Slashdot Mirror


Oil Means More Arsenic In Seawater

oxi writes "Besides the oil already spilling into the Gulf of Mexico at the rate of up to 60,000 barrels daily, a group of British scientists says one can expect to see elevated levels of arsenic as well. The research, published in the journal Water Research, showed that oil prevents naturally-occurring arsenic from being filtered out of the water by the sediment on the ocean floor."

168 comments

  1. A little arsenic.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never hurt anyone. Except for anyone who's gotten sick or been killed by it.

    Can someone tell me, if the oil spill still capped, or is it leaking, or something else?

    1. Re:A little arsenic.... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The oil spill is leaking only a little more than this little blister of pus I have on my groin.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    2. Re:A little arsenic.... by lxs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      have you tried looking it up on the internet?

    3. Re:A little arsenic.... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3&hpt=T2

      I think that should answer the question. But seriously, why not click to a new tab and google the question?

      This whole mess rather pisses me off -- someone should "accidentally" dump raw sewage all over the homes of the BP executives. "It's an accident right?"

    4. Re:A little arsenic.... by countertrolling · · Score: 1, Funny

      The American people demand more information and a live feed!

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    5. Re:A little arsenic.... by put_it_down · · Score: 1

      god almighty, "something else" leaves a lot to the imagination. head for the hills its mecha-bp-oil-spill-godzilla, and he looks angry!

    6. Re:A little arsenic.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use IE6. You really think my browser has tabs?

    7. Re:A little arsenic.... by Dilaudid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Clever analogy. If America consumed 20 million barrels of raw sewage every day, and if humankind's thirst for raw sewage was so desperate that it led them to start wars, dig in environmentally special areas until the only places left for them to find more sewage was underneath the ocean - then you'd be spot on. I find it funny to see America looking around for who to blame here. They bought the SUVs. They are the biggest oil consumers in the world (along with the UK) - and they're still buying. The pollution in Nigeria caused by oil is desperate - this kind of thing happens every year. But no one cares at all about Nigeria, because Nigerians are worth a lot less than Americans. The board of BP aren't my favourite people, but singling them out is ridiculous (and politically expedient). So in short, perhaps better to throw shit at the next SUV you see, or the next person who tells you they've been scuba diving in the caribbean (like the then-head of Greenpeace, Lord Melchett) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell

    8. Re:A little arsenic.... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      not angry, just has gas.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    9. Re:A little arsenic.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You still don't understand the situation. The USA has oil on land that it's not pumping. We're devastating the oceans for the sake of maintaining our reserves.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:A little arsenic.... by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't blame the masses for what the masses will always do. You have to place the blame where it starts. Yes, people bought the SUVs. They were told they needed to buy them because they were the biggest and the best and so they did. The masses are mindless drones as Apple can plainly attest. It's the marketing and fashion people who really drive the masses... for better or for worse. And what drove the marketers? Well, the people who want to sell bigger and more expensive things, of course. There's a lot more profit in the big machines than there is in the little ones so naturally they want to sell the big ones. These same auto makers also managed to convince the people (AKA the government) to stop building railroads and to build freeways instead.

      The demand for SUVs didn't happen until the SUVs happened... well that's not entirely true either -- I can remember when the Suburban was essentially a worker's vehicle until someone put leather interiors and other features in it, jacked up the price to more than twice what it was and now it's "for rich people." They polished a turd and sold it as a diamond. So when figuring out where the blame belongs, you need to follow the greed, not the masses. The masses don't think for themselves and I pretty much thought everyone knew that already... you knew that already right?

      If you knew the masses don't think for themselves, how can you blame them? Maybe it's just easier to "blame the Americans" for being born on their particular plot of concrete and soil and living the lives that were handed down to them from their parents and know of no other way to live? Going down that road, you are essentially blaming people for being born and inheriting their culture. How much sense does THAT make?! Should I also blame you for where and when you were born?

      No. It's better to blame those who actually have the influence to make changes and fail to do so to the benefit of the planet and mankind.

    11. Re:A little arsenic.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 LOL

    12. Re:A little arsenic.... by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      As you pointed out, it's rich people buying the damned SUVs.

    13. Re:A little arsenic.... by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it's more than the rich... it's also those who would want to appear to or aspire to be so. Those are not the same people who are actually in a position to control or influence the masses. Those people number in the few hundreds or even in the tens. These people are often carefully concealed but are seen in the company of people such as Dick Cheney and the like. Look to big oil, big auto, big pharma, big energy and big agriculture to see who is actually at the steering wheel directing the masses.

    14. Re:A little arsenic.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To add to your post, businesses got tax write off for purchasing any vehicle over 6000 lbs.

    15. Re:A little arsenic.... by SolusSD · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Apple can plainly attest" ?

      You mean I didn't buy my Macbook Pro because it had more memory, a faster processor and video card than contemporary notebooks in its price range/size. Also a gorgeous screen, a backlit keyboard, an accelerometer protecting my data by parking my hard drive's heads in the event of a fall, a magnetic breakaway power cord, awesome battery life, and a aluminum unibody holding it all together weighing in at only 5.5Lbs? Don't forget a UNIX-based OS with a largely consistent, beautiful and lean GPU-accelerated UI (read: doesn't require a ridiculous CPU+GPU combo to simply present my interface like some other UIs). Several aspects of the OS are empirically "better" than the competition- which is probably why the competition has spent the better part of the last 10 years duplicating functionality in OSX from the UI down through the frameworks. The OS + beautiful and capable hardware make an Apple computer a killer package.

      I'm a software engineer with a computer engineering degree and I could hardly ask for a better development platform. Apple makes, on the whole, the best of the breed when it comes to personal computers and you need to compare the complete package (OS, build quality, tech specs, weight, battery life, etc) if you are to compare apples to Apples. Pun intended.

    16. Re:A little arsenic.... by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      So you basically forgive the masses for being the masses and place the blame on the people who simply act upon that very same knowledge. Responsibility isn't a burden for a handful of people, but rather one for us all to bear. The uneducated masses are fully responsible for not thinking their actions out.

    17. Re:A little arsenic.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People buy what they're sold. The US automakers want to sell gas guzzlers because they can mark them up more; if x amount of power and size is good, then x+y amount is better! They were going to be forced to sell more fuel-efficient vehicles by the demand of the state of California, by the will of the voters, but they lobbied the federal government which threatened lawsuit if our state proceeded with the stricter emissions standards, for which foreign automakers were completely prepared. You can say what you want about sheeple but if you know that selling gas guzzlers is harmful to the environment in a way that may make it inhospitable for human society, then selling gas guzzlers is an antisocial activity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:A little arsenic.... by masterwit · · Score: 1

      I sir refuse to accept that society is inherently ignorant, however stupid it may seem, and we must accept that conclusion.

      I refuse to accept that an oil company or a car manufacturer is solely to blame, blame cannot ever be shifted.

      The fact is, when you are referring to our lifestyles, is that everyone screwed up. erroneus, I do applaud your ability to see that other are to blame, but the masses are not mindless drones as we would be taught to believe. The truth is, as put by my next door neighbor, age 85 who works at a factory:
        (paraphrase)

      I do not give a damn what people tell me I need to drive, I drive a pickup. Why you may ask, because I damn well feel like it and its damn useful when I need to haul shit.

      You know, in the end we can all say we wouldn't have driven SUV's if SUV's were not made, but to me that is on the same line of "guns kill people". No in truth people kill people, just by their chosen medium. SUV's could have been replaced by something else, who knows...but the culture would have SUV's become popular because of the convenience they provide. If your going to generalize towards a culture, lets just say we have too much money and are lazy, I will not argue with that :)

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    19. Re:A little arsenic.... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Apple makes, on the whole, the best of the breed when it comes to personal computers and you need to compare the complete package (OS, build quality, tech specs, weight, battery life, etc) if you are to compare apples to Apples. Pun intended.

      Dude, you're making me wish there was a '-1, bad pun'. I have mod points right now, but that mod doesn't exist and I'm not gonna give you something inappropriate. Better watch yourself, though.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    20. Re:A little arsenic.... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      You paint a very credible and easily understood picture of how our government seems to be set up....a very sad picture indeed!
      Too bad we can't send jack bauer after any of these guys...he could make them understand what needs to be done , in the appropriate time frame too...

  2. Woohoo! Free Arsenic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks BP!

  3. And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    life goes on... who cares? it's a giant fuck up, but ultimately nature will take care of it.

    1. Re:And yet... by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everything that is possibly sensational about this story (as if the spill wasn't sensational enough) will be reported.

      This spill is a reporters wet dream and they will milk it for everything they can.

      Did you see the "will it rain oil" stories they were running now that we started hurricane season?

      It is 1:30 AM CST and I am willling to bet good money that if I go into the break room at my job, Anderson Cooper is on with more oil spill coverage. I don't think the guy reports on anything else and he seems to be all that is on for CNN at night

    2. Re:And yet... by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe you should care how nature took care of other ocean contaminations on the past,

    3. Re:And yet... by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, there needs to always be some vaguely disaster-ish background story to report on when other stuff runs low. The Afghanistan war, frankly, just ain't cutting it. Oh, we're still in Afghanistan, great. And the economy/joblessness/whatever is getting old. At least the oil is still somewhat fresh!

    4. Re:And yet... by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some have turned out not all that catastrophically, though.

    5. Re:And yet... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Nature took care of it JUST FINE.

      Darwin smiled upon those with the proper tools.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:And yet... by Gerzel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah but nature taking care of it may very well not include life going on.

    7. Re:And yet... by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While CNN is the butt of all media jokes (Hello? Is anyone out there?! TWEET US SOME NEWS PLEASE!), I'll give Anderson Cooper props for talking about the 65ft exclusion zone they're enforcing around response vessels and oil booms.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXsmLMV1CrM

      Call it milking but if the Coast Guard is doing this and BP is hiring police to run off reporters and anyone curious (link), I certainly hope they don't stop talking about it.

    8. Re:And yet... by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 2, Informative

      3.3 million barrels over 8 months is 275,000 barrels a month. The Deepwater Horizon spill is spewing more than that every 2 months.

      60k barrels * 30 days = 1.8 million barrels

    9. Re:And yet... by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      interesting, so when the relief wells shut down the flow in august, it'll be larger than Ixtoc, but still in the same order of magnitude.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes. All of that has already been well covered by better commentators.

    11. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's a bit of a race whether it will be slightly less, the same, or slightly worse than Ixtoc-1. But it is probably going to be on the same order, and in the same body of water, so Ixtoc-1 is probably a decent analogue to how the results will play out over the next decade, modified a bit due to the differences in coastline environments.

      It's going to be bad, especially economically, but end of the Earth's oceans or of the Gulf? Short answer: obviously not. That doesn't stop some uninformed loons, or some of them with a mouthpiece in the press, from speculating otherwise. If those media idiots actually did their job they'd be doing extensive investigative journalism on Ixtoc-1 -- talking to people who were there, going to and talking to coastal communities affected by it, talking to scientists who worked on the environmental effects, etc., to give people some rational idea of what to expect in the future. What do we get? Anderson Cooper strolling through the marshes of Louisiana and bemoaning how ugly it all looks, and interviews of people who know *nothing* about engineering, chemistry, petroleum geology, or oceanography.

      It's depressing to see how badly such an important event is being handled by the press. It's another kind of catastrophe.

    12. Re:And yet... by pacov · · Score: 2, Informative

      3.3 million barrels over 8 months is 412,500* barrels a month. The Deepwater Horizon spill is spewing more than that every 2 months.

      60k barrels * 30 days = 1.8 million barrels

      Adjusted that for you in case someone was going to use the math.

    13. Re:And yet... by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Wow, how did I fuck that up? You are correct.

    14. Re:And yet... by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Within the same order of magnitude, sure. So is .08 BAC and .35 BAC but the difference in effects is quite pronounced.

      But, then again, going from .01 to .05 would mean you're not partying hard enough and going from .5 to 2 means you're still probably dead.

      What I mean is that just because there's no apparent effects from the previous spill doesn't mean there will be no apparent effects from one that is gushing over four times the rate.

      BTW, as pointed out by another commenter, I math bad. Still not sure how I got it but the figure should be 412,500 barrels a month (about 14k a day).

    15. Re:And yet... by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The Earth will survive. That doesn't mean that humans will.

    16. Re:And yet... by bartwol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In glancing over your reference to "other ocean contaminations" (which you misleadingly point to an article about extinction events), I don't see any support of your murky point (which seems to be that arsenic or the BP spill will lead to mass extinction?). Could you please cite where in that article you see support of your point? (Or is this, like, you know...stuff in the water and, like, mass extinction and everything...kind of...like that?)

    17. Re:And yet... by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      And even if it does go on, it may not the kind of life we like and have gotten used to. Bacteria and jellyfish are not particularly profitable for fishermen.

    18. Re:And yet... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the first reference in that section ([11]):
      "So you can probably say that within two to three years the beach fauna or beach populations were back to where they were before the spill. I think that's probably a pretty standard thing. Fine-grain, sandy beaches can be cleaned up pretty easily," Tunnell explained.

      I just want to point out that sandy beaches are a far different matter than the swampy coastline environments conservationists are most concerned about.

      Extrapolating from Ixtoc to this doesn't seem sound. There are plenty of factors that are different.

      But God, I hope it's true.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    19. Re:And yet... by BraksDad · · Score: 1

      The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first. - Mark Twain

      --
      Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
    20. Re:And yet... by BraksDad · · Score: 1

      Can you say 'chemosynthesis'?

      --
      Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
  4. OMG! by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well in other news every time I pee in the ocean the ph level drops too.

    This is about as valuable insight as a story above without any meaningful interpretation of what the rising level of arsenic means. How much more arsenic will there be? Will the entire ocean die? Will just a few patches of the Gulf die? Or more likely will it not make the tiniest bit of difference?

    1. Re:OMG! by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "Well in other news every time I pee in the ocean the ph level drops too. "

      Actually, this is dependent upon two primary things - your pre-existing body chemistry, and the overall pH of the substances your body takes in. I don't piss much, so I exude the majority of wastes through my pores. This leads to me registering nearly 3 on the pH scale when a test is done to the surface of my skin. This also explains why I tear through a set of guitar strings in three weeks, even with heavily protected string sets.

      In other words, you might pee in the ocean and make the level RISE instead. This is just dependent upon genetics and what you ingest.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well in other news every time I pee in the ocean the ph level drops too.

      This is about as valuable insight as a story above without any meaningful interpretation of what the rising level of arsenic means. How much more arsenic will there be? Will the entire ocean die? Will just a few patches of the Gulf die? Or more likely will it not make the tiniest bit of difference?

      BP Spin:

      Trace amounts of arsenic in your water will only be able to kill off the weaker cells in your body. The stronger cells divide and live on for another day. We're actually helping evolution! You should thank us!

    3. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod -1 Boring

    4. Re:OMG! by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How much more arsenic will there be? Will the entire ocean die? Will just a few patches of the Gulf die? Or more likely will it not make the tiniest bit of difference?

      I found these two abstracts that may help. Langmuir adsorption model is used to determine the effects.

      I was trying to put some perspective on the BP oil spill for myself and found it's roughly an Exxon Valdez (E.V) disaster every week (based on approx 50,000 bbls per day), so it's 6 E.V's so far. Considering the amount of damage that was done there, local fisheries are now supported by hatcheries so the overall toxicity of the oil spill has pretty much destroyed the ecosystem. Twenty years later not much seems to have improved and Huffington Post reports not only the human health implications but the same-old same-old response we get from these companies as data collection efforts are simply stopped. Ignorance really is bliss and when it's not possible to do any science and politicians in the future can honestly say "The health implications cannot be determined".

      That arsenic is a carcinogen that bio-accumulates in the environment means that even if this catastrophe was to stop right now the human health implications are something that will continue to unfold well into the next generation. Airborne pollutants like Hydrogen Sulfide, which took a week to dissipate from E.V just continue.

      Bottom line: No-one knows (A metric ass load?). EPA says you can't harvest fish from seawater with a greater concentration of 0.0175 micrograms of Arsenic. Seawater is more capable of containing As than fresh water and there are many other factors (temperature, organic/inorganic As) that determine toxicity. Pressure from the depth of water is also a factor. I think what is being said here is that the Gulf of Mexico's days as a fishery are pretty much over and it's time to drill the shit out of that oil reserve and empty it as soon as possible.

      Lets be realistic No-one is going to take the risk of being the "Oh but you made it worse" person that everyone points fingers at so NO-ONE will do ANYTHING. Right now you are seeing the people standing around the dying person bleeding wondering when someone is going to call the ambulance. I blame the greenies, if they'd have protested more none of this would have ever happened and we could have lived our apathetic little lives without an oil spill of this magnitude. As it so happens now we have to live our apathetic little live without the luxury of ignorance going, tsk tsk that oil spill - so bad tsk tsk.

      References; Neff, Bioaccumulation in Marine Organisms: Effect of Contaminants from Oil Well Produced Water

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:OMG! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Doesn't sound very healthy to be honest. Would not drinking more water and hence flushing the internal systems a bit more be better for both the health of your skin and guitar strings? ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    6. Re:OMG! by Eternauta3k · · Score: 3, Funny

      Boring? The guy sweats acid!

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    7. Re:OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The greenies have been making lots of money hand over fish. They're wheelbarrow-loaded Rich now, addicted to the Money.

    8. Re:OMG! by Xest · · Score: 1

      A good start would be looking towards Nigeria, where foreign oil companies (including Exxon) have been leaking at very least an Exxon Valdez (the new official unit of measurement for oil spills ;)) each year for about 50 years.

      I'd imagine the level of toxicity there would give you a good starting point, although of course it's a different dynamic, because it's multiple smaller leaks over a long time, rather than a single big leak over a relatively short time.

      I'm not sure if there are increased levels of cancer for the locals there or anything, but as I say, it'd certainly be a good starting point.

    9. Re:OMG! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine the level of toxicity there would give you a good starting point, although of course it's a different dynamic, because it's multiple smaller leaks over a long time, rather than a single big leak over a relatively short time.

      We talk in terms of As and other compounds released into nature when the worst toxicity exists in the boardrooms of the corporate giants prepared to take these enormous risks.

      When I was looking for a list of oil spills and was astounded to see how many there were since E.V, they must have bought the media time. If you've ever watched a documentary called "The Corporation" (which I recommend to get a non-political idea of the structural problems our society faces) a Wall st stock broker tells of other brokers saying Saddam should burn *more* oil (10-15 E.Vs :)). I wonder how the belief is sustained that that sort of thinking evolves us as a species and whether we will be fit enough to survive whilst this type of thinking continues.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  5. What's the concentration? by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is probably some parts-per-billion phenomenon.

    Arsenic is naturally found in some fish, and the concentrations approach regulatory limits. It's not clear in what compounds the arsenic appears; if it's locked into a compound that doesn't metabolize, it's probably not a problem.

    1. Re:What's the concentration? by davester666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Has somebody informed the fish that the levels of arsenic in their bodies are approaching regulatory limits? Maybe throw in some dialysis machines or pills that absorb arsenic mixed in with fish food into the oceans?

      Why aren't we helping the fish help themselves?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:What's the concentration? by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why aren't we helping the fish help themselves?

      Because Western Society is still too busy thinking of the children?

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    3. Re:What's the concentration? by fotoguzzi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why aren't we helping the fish help themselves?

      Give a fish a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a fish to fish, you have invented the shark.

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    4. Re:What's the concentration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post reminds me of that time I spilled half a can of Mountain Dew on my motherboard. I swear the thing went Daisy, Daisy... before the smoke alarms went off.

    5. Re:What's the concentration? by jhantin · · Score: 1

      It's not clear in what compounds the arsenic appears; if it's locked into a compound that doesn't metabolize, it's probably not a problem.

      I think it largely ends up in the form of arsenic-substituted pyrrole compounds, which seem to undergo biomagnification as one proceeds up the food^H^H^H^Hmanagement chain -- there's no other way to explain some of the rather toxic mismanagement messes generated by large companies.

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
    6. Re:What's the concentration? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Arsenic doesn't metabolize easily, at all. Finding soluble arsenic is not too easy, especially in a non-toxic form that we could possibly use. The agent for chelation, dithiol dihydrolipoic acid, is more common but still rather uncommon in a natural state.

      I've had arsenic poisoning twice now, to add to silicosis of the lungs, mercury poisoning, lead poisoning, and aluminum poisoning. To top it off, I'm anemic (iron-deficient) even though I eat tons of iron-loaded food.

      I'm a walking labrat. Have been since the age of 6, starting with Ritalin.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:What's the concentration? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      But can you rattle off a list of the 'syndromes' you've been diagnosed with?

    8. Re:What's the concentration? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Give a fish a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a fish to fish, you have invented the shark.

      But strap a laser to that very same shark and they call you mad... MUHAHAHA I'LL SHOW THEM!!

    9. Re:What's the concentration? by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Or the angler fish.

    10. Re:What's the concentration? by the_arrow · · Score: 1

      Give a fish a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a fish to fish, you have invented the lawyer.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      / The Arrow
      "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
    11. Re:What's the concentration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Give a fish a BP executive, feed him for several weeks.

  6. Good news everybody! by jordan_robot · · Score: 3, Funny
    This means we'll all build an immunity to...

    Oh dear.

  7. naturally-occurring arsenic by lxs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is there any other kind?

    1. Re:naturally-occurring arsenic by siddesu · · Score: 1

      yep, there is also the kind that comes with old lace. of course, that was fashionable before polonium become commonplace.

    2. Re:naturally-occurring arsenic by Sulphur · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some time ago someone was to play Arsenic and Old Lace. Not wanting to mispronounce the name, he contacted Alice Longworth. She said that there were two branches of the family, and they pronounced the name differently.
      T.R. was Roo-za-velt and F.D.R. was Rosa-velt.

      One of the news articles on Litvinenko claimed that the Polonium used to kill him cost a megabuck.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko
      http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/PoloniumPoison.html

    3. Re:naturally-occurring arsenic by iammani · · Score: 1

      Created by fisson/fusion/addition_of_neutron_protons_to_other_atoms

    4. Re:naturally-occurring arsenic by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I suppose when Dumbledoor or whatever the name is kicks Hairy Pottar in the nuggets, the young magician's screeching teeth and muttering of some profane spells can create a few elements in the universe unnaturally, probably including some arsenic in the old fool's tea cup.

      Everything else is occurring naturally.

    5. Re:naturally-occurring arsenic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots. According to Wikipedia, there are at least 32 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic#Isotopes)

    6. Re:naturally-occurring arsenic by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there's good-for-you natural arsenic, and the awful-chemical-that's-poisonous-for-you artificial kind.

  8. Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by nido · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am of the opinion that the best way to clean up the Gulf of Mexico is to Send the Enterprise (no, not that Enterprise, silly rabbits!). The complete proposal is given at the link.

    Tell everyone you know.

    (kuro5hin.org has two options for voting for a story: "Front Page" and "Section Page". 93% of the people who voted for my story voted FP, so I have reason to believe that my proposal has merit.)

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
    1. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will not tell you not to try, as every bit helps, but I expect you are underestimating the sheer vastness of the ocean, and how many gigatons of O_2 would be required. Start with all the world's nuclear powered aircraft carriers and icebreakers and subs and deep drilling rigs all pumping in oxygen, and you still have just a few small bubblers here and there. But by all means try. At this point try anything and the place is so fuct that messing with the chemistry a bit more can't make it any worse, .. or can it?

    2. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Have you managed to slashdot your own site or is it just me experiencing problems connecting to www.teslabox.com ?

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by nido · · Score: 1

      I expect you are underestimating the sheer vastness of the ocean

      Dr. Joye suggests that some of the oil is concentrated in plumes. I'd send the Enterprise to float over one of those first.

      and how many gigatons of O_2 would be required.

      This is why the Enterprise's six nuclear reactors are needed - there just aren't any other 310 Megawatt floating power plants, that I know of... The Mighty (MYT) pump design will efficiently convert the reactors' steam into rotational motion. Furthermore, the same pump will be able to move 3x as much air as old compressor designs.

      At this point try anything and the place is so fuct that messing with the chemistry a bit more can't make it any worse

      Epic disasters call for epic interventions, do they not?

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    4. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by nido · · Score: 1

      Have you managed to slashdot your own site?

      Apparently... I suspected that this would happen. I'm hosting on a small vps that I've been playing with for a year. I recently asked my host to increase the memory, but I haven't heard back from him yet. You can read the same proposal at the kuro5hin.org link - you just won't get the three small pictures. :)

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    5. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by dbIII · · Score: 1

      310MW is not epic on any scale. I suggest you look up how much power your city consumes at peak power.

    6. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you read? he is talking about FLOATING power plants. Your point still stands though, 310MW would hardly sustain the operation he is asking for.

    7. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by nido · · Score: 1

      310MW is not epic on any scale. I suggest you look up how much power your city consumes at peak power.

      310 MW may not be epic, but it's still 310 MW that could be put to productive use. The Enterprise isn't doing anything right now, so why not see what can be done?

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    8. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by iammani · · Score: 1

      The Enterprise isn't doing anything right now

      [citation needed]. Unless you have internal sources, you would never know what exactly Enterprise is tasked for (or for what reason it was constructed at all, for the matter)

    9. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're still not getting it. With the scales we are talking about, you'd be better off zipping out into the middle of the gulf yourself on a zodiac and blowing bubbles in the water with a drinking straw. It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper, and it'd accomplish about as much.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    10. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by nido · · Score: 1

      It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper,

      They're going to be spending money on maintenance and operations of the aircraft carrier anyways. Do you think it'd be more productive to spend it on bombs, jet fuel, pay for 8,000 sailors to fight forever wars on blowback ("terrorism")?

      Au contraire, I think it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to send the Enterprise to the gulf with a skeleton crew.

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    11. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by Khyber · · Score: 0

      It was designed as a battleship-killer.

      My father designed the Harpoon radar guidance system, first put in place upon that ship.

      Unless you have the real connections, BE QUIET.

      Otherwise we'll make you disappear for putting us to shame.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    12. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by iammani · · Score: 1

      LOL, you could refer wikipedia for more information and the current (publicly available) plans.

      Anyway, my point was "nido" could never be sure that Enterprise is just idling and has no current military objectives/tasks. If you have any "real connections" that support/contradict his view, please feel free to post here. (I, personally, seriously doubt such a capable warship is idling). Otherwise STFU.

    13. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So rather then send in specialists (reads not necessarily BP, there's lots of companies in the oil and gas industry), you'd rather send a big-arse ship full of people who know nothing about the problem, to tackle a job they were never designed to do, with equipment that's not even designed.

      I especially love this bit:

      After licensing the design, the U.S. Navy’s engineers can refine the pump for their purposes and the military-industrial complex can quickly establish a production line.

      It seems clear to me that the author has never tried sourcing a custom made pump before. Redesigning equipment designed to operate at speed and pressure, and getting it produced takes a phenomenal amount of time. The up-front engineering hours alone would amount to months of work before the pump would be ready to run through a production line.

    14. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by nido · · Score: 1

      It seems clear to me that the author has never tried sourcing a custom made pump before. Redesigning equipment designed to operate at speed and pressure, and getting it produced takes a phenomenal amount of time. The up-front engineering hours alone would amount to months of work before the pump would be ready to run through a production line.

      The MYT pump is simple. It has 22 parts, while a conventional piston pump/engine has thousands.

      Furthermore, a geothermal energy company is looking to use the pump on one of their wells.

      Geothermal Application

      For that reason, Morgado has been successful in talking one renewable energy company, The Tesla Corporation, LLC, into using his system for harnessing the geothermal energy found on their land in Southern Utah. In fact, Co-President, Korey Robinson, surprised Morgado the other day telling him that they have drilled and capped a small well and are now waiting for Morgado's 14-inch motor to plug into the well to harness the constant geothermal energy that is there. The engineers at Tesla Corporation looked at the data on Morgado's website, especially the graphs and charts on the rpm/torque and air pressure/ torque curves, ran the math, and concluded that he was right in saying that his engine would be a good fit for their application.

      "The MYT engine is the most efficient expander for steam engines," says Morgado.

      The problem is that Morgado is presently maxed out in his time and resources getting ready for the SAE-Oregon demonstration May 15, in which he plans to showcase his newest 6-inch engine design running on biodiesel.

      He told me that with adequate financing in place, he could put his friend over at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on task in working up the engineering and materials needed to fit this application and customize the unit for this specific application. The steam and composition of the fluid from geothermal sources can be brutal on turbines, but Morgado thinks that his pump can be designed to handle this environment rigorously.

      -Angel Labs eyes geothermal for MYT Engine application

      Running the MYT pump off a nuclear reactor's steam lines would be very similar to a geothermal application. How hard can it be to get 22 components into production?

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    15. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't epic. At the scale of the area covered by the spill (a patchy area in excess of 200 x 200 km), this would be less epic an effort than trying to oxygenate an olympic-sized swimming pool by blowing air through a narrow soda straw.

      The only thing epic here is the failure to appreciate the scale.

    16. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      For a standard off the shelf system not hard. Customise anything industrial and the months start queueing up. I've seen this with far simpler pump designs in the oil industry.

      Ok so you have the urgency of an environmental disaster backing your purchase, but even that may only half the production time if you're lucky (and quadruple the cost). The waste and lost time in industrial enginerring processes should never be underestimated.

    17. Re:Save the Gulf: Send the Enterprise by nido · · Score: 1

      You have a very good point here - Maybe I should have known that the "military-industrial complex" is incapable of doing anything "quickly". But thanks for pointing it out!

      And you're right - I underestimate timetables all the time. :)

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
  9. Send Wonder Woman instead perhaps - or aquaman? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With respect, that article shows the author really has not the remotest clue about the navy, oil experts, oil eating bacteria, oxygen in water, weather (stopping a hurricane - OMFG), and let me just add reality in general to the list.
    Massive fuckups that can not be solved quickly with all the experts on earth happen - and this is one of them. We're just going to have to cope with it being fixed slowly.
    It makes a good story to send a "ship of heroes" but unfortunately magic does not exist in this world so they won't be able to fix it any more quickly.

    1. Re:Send Wonder Woman instead perhaps - or aquaman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You strike me as a BP rep. I have a solution for the BP oil issue, not that sending the Navy is all that bad an idea in itself: Any oil that touches US waters is no longer the property of whoever placed it there but the government or a US oil company, and the group at fault for it being there still flips the bill for the cleanup.

    2. Re:Send Wonder Woman instead perhaps - or aquaman? by Khyber · · Score: 0, Troll

      "(stopping a hurricane - OMFG)"

      Sorry, we can do this. We just aim a laser at the center of the system cell and destabilize it.

      Yes, the government has a patent on this, already. We even have laser-controlled decomposition of chloroflurocarbons.

      I think you underestimate the technology we actually possess.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:Send Wonder Woman instead perhaps - or aquaman? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "(stopping a hurricane - OMFG)"

      Sorry, we can do this. We just aim a laser at the center of the system cell and destabilize it.

      Riiiiight. And all the energy stored in this big vortex magically disappears.

      I think you underestimate the technology we actually possess.

      I think you seriously underestimate the scale of things that happen in nature.
      The eye of a hurricane ranges from tens to hundreds of square kilometers. Where do you aim?

    4. Re:Send Wonder Woman instead perhaps - or aquaman? by dbIII · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't get out to the movies much so I wasn't aware of that technology. Does it come with a large persian cat to stroke when you order the device to be activated?
      It reminds me of a quote from a congressional review from the 1960s where a scientist said the output of a laser was ten to the six watts and they needed ten to the twelve watts for an application. "Wonderful" said a Senator, "We're halfway there!".

    5. Re:Send Wonder Woman instead perhaps - or aquaman? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Since when do we have a powerful enough LASER to even think about this? I could believe you could do it with HAARP since once of the applications of the patent on which it is based is intense localized heating of the atmosphere, but if you want to sell this LASER thing you'll need some citation(s).

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Send Wonder Woman instead perhaps - or aquaman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also forgot scale, although I suppose "general reality" covers that. People don't seem to understand that we're talking about *thousands* of square miles/km. Anything you can do -- ANYTHING -- that doesn't cover that kind of area is going to have little effect unless it is done right at the source, and they're already doing that. Driving skimmers around? Sure, it helps a little. But all of them are covering a tiny fraction of the sea. Pumping oxygen into the water? Yeah, sure, but unless you're going to get at least a cubic kilometre of water oxygenated every day it isn't going to have a detectable effect except right beside the ship.

      You could deploy 100 Enterprise-sized aircraft carriers, one every square mile, and I doubt it would make an appreciable difference, even assuming the ideas he suggested worked on that scale.

      Sheesh, load up Google Earth and look at an actual map sometime. Also try to visualize the depth of the ocean in the Gulf. It's big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.

      And stopping a hurricane? Really? 310 megawatts versus a HURRICANE? Bwahahahaha. According to this list, a hurricane is processing on the order of 50 to 200 terrawatts (10^12 Watts) of power, only about a million times greater. So, good fricking luck! I suspect an atomic bomb wouldn't have much effect.

    7. Re:Send Wonder Woman instead perhaps - or aquaman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (stopping a hurricane - OMFG)

      OMFG indeed. Hurricane Katrina generated approximately ten megatons equivalent of TNT every twenty minutes, totalling an estimated 300 megatons over the life of the storm. By way of comparison, the largest fusion weapon detonated to date, the Cold War-era Tsar Bomba , weighed in at fifty megatons.

      So, assuming we even knew how to apply such forces in such a way as to halt a hurricane's progress rather than simply add to it, it's conceivable that we could stop a hurricane by employing several of the largest thermonuclear devices ever constructed. That might not be considered a sane option, however.

      There's no laser system in existence that would make a dent in a hurricane. Tornados, possibly, but those are orders of magnitude less powerful than a hurricane.

    8. Re:Send Wonder Woman instead perhaps - or aquaman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Massive fuckups that can not be solved quickly with all the experts on earth happen - and this is one of them.
      We're just going to have to cope with it being fixed slowly.

      These are two of the most insightful sentences I've seen on /. in some time. I wish these sentences would be picked up and run on the front pages of all daily newspapers in a large, bold typeface every single day for at least a month. Every armchair quarterback coming up with asinine suggestions for stopping the leak needs to have these worlds tattooed inside their eyelids in fluorescent ink.

       

      Massive fuckups that can not be solved quickly with all the experts on earth happen - and this is one of them.
      We're just going to have to cope with it being fixed slowly.

      Massive fuckups that can not be solved quickly with all the experts on earth happen - and this is one of them.
      We're just going to have to cope with it being fixed slowly.

      Massive fuckups that can not be solved quickly with all the experts on earth happen - and this is one of them.
      We're just going to have to cope with it being fixed slowly.

      Massive fuckups that can not be solved quickly with all the experts on earth happen - and this is one of them.
      We're just going to have to cope with it being fixed slowly.

    9. Re:Send Wonder Woman instead perhaps - or aquaman? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The eye of a hurricane ranges from tens to hundreds of square kilometers. Where do you aim?

      You aim at the hidden weak spot for MASSIVE DAMAGE.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  10. Re:are you saying we should 'do nothing quickly'? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    No, I'm just saying that some things in that article were bullshit from an anti-intellectual viewpoint.
    It makes a good Tom Clancy story for the guy that has never been to school to come and put the experts to shame but I don't think it's going to stop an oil leak in reality.
    310 MW is a drop in the ocean compared with the power of a hurricane.

  11. It's not just BP down there is it? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Instead of calling me names why not watch the news or read a paper? Where did you get the impression that the US navy has oil drilling experts and why do you think they are better than anyone actually involved in drilling for oil - you are betting on mythical superheroes here. The suggestion is really just as silly as suggesting Kirk, Spock and Scotty fix it.

    1. Re:It's not just BP down there is it? by countertrolling · · Score: 1, Troll

      You don't seem to understand. BP is spending much more trying to hide the oil, not actually clean it up. It would be wise to move the corporate pinheads out of the picture (and possible into prison for their criminal neglect) so we can at least perform a legitimate inspection of the damage being done.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:It's not just BP down there is it? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That would be nice if we had somebody else to do the job that they are trying to do. We don't so we would only be making things worse by pulling them off the job early.
      As I said before and even in the subject heading where people should be able to see it easily - it's not just the people from BP doing this. If you or I were world class experts in that field with an idea to help then nobody would be chasing us away.

    3. Re:It's not just BP down there is it? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Again, you are believing that BP is actually trying to clean it up. They aren't. We can keep the present crew of workers and engineers, with big bonuses if they stop the leak quickly. Give them some incentive. And what was supposed to be done is seize BP assets to pay for it all. Ceding all authority to BP as is being done is a gross error in judgment, if not a criminal act of corruption. And we don't know what other experts have already been chased away. There's virtual news blackout on the incident, with everything coming from BP press releases. The wrong people are in charge. That is perfectly clear. And we have a government where appeasement is the order of the day. It's all very sickening as we timidly stand by, believing everything lie after lie.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:It's not just BP down there is it? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So who then are the right people?
      If you know why haven't you sent their names to the Government so they can do more than just worry about why it's taking so long?
      Also is it really a "news blackout" is is there really just nothing else to report?
      How on earth would BP enforce a news blackout anyway?

      Those are the sort of questions you should consider. This is far from the sort of situation where you can "send in a gunboat" and have a problem fixed quickly. The military do not have any expertise in this area.
      I'm not arguing for BP here, I'm just arguing against the rather stupid article linked to by a poster above. BP of course need a lot of help to fix their mess, but they need it from people that know how to fix such a mess. If they haven't borrowed the world's best from rival oil companies then we should be incredibly angry with them. That's a bit of a different solution to the "ship of heroes" thing above.

    5. Re:It's not just BP down there is it? by moonbender · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So who then are the right people?
      If you know why haven't you sent their names to the Government so they can do more than just worry about why it's taking so long?
      Also is it really a "news blackout" is is there really just nothing else to report?
      How on earth would BP enforce a news blackout anyway?

      Are you astroturfing or something?

      The right people would have been the Dutch.

      Sending their names to the government woudn't help; they've already refused the help.

      There is a kind-of blackout, ie here is CNN's take on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpJBsjKhRTo

      BP doesn't enforce the blackout, the government does.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    6. Re:It's not just BP down there is it? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      You didn't read the post, did you? I said keep the same crew and augment them with more people. Pay them from seized funds. Maybe you should watch some of the CNN footage to see how BP is keeping them away. And now the coast guard has stepped in with threats of felony charges.. BP is trying to cover up to reduce liability, and the company bosses, who are only retarding the cleanup effort, by keeping the oil out of sight instead of letting it surface to be skimmed amongst other things, need to be questioned, under oath. All documents need to be subpoenaed. What is likely to happen is that BP will declare bankruptcy, and the taxpayers will cover all the costs, and evidence will be destroyed. We let these people become too big to punish effectively. But we can and should go after the decision makers personally, and nail them to the wall.

      Sorry, we are handling BP with kid gloves when this is one time an iron fist is called for. I don't know where you see where I called for the military to come in, but we could use them if BP resists our efforts, which they are doing now. This is a crime, and the perpetrators will get away

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    7. Re:It's not just BP down there is it? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Troll? BP defenders on the attack! Somebody gave the governor of Mississippi mod points

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    8. Re:It's not just BP down there is it? by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BP doesn't enforce the blackout, the government does.

      Upon BP's request... All those campaign "contributions" are paying off very nicely. The corruption on display here goes far beyond the pale. They're making Cheney look like a saint.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    9. Re:It's not just BP down there is it? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sending their names to the government woudn't help; they've already refused the help.

      Well, obviously they did. Those ships are owned by the government. How could a government possibly be capable of doing something in a more efficient manner than the free market? Let alone the government of a country with less people than the state of New York?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    10. Re:It's not just BP down there is it? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What is likely to happen is that BP will declare bankruptcy

      I really cannot see the remotest chance of that happening.

      and the taxpayers will cover all the costs

      That is probably close to what is going to happen. I think at some point BP will be presented with a bill and then the courts will be busy for a decade or two until it's given up as unpaid, or some tiny token amount will be paid.
      The call for the military was from the fanciful article linked to in the first post.

    11. Re:It's not just BP down there is it? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      I really cannot see the remotest chance of that happening.

      I doubt I'll ever let you be my bookie. You just aren't looking very hard

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    12. Re:It's not just BP down there is it? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      See my second point as to why they'll never bleed enough money for that.

  12. Re:are you saying we should 'do nothing quickly'? by nido · · Score: 1

    but I don't think it's going to stop an oil leak in reality.

    Nothing in the proposal is about stopping the leak. It's about mitigating the impact that the oil is having on the gulf of Mexico.

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  13. can i believe this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been reading /. since 1999 and since the editors have gotten worse over the years and I don't know if I trust the primary sources, here is another example where I have no idea what to believe. Yay for the "this is my blog, I'll be an idiot with typos and stupid stories if i want" mentality you guys have had all along.

  14. In related news: Not much hope of making it stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-461896

    "According to Sagalevich’s report, the oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown on American television, but from at least 18 other sites on the “fractured seafloor” with the largest being nearly 11 kilometers (7 miles) from where the Deepwater Horizon sank and is spewing into these precious waters an estimated 2 million gallons of oil a day."

    "As a prominent oil-industry insider, and one of the World's leading experts on peak oil, Simmons further warns that the US has only two options, “let the well run dry (taking 30 years, and probably ruining the Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well.” "

    "On top of the environmental catastrophe currently unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico the situation may about to get even worse as new reports from the US are confirming the grim predictions of Russian scientists regarding the oil dispersement poisons being used by BP which are being swept up into the clouds and falling as toxic rain destroying every living plant it touches"

  15. Mod parent TROLL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad I have already commented on this story :(

  16. Epic at any scale by Khyber · · Score: 1

    It is epic compared to the amount of power you generate for the rest of us. It lasts far longer and is generated over far longer periods of time.

    You misunderstand the definition of 'epic.'

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Epic at any scale by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Why does my personal contribution to the power industry (which I left in 1996 by the way) matter here? Is this just a variant on the silly "your mom" stuff?

  17. welp... by OnePumpChump · · Score: 1

    FTGE.

  18. Re:are you saying we should 'do nothing quickly'? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does that not make sending the Enterprise worth doing anyways?

    It makes about much sense as "cleaning beaches". It would be a PR campaign and nothing else. And a pretty expensive campaign at that. If you think an aircraft carrier is expensive in Dock. Just wait till its seaside.

    310 Megawatts of power could "turn over" a lot of ocean water.

    No it couldn't. In fact it could "turn over" hardly any at all. The ocean is not a swimming pool. Run the numbers... How much of just the gulf region can 310 MW "clean" after ruining for a century. Its nothing compared to how much is there.

    Sometimes experts know too much...

    And you are ignorant of basic facts, and are too lazy to even run some simple back of the envelope calculations. Thank God you are not in charge of fixing it, or we would really be screwed.

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  19. Re:Sure they can run the healthcare sytsem also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... since when is Obama the CEO of British Petroleum.

  20. Re:In related news: Not much hope of making it sto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you knew how to do it you would also know the concept of reservoir fracture or the instability of a salt dome. Suck my cock, you loser.

  21. Re:In related news: Not much hope of making it sto by KDR_11k · · Score: 0

    Wait, how the hell do you get oil up into the clouds? That stuff is fairly heavy and doesn't turn into vapor like water does.

    Also what's nuking the well supposed to do? Blast the seafloor wide open and release even more oil? Not every problem in the world can be solved with nukes.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  22. So what? by joetheappleguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fish don't vote.

    Drill, baby! Drill!

    Palin / Haliburton 2012!!

  23. Food by Burnhard · · Score: 1

    Why don't people ever think of the bacteria? They're having a whale of a time (excuse the pun) down there right now.

  24. Re:In related news: Not much hope of making it sto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Wait, how the hell do you get oil up into the clouds?

    It's about the dispersant, not the oil. Anyway, have you never seen desert sand getting washed out of the air by rain? Aerosols can travel with the wind, you don't need to vaporize the liquid.

  25. Dont forget GOLDMAN SACHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    this is why this retard story got really posted to keep your minds off the GIANT SCAM

    1. Re:Dont forget GOLDMAN SACHS by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Which one?

  26. Don't blame the regulation when a company fucks up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh come on, that wouldn't be the fault of the regulation. Let's assume that what you said really would be the case.

    If the company is told "You are only allowed to drill this many wells." and the company decided "Oh, okay. Then we'll skip the relief wells!" it is the company that fucks up. Okay, regulators have also erred when they didn't say "And this many of the wells need to be relief wells" and assumed that the company would realize to take the responsibility. But the regulators wouldn't have forced the company to drill a single well. Rather, they would have given rules and the company decided "Well, within these rules, we can drill only so many wells safely... Okay, then we won't drill safely!"

    That's like saying that this was really the regulators fault as the companies were drilling that far in the ocean because they weren't allowed to drill closer to the shore. But regulators didn't force them to drill far either. They just disallowed drilling close and practically said "You can't drill here. Drill there, if you can do it safely." and the companies thought "Well, that would be unsafe... But let's do it anyways!"

    The regulators suck as they assumed that they could expect some responsibility from the oil companies. It is however quite clear, that when profits and enviromental safety clash, the companies choose profits and most certainly don't regulate themselves the slightest. That being the case, the problem was too lax regulation (They shouldn't have had permission to drill there, either), not too strict.

  27. Re:In related news: Not much hope of making it sto by iammani · · Score: 4, Funny

    Khyber is troll... See his other posts...
    1) His father designed the Harpoon radar guidance system
    2) He worked at HP repair line right next to Dell help line
    3) He has immense knowledge about pH and chemistry
    4) and what do we have here... He has worked on oil platforms and his solution is
    i) relief wells... mmm why didnt BP think of this... not wait... they started working on two relief wells long long ago and they have been trying (or pretending to do something in the meanwhile) to temporary stop the flow till the relief wells are operational.
    ii) C-4s, ahh how innovative. When the GP talked about nuking it, did you somehow think it is the radiation from the nuke that would stop the leak? The GP effectively meant blow it up (he said with nukes, and you say with C-4s). And I would leave it as excersie to the reader, whether nuking it easier or C-4s are easier at this depth. PS: before someone flames me, I am neither in favor nor in opposition to blowing it up

  28. Re:In related news: Not much hope of making it sto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "I can seal that bitch with half a million dollars worth of focused C-4 charges from 50 feet down to 500 feet of well-breach."

    Unfortunately that would likely result in a casing failure as the pressure built up below the collapsed zone, and then you'd have a sub-sea blowout, and perhaps a short time after that you'd have it breach to the sea floor and achieve the (lack of evidence/wrong/insane) scenario that Simmons has fantasized already exists.

    There is simply no evidence for the seepages elsewhere on the sea floor that Simmons somehow imagines are there. There are *natural* seeps on the Gulf of Mexico sea floor, but not related to this field or well. The ROVs wander all around the well site and there's no sign of anything nearby. And if there was evidence further away it would be impossible to cover it up. Simmons has mentioned these supposed sites several times in news accounts, but nobody with any scientific knowledge knows where the supposed seeps are or how he is coming up with it. He talks about huge "lakes" of oil beneath the sea surface, but those plumes have now been measured -- in ppm concentrations. There is no inconsistency between what is coming out of the single hole and the amount that has been observed at the surface and subsea.

    Also, this well won't leak in significant amounts for 30 years. There isn't enough oil in the reservoir to sustain it at environmentally significant rates for that long. Even one of the greatest gushers ever, the Lakeview Gusher, which at its peak approached 100000 barrels/day, more or less killed itself in 18 months. The rock around the borehole in the reservoir eventually collapses and clogs the hole, or the pressure decline in the reservoir is sufficient that the flow ceases (or both).

    Simmons claims are poorly-thought-out, unsubstantiated nonsense. He's a financier with a lot of oil experience, not a geologist, oceanographer, or engineer. But his wild claims make sensational press, which is the only reason I can think of why they keep putting him on talk shows and news segments, because his claims make no sense to anyone with a scientific background. For example, he's also claimed that the pressure in the reservoir is 100000 psi, when it was DIRECTLY MEASURED at ~11000 psi as the well was drilled. Even if the measurement was wrong, a fluid pressure of 100000 psi would be more than enough to fracture the rocks at that depth and cause the fluids to leak out of the formation until the pressure dropped back to normal. He just doesn't know what he's talking about.

  29. Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Communism!!! That's right boys and girls, the free market loving USians brought us the oil spill and global communism is the only thing that will save us. Once we acheive that goal we can hasten the process to eliminate all nuclear and fossil fuels so we can embrace renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal energies. Another goal is the total elimination of use and consumption of animals and all products from animals. Not only is it torture, slavery, and murder it is also one of the leading causes of greenhouse gases.

    The way to acheive this is to swith everything over to the Euro. Once that is done *poof* no more US so the rest of the world can finally rest without worry from an imperialistic captialistic nation.

    Sincerly,

    Signed: The Rest of the World

    1. Re:Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism!!! That's right boys and girls, the free market loving USians brought us the oil spill and global communism is the only thing that will save us. Once we acheive that goal we can hasten the process to eliminate all nuclear and fossil fuels so we can embrace renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal energies. Another goal is the total elimination of use and consumption of animals and all products from animals. Not only is it torture, slavery, and murder it is also one of the leading causes of greenhouse gases.

      The way to acheive this is to swith everything over to the Euro. Once that is done *poof* no more US so the rest of the world can finally rest without worry from an imperialistic captialistic nation.

      Sincerly,

      Signed: The Rest of the World

      Are you actually that stupid? Furthermore, even if the United States went *poof* tomorrow, you'd still have to deal with China, an imperialistic totalitarian nation, one whose environmental policies are far more dangerous than the United States'. Furthermore, British Petroleum isn't even an American corporation, so why are you blaming us for what BP did in the Gulf of Mexico?

      Yeah, communism sure has worked out great for the Russians. Ask anyone who has lived under a typical communist regime whether they think that would be good for everyone.

      Idiot. And I'm the idiot for feeding a troll.

    2. Re:Simple Solution by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...why are you blaming us for what BP did in the Gulf of Mexico?

      Because you let them... despite their well documented lousy safety record

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  30. Re:In related news: Not much hope of making it sto by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On top of the environmental catastrophe currently unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico the situation may about to get even worse as new reports from the US are confirming the grim predictions of Russian scientists regarding the oil dispersement poisons being used by BP which are being swept up into the clouds and falling as toxic rain destroying every living plant it touches

    Bullshit. Florida (as well as the rest of the Gulf coast) isn't some mysterious location about which little is known. If there was toxic rain "destroying every living plant it touches", we'd have a zillion people on the internet complaining about their messed up lawns. We'd probably have riots in Tallahassee (the capitol of Florida). This stuff would get in the news too. And Obama would have photo-ops all over the place. Because an evil oil corporation destroying voters' lawns, especially lawns in a critical swing state, is a crisis that Obama could use.

    Keep in mind that the relief wells come in below most of that fracturing. It's also possible that the fracturing and oil leaks were already there. Just because oil leaks out of the Gulf seafloor, doesn't mean it came from a BP oil well.

  31. Where does parts per billion come from? by Vellmont · · Score: 1

    Your referenced article talks about mg/kilogram in the fish, which is parts per million. The article doesn't reference any concentration of arsenic. Where does your quoted figure of ppb come from?

    --
    AccountKiller
  32. Re:In related news: Not much hope of making it sto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well the atmospheric pressure coupled with the water density at 4000-5000 ft below may just be a blessing indisguise.
    The oil may achieve neutral buoyancy at aphotic zone thus left to hydrocarbon micro organisms having a big party.

  33. I disagree, glad he has the courage to cover it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think you've forgotten that for the first 30 - 40 days or so, there was a complete media blackout on the oil spill. They were afraid to even report about it on any news network, including CNN. I think that BP and Obama were telling them not to report on it, that they had things under control and not to blow it out of proportion to the public. That's the only thing that could explain why it took so long for the media to jump on this story 24/7. The first reporter to really get angry about what was happening in the gulf was Anderson Cooper, by reporting on it he forced all the other networks to end their silence. With 24/7 coverage now, people realize this is actually a serious problem now. Even with all the coverage, most of the public still doesn't grasp that this is one of the most categorically dangerous events man has created in the history of world barely eclipsed by Chernobyl. It may even be worse, because of the uncontrollable extinction events occurring right now in the Gulf.

    Anderson is probably one of the few reporters who actually gives a shit that this is happening. Everyone else is merely reporting on it, he feels and understands it. I remember watching each and every news network every single day thinking, I hope to hell someone starts beating the drums soon on how important this is. And, day after day, no one did. The day Anderson said, my god what have we done, I admired that guy. Took some balls, insight, and a backbone.

  34. Mmmm mmmmmmmmmm mmmm by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Sweet Delicious Arsenic, most poisonous of the heavy non metal elements.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:Mmmm mmmmmmmmmm mmmm by HyoImowano · · Score: 0

      I always did prefer Mercury. Also, I would eat a rectal thermometer, thank you very much.

      --
      By now you should have guessed...I'm your magic negro.
  35. Get close enough to film oil soaked birds: Felony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpJBsjKhRTo

    CNN report: Obama admin bans press from filming BP oil spill areas in the Gulf

  36. Re:I disagree, glad he has the courage to cover it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol wut?

  37. Re:In related news: Not much hope of making it sto by arb+phd+slp · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can seal that bitch with half a million dollars worth of focused C-4 charges from 50 feet down to 500 feet of well-breach.

    It's a trick to get us to do exactly that, triggering the fault line and bringing a volcanic island to the surface that Cobra can use as their headquarters. We're not going to fall for that ploy.

    --
    There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
  38. Re:In related news: Not much hope of making it sto by abushga · · Score: 1

    Reports appear bogus to me.

    The CNN story is a "user-submitted iReport," quite different from a news article. The iReport in turn, was plagiarized from an evangelical gloom-and-doom website, http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1374.htm

    The toxic rain reported as resulting from oil dispersants was most likely caused by a FedEx fuel dump from 5,000 feet.

    http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100701/BUSINESS/100701010/FedEx-acknowledges-crew-dumped-fuel-over-Shelby-County-

  39. Mod parent up! by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

    Amen. I wish I had mod points.
    SUVs were and are the vehicles that make the highest profits for the manufacturers, most being primitive truck chassis with a trimmed-up cabin. Combine with a primitive inefficient engine whose design cost was recouped twenty years ago and you have the modern SUV. A polished turd indeed. A gas guzzler with bad performance and bad handling but of course the American consumer will take it if you spend enough on advertising.

  40. Keeping the worlds media from the biggest story? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Are they enforcing the blackout with black helicopters or mind control rays?
    What's with the "us or them, you don't agree with me so must be astroturfing" bullshit? It's not a very mature way to look at the world.

  41. Fluoride vs. Arsenic toxicity by Tarantura · · Score: 1

    Fluoride (found in almost all toothpaste sold in the U.S., almost nonexistent in Europe toothpaste) is more toxic than arsenic. Well, many conspiracy-minded people, it seems, push that idea - but in reality it's quite close to arsenic as far as its 'relative toxicity' in humans.

    1. Re:Fluoride vs. Arsenic toxicity by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Fluoride (found in almost all toothpaste sold in the U.S., almost nonexistent in Europe toothpaste)

      Hmmm, I wonder how extensive your background research on that is. My 30 seconds research tells me that the dental products in the bathroom contain 1100, 1000, 225 and 250 ppm fluoride. Now, I can also tell you two other significant data : I don't shop for dental products based on their fluoride content, and I'm very likely to be the most fluoride-aware dental-product buyer in the house.

      Given those figures, I think I'll treat your claim that fluoride is comparable in toxicity to arsenic with a rather large pinch of muriate of natron.
      A worthwhile question : what are the consequences of lack of fluoride in the human diet compared to the consequences of a lack of arsenic in the human diet?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  42. arsenic and children - personal story by H310iSe · · Score: 1

    high levels of arsenic : my boy is still being evaluated, he came down with something ... best way to describe it is autism with a 6 week onset at 6 years old, but it's not autism, more ASD, it's hard to describe, but suffice to say horrible, and a very good team of doctors (Dr House style) keep ordering more tests, eliminating things, showing nothing. so far the best lead is he has elevated levels of arsenic. He was in Chile over Christmas, there are copper mines there creating high levels of arsenic and chromium in the drinking water, enough so downstream the shellfish are not completely converting the inorganic arsenic into organic, and both, sad to say, are completely under-studied, especially in children.

    There is one other kid who was in chile over christmas with the same symptoms, treated in a different medical center, nothing yet.

    *sigh*

    We don't know yet, it's only correlation.

    Have a nice life

    --
    closed minded is as closed minded does
  43. Re:Keeping the worlds media from the biggest story by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Informative

    Jeeze! Do you watch the news at all? The government stated that there will be $40,000 fines and possible felony charges to "violators". They are enforcing the blackout with police and private security, and the coast guard. Yes, you do sound like you're defending the crooks(BP) here. They should not be calling the shots. Doesn't really matter. Nobody gives a shit. So there they are, covering up as best they can. You are defending the indefensible.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  44. Re:Keeping the worlds media from the biggest story by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Please provide a link to describe exactly what has to be done to be a "violator" so I know exactly what you imagine I'm defending and how it stacks up against what war correpondents deal with every day.

  45. Re:Keeping the worlds media from the biggest story by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Please provide a link to describe exactly what has to be done to be a "violator"...

    See here again you're not paying attention. There are plenty of vids showing reporters, or anybody with a camera being chased off the beaches. You simply have to cross an arbitrary line defined by British Petroleum with a camera (the defining condition, nothing to do with anybody's safety or interference), enforced by the US government. The CNN story has become somewhat viral, so it's very easy to find. The war correspondents don't apply. Much of the action there is classified. Any secrecy on the spill is absolutely unacceptable. And if I were that CNN reporter, I would be calling on all my viewers to call/write their reps and demand complete transparency... The bosses probably wouldn't allow that though. Big business.. brother in arms

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  46. Re:Keeping the worlds media from the biggest story by dbIII · · Score: 1

    With respect, I haven't entirely trusted CNN ever since they showed a lot of "Palestinians" partying AT NIGHT wearing t-shirts with the Brazilian flag and soccer balls on them on 9/11 and said it was a celebration for the twin towers going down (middle of the day in mid-east then).
    Surely you can do better than just telling me to watch CNN? Just about every newspaper on earth is on the net now, and there's the BBC etc.
    Where's the reports of people getting charged and fined? What day are they in court? Is this real or just the story you get when the network is bored with the real story?
    My replies here were all sparked by some guy linking a story containing incredible amounts of bullshit and because I was critical there's even people accusing me of working for BP. Simplistic knee-jerk "us and them" conspiracy theories are the sort of attitude you expect in a remote village in Afganistan and not in the well connected and well educated western world.
    You should be asking yourself the question "why the government be doing this crap" and if you get answers that belong in a Bond movie you should ask "are they really doing that crap?".

  47. Re:Keeping the worlds media from the biggest story by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    You went beyond your initial point when you implied it's best to leave BP management in charge of the operation when clearly that is not the case. The is no "Bond movie conspiracy" That's merely your out of hand dismissal to marginalize those who want the truth. Yes they really are doing that crap. Read the documents already released that illustrate the corner cutting.

    Forget it, man. You're just being obstinate.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  48. Re:Keeping the worlds media from the biggest story by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Read what documents? Show me where to find them.
    You are also misinterpreting my point of view so I'll state it more simply. IMHO it's best to have oil experts fix oil problems first and then it's time to go looking for heads to kick when it's all over. I don't why people keep pretending I mean BP by that - all I really mean is it's stupid to call in the navy to do it when they don't have any oil experts. The guys on the ground that can actually fix it are the important thing and not whoever signs the papers, so long as they don't obstruct the experts.
    The "ship of heroes" idea with some giant space laser that can stop a hurricane is pure fantasy - hence my post above.

  49. Re:Keeping the worlds media from the biggest story by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I phrased that badly - actually I do mean kicking heads at BP, but did not mean they have to run the show.
    It really does raise the question as to who can be brought in instantly to do it better and I can't answer that and I doubt anyone else here can either, so we're stuck with them or we lose by trying to change horses mid-race. I do know that the navy and a "ship of heroes" is not the answer, that should be blatantly obvious.
    Maybe that's a lesson for the future, some sort of team spanning the entire industry similar to what is used for underground mine rescue in some countries.

  50. Re:Keeping the worlds media from the biggest story by nido · · Score: 1

    I do know that the navy and a "ship of heroes" is not the answer, that should be blatantly obvious.

    dude, the comment in the opening paragraph of my piece was solely a reference to the fictional Enterprise that most people think of first when they hear the proto-meme, "Send the Enterprise".

    I want to get a nuclear-powered ship into the hands of gulf researchers and scientists, so they can see what can be done with hundreds of megawatts of thermal power. Seeing as I don't have any kind of platform to make that possible, I have to promote the idea somehow.

    The stats say I've gotten more than 800 clicks in the last 26+ hours. Would that have happened if I'd've said something else ("try out oxygenating the plumes with the USS G.H.W. Bush")? You can think about that one yourself.

    It's like the marketing genius said: if I haven't pissed someone off by noon I'm not doing something right. :) Two more people clicked on yesterday's link while I was typing up this response. Take that to mean what you will.

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  51. My arsenic... by Footsienabackyard · · Score: 1

    There is arsenic in every body of water in the USA...how much arsenic is the question.

    --
    Don't you think...? Or don't you?
  52. Re:Keeping the worlds media from the biggest story by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I suggest that instead of taking advice from the idiot that wrote that article that you think for yourself. Nuclear is not equal to magic, it's real with real limitations.

  53. Re:are you saying we should 'do nothing quickly'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    310 MW is a drop in the ocean compared with the power of a hurricane.

    Yes, but it's not aimed at the hurricane, it's aimed at the power source. If you wanted to darken the skies, would you attempt to put out the sun or build a gigantic mirror?

    As in judo, a small amount of force applied in just the right place can have great effect.