Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (77992)	6/10/2010 7:49:50 PM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Respond to of 149317

and that will affect you how? leave it to people who are affected by it, or give them help that matters... like coming down to assist, or connecting with a group you can give money to to help... that sort of thing. or hey... maybe you could take up the cause of the destroyed streams in West Virginia from coal mining that provides the lights you like.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (77992)	6/11/2010 9:26:59 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

FROM THE LAST THREAD "Speaker" posted an important comment on the dispersant question, which was summarily dismissed by subsequent commenters, unfairly IMO: "Perhaps a starting point would be the expert panel report: noaanews.noaa.gov crrc.unh.edu BTW, the expert panel seems to think that crude is more toxic than the dispersant rather than the commonly reported (and erroneous) other way around." I'm a published biologist (40 years in the business of generating new knowledge) with passable knowledge of toxicology (was a governor-appointed environmental regulator for 8 years). I wasn't going to comment on dispersants, because it's not my specialty and because toxicology is super complicated, both to address all the literature and to explain to non-scientists. Instead, I've just been sampling the original literature in background to get a sense of what's known. But in the second link above, we have an extraordinary chance to see the current view of the assembled experts on the wisdom of using dispersants on the BP DW oil spill, efficiently presented in one place. Their summary confirms what I've been reading. P. 5 says: "It is the consensus of this group that up to this point, use of dispersants and the effects of dispersing oil into the water column has generally been less environmentally harmful than allowing the oil to migrate on the surface into the sensitive wetlands and near shore coastal habitats." NatResDr on June 10, 2010 - 9:02pm