next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
_http://www.acadianes.org/journal.html_ (http://www.acadianes.org/journal.html) Once in the Gulf Stream, the oil will be off the coast of NS in less than a month. If ever there was a time to use a small-yield nuclear device (as a tool, to cauterize the wound) this would seem to be it. Of course there would be lingering radiation, but that has to weighed against the total death of the Gulf of Mexico, and perhaps the world's oceans (which are of course, all totally connected). There is plenty of blame to go around here, not just BP, but all of humanity, to some degree. ===================================== ---- Christopher Majka <c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hi Suzanne, > > I believe that the evidence here points in another direction, and > hence the lesson to be taken is rather different. > > The Situation > > I think its pretty clear that despite their enormous resources, BP and > the US government are simply unable to stop this oil leak. Even if the > newest plans of clogging the leak with mud and concrete succeed (the > "top-kill" strategy, or the so called "junk short" or the so-called > "top-hat"), there have already been five weeks of uninterrupted, > spewing oil, phenomenally damaging and expensive already, to say > nothing of the astronomical costs of years of restoration and > remediation, to say nothing of the law suits, compensation to > fisherman, and the enormously tarnished corporate image of BP, and oil > drilling and exploration in general. > > The truth is we (meaning all of humanity), despite all our > technological prowess, are really not that clever or that capable when > it comes to dealing with such disasters. All the king's horses and all > the king's men have thus far not been able to put Humpty Dumpty back > together again. > > The Lesson > > The lesson here is that these mega-energy projects are phenomenally > dangerous. Events like the Exxon Valdez spill, or Three Mile Island, > or the Chernobyl nuclear meltodown, or the Gulf Oil disaster may > happen quite infrequently but when they do (and they inevitably will, > since even our best safety measures and failsafe mechanisms will > sometimes fail, as they did this time when the well-head cutoff > mechanisms refused to function) the consequences are catastrophic. > > We need to wean ourselves off both fossil-fuels and energy mega- > projects (for this reason and many others) and seriously commit to > renewal, decentralized measures and projects that allow us to live a > much more sustainable existence. There simply isn't always a "techno- > fix" available and if we rely on the promises of gigantic > multinational energy consortiums (who have a vested interest in such > projects) that they have "fail-safe" ways of dealing with any problem, > the biosphere is going to be traumatized again and again, and its > increasingly not in great shape to absorb such environmental "shock > therapy." > > Marching to Washington, or throwing the US military into the melee, > isn't going to fix it. We need to deal with nature and our planet with > respect and humility, because careless humanity really has the > capacity to cause a serious breakdown, and like the sorcerer's > apprentice, we may not be able to fix the mess we've made. > > Cheers, > > Chris > > On 25-May-10, at 3:31 PM, Suzanne Townsend wrote: > > > Could be my usual shoot-from-the-hip approach however I think that > > siphon thing was working quite a bit, and they could continue to do > > that and improve it and employ many more of the same thing. > > > > If the 2 governments, US & UK, treated this like they did WW II and > > the bomb, they could fix it in short order. I don't think anything > > short of declaring war will work -- war on the oil at its source > > (the broken seam/well) and wherever it went (surely they can figure > > a way to siphon off 5-mile-by-8-mile-by-300'-thick submerged islands > > of oil, surely they can deploy troops to those currently empty-of- > > helping-hands beaches being destroyed, etc). How else to cut through > > the politics, lawyers, and red tape? Oh the lawyers, imagine, nobody > > can do a thing without five signed forms. All these ideas and > > technology already developed and ready to go (or already there) but > > no permission to use them. > > > > Time for BP to lose the rays of its flag like Japan after WW II, > > have its assets seized by the UK/US.... time to fight (a good way) > > for so many lives... > > > > I'm ready to march on Washington, Ottawa, wherever, or, better yet, > > sponsor people who already live in those places and who would not go > > otherwise to represent me in my stead (so I don't have to use more > > oil/gas to get there myself). > > > > Totally all my own unscientific opinion... for whatever it's worth :! > > --Suzanne > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:56 PM, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com > > > wrote: > > Hi Suzanne & All, May 25, 2010 > > Working at 1.5 km with complications of murky water and methane > > ice don't make it easy but I get the impression that the engineers > > involved either lack both imagination and know-how or they have been > > told (quietly) to not try too hard; from a BP standpoint, > > compensation to the few who get past the lawyers may cost less than > > containment. > > > > This may be incorrect, but dispersing the oil with wetting > > agents would (to me) logically increase toxicity by increasing the > > water/oil contact surface. So I wonder. Does use of dispersants mean > > that toxicity is not increased or does it mean that the problem (as > > viewed superficially) seems to be lessened ? > > > > This event may stall or slow deep oil activity. > > > > Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Suzanne Townsend > > To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:19 AM > > Subject: [NatureNS] Birds, Dolphins, etc > > > > Is anyone getting mad enough yet to march on Washington, London, and > > BP to get off the red tape and go suck up the mess? I don't even see > > anything about it in the paper today. It's like it's not important > > enough? > > > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=over-300-dead-birds-are-likely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked