are simply concerned about the environment. It isn’t a political position for us.
TraderB,
People are questioning your interpretation of your theory as meaning that the environmental damage will be light – the jury’s not in yet and your analysis is naive at best.
Food chain is an archaic misnomer.
The proper term is food web.
Since there is no bottom to a web, there is no bottom species, but rather only species that inhabit lower tiered positions relative to other species.
I didn’t want Slarti to feel like he was the lone grammar Nazi. 😉
Nice wrangling, regulars. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going back to bed. A spider bite has me feeling greener than usual.
Byron,
Learn to differentiate between “shutting down offshore drilling” and “putting a stop to corporate criminal malfeasance and negligence”. The happy median you are seeking is in the later terminology.
Gyges,
“The water out was the consumption of oil, the water in was the oil spill. Sorry, I realize that wasn’t clear.”
Yes, but there is no more water in, so you funnel will not be filled up.
Byron said:
“I guess for the same reason people are trying to use the oil spill to shut down drilling offshore and the oil business generally.
I would say there is a happy medium in there somewhere or as the Philosopher says “the Golden Mean”.”
I’m not trying (and don’t want) to shut down the oil business (at least not in the short term), I just want a transparent and above board look at the risks and rewards involved (including who’s being risked and who the rewards will accrue to) and a safety policy based on solid science rather than lies (BP said it could handle a larger spill). We shouldn’t be looking at this saying “it’s not so bad” or “oh my god, it’s horrible”, we should be asking “how bad is it?” I don’t know the answer, but I’m pretty sure that the answer BP is pushing is way too optimistic (and I’m guessing we’ll end up nearer the ‘horrible’ end of the spectrum).
Gyges,
Apparently, you do not know anything about the scientific method, so I will have to educate you first. Scientist never prove hypotheses. They only disprove them. Mathematicians prove theories. Scientists make predictions based on a reasonable hypotheses. If the prediction proves untrue, the hypothesis is discarded.
I made the prediction that the Gulf would quickly rid itself of oil (except asphaltics) in the open ocean, because microbes consume the oil that does not evaporate or is not not removed mechanically. It appears that this is true. Therefore, my hypothesis is still valid. It is up to you to disprove my hypothesis and/or come up with an alternate hypothesis.
See Wikipedia for a description of the Scientific Method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Elaine:
I guess for the same reason people are trying to use the oil spill to shut down drilling offshore and the oil business generally.
I would say there is a happy medium in there somewhere or as the Philosopher says “the Golden Mean”.
Slarti:
I get my logs jammed:)
Byron,
What I don’t understand is why some people are fighting so hard to try to prove that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico won’t really, in the long run, have caused any real pollution or environmental problems. Nature will take care of it all, right? We can go back to spilling oil in our oceans. After all, oil is a naturally occuring substance. We can take in a certain amount of it. Lead and mercury are too–so why worry about ingesting them? Not to worry. La-de-da. Let’s be on our way!
Byron said:
“Good point on the locality issue.”
Thanks.
“Of course you are correct, but how fast does the oil disperse to other areas of the Gulf and how long does it remain localized?”
This is a good question. My point is that we don’t know the answer to it (although we could make some estimates – by which I mean someone with more knowledge and information could make a reasonable estimate and we could make a wild-ass guess…).
“As to the food chain, in my opinion there is a bottom species.”
So how come your ‘bottom’ species eats your ‘top’ species? This seems to me to be a problem with a linear food chain…
Byron,
Please don’t do this to me – I know it’s been a long time since calculus class but come on, man!
You said:
“If I remember correctly bacterial reproduction is a logarithmic function so colonies grow rather quickly, not at all the same as a water in water out problem. If you had exponential water flow it would overwhelm the container and the problem wouldn’t make any sense.”
First off, bacteria grow exponentially (which is pretty much as quick as it is possible to grow), not logarithmically (which would be pretty much as slow as it was possible to grow). Second, I think you mean an increasing water flow (or more water flowing in than is draining) rather than an exponential water flow (which would certainly overwhelm any container).
Sorry, I don’t want to be the Jargon Nazi, but it is a scientific discussion…
Byron,
The water out was the consumption of oil, the water in was the oil spill. Sorry, I realize that wasn’t clear.
Slarti,
Correct away.
Slarti:
Good point on the locality issue. Of course you are correct, but how fast does the oil disperse to other areas of the Gulf and how long does it remain localized?
As to the food chain, in my opinion there is a bottom species.
Gyges,
TraderB’s thesis is also mute on the effects of microbes eating oil at a rate of X(t) (I added a time component since the number of microbes isn’t constant – I hope you don’t mind ;-)).
Byron said:
My best guess would be that the length of time that it would take to re-oxygenate the water would depend on what happened to the algae that was generating the oxygen (and any other sources of oxygen). As I’ve said before, this is a very complex system and it will take quite a while before we understand what the extent of the damage is (quite likely we’ll never know all of it).
Also (because it’s a pet peeve of mine), I’d like to point out that the food chain is a circle (really a web) and as such doesn’t have a bottom. The typical metrics of the health of an ecosystem in my experience are things like biomass and biodiversity (i.e. some measure of the whole ecosystem, not a single species) – which is not to say that there aren’t species who’s health correlates to the health of the ecosystem.
Byron quoted:
While I applaud the inclusion of this calculation, I would note that this is the average concentration – what you need to look at are the concentrations in the vicinity of the spill (what’s the concentration in a 10 km radius of the spill, for instance) or, more importantly, the concentrations (and durations) seen by marine life. 3 bbp in the entire gulf corresponds to a much higher (and likely not very safe) level for the region of the spill.
Gyges:
And that is why I asked how fast the bacteria reproduce and how quickly they can metabolize hydrocarbons.
If I remember correctly bacterial reproduction is a logarithmic function so colonies grow rather quickly, not at all the same as a water in water out problem. If you had exponential water flow it would overwhelm the container and the problem wouldn’t make any sense.
TraderB,
Nope, your source said that the microbes ate oil at X rate. I’ll agree to that.
It did NOT say that X rate was enough to compensate for the oil spill going on in the gulf.
If you want to convince me that you’re right you should quit trying to deflect the conversation and defend your thesis (which since you didn’t correct me I’m going to assume is “thanks to microbes the gulf oil spill won’t be a big deal environmentally”).
I’ve run out of ways to restate the question so if you don’t address the second half of the equation, I’m done.
Elaine:
From the EPA website.
The mean (average) water depth of the Gulf is ~1,615 m and the basin contains a volume of 2,434,000 cubic kilometers of water (6.43 * 10^17 or 643 quadrillion gallons).
From Wiki:
lets say 2,000,000 gallons per day at 100 days = 200,000,000 gallons. Which is 200×10^6 that would give us a ratio of 3.215×10^9 to 1 which is 3,215,000,000 or about 3 ppb. In other words 3 billion gallons of water to one gallon of oil approx.
See the link for WHO safe levels of petroleum products for humans. Granted marine organisms may have a different tolerance level.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/Petroleum%20Productsrev071105.pdf
See section 5.1 on page 9.
Also the three main surf and beach reports from Pensacola to Panama City dont mention anything about oil on the beaches anymore where as three weeks ago it was talked about daily.
Yancer Spencer Innerlight- P-Cola
Shrimp Creole- Ft. Walton Bch
Mr. Surfs Panama City