RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study

RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

samboct -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:29:51 AM)
"Your argument smacks of attacking the messenger to me BoiJen, these Universities are normally very respected among Liberal academic types. But now that these research findings dont support the radical anti job, anti domestic energy agenda of certain people Berkley and company have got to be in the pocket of big oil? " Universities as a whole track record for accepting money from pharma/biotech has been less than exemplary. All too often the companies put limitations on publication which slow research down in order to protect their proprietary interests and the universities play along. BP's grant to UC Berkeley was likely for publicity purposes to claim that they were working on alternatives to fossil fuel, when in reality, in their corporate labs, they do very little research on the subject. Having been to several MRS meetings with presentations on various topics of wind, solar, geothermal etc. Presenters from oil companies are absent, and I haven't met anybody at one of those conferences from an oil company yet. However, it's also possible that the guy really does believe what he's claiming. In response to the Louisiana shrimp eating post-the gulf of Mexico is a big place. If you sample 200 sites- well, that can sound like a lot, until you realize how big the gulf is relative to the size of the plume. Not finding the plume doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just that it hasn't been found yet. While it's possible that the failure to find the plume means that the microbes have chewed it up, an equally parsimonious interpretation is that the searchers simply haven't looked in the right place for it. Or that the dispersants injected at the well head did their job, and that the oil has less cohesiveness than other slicks and hence, the plume is rather more dispersed than expected. But we certainly don't have a good handle on the chemistry going on here, therefore it's premature to cheer that we don't have a problem. Sam

rulemylife -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:31:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Some anonymous guy on the Internet claimed that, contrary to what the NOAA is telling us, and you believe it? Seems your criteria for proof of something is entirely dependent on your own personal bias Samboct. quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Seems to me that there's a data collection and interpretation problem here. Overton, a geochemist at Louisiana State Univ, the guy who says that the remaining oil is "degrading quickly right now". also noted that the official maps from NOAA no longer show any surface oil in the gulf. However, Rulemylife has pointed out that boats are coming back with oil coating their hulls. Feel free to give your tree a big hug goodbye and come down to see it for yourself.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:33:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Yeah luce, its an insult and people are being moderated over less. Youre going to have to think a lot harder about what you post from here on out because your and mikes typical cheap shots wont cut the jelly any more. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Its not an insult, its a comment on the only possible polite reason behind your problem with that thread. If I wanted to insult you , it would be worth being moderated over you are not Ken did not claim anything of the sort, and your constant claims otherwise, its the only rational choice You want brie or gouda cheese with that whine?

mnottertail -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:34:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity What do you think happens to the oil that naturally seeps into the Gulf every year, which is the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez happening there every year? All the evidence point to nature being far more capable of taking care of itself far better than many seem need to to believe. One, where this was at least 10 ExxonValdezes plus your one that seeps THROUGHOUT the entire gulf, here this is in an area nearer the shoreline, and again; not the entire gulf, just right in the BUSINESS part of it. slightly differing situations, somewhich.

BoiJen -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:37:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity What do you think happens to the oil that naturally seeps into the Gulf every year, which is the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez happening there every year? All the evidence point to nature being far more capable of taking care of itself far better than many seem need to to believe. Do you understand that the isn't just oil? That the issue involves the chemical break down of oil and dispersants? Now, just because an environment can handle a certain load of chemicals of a particular type doesn't mean that it can handle an increased or more than doubled load of that same type. This "injection" of chemicals wasn't over a year...it was over three months...so it's not "just a little more than twice as much as normal"...it's more than 4 times as much oil as the environment is known to handle (according to your claim). Plus the amount of dispersant chemical added to that. If you don't understand this, think of it as alcohol in a 22 year old's body. They can handle 3 ounces of 100 proof in an hour. But if you add any more to that you run the risk of alcohol poisoning which may only be an issue of puking or it could be as bad as a hospital visit (stomach pump or liver related treatment) or death. There's a wide range of compensating the environment (the human body in this case) can do....not all of it is good. boi

slvemike4u -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:38:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You wouldnt constantly risk the wrath of the collarchat moderator team by taking these endless potshots at me if you honestly thought my arguments lacked reason mike. If you really believed that no one takes me seriously... quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u What seems to go right over your head Sanity is that you are the topic.You offer up these silly little threads,putting forth these silly little arguments(ecologically neutral?) and than feign shock when your thought processes and your very integrity is attacked. When someone tells me 6 is actually 9 I have no other recourse than to question their grip on ...well sanity.[8\|] You seem to spend an awful lot of time worrying about the moderation standings of others.Since you have in the past expressed your over the top distaste for me I am left with only one conclusion....you are trying to draw mod attention to these posts. Have you no faith in the mods? Are you under the impression they need your help? Either way it is a sad and despicable tactic for a grown man to take.

slvemike4u -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:42:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity What do you think happens to the oil that naturally seeps into the Gulf every year, which is the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez happening there every year? All the evidence point to nature being far more capable of taking care of itself far better than many seem need to to believe. You have finally said something I can agree with.....Nature is indeed capable of seeing after "her" own interests.Of course there is nothing at all natural about a man made deepwater oil plume. That has mankinds handprints all over it.....counting on "nature" to take care of our fuck-ups might be asking just a little much of the eco-system.

rulemylife -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:43:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Really? YouTube video? Thats real scientific Samboct... Again, your standards are very flexible. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Sanity Well, about 30 seconds of digging turned this up... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaAZ26KdcI0&feature=related Soooooooooo....................I guess they must have faked that video.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:45:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity What do you think happens to the oil that naturally seeps into the Gulf every year, which is the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez happening there every year? All the evidence point to nature being far more capable of taking care of itself far better than many seem need to to believe. You keep citing that info but where did you get it? All I found was this http://www.springerlink.com/content/bya6g7r7ceebanrl/ which indicates a mean value worldwide (the gulf is a tiny bit of that) of about 600,000 metric tons per year. Estimates of the Exxon Valdese spill are in the 112,000 metric tons range so in the whole world, there are about 6 Valdeses/year leaking. The gulf is what? 1-2% of the world's sea surface area? Just sayin..

DomKen -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:47:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Yeah luce, its an insult and people are being moderated over less. Youre going to have to think a lot harder about what you post from here on out because your and mikes typical cheap shots wont cut the jelly any more. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Its not an insult, its a comment on the only possible polite reason behind your problem with that thread. If I wanted to insult you , it would be worth being moderated over you are not Ken did not claim anything of the sort, and your constant claims otherwise, its the only rational choice Strange how you whine incessantly about being insulted but feel it is fine to baselessly call me a liar and insinuate that I faked a picture that can easily be sourced to NASA.

Sanity -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:48:21 AM)
Good sam, thats right. The Gulf is huge when compared to the size of the plume... thank you. And there are plentiful microbes living in the Gulf waters which will readily dine on any crude oil exposed to them. Excellent observation, and right on the money. quote: ORIGINAL: samboct "Your argument smacks of attacking the messenger to me BoiJen, these Universities are normally very respected among Liberal academic types. But now that these research findings dont support the radical anti job, anti domestic energy agenda of certain people Berkley and company have got to be in the pocket of big oil? " Universities as a whole track record for accepting money from pharma/biotech has been less than exemplary. All too often the companies put limitations on publication which slow research down in order to protect their proprietary interests and the universities play along. BP's grant to UC Berkeley was likely for publicity purposes to claim that they were working on alternatives to fossil fuel, when in reality, in their corporate labs, they do very little research on the subject. Having been to several MRS meetings with presentations on various topics of wind, solar, geothermal etc. Presenters from oil companies are absent, and I haven't met anybody at one of those conferences from an oil company yet. However, it's also possible that the guy really does believe what he's claiming. In response to the Louisiana shrimp eating post-the gulf of Mexico is a big place. If you sample 200 sites- well, that can sound like a lot, until you realize how big the gulf is relative to the size of the plume. Not finding the plume doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just that it hasn't been found yet. While it's possible that the failure to find the plume means that the microbes have chewed it up, an equally parsimonious interpretation is that the searchers simply haven't looked in the right place for it. Or that the dispersants injected at the well head did their job, and that the oil has less cohesiveness than other slicks and hence, the plume is rather more dispersed than expected. But we certainly don't have a good handle on the chemistry going on here, therefore it's premature to cheer that we don't have a problem. Sam

Sanity -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:55:04 AM)
The major difference is that I was on topic discussing the photo and the far left spin ascribed to it, and I didnt name you I merely linked to the thread as a means of using it as a case in point. I never wrote anything about the photo being faked, and the "liar" conclusion was one that you arrived at on your own somehow. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Strange how you whine incessantly about being insulted but feel it is fine to baselessly call me a liar and insinuate that I faked a picture that can easily be sourced to NASA.

rulemylife -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 7:57:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I never claimed to be an expert john, though I believe samboct did and I know Archer did as well. However, I am doing a pretty good job of deflating the far left propaganda claiming that the Gulf of Mexico was totally covered in crude and can never possibly recover. No, you are not, as many people have noted. And in case you haven't noticed, I don't think Archer would describe himself as being on the left.

Sanity -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 8:02:48 AM)
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3377629 quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam You keep citing that info but where did you get it? All I found was this http://www.springerlink.com/content/bya6g7r7ceebanrl/ which indicates a mean value worldwide (the gulf is a tiny bit of that) of about 600,000 metric tons per year. Estimates of the Exxon Valdese spill are in the 112,000 metric tons range so in the whole world, there are about 6 Valdeses/year leaking. The gulf is what? 1-2% of the world's sea surface area? Just sayin..

Sanity -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 8:03:59 AM)
Where did I write that Archer is in the left quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife No, you are not, as many people have noted. And in case you haven't noticed, I don't think Archer would describe himself as being on the left.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 8:09:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3377629 quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam You keep citing that info but where did you get it? All I found was this http://www.springerlink.com/content/bya6g7r7ceebanrl/ which indicates a mean value worldwide (the gulf is a tiny bit of that) of about 600,000 metric tons per year. Estimates of the Exxon Valdese spill are in the 112,000 metric tons range so in the whole world, there are about 6 Valdeses/year leaking. The gulf is what? 1-2% of the world's sea surface area? Just sayin.. That's rich, I ask for a citation and you refer to your own initial claim. where do you get that claim? Was it Rush or Beck? Ive showed an article that refutes you by probably an order of magnitude.

Sanity -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 8:11:14 AM)
Read the post a little more carefully, Bill. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity From the AP: quote: New microbe discovered eating oil spill in Gulf This microbe thrives in cold water, with temperatures in the deep recorded at 5 degrees Celsius (41 Fahrenheit). Hazen suggested that the bacteria may have adapted over time due to periodic leaks and natural seeps of oil in the Gulf... And again, from the article I quoted for the OP: quote: ...natural oil seeps in the Gulf of Mexico have put out the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez spill each year, Hazen said. Large quantities of oil occur in the Gulf of Mexico naturally, and it has a newly discovered natural microbial enemy - which is extremely good news for everyone except those on the far left who are unwilling to accept the science for purely ideological reasons which make sense to no one but themselves.

mnottertail -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 8:13:22 AM)
how do you account for this? especially the last three? http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/gulf-oil-plumes-more-toxic-to-microorganisms-than-thought.php http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/toxicity-aside-dispersants-could.html http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gulfs-future-depends-oil-eating-bacteria-lingering-toxicity?page=0,2 http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gulfs-future-depends-oil-eating-bacteria-lingering-toxicity http://www.epa.gov/ord/sciencenews/science-matters/august2010/oil-spill.htm http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6724 http://www.protecttheocean.com/gulf-oil-spill-bp/

Archer -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 8:13:39 AM)
Man you gotta love it when someone takes a Brand New just discovered microbe and tries to BS their way into backing up a claim they made before the discovery. This is a set of brand new jusr discovered microbes that are producing something just short of a miracle. Breaking down oil in water colder than almost all previously discovered microbes have been found to work. Eating the oil and yet somehow not creating an oxygen depletion zone that every other microbe that eats oil produces. So Sanity you'll have to excuse my hesitance to buy into the miracle without a bit more study. Bottom line is this is a brand new discovery, not you nor me nor anyone else outside the direct research knew or even suspected that these type of microbes existed to clean up the mess that we made. I think it's great that they found this microbe, wonderful news and hopefully they can use this new microbe and study it and replicate it and have it available to respond to other spills because it really is sounding like a miracle microb riht now. Now what happens when we find out that this thing has some side effects that we hadn't counted on? Unintended consequences are the rule in nature not the exception.

BoiJen -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/26/2010 8:17:38 AM)
Sanity, the link to the AP doesn't actually give an estimation on the amount of oil seeped annually into the Gulf. Also...this from your article... "Our findings show that the influx of oil profoundly altered the microbial community by significantly stimulating deep-sea" cold temperature bacteria that are closely related to known petroleum-degrading microbes, Hazen reported. So what the article says is that the bacteria found is unknown and may break down petroleum related chemicals differently than other known bacteria. Do you understand that this could very potentially be the case of "from bad to worse"? boi

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125