• One Of The Long Term Effects Of The Deepwater Horizon Spill
    19 replies, posted
[img_thumb]http://oi61.tinypic.com/e8k0mb.jpg[/img_thumb] [QUOTE]Every spring, scientists tromp through Louisiana's mud and waist-high grass, hunting for the hidden nests of a palm-size bird called the [URL="http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Seaside_Sparrow/id"]seaside sparrow[/URL]. Their goal: to see whether the [URL="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/10/gulf-oil-spill/bourne-text"]massive oil spill[/URL] from a broken Gulf of Mexico rig known as [I]Deepwater Horizon[/I] has hurt creatures that don't actually inhabit the water. Five years after the worst oil spill in U.S. history, early reports from this and other research suggest that the ecological damage lingered in unexpected ways. But scientists say cataloging what that means for the Gulf's future grows more complex with time. Amid the rushes and cordgrass of the Gulf's fragile salt marshes, for example, scientists say they made a surprising discovery: Two years after the spill, in meadows once tarnished by soupy petroleum,[URL="http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=39c54c18-f86b-4b7f-946b-4bf92e044989&cKey=5427bb7e-bd94-4716-b876-57094383bed1&mKey=69f99107-da14-499c-9dfe-b14043f5f658"] flies, crickets, spiders[/URL], and the seaside sparrows that eat them were less abundant than in areas untouched by the oil. "There's very little question that our oiled plots had greatly reduced sparrow densities," says[URL="http://www.apsu.edu/biology/woltmann"]Stefan Woltmann[/URL], an assistant professor of biology with Austin Peay State University in Tennessee. "Nest success was miserable out there." Many of these marsh creatures never came in contact with spilled crude, so the connections between the oil spill and their fate are poorly understood. Some scientists suspect that insects important to wildlife were snuffed out by oily residue that released toxic fumes. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150414-deepwater-oil-spill-birds-gulf-macondo-louisiana/"]Source[/URL] Video in source. On a serious note, this is not "bu-bu oil is evil" but more of a straight fact reminder (Especially considering recent Keystone Pipeline news) how fast oil can devastate ecosystems and ourselves.
There's also the discovery that coral does better in oily water, than water with the oil dispersant Corexit. We dispersed one hazardous waste with another.
[QUOTE=OvB;47530413]There's also the discovery that coral does better in oily water, than water with the oil dispersant Corexit. We dispersed one hazardous waste with another.[/QUOTE] Isn't Corexit's complete chemical composition still not fully public?
[QUOTE=OvB;47530413]There's also the discovery that coral does better in oily water, than water with the oil dispersant Corexit. We dispersed one hazardous waste with another.[/QUOTE] so, really, the only winning move is to not play
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47530521]so, really, the only winning move is to not play[/QUOTE] Well not really, the winning move is to not spray toxic chemicals with more toxic chemicals
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47530521]so, really, the only winning move is to not play[/QUOTE] The winning move is not getting complacent to negligence when you have the health of entire ecosystem and millions of lives and livelihoods at the turn of a wrench.
[QUOTE=OvB;47530545]The winning move is not getting complacent to negligence when you have the health of entire ecosystem and millions of lives and livelihoods at the turn of a wrench.[/QUOTE] that seems to be a far more effective move, i would not be good at this game
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47530521]so, really, the only winning move is to not play[/QUOTE] The only winning move is to understand when a source of oil is too potentially dangerous to tap. Take arctic oil exploration, and imagine if the deep water horizon happened in the arctic circle instead, there would be no hope of ever containing it, and worse the ocean currents would spread it to every part of the globe, but of course much oil is to be expected so we persist
I didn't think it was the oil so much as the cleanup the destroyed these ecosystems. Obviously oil can't just be left there as it is harmful, but in order to neutralise it you have to basically pours gallons of detergent over it.
[QUOTE=Memobot;47530877]I didn't think it was the oil so much as the cleanup the destroyed these ecosystems. Obviously oil can't just be left there as it is harmful, but in order to neutralise it you have to basically pours gallons of detergent over it.[/QUOTE] Well, here's the thing about crude oil: You have to remember that it's all organic material. Yes, it does hinder plant growth at first, but as it breaks down, it adds nutrients back into the soil. While its not fiesable for short term growing (like farms), it could help long term growth in soils with less than optimum nutrients. If you plant a few pots the same, but add in incremental amounts of crude oil to the soil, you will notice the non-contaminated plant grow quicker at first, but the contaminated soils grow better in the long run. This is due to crude oil releasing nutrients into the ground slowly as it breaks down, while the non-contaminated soil just runs out of nutrients. So soil contaminated with crude oil isn't necessarily bad, because once it starts breaking down, it acts like a fertilizer. We see this at work all the time where patches of ground that got sprayed with tack (emulsified asphalt) grow green and lush. Tack was even used for hydro-seeding back in the day because of its cohesion and fertilizing properties. It's not unheard of. HOWEVER: The slow-acting of its fertalization properties combined with its inhibition of quick growth makes it a bad thing for marshlands, where quick growth is needed for roots to establish and hold soil in place. Slow growth means less roots, which means more soil is washed away. So in conclusion, oil isn't necessarily bad for soil and plants. What makes it bad is what kind of environment it's spilled in. if it's somewhere that doesn't need quick plant growth every year, it ends up being more of a positive, whereas in places where you need rapid plant growth immediately, it's not good at all.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47531897]Well, here's the thing about crude oil: You have to remember that it's all organic material. Yes, it does hinder plant growth at first, but as it breaks down, it adds nutrients back into the soil. While its not fiesable for short term growing (like farms), it could help long term growth in soils with less than optimum nutrients. If you plant a few pots the same, but add in incremental amounts of crude oil to the soil, you will notice the non-contaminated plant grow quicker at first, but the contaminated soils grow better in the long run. This is due to crude oil releasing nutrients into the ground slowly as it breaks down, while the non-contaminated soil just runs out of nutrients. So soil contaminated with crude oil isn't necessarily bad, because once it starts breaking down, it acts like a fertilizer. We see this at work all the time where patches of ground that got sprayed with tack (emulsified asphalt) grow green and lush. Tack was even used for hydro-seeding back in the day because of its cohesion and fertilizing properties. It's not unheard of. HOWEVER: The slow-acting of its fertalization properties combined with its inhibition of quick growth makes it a bad thing for marshlands, where quick growth is needed for roots to establish and hold soil in place. Slow growth means less roots, which means more soil is washed away. So in conclusion, oil isn't necessarily bad for soil and plants. What makes it bad is what kind of environment it's spilled in. if it's somewhere that doesn't need quick plant growth every year, it ends up being more of a positive, whereas in places where you need rapid plant growth immediately, it's not good at all.[/QUOTE] how much does BP pay you
[QUOTE=Telecaster;47532019]how much does BP pay you[/QUOTE] Why, because I don't believe that oil is the worse thing since jeggings?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47531897]Well, here's the thing about crude oil: You have to remember that it's all organic material. Yes, it does hinder plant growth at first, but as it breaks down, it adds nutrients back into the soil. While its not fiesable for short term growing (like farms), it could help long term growth in soils with less than optimum nutrients. If you plant a few pots the same, but add in incremental amounts of crude oil to the soil, you will notice the non-contaminated plant grow quicker at first, but the contaminated soils grow better in the long run. This is due to crude oil releasing nutrients into the ground slowly as it breaks down, while the non-contaminated soil just runs out of nutrients. So soil contaminated with crude oil isn't necessarily bad, because once it starts breaking down, it acts like a fertilizer. We see this at work all the time where patches of ground that got sprayed with tack (emulsified asphalt) grow green and lush. Tack was even used for hydro-seeding back in the day because of its cohesion and fertilizing properties. It's not unheard of. HOWEVER: The slow-acting of its fertalization properties combined with its inhibition of quick growth makes it a bad thing for marshlands, where quick growth is needed for roots to establish and hold soil in place. Slow growth means less roots, which means more soil is washed away. So in conclusion, oil isn't necessarily bad for soil and plants. What makes it bad is what kind of environment it's spilled in. if it's somewhere that doesn't need quick plant growth every year, it ends up being more of a positive, whereas in places where you need rapid plant growth immediately, it's not good at all.[/QUOTE] (just so we're clear I don't believe that trash you just posted, the following is assuming you stick to your guns regarding the unproven point of "spraying random chemicals on plants helps them grow faster" and need convincing that what you just posted is a terrible idea) Crude oil is generally toxic and will bioaccumulate. Meaning any animals which feed off of those plants which "supposedly grow faster" will be poisoned with those poisons working their way up the food chain and/or spreading to other eco systems. Some of the polymers in there won't break down for years. Along with a small amount of fertilizing nitrogen compounds it was polluting/poisonous/carcinogenic compounds. If plants need help with nutrients put real fertilizer on them neither artificially created or get a bunch of fish and mash them up. If you need convincing that crude oil isn't an effective fertilizer look at what it is made up of. Most of it is hydrocarbons. Plants get most of their carbon from the air and lack the ability to "crack" the polymers into smaller, more accessible molecules. The rest is a hodge podge of chemicals with lots being sulphur compounds which plants don't really want. If the crude oil is extracted it is likely to also contain some kind of solvent to aid extraction, in most cases these are also pretty poisonous and unlikely to be much help to a budding plant. Pour some petrol on your parents lawn and what how well the grass grows for the next year or so. A side effect will be it turning yellow and being dead.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;47532130](just so we're clear I don't believe that trash you just posted, the following is assuming you stick to your guns regarding the unproven point of "spraying random chemicals on plants helps them grow faster" and need convincing that what you just posted is a terrible idea) Crude oil is generally toxic and will bioaccumulate. Meaning any animals which feed off of those plants which "supposedly grow faster" will be poisoned with those poisons working their way up the food chain and/or spreading to other eco systems. Some of the polymers in there won't break down for years. Along with a small amount of fertilizing nitrogen compounds it was polluting/poisonous/carcinogenic compounds. If plants need help with nutrients put real fertilizer on them neither artificially created or get a bunch of fish and mash them up. If you need convincing that crude oil isn't an effective fertilizer look at what it is made up of. Most of it is hydrocarbons. Plants get most of their carbon from the air and lack the ability to "crack" the polymers into smaller, more accessible molecules. The rest is a hodge podge of chemicals with lots being sulphur compounds which plants don't really want. If the crude oil is extracted it is likely to also contain some kind of solvent to aid extraction, in most cases these are also pretty poisonous and unlikely to be much help to a budding plant. Pour some petrol on your parents lawn and what how well the grass grows for the next year or so. A side effect will be it turning yellow and being dead.[/QUOTE] I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. My no means am I advocating for people to use crude oil as fertilizer. It make a very poor fertilizer and isn't safe. That's not my point at all. Also, that bit about pouring gas on a lawn doesn't apply, because gas needs to be cracked and refined from crude through hydro cracking which alters the makeup of crude. I'm simply stating that crude oil isn't necessarily harmful to the soil in the long run as people tend to think. Spilling oil on a field won't make it barren for the next 20 years. once the crude starts breaking down, it puts certain nutrients plants like back into the soil. I'm not refuting that crude oil hurts the areas it spills on. I'm simply stating that the harmful effects are temporary and some areas can handle it better than others. This is an expirament done to test the effectiveness of cow manure in varying levels of crude oil contaminated soil. It shows what I've been trying to explain, which is (even without manure) crude oil isn't necessarily detrimental to plant life in the long run. [url]http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/0601/07_0355_KelechiNjoku_growth.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47531897]Well, here's the thing about crude oil: You have to remember that it's all organic material. Yes, it does hinder plant growth at first, but as it breaks down, it adds nutrients back into the soil. While its not fiesable for short term growing (like farms), it could help long term growth in soils with less than optimum nutrients. If you plant a few pots the same, but add in incremental amounts of crude oil to the soil, you will notice the non-contaminated plant grow quicker at first, but the contaminated soils grow better in the long run. This is due to crude oil releasing nutrients into the ground slowly as it breaks down, while the non-contaminated soil just runs out of nutrients. So soil contaminated with crude oil isn't necessarily bad, because once it starts breaking down, it acts like a fertilizer. We see this at work all the time where patches of ground that got sprayed with tack (emulsified asphalt) grow green and lush. Tack was even used for hydro-seeding back in the day because of its cohesion and fertilizing properties. It's not unheard of. HOWEVER: The slow-acting of its fertalization properties combined with its inhibition of quick growth makes it a bad thing for marshlands, where quick growth is needed for roots to establish and hold soil in place. Slow growth means less roots, which means more soil is washed away. So in conclusion, oil isn't necessarily bad for soil and plants. What makes it bad is what kind of environment it's spilled in. if it's somewhere that doesn't need quick plant growth every year, it ends up being more of a positive, whereas in places where you need rapid plant growth immediately, it's not good at all.[/QUOTE] You know nothing of chemistry or organic chemistry, none of what you said even makes sense. The long chain molecules in crude oil don't even remotely resemble molecules plants use, and are chemically vastly different from the phosphorus and nitrogen based fertilizers used in industry. Plant some stuff in benzene and it dies. Tar covered grass grows back because the plants grow around it and the underlying soil is very much intact. Oil only breaks down naturally through sunlight and certain kinds of bacteria. The gulf does have these kinds of bacteria that feed off of the hydrocarbons because it does seep up naturally from the gulf floor. Places like Alaska where this doesn't happen, don't have these evolved bacteria and there's still significant levels of oil in the sand and on the beaches there after the valdese
[QUOTE=OvB;47530413]There's also the discovery that coral does better in oily water, than water with the oil dispersant Corexit. We dispersed one hazardous waste with another.[/QUOTE] Didn't they also recently discover that one of the dispersing agents does major damage to human lung tissue and fish gills?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47532357]This is an expirament done to test the effectiveness of cow manure in varying levels of crude oil contaminated soil. It shows what I've been trying to explain, which is (even without manure) crude oil isn't necessarily detrimental to plant life in the long run. [url]http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/0601/07_0355_KelechiNjoku_growth.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] Using this study to say that crude oil isn't detrimental in the long run is like saying that a poison isn't detrimental in the long run because you can take medicine to mitigate it. The study used manure to replenish the soil, and found that manure helped. It didn't look at crude oil breaking down and the "nutrients" derived from them. Plants need shit like nitrates, not long chain carbons that are difficult to break down.
Leaving crude in the environment is always a bad thing, and it's bad for the long term health of any person, fish, bird, bug, etc that lives around it. There are people in Louisiana that are still sick from this spill, and shrimp that are still deformed. [editline]15th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47532357] [url]http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/0601/07_0355_KelechiNjoku_growth.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] That study is saying if you added cow manure to oil contaminated soil, it mitigated the harmful effects of the oil and it could be used again. The oil itself is no way helpful. Infant, in that same study you linked, it says soil not contaminated with oil out preformed every soil with oil.
[QUOTE=OvB;47530413]There's also the discovery that coral does better in oily water, than water with the oil dispersant Corexit. We dispersed one hazardous waste with another.[/QUOTE] It still blows my mind that they were given free reign to dump mass quantities of "dispersant" into the Gulf with essentially no review and without publishing anything about what it actually is. The whole thing was a clusterfuck...
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47533260]It still blows my mind that they were given free reign to dump mass quantities of "dispersant" into the Gulf with essentially no review and without publishing anything about what it actually is. The whole thing was a clusterfuck...[/QUOTE] its not quite true, for dispersants while the exact formulation may not be known, the actual mechanisms and chemistry of them are well documented. its the whole active ingredient vs inactive stuff, there's a ton of proprietary compounds that go into an agent to get the consistency, effectiveness and shelf life that is desired. its not as simple as "we can't tell you whats in it" the people purchasing these and recommending their use know exactly what kind of reaction mechanism is going on. take laundry detergent, they all have secret blends, but the actual mechanisms that provide the stain cleaning ability are well documented and are identical in virtually all laundry detergents, its the other stuff that goes in that is a trade-secret. much of what goes into a product is about improving the shelf life, handling, maybe moderating the pH, or improving its viscosity and consistency since these can all have a huge effect on the cost of a system and the effectiveness of the detergent as well as how often stocks of the stuff will need to be thrown out and remanufactured some of those chemical additives though should be published as their long term side effects are not well documented and could be more harmful than the original dispersant
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.