Page 1 of 1

BP oil leak versus toxic OWB plume

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:51 pm
by Wilberforce
Image

Re: BP oil leak versus toxic OWB plume

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:25 pm
by Tomfirth
Nice picture W. I posted it on my facebook page. Here is my profile if anyone is interested. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id= ... 0688787245

Re: BP oil leak versus toxic OWB plume

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:22 pm
by Wilberforce
Thanks Tom. I've added a border to the picture.



For anyone who wants to use the picture, it is copyright-free at:

http://freedomofair.info/images/OWB_BP_border.JPG

If you have already linked to the old (borderless) picture, this is the newer link.

Re: BP oil leak versus toxic OWB plume

PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:36 pm
by pm2.5mary
and just think: with smoke much of the toxic payload is invisible to the naked eye: PCBs, Dioxins, lead, arsenic, cadmium... let us count the ways!

Thanks for posting,
M

Re: BP oil leak versus toxic OWB plume

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:15 pm
by Tomfirth
I have a question for you W. Today I heard a report that BP is incinerating a substantial amount of the oil they are capturing. Someone has decided that burning the oil/gas is better than letting it go into the Gulf. Have you seen any reports that indicate how much is being burned and the amount of waste being released into the air? Also, as anyone considered whether this is a better thing than just letting it go into the Gulf?

Re: BP oil leak versus toxic OWB plume

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:55 pm
by Wilberforce
IMHO, it seems that one is as bad as the other. Consider that (a) floating liquid oil can be skimmed.
while (b) burned oil results in soot, and byproducts of combustion which are actually more toxic than
the original oil and (c) burning it only removes the volatiles, and leaves heavy tars and goo, which
seems to double the problem.

Here is how to handle the cleanup: The president should direct the U.S. Navy to commandeer every
BP-owned oil tanker around the world, and use them to suck out the oil. He can do this under his
authority of war powers (this is a war against time and pollution, isn't it?)

Then open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to compensate for any oil commerce shortfall.
This reserve was established just for this purpose: emergency. And this certainly qualifies
as an emergency, doesn't it.

Here is a picture
viewtopic.php?f=26&p=9553#p9553

Re: BP oil leak versus toxic OWB plume

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:39 pm
by Tomfirth
Thanks W. Excellent solution, BTW. If only intelligent minds would prevail, but the Oil Industry would put a roadblock up against that one. Too bad they have so much power in our government.

Re: BP oil leak versus toxic OWB plume

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:11 pm
by Wilberforce
Commandeering BP's tankers was not really my idea, it was the idea of someone suggesting that on TV.
It is my idea to tap the petroleum reserve, however.

Someone had pointed out that BP did NOT use the most effective means to plug the leak at the start,
instead they had used the most cost-effective means.

"The most effective means" is another thing the president should have required, right from the start.
IMHO, if a strong president like Teddy Roosevelt were in charge, that would have happened.

Obama needs to quit compromising with BIG OIL and just lay down the law: "That's it - this is what we will do!"
And that's that. Stop worrying about what so-called "free-market" people think. What got us into this mess in
the first place? Might it be the profit-at-all-costs, corner-cutting, damn-the-environment "free-market?" I think so...

Re: BP oil leak versus toxic OWB plume

PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:31 pm
by Tomfirth
I think the idea of the "free market" is the biggest hoax since religion. There is and never will be such a thing as a "free market." Free markets are for Econ 101. People generally invoke the idea of the "free market " when they are desperately trying to protect their privileged position.