next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
have to other parts --0016364d23d7741e0f048778a71e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 NUKE THE GULF!!!! On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Brian Dalzell <aythya@nb.sympatico.ca>wrote: > 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