news.yahoo.com — As BP inched closer to permanently sealing the blown-out oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, congressional investigators railed against the company and Coast Guard for liberal use of toxic chemicals that helped disperse the oil, but at unknown expense to sea life. The Coast Guard routinely approved BP requests to use thousands of gallons.....
Aug 1, 2010 View in Crawl 4
onebeforezodAug 2, 2010
echo......
enthreeohAug 2, 2010
"...Coast Guard routinely approved BP requests to use thousands of gallons of chemicals a day..."
Not to defend BP or anything, but it seems they should take it up with the Coast Guard if they approved it.
airportbaldyAug 2, 2010
The Coast Guard was just doing what it was told to do.
hawaiianruleAug 2, 2010
The best course of action is to get rid of our oil dependency.
crunchydeluxeAug 2, 2010
Because --of course-- that's a simple and quick process.
hawaiianruleAug 2, 2010
What are you, an idiot? Of course it is not a simple and quick process. It took us decades to get this dependent on oil and it will get us decades to get off of it.
What do you suggest, we wait until we run out of oil first to start doing something knowing it will take decades to come up with something else?
You might say yes because you are an idiot but a person with a brain will reason out that if it will take decades to find a suitable alternative, maybe we should start looking at that technology now and start developing it so when the time comes when all the oil is used up or gets to expensive to use, we will have the infrastructure and technology setup to make that transition.
f**ktard.
cs188Aug 2, 2010
Yikes, I think that was an unnecessarily harsh reply, hawaiianrule.
hmalhi93Aug 2, 2010
Here you can see the dangers caused by sarcasm. Notice how hawaiinrule came off as a giant douche for taking CrunchyDeluxe's post as serious.
jaxcsAug 2, 2010
Actually I don't think Hawaiian came off that bad. Sarcasm has to be funny or biting or something to work. Crunchy just came from left field.
inactiveuserAug 2, 2010
China is already investigating ways to implement electric vehicle support networks (like refill stations) across its country. India is looking at similar technology.
The reason is simple, they don't want to suck on the teat of American oil politics, they want to be independent. They are doing this now and not waiting so yes we can change but as stated it will take at least 3 decades.
So why wait?
http://fora.tv/2009/07/22/The_Electric_Horizon_Shai_Agassi
crunchydeluxeAug 2, 2010
@hawaiianrule:
So was your first post simply an exercise in wasted breath? There isn't a single person who doesn't know that shedding our oil dependency is the right way to go. You may as well have said grass is f**king green. Clearly, your point couldn't have been to simply state the *f**king obvious*, so what was it?
The only other point I can draw from your comment --due to its brevity-- is that you're implying it's a quick easy fix. You've already admitted it's not, so again I must ask: what was your point?
I'd sit by and chalk it up to being a simple idle post -- but when you come breathing fire at me for absolutely no reason, getting unnecessarily defensive and going so far as to call me a "f**ktard", I must assume that your original post was simply an attempt to bait someone (in this case, me) into a completely asinine argument over absolutely jack s**t. I'm no psychologist, but I'm willing to say you're bitter about something. Otherwise, I ask for the third time: What was the f**king *point* of your excruciatingly obvious post?
Stop wasting my time, and f**k off.
asingh01Aug 2, 2010
BP should definitely be under scrutiny for this, but so should the Coast Guard that allowed this.
hamiltonbrandAug 2, 2010
All these people in charge sure has the habit of routinely doing things without knowing the effects.
inactiveuserAug 2, 2010
I am waiting for everything to turn green from Algae breaking down the phosphate and nitrate components in the dispersant.
vogelshockAug 2, 2010
Wow. Coast Gaurd runs the show completely. This is just incluidng BP's name because complaining about the Coast Gaurd would not be politically wise.
wkrausmannAug 2, 2010
BP has to be implicated here. I mean, there's no more oil spill to bitch about and the clean up is going so well they need something else to blame on BP.
The company still exists and the executives aren't in jail yet! Come on people, there's work to be done!
liuiteAug 2, 2010
dispersant = sweeping it under the rug. how did it make sense to approve the huge quantity of solvents.
when I worked in the plastics industry, I was warned not to use solvent to remove resin from my skin; if you dissolve the resin your skin will absorb both the solvent and the resin. I think the dispersant make the oil more soluble and readily absorbed by all living things that come in contact with me.
cusomanAug 2, 2010
It made sense because BP owns the company that makes the dispersant, why not make a little more money on the side (the tax payers will end up paying for that too, you know) while you clean up your mess?
strfxAug 2, 2010
@cusoman: such a clever reply, my man! Just too bad that BP is paying for the clean-up, including the dispersants, and that their use was approved by the coast guard.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gstepAug 2, 2010
But is the dispersant worse than the loss of sea life that would occur by just leaving the oil alone. From what I've read, the containment booms and skimmers really can't get the job done on a large scale, and they haven't been allowed to burn any of it off because of psycho environmentalists worried about the greenhouse gasses released by burning oil so....what were they supposed to do?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Nope, they have been burning off the oil and the gas that was spewing with it from the very beginning. Maybe if you got your news from something other than wingnut blogs and Faux you would know this. Even Faux showed the oil being burned off so who the hell knows what extremist lie spew you got that from but sorry, not even close.
http://www.google.com/images?q=burning%20off%20oil%20spill&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1920&bih=887
Psycho environmentalists at least know what the hell they are talking about before they talk, extremist right wing morons just spew dreamed up nonsense....
michelsonmorleyAug 2, 2010
I'm not trying to be an alarmist, but I wonder how much stories like this are true:
http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d31-Exclusive-Censored-Gulf-news-Coughing-up-blood-Eyewitnesses-horror-stories
italbrewAug 2, 2010
Nothing will be done to make us less dependent on oil until oil costs $400/barrel, and even then we'll just switch to coal/gas, which we (and our friendly Canadian neighbors) have in abundance. Waaay too much money is made digging up and burning dead dinosaurs for anything else to happen.
angelmommync53Aug 2, 2010
The disperants used have been banned for use all over the world - including Great Britian. The Coast Guard has previously chastised BP about this. Why should the Gulf be given another horrible hurdle to overcome? Haven't chemists (of course, not the ones now on the BP payroll) stated that these dispersants take the oxygen out of the water so that there are actual "dead zones" where the dispersants have been used in such high quantities? Shame on both BP & the Coast Guard!
strfxAug 2, 2010
"banned for use all over the world" - references, please.
"The Coast Guard has previously chastised BP about this." - references, again. It's well known that the Coast Guard has approved the use of those dispersants.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
angelmommync53Aug 2, 2010
References include: EPA, CNN, Nat. Geo, CBS News, Wall Street Journal, the Governor of LA, as well as
numerous chemists from several universities (sorry cannot recall specific ones). Initially, the Coast Guard did not approve of those particular dispersants; if these have now been approved by them, could it be CYA? As for them being banned, I'm sure that if the EPA has any type of FAQ inre to the oil spill or some type of discussion group/chat room there would be something in writing about this. It was initially reported on numerous news stories about the EPA & the Coast Guard having problems with using these particular disbursements.
wkrausmannAug 2, 2010
But the oil's gone, right?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
7/01: FIX THE SPILL NOW!! DO IT FASTER!
8/01: WTF DID YOU USE ALL THE CHEMICALS FOR??!!?!
Make up your minds, folks.
cusomanAug 2, 2010
Yeah, cause the dispersants were EVER stated as a "fix"... right...
darkray16Aug 2, 2010
fix the spill WITHOUT destroying the gulf... which is the whole point of fixing the spill... logic much?
immelman42Aug 2, 2010
Right or wrong, the dispersants were used. We need to understand the impact and do what we can to fix it, but I don't think this is a case where finding out who was responsible is anything other than a waste of time. This was an unusual spill that no one has had any experience with, so experts are few to nonexistent. Pity the poor Indian who has to follow the orders of thousands of chiefs.
angelmommync53Aug 2, 2010
References include: EPA, CNN, Nat. Geo, CBS News, Wall Street Journal, the Governor of LA, as well as
numerous chemists from several universities (sorry cannot recall specific ones). Initially, the Coast Guard did not approve of those particular dispersants; if these have now been approved by them, could it be CYA? As for them being banned, I'm sure that if the EPA has any type of FAQ inre to the oil spill or some type of discussion group/chat room there would be something in writing about this. It was initially reported on numerous news stories about the EPA & the Coast Guard having problems with using these particular disbursements.
hereticoftruthAug 2, 2010
And after this they will use lots of Tide so we all will have squeaky clean, sterile coastlines.