|
Post by StuartG on Sept 10, 2010 14:06:30 GMT 1
"Effect on shellfish - zero" Obviously, that's 'cos they're Shell fish not BP
Sorry, I'll go back to sleep.....zzzzz
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 14:37:08 GMT 1
I'm so glad you linked to my polar bear thread, Havelock. I was only wondering last night how I could introduce it over here! Here it is again. It starts with this! "Aaaaww! Are you an "animal-lover"?" thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=410&page=1Me an "animal lover"? That is far too broad a definition. I "like", have even "loved", certain individual creatures. But it doesn't stop me eating others and enjoying them heartily, or wearing their fur and leather. I object to the gross sentimentality that WWF uses to prise contributions from the gullible and "concerned". WWF is a business predicated on mass sentimentality. WWF created this amazing piece of artwork to promote itself. What is the rationale behind that? Is it in "good taste". Is it better or worse than showing a major carnivore with blood on its chops? I want nothing to do with polar bears. The further away from me the better. I don't like to see nature red in tooth and claw. That is why I posted the photographs - to draw a line between normal concern for the other inhabitants of the planet and sentimentality. The polar bears are not in the least endangered. It is a myth. They are numerous enough to be hunted, in fact. It is gut wrenching to see birds smothered in oil and dying. How many birds fly into power lines or wind turbines or are squashed on the roads? It is the price of civilisation. I am not unduly concerned by it. Everything has to die. Preventable accidents should be avoided of course, including oil spills. One would almost think from the tone of some that Big Oil goes out of its way to kill wildlife. I dare say it makes it own contributions to WWF et al - its "blood money". Is that unsentimental and heartless enough for you, Eamonn and Havelock?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 18:18:17 GMT 1
Do you prefer this advertising industry approach, to wildlife, Eamonn and Havelock?
I think it is vomit-inducing
|
|
|
Post by Gummi Bear on Sept 10, 2010 18:39:59 GMT 1
The kind of ad that compels adults to recycle, not because they should, but because their kids want to save the cuddly killer bear.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 15, 2010 21:40:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 15, 2010 22:43:11 GMT 1
Isn't it because you eco-propagandists have decided that oild doesn't float?? No, I haven't read your silly media story.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Sept 16, 2010 14:00:26 GMT 1
To say 5 million barrels of oil have just 'gone' is a wee bit naive.
Dilution is not the solution to pollution.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 14:30:51 GMT 1
"Dilution is not the solution to pollution."
Evapouration and natural break-up of a natural substance is though.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Sept 16, 2010 16:32:57 GMT 1
Spill a gallon or two of it in your local duck pond, then tell me how long it is before it is all gone.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 16, 2010 16:47:36 GMT 1
Isn't it because you eco-propagandists have decided that oild doesn't float?? No, I haven't read your silly media story. What a silly thing to say - again! news.discovery.com/earth/oil-plume.htmlBP also used at least 1.8 million gallons of dispersant. That doesn't make the oil go away it emulsifies it so that it disperses throughout the water - including under it.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 16:59:18 GMT 1
"Spill a gallon or two of it in your local duck pond, then tell me how long it is before it is all gone." Hardly the same temperature and wave action as the mexican gulf. The Braer spill happened not far from here and a storm dispersed the oil totally....without trace. In two days.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 17:01:12 GMT 1
I thought they'd banned dispersants. It was found to be a much worse pollutant than the nice, natural oil. Lovely stuff.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 16, 2010 17:04:50 GMT 1
"Spill a gallon or two of it in your local duck pond, then tell me how long it is before it is all gone. Is this your idea of what evidence consists of?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 17:26:08 GMT 1
Not my quote, £azarus, my old friend Calm down and read the thread properly, there's a good chap. Tee hee
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 16, 2010 18:53:38 GMT 1
The Braer spill happened not far from here and a storm dispersed the oil totally....without trace. In two days. Apples and oranges; "Fortunately for Shetland, the Gulfaks crude the Braer was carrying was not a typical North Sea oil. Gulfaks crude is lighter and more easily biodegradable than other North Sea crude oils, and this, in combination with some of the worst storms seen in Shetland (naturally dispersing the oil by wave action and evaporation), prevented the event becoming an even bigger disaster." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Braer And it was only 85000 tonnes and dead birds were being found into the third week.
|
|