Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

Matt Simmons may have thrown all his credibility out the window. All the doomsday talk for naught.


(Assuming it holds.)


In any case, they resume the relief well drilling and seal it that way, the current fix can't be relied upon and would eventually break years down the road.

 

[Garcia]

Matt Simmons is full of it.

His claims of 100,000 ppsi pressure down the wellbore were absolute nonsense. It is now known that the pressure near the reservoir goes nowhere above 15K ppsi.

His stupid theory about a gigantic methane bubble was also one of the most absurd things. 5000 ft below sea level and at 2000 ppsi pressure methane is a solid.

Don't ever listen to Matt Simmons. He speaks absolute fear morgering crap.

 

[RiskyChris]

Except we can visibly see no oil this time. Even if the pressure builds too much for a total cap they can suck the vast majority of it to the surface with the new cap.

Yay.

 

[HylianTom]

Matt Simmons may have thrown all his credibility out the window. All the doomsday talk for naught.


(Assuming it holds.)


In any case, they resume the relief well drilling and seal it that way, the current fix can't be relied upon and would eventually break years down the road.

He started off with all the credibility in the world, and now he sounds like a raving loon half the time. I'm quite disappointed, as he was a really solid advocate for the energy issues we're facing.

 

[captive]

fantastic news, just found out was busy all day.

 

[NotWii]

Lets see how long it holds

Meanwhile...

RISK OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE BY BP OIL SPILL by Gianluigi Zangari

Abstract: BP Oil Spill may cause an irreparable damage to the Gulf Stream global climate thermoregulation activity.

The Gulf Stream importance in the global climate thermoregulation processes
is well assessed. The latest real time satellite (Jason, Topex/Poseidon, Geosat
Follow-On, ERS-2, Envisat) data maps of May-June 2010 processed by CCAR1,2
(Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research), checked at Frascati
Laboratories by the means of the SHT congruent calculus3 and compared with
past years data, show for the first time a direct evidence of the rapid breaking
of the Loop Current, a warm ocean current, crucial part of the Gulf Stream.
As displayed both by the sea surface velocity maps and the sea surface height
maps, the Loop Current broke down for the first time around May 18th and
generated a clock wise eddy, which is still active (see Fig. 1).

It is reasonable to foresee the threat that the breaking of a crucial warm
stream as the Loop Current may generate a chain reaction of unpredictable
critical phenomena and instabilities due to strong non linearities which may
have serious consequences on the dynamics of the Gulf Stream thermoregulation
activity of the Global Climate

http://www.associazionegeofisica.it/OilSpill.pdf

Dispersants Hearing: NOAA admits Gulf seafood not tested, yet says toxins may bioaccumulate
http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/d...-not-tested-yet-says-toxins-may-bioaccumulate

Bon Appetit

 

[mAcOdIn]

He started off with all the credibility in the world, and now he sounds like a raving loon half the time. I'm quite disappointed, as he was a really solid advocate for the energy issues we're facing.

People shouldn't "start" with credibility.

 

[NotWii]

Congress unable to "publicly disclose" integrity of wellbore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tB59RNWQs8

 

[Garcia]

RISK OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE BY BP OIL SPILL

You must really lack a sense of perspective if you cannot see how this:

Is highly unlikely to have a severe repercusion on this:

Or this:

Let's not underestimate mother earth here, that's just insulting.

 

[NotWii]

You must really lack a sense of perspective if you cannot see how this:

GOM

Is highly unlikely to have a severe repercusion on this:

EARTH

Or this:

OCEANIC CONVEYOR

Let's not underestimate mother earth here, that's just insulting.

Oil affects the viscosity and salinity of the gulf stream/oceanic conveyor, which can interfere with the flow of warm water northward and plunge the world into a new ice age (that's happened before too), not to mention the swaths of methane being released will contribute to the greenhouse effect and drive even more unpredictable weather.
It's not hard to see how this could have a far wider impact than most people realise right now.

By the way, if you're going to use the size difference to say everything will be fine, why don't you plot the 9 mile asteroid believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs along next to it?
That's why you picked that picture right?

Mother Earth will be fine, she'll recover, but the humans on her most likely won't.
ELEs happen regularly and we're probably in for another, get over it and start evolving!

 

[Garcia]

Oil affects the viscosity and salinity of the gulf stream/oceanic conveyor, which can interfere with the flow of warm water northward and plunge the world into a new ice age (that's happened before too), not to mention the swaths of methane being released will contribute to the greenhouse effect and drive even more unpredictable weather.
It's not hard to see how this could have a far wider impact than most people realise right now.

:lol :lol

 

[1-D_FTW]

I made the mistake of thinking Simmons was credible for all of about 1.5 days. The first time I heard him speak. Didn't last very long though. Once I realized it was non-sense being spouted by him.

 

[gcubed]

:lol :lol

this thread is his outlet for nutjob conspiracy theories and garbage news... best to just let him go

Matt Simmons may have thrown all his credibility out the window. All the doomsday talk for naught.


(Assuming it holds.)


In any case, they resume the relief well drilling and seal it that way, the current fix can't be relied upon and would eventually break years down the road.

wheres your god now?

Spoiler

kidding... somewhat since i thought you were all over his nuts

 

[gcubed]

idiot DP

 

[TGateKeeper]

Fail update… Remember Bobby Jindal’s brilliant plan to bulldoze sand out into the Gufl? To form berms to keep the oil from getting ashore?

He was all angry at the Federal Government for taking too long to give him approval to go ahead. Turned out the pesky feds wanted to, you know, find out if the plan had a hope in hell of working before approving hundreds of millions of dollars in spending.

But Jindal waged a PR campaign about how HE was actually going to DO SOMETHING, but the Feds wouldn’t let him. So he got his approvals last month, even though experts were chiming in that the plan wouldn’t work. Turns out… the experts were right. The plan is already failing.

Our sister blog, Red Green And Blue, published a piece from one expert: Robert S. Young, an authority on shoreline geology at Western Carolina University. His take:

The White House has announced that this project is now moving forward, despite serious concerns among coastal scientists, including myself, that it will not be effective in keeping oil from the coast, could do more environmental harm than good, and would be extremely expensive.

We got an update from Young this morning, with pictures.

Here’s what he says:

Just thought that you might be interested in knowing that the attempt to build artificial sand berms off the Chandeleur Islands is meeting with as much difficulty as we predicted. Please see the series of photos attached.

The last image is not simply a high tide. There is a clearly visible erosional scarp.

They will never get this project completed. We will be conducting an overflight of the area again this week.

Here are the pictures:

initial berm, taken June 25

The same berm on July 2, already heavily eroded

Going, going... the same berm on July 7, nearly washed away

So Jindal got a couple of days of splashy headlines to prove he was “doing something”, most people will never see these pictures, and when he appears in the media he’ll take credit for this “great success” he engineered.

Oh, and as Jed Lewison points out at the Daily Kos:

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that the contract to build Bobby’s berms was awarded by Jindal to the number three contributor to his congressional campaigns.
http://faildrill.com/2010/07/13/jindals-berms-all-washed-up-already/

Top Contributors
Bobby Jindal

Louisiana Governor Seals Oil-Spill Records

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/a-governor-seals-oil-spill-records/

For more than two months, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has made it clear that he considers the response of the federal government and BP to the gulf oil leak a failure on many fronts.

But elected officials in Louisiana and members of the public seeking details on how Mr. Jindal and his administration fared in their own response to the disaster are out of luck: late last week the governor vetoed an amendment to a state bill that would have made public all records from his office related to the oil spill.

 

[syllogism]

This is rather old, but remember that mystery crop damage that was blamed on dispersants?

http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-crop-damage-investigation,0,2382601.story

 

[Garcia]

This is rather old, but remember that mystery crop damage that was blamed on dispersants?

http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-crop-damage-investigation,0,2382601.story

Great follow up report. Thanks for sharing.

FedEx has to pay several ppl for the damage. It was a huge affected area (10 x 15 miles).

 

[Garcia]

Well, about damn time they're close to plug the leak forever, it's already made it's way down to Yucatan's Peninsula.

A brief announcement by a local news source:

Mérida.- The hydrocarbon is right on schedule: Crude oil has reached mexican waters.

Just a few days after Yucatan's governor, Ivonne Ortega, discarded any damages to Yucatan's coast lines due to the oil.

Scientists of Cinvestav-Mérida announced in recent hours that satellite studies show how the oil stain has already made its way to mexican shorelines.

According to preliminar reports the hydrocarbon was detected 62 miles off Yucatan's Peninsula.

 

[mckmas8808]

I made the mistake of thinking Simmons was credible for all of about 1.5 days. The first time I heard him speak. Didn't last very long though. Once I realized it was non-sense being spouted by him.

Yeah the guy should be seen as a joke now.

Top Contributors
Bobby Jindal

*sigh*

Damn Jindal.

 

[Dies Iræ]

Let's not underestimate mother earth here, that's just insulting.

Not only is it equally insulting to misunderstand mother earth, it's also extremely dangerous. While I am not directly advocating the arguments presented in the aforementioned article, I do believe that your perspective on the Earth's ecosystems is short sighted.

Most contemporary insights from biocentric scientists point to the complexity of natural systems. These trends broadly relate to chaos theory. Many scientists today believe that ecosystems function similarly to so-called basins of attraction. This is a region of space that contains all of the expected outcomes for an ecological ideal-type. For instance, a tundra ecosystem is one such "attractor basin." It has specific and unique characteristics which differentiate it from the attractor basin of, say, a sub-tropical rainforest.

Attractor systems are always "multi-basined." This means that there is a continuous tension between regions of attraction. The strongest tendency toward change exists at the periphery of basins (they are geographically bounded). For example, global warming of half a degree centigrade will result in the melting of Northern permafrost and thus alter the region of attraction, allowing for the emergence of a new ecosystem.

These peripheral zones are called the "edges of chaos." The most fundamentally critical lesson from chaos theory (as it relates to natural systems) is that a system that is well behaved for a long time can suddenly act erratically when it is subjected to stress. The mechanisms that cause stress are known as "forcing" mechanisms. You've probably heard about climate forcing mechanisms, one of which is carbon dioxide emissions.

The article you cite (and reject) is predicated on many of the assumptions that chaos theorists, complexity theorists, and ecologists current subscribe to. Namely, that discreet and isolated events can trigger rapid, widespread change. We know that this is true - there is ample evidence telling us that extinction events happen quickly and that almost all species die as a result.

The aforementioned article states that "the breaking of a crucial warm stream as the Loop Current may generate a chain reaction of unpredictable critical phenomena and instabilities due to strong non linearities." The concept of non linearity, as it relates to ecology, is that the effects of a relationship are not proportionate to the cause. This, I believe, directly invalidates your argument that the Gulf Stream cannot impact global environmental systems because it is too small and isolated.

There remains a lot of uncertainty about how ecosystems function. At the same time, we know very well that the risks of fucking with mother nature are huge. Therefore, the rational and reasonable thing to do would be to err on the side of caution - an approach known as adhering to the precautionary principle.

We should be taking articles such as the one you cite quite seriously.

 

[Escape Goat]

I hate coming into this thread. Its informative and raises some interesting issues that never would have occured to me but also makes me want to rage and cry. I know its a very simplistic view point but we can do better than this as a people. So much damage done because bottom line > responsibility to safety and environment.

 

[Rentahamster]

I can't help but wonder that if we hadn't demonized nuclear power plants 40 years ago and had instead researched and developed the technology properly, we wouldn't still be so reliant on fossil fuels for our energy needs and that battery technology would be further along in development.

 

[Garcia]

The aforementioned article states that "the breaking of a crucial warm stream as the Loop Current may generate a chain reaction of unpredictable critical phenomena and instabilities due to strong non linearities."

However, what the article "conveniently" fails to mention is how the loop current breaks off quite regularly:

http://www.texaspelagics.com/GOMbirding.html

FIGURE 1

The Gulf of Mexico has a subtropical climate and a complex pattern of water circulation. The Loop Current—characterized by warm, highly saline water—originates as the South Equatorial Current, which flows north along the east coasts of northern South America, Central America, and Mexico, enters the Gulf through the Yucatan Channel, and flows out via the Straits of Florida. It then contributes to the Gulf Stream. In summer, the current moves much farther north than in winter and often gets within day-trip range of Venice, Louisiana. Large pieces of the Loop Current break off, spinning in a clockwise manner and drifting west; these water masses are known as anticyclonic eddies. Smaller areas of cyclonic eddies, which bring deep and cold water close to the surface, often form at the edges of the anticyclonic eddies. The eddies tend to dissipate in an area at the western edge of the continental shelf along the Texas Coast which has been called the "eddy graveyard."

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/loopcurrent.asp

Figure 1. The Loop Current flow northwards into the Gulf of Mexico. Every 6-11 months, a bulge in the current cuts off into a clockwise-rotating eddy that then drifts slowly west-southwestward towards Texas. Image credit: NOAA.

The Loop Current commonly bulges out in the northern Gulf of Mexico and sometimes will shed a clockwise rotating ring of warm water that separates from the main current (Figure 1). This ring of warm water slowly drifts west-southwestward towards Texas or Mexico at about 3-5 km per day. This feature is called a "Loop Current Ring", "Loop Current Eddy", or "Warm Core Ring", and can provide a key source of energy to fuel rapid intensification of hurricanes that cross the Gulf, in addition to the Loop Current itself. The Loop Current pulsates in a quasi-regular fashion and sheds rings every 6 to 11 months. When a Loop Current Eddy breaks off in the Gulf of Mexico at the height of hurricane season, it can lead to a dangerous situation where a vast reservoir of energy is available to any hurricane that might cross over. This occurred in 2005, when a Loop Current Eddy separated in July, just before Hurricane Katrina passed over and "bombed" into a Category 5 hurricane. The eddy remained in the Gulf and slowly drifted westward during September. Hurricane Rita passed over the same Loop Current Eddy three weeks after Katrina, and also explosively deepened to a Category 5 storm.

http://www.oceanor.no/pdf/newsletters/AQUA_16.pdf

“Large masses of warm water can break off the
loop current, creating eddies with diameters up
to 400km that propagate westward across the
deepwater drilling regions. The strong currents
at the edges of eddies can also reach up to
four knots.”

http://www.gulfbase.org/facts.php

CIRCULATION AND CURRENTS

Water enters the Gulf through the Yucatan Strait, circulates as the Loop Current, and exits through the Florida Strait eventually forming the Gulf Stream. Portions of the Loop Current often break away forming eddies or 'gyres' which affect regional current patterns. Smaller wind driven and tidal currents are created in nearshore environments.

As you can see, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. The spill by itself is not going to detonate a new ace ige. The most dangerous thing to happen is the arrival of a hurricane, which btw is just due to happen.

I remember reading reports of how the ocean's temperatures were rising in Louisiana just weeks into the spill. Now that is what you should worry about. That's one immediate effect of the oil spill. If a hurricane were to follow Katrina's path, it is likely to lose speed and gain a lot of strength around ground zero.

With those concerns, why should we add more fear mongering and catastrophe to such an already devastating event?

 

[DJ_Tet]

I can't help but wonder that if we hadn't demonized nuclear power plants 40 years ago and had instead researched and developed the technology properly, we wouldn't still be so reliant on fossil fuels for our energy needs and that battery technology would be further along in development.

It makes me sad too. I understand nuclear has its drawbacks and dangers, but there have been plenty of huge oil accidents (man-made and otherwise) in history. It seems that because oil doesn't have a half-life that we don't think of it as dangerous. When clearly it can be very dangerous if an accident does happen.

People die every year on rigs.

When was the last guy who died at a nuclear power plant?

 

[1-D_FTW]

When was the last time we had a major deep water oil rig explode? As bad as the Gulf was, it was a hell of a lot better than Chernobyl. And don't use the it was human error excuse. It's always human error. So was the Gulf blowout. And that's not even ignoring the massive time bomb of sitting toxic nuclear waste that's overflowing because there's no place to store it safely.

Conservation should have been #1, 2, and 3 on the list. It got Jimmy Carter's ass booted to the curb and the auto industry, etc ran roughshod over vetoing any legislation.

There are no magic bullets. But we could at least be doing everything we can to limit our exposure to these catastrophes. That means less of everything, not more.

 

[RiskyChris]

When was the last time we had a major deep water oil rig explode? As bad as the Gulf was, it was a hell of a lot better than Chernobyl. And don't use the it was human error excuse. It's always human error. So was the Gulf blowout. And that's not even ignoring the massive time bomb of sitting toxic nuclear waste that's overflowing because there's no place to store it safely.

Conservation should have been #1, 2, and 3 on the list. It got Jimmy Carter's ass booted to the curb and the auto industry, etc ran roughshod over vetoing any legislation.

There are no magic bullets. But we could at least be doing everything we can to limit our exposure to these catastrophes. That means less of everything, not more.

How in holy fuck is this ecological nightmare better than chernobyl?

You're espousing like every disgusting propaganda tactic used to scare the public into hating nuclear energy.

 

[Vyer]

How in holy fuck is this ecological nightmare better than chernobyl?

You're espousing like every disgusting propaganda tactic used to scare the public into hating nuclear energy.

Are you serious?

Not that I'm agreeing that 'nuclear is 'bad, but trying to downplay a nuclear accident is fucking ridiculous. Chernobyl shut down an entire town and God only knows how many radiation related deaths over the years.

 

[RiskyChris]

Are you serious?

Not that I'm agreeing that 'nuclear is 'bad, but trying to downplay a nuclear accident is fucking ridiculous. Chernobyl shut down an entire town and God only knows how many radiation related deaths over the years.

Woah, an entire town?!

 

[Vyer]

Woah, an entire town?!

You don't think that matters? Jesus.

And what, you think that fallout was harmlessly washed away? Lol

 

[AceBandage]

I can't help but wonder that if we hadn't demonized nuclear power plants 40 years ago and had instead researched and developed the technology properly, we wouldn't still be so reliant on fossil fuels for our energy needs and that battery technology would be further along in development.

Actually, we probably would be into some new form of power now that was cleaner and safer than either oil or nuclear.
But, of course, people like to think in the moment.
Nuclear power is scary and dangerous!

Bah, we just need to get those underwater current turbines working too power the world.

 

[RiskyChris]

You don't think that matters? Jesus.

And what, you think that fallout was harmlessly washed away? Lol

Yes I literally think Chernobyl wasn't a tragedy that's what any reasonable person would infer from "GOM oil spill has a greater impact than Chernobyl."

 

[Zaptruder]

You don't think that matters? Jesus.

And what, you think that fallout was harmlessly washed away? Lol

Chernobyl wasn't great. Ok, lets be straight about it; it sucked pretty badly.

But you're really underestimating the gravitas of this situation if you think chernobyl stacks up badly against it.

In terms of emotionally terrifying ideas and images in a localized area, Chernobyl has it worse than this gulf oil spill.

In terms of actual damage and ecological reprecussions... this is far worse.

The irony is that, it could actually eventually have a net positive outcome, if it helps to properly sabotage public opinion on fossil fuels and helps the economy move towards safer alternative solutions faster then they are currently.

Of course downplaying the ecological AND economic devastation in the region and it's broader world wide impact would provide the worst long term outcome of all.

 

[Vyer]

Yes I literally think Chernobyl wasn't a tragedy that's what any reasonable person would infer from "GOM oil spill has a greater impact than Chernobyl."

No shit. Then calling the discussion a 'propaganda tactic' is just your own propaganda. Downplaying the implications of a nuclear accident is just like downplaying the implications of this type of oil spill disaster:
foolish and pointless.

 

[RiskyChris]

No shit. Then calling the discussion a 'propaganda tactic' is just your own propaganda. Downplaying the implications of a nuclear accident is just like downplaying the implications of this type of oil spill disaster:
foolish and pointless.

It is literally the definition of propaganda to use Chernobyl (as well as Nucular waste, man) as a tactic to scare people into not adopting nuclear energy.

But grats on the moving goalposts. I didn't fucking downplay anything, holy shit. The only downplaying in this thread is by people saying BP's disaster isn't as bad as Chernobyl.

 

[Vyer]

Chernobyl wasn't great. Ok, lets be straight about it; it sucked pretty badly.

But you're really underestimating the gravitas of this situation if you think chernobyl stacks up badly against it.

In terms of emotionally terrifying ideas and images in a localized area, Chernobyl has it worse than this gulf oil spill.

In terms of actual damage and ecological reprecussions... this is far worse.

The irony is that, it could actually eventually have a net positive outcome, if it helps to properly sabotage public opinion on fossil fuels and helps the economy move towards safer alternative solutions faster then they are currently.

Of course downplaying the ecological AND economic devastation in the region and it's broader world wide impact would provide the worst long term outcome of all.

Two things: one, we dont know the full impact of the spill yet. at least with chernobyl we have had decades pf time to study. I'm not saying that spill isnt worse - and hell the cap could blow tomorrow and we're fucked for another 3 months - just that we dont know the full implications yet.

Second, on your point: Of course. I never said otherwise. It's just stupid to consider a discussion on the topic of hazards associated with both methods as 'propaganda'.

To simply dismiss one or the other is narrow minded either way.

Believe me, I'm not of the DRILL BABY DRILL mindset, I just rather not espouse hyperbole.

 

[RiskyChris]

Anyone who has done any rudimentary critical analysis of the spill would agree that the magnitude of the BP oil spill will eclipse and surpass Chernobyl. What we don't know is how bad the bad gets.

 

[Vyer]

It is literally the definition of propaganda to use Chernobyl (as well as Nucular waste, man) as a tactic to scare people into not adopting nuclear energy.

But grats on the moving goalposts. I didn't fucking downplay anything, holy shit. The only downplaying in this thread is by people saying BP's disaster isn't as bad as Chernobyl.

Then you are as narrow minded as the 'drill at all costs folks'.

And yeah, 'what an entire town?!?' is the very definition of downplaying.

If you don't want people talking about what you are doing don't do it. 'Moving goalposts' my ass.

 

[RiskyChris]

Then you are as narrow minded as the 'drill at all costs folks'.

And yeah, 'what an entire town?!?' is the very definition of downplaying.

If you don't want people talking about what you are doing don't do it. 'Moving goalposts' my ass.

You nimnod. I said "an entire town?!" in response to your implication that the BP oil spill's impact will not affect "an entire town!!" and more.

 

[Vyer]

You nimnod. I said "an entire town?!" in response to your implication that the BP oil spill's impact will not affect "an entire town!!" and more.

I never implied that at all. Don't know why your head is up your ass this morning but it is possible to discuss things without 'propaganda' and hyperbole. Think about it for a while.

And I don't know what a 'nimnod' is, but considering the source I'm not too worried about the name calling. :lol

 

[RiskyChris]

I never implied that at all. Don't know why your head is up your ass this morning but it is possible to discuss things without 'propaganda' and hyperbole. Think about it for a while.

And I don't know what a 'nimnod' is, but considering the source I'm not too worried about the name calling. :lol

You didn't imply it maybe because you had no idea what the debate was about. I told you the reason I said that, and it has nothing to do with downplaying anything.

Can you tell me what's hyperbolic about calling propaganda propaganda? The word isn't some scary out of bounds rhetoric.

 

[Vyer]

You didn't imply it maybe because you had no idea what the debate was about. I told you the reason I said that, and it has nothing to do with downplaying anything.

Can you tell me what's hyperbolic about calling propaganda propaganda? The word isn't some scary out of bounds rhetoric.

:lol @ 'my reason was your nonexistent implication!!'

Second, my point remains the same: while discussing an ecological disaster and the risks involved in one method of provided energy, dismissing discussion of the risks of another method is pretty damn stupid.

 

[RiskyChris]

:lol @ 'my reason was your nonexistent implication!!'

Second, my point remains the same: while discussing an ecological disaster and the risks involved in one method of provided energy, dismissing discussion of the risks of another method is pretty damn stupid.

Yes, you replied to something I said and attributed that I was downplaying the situation when I was, in fact, talking about something entirely different. (this was your FIRST reply to me, this is the start of our discussion)Since I assumed you knew what you were replying to, your implication precipitates from the terms of the debate.

Since you didn't understand what I was trying to say, you shouldn't criticize what I said in response.

I'm not dismissing discussion of risks. Nuclear energy is safe, and the situation at Chernobyl wouldn't have even the remotest chance of happening in a properly run plant, human error be damned. So yes, in that sense, using Chernobyl in an argument about the risks of nuclear energy is pretty dumb unless you're using it as justification for why we have the safety procedures we do in nuclear plants.

 

[harSon]

Not only did Chernobyl render an entire area uninhabitable and destroy the lives of thousands, but it was directly responsible for slowing down the establishment of nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. In that regard, it had a major effect on the Earth as a whole.

 

[Vyer]

Yes, you replied to something I said and attributed that I was downplaying the situation when I was, in fact, talking about something entirely different. (this was your FIRST reply to me, this is the start of our discussion)Since I assumed you knew what you were replying to, your implication precipitates from the terms of the debate.

Since you didn't understand what I was trying to say, you shouldn't criticize what I said in response.

I'm not dismissing discussion of risks. Nuclear energy is safe, and the situation at Chernobyl wouldn't have even the remotest chance of happening in a properly run plant, human error be damned. So yes, in that sense, using Chernobyl in an argument about the risks of nuclear energy is pretty dumb unless you're using it as justification for why we have the safety procedures we do in nuclear plants.

lol @ the bold. Keep backpedaling. It doesn't matter what you are imagining I 'implied'. Scoffing at the lost of 'an entire town' is dismissal, regardless of whether or not you think BP has affected more than that. Don't know how much clearer it can be for you.

Second, seeing your thoughts on human error lets me know all I need to know. I'm sure the other oil guys also think BP's problem was it just wasn't 'properly run'.

 

[RiskyChris]

How in holy fuck is this ecological nightmare better than chernobyl?

Are you serious?

Not that I'm agreeing that 'nuclear is 'bad, but trying to downplay a nuclear accident is fucking ridiculous. Chernobyl shut down an entire town and God only knows how many radiation related deaths over the years.

It's not packpedaling. My literal first statement clearly was about comparing the relative impacts. Sorry about your reading comprehension.




Yes, the oil guys do think BP's operation wasn't properly run.
It is the popular sentiment among those in the industry that this wouldn't happen had the proper procedures been followed. The BP oil spill was systemic human error and NEGLIGENCE, which is way different than your suggestion that "shit happens, human error."

 

[AceBandage]

My horrible man made disaster is worse than your horrible man made disaster!

 

[Vyer]

It's not packpedaling. My literal first statement clearly was about comparing the relative impacts. Sorry about your reading comprehension.




Yes, the oil guys do think BP's operation wasn't properly run.
It is the popular sentiment among those in the industry that this wouldn't happen had the proper procedures been followed. The BP oil spill was systemic human error and NEGLIGENCE, which is way different than your suggestion that "shit happens, human error."

:lol :lol

I like how you cut out your propaganda rant, which is what I was commenting on. Calling the discussion of possible problems propaganda IS downplaying, no matter how desperately you wish it not so. Keep trying though, maybe you'll dig yourself out one day.

And after reading that second comment...well, I don't know that you should be advising others on reading comprehension.

 

[RiskyChris]

Are you familiar with the events that caused Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the BP oil well failure?

 

[Jenga]

michaeljacksonpopcorn.gif

 

[RiskyChris]

Are you familiar with the events that caused Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the BP oil well failure?

Because maybe you'd understand why I say propaganda if you actually knew what happened, particularly in those two nuclear incidents.