Gulf Oil Disaster.

[Zap Rowsdower]

Obama "Let me poison you to prove everything is alright."

Seafood from some parts of the oil-fouled Gulf of Mexico has been declared safe to eat by the government, based in part on human smell tests. But even some Gulf fishermen are questioning whether the fish and shrimp are OK to feed to their own families.

Some are turning up their noses at the smell tests -- in which inspectors sniff seafood for chemical odors -- and are demanding more thorough testing to reassure the buying public about the effects of the oil and the dispersants used to fight the slick.

***

The FDA has declined repeated requests to provide information about the toxic substances that were found...

"The major theme here should be that we have no indication that there's a problem. We have not seen dispersant or the telltale signs of oil in finfish and shrimp," Portier said.

But his colleague Kevin Kleinow, a professor of aquatic toxicology, said he is laying off Gulf seafood until the government releases more specifics about the testing it conducted, including exactly what species are being monitored and what levels of toxic substances are being found.

He said he is also concerned that a smell test won't sniff out dispersants. "Some of them -- we've done work on a number of surfactants that are used in dispersants -- have very little odor," he said.

***

Dawn Nunez, whose family operates a shrimp wholesale business in Louisiana, said he finds it absurd that the government is reopening the fishing grounds when so many doubts linger.

"It's nothing but a PR move," she said. "It's going to take years to know what damage they've done. It's just killed us all."

Here's the deal. Either it is safe or it isn't. If it is safe, then great! But if it wasn't safe, then I'm sure, based on previous lies, secrecy, mis and malfeasance, that the government and BP would lie just to score a PR victory and deflect criticism.

[The Progressive]

The reopening of state-controlled fishing areas in Louisiana et al. are done by state's authorization and insistence.

We all know you got a massive hardon against Obama, but try better at being a hack, zap. ;)

[alguien]

Status update on oil spill.

Seventy-four percent of the oil that leaked from the well that sank into the Gulf of Mexico in April has been collected, dispersed or evaporated, according to a government report released Wednesday.

The study, from agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of the Interior, says of the total amount of oil that was spewed into the Gulf of Mexico (the most recent estimate is 205.8 million gallons), just 26 percent remains in the water, either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls.

The tar balls are either washing ashore, being collected from the coastlines, or buried in sand and sediment and are in the process of being degraded, the report said.

The report bolsters a top Obama administration energy official's statement Wednesday that the oil spill crisis is "turning a corner," with the "vast majority" of the oil now gone and the procedure to permanently seal BP's crippled well apparently working.

Certainly doesn't sound like a Hurricane Katrina magnitude crisis to me...

What bugs me (a little) about this news is that once the problem is taken care of, its considered not a news item at all. I know that's human nature, but FFS, people were at one point acting like Obama had opened Pandora's box by not flying in there himself and sealing the well with heat vision.

[TrueMetis]

And if it turns out something was missed and the oil will do more damage than thought people will be blaming Obama again. It's how nature works.

[Zap Rowsdower]

The reopening of state-controlled fishing areas in Louisiana et al. are done by state's authorization and insistence.

We all know you got a massive hardon against Obama, but try better at being a hack, zap. ;)

You're the one always licking his ass, not me.

And if it turns out something was missed and the oil will do more damage than thought people will be blaming Obama again. It's how nature works.

Obama appoints BP to clean up the mess, because apparently they have the right expertise, even though they were the ones who caused the mess through their own incompetence and/or negligence. Obama hands them all this power despite the fact that BP has a manifest conflict of interest problem that would prompt them to place their own financial welfare above the wellbeing of the Gulf and also little things like obeying Federal Laws:

BP Is Hiding Dead Animals to Avoid Fine of $50,000 Per Dead Animal (and the Bad Publicity)

The numbers of birds, fish, turtles, and mammals killed by the use of Corexit will never be known as the evidence strongly suggests that BP worked with the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, the FAA, private security contractors, and local law enforcement, all of which cooperated to conceal the operations disposing of the animals from the media and the public.

The majority of the disposal operations were carried out under cover of darkness. The areas along the beaches and coastal Islands where the dead animals were collected were closed off by the U.S. Coast Guard. On shore, private contractors and local law enforcement officials kept off limits the areas where the remains of the dead animals were dumped, mainly at the Magnolia Springs landfill by Waste Management where armed guards controlled access. The nearby weigh station where the Waste Management trucks passed through with their cargoes was also restricted by at least one sheriff's deputies in a patrol car, 24/7.

***

Federal laws makes BP liable for up to $50,000 per dead animal on the endangered species list, such as a Kemp's Ridley turtle.

All of which brings to to another point.

BP, acting in concert with the Federal Government blocks the media from documenting the damage the spill is causing:

...news photographers are complaining that their efforts to document the slow-motion disaster in the Gulf of Mexico are being thwarted by local and federal officials—working with BP—who are blocking access to the sites where the effects of the spill are most visible. More than a month into the disaster, a host of anecdotal evidence is emerging from reporters, photographers, and TV crews in which BP and Coast Guard officials explicitly target members of the media, restricting and denying them access to oil-covered beaches, staging areas for clean-up efforts, and even flyovers.

Since the flight restrictions were expanded on May 11, private aircraft must get permission from BP’s command center to fly over a huge portion of the Gulf of Mexico encompassing not just the growing slick in the Gulf, but the entire Louisiana coastline, where oil is washing ashore. If a request is denied, aircraft must stay 3,000 feet above the restricted area, where visibility is minimal.

The problem, as many members of the press see it, is that even when access is granted, it’s done so under the strict oversight of BP and Coast Guard personnel. Reporters and photographers are escorted by BP officials on BP-contracted boats and aircraft. So the company is able to determine what reporters see and when they see it.

Local fishermen and charter boat captains are also being pressured by BP not to work with the press. Left without a source of income, most have decided to work with BP to help spread booms and ferry officials around. Their passengers used to include members of the press, but not anymore. “You could tell BP was starting to close their grip, telling the fishermen not to talk to us,” says Jared Moossy, a Dallas-based photographer who was covering the spill along the Gulf Coast earlier this month. “They would say that BP had told them not to talk to us or cooperate with us or that they’d get fired.”

Now, if all that wasn't bad enough Obama and the Federal government are probably lying about how dangerous the conditions in the Gulf are in order to win some sort of propaganda victory for the midterm elections:

In fact, scientists are still finding plenty of spilled Gulf oil—whether it’s bubbling up from under Louisiana’s islands, trapped underneath Florida’s sugar-white beaches, or in the ocean’s unseen reaches.

This week, biological oceanographer Markus Huettel and colleague Joel Kostka dug trenches on a cleaned Pensacola beach and discovered large swaths of oil up to two feet deep.

Oil gets trapped underground when tiny oil droplets penetrate porous sand or when waves deposit tarballs and then cover them with sand, said Huettel, of Florida State University in Tallahassee.

***

But, in interviews, [government] scientists who worked on the report said the figures were based in large part on assumptions and estimates with a significant margin of error.

Some outside scientists went further: In a situation in which many facts remain murky, they said, the government seemed to have used interpretations that made the gulf — and the federal efforts to save it — look as good as possible.

“There’s a lot of . . . smoke and mirrors in this report,” said Ian MacDonald, a professor of biological oceanography at Florida State University. “It seems very reassuring, but the data aren’t there to actually bear out the assurances that were made.”

***

But scientists who worked on the report said many of the numbers on the White House’s pie chart had significant margins of error. The estimate of how much oil evaporated was calculated using a formula designed for spills near the surface, not 5,000 feet underwater. The calculation of how much oil would be “dispersed” as it flowed from the well was a new one, extrapolated from data about the way oil is broken by waves.

***

The situation is “being portrayed as ‘the oil is out of the environment; it’s gone,’ ” said Michael J. Blum, a professor at Tulane University in New Orleans. But, he said, all that’s certain is that “the form of the oil has shifted. Dispersed oil is still oil. It’s just in a different form.”

So, with all this, you don't think Obama and the Federal government deserve just a smidgen of blame?

Jesus, if Greg Stillson had been backed by Obama's supporters he could have gotten away with the whole using a baby as a human shield incident.

[The Progressive]

Lol, I see that you have retreated from the earlier bs about the reopening of state-controlled fishing areas and have shifted the goalpost to a different line.

Your new argument is that Obama shouldn't have given BP the free rein it had in the clean-up effort. That's an argument that clueless leftwing idiots often make, that ideally the federal government should have seized all of BP assets immediately to ensure that damages and clean up are paid for, in addition to drafting all BP's personnel and resources under federal control to ensure proper supervision and monitoring of clean-up efforts.

This argument is something I could sympathize with, if it wasn't for its obvious clash with economic and legal reality.

[Zap Rowsdower]

Lol, I see that you have retreated from the earlier bs about the reopening of state-controlled fishing areas and have shifted the goalpost to a different line.

I have not "retreated" from anything. And if anyone has shifted the goalpost, it is you.

My criticism of Obama was that he was using the Federal agencies and the resources of the Federal Government to lie about the "success" in the Gulf and to conceal the true extent of the danger to those who live in the region.

Then you come along and mention state controlled fishing areas which I had never mentioned in my previous post. At best, your post has nothing to do with mine. At worst, it seems to me that you are shooting yourself in the foot. The fact that the state controls those fishing areas has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is lying and lying and lying. How does Louisiana's power over its waters excuse Obama's mendacities? That is a point I feel you did not address in your previous post.

So you're argument is that Obama is lying to the state governments about the dangers still present in the Gulf in order to trick them into reopening these beaches and fishing areas? Golly, does the fact that Obama is not only lying to the people and media, but also to the state governments really make him seem like a better person? I actually think it would be the opposite.

Your new argument is that Obama shouldn't have given BP the free rein it had in the clean-up effort. That's an argument that clueless leftwing idiots often make, that ideally the federal government should have seized all of BP assets immediately to ensure that damages and clean up are paid for, in addition to drafting all BP's personnel and resources under federal control to ensure proper supervision and monitoring of clean-up efforts.

This argument is something I could sympathize with, if it wasn't for its obvious clash with economic and legal reality.

And this is an argument I never made. But thank you for once again bringing into the discussion points that I had never previously mentioned and attributing them to me anyway. That does appear to be your strong suit.

BP should not have been given absolute authority over the Gulf ≠ Steal all of BP's property OMG!

On the each side of the of the inequality symbol are two separate arguments and - I will speak slowly and carefully now, since you seem to have trouble with comprehension- separate arguments, by nature of being separate, are separate and have nothing to do with each other.

I did indeed make the first argument: BP, much like Obama himself, is incompetent and corrupt. They should not have been given the level of control they were given over the Gulf.

As to the second, argument: I never argued anything of the sort. I do believe, that once damages are totaled, BP should have to pay everything they owe to the aggrieved parties. If there isn't enough money to go around, I would be in favor, if legal means could be found, to go after the personal savings and property of the BP execs.

But, courts awarding damages to plaintiffs ≠ Nationalize all of BP's holdings.

I never made the argument that the government should have taken over BP and taken total control of the clean up. I have no position on that topic since I do not know enough about the pros and cons to make an informed decision.

I hope you can see the difference between the arguments I made and the fictional arguments that you attributed to me.

What I steadfastly and unflinchingly maintain is that:

1. Obama should not cover up for BP's lies and to help them break the law.

2. Obama should not attempt to salvage his reputation by lying to the public about the safety of the beaches and the fishing. People who live in the area, tourists, companies and stores that buy seafood from the Gulf, have a right to know if there is still danger. They should not be force fed the rosiest statistics from government scientists.

3. The Federal government should not have shielded BP from scrutiny from the press. The government should not have helped BP deny access to reporters covering the story.

So, in summary, my objections to the Gulf cleanup pertain to the high level of secrecy the government and BP chose to impose on the Gulf and the constant stream of lies the government and BP have used to conceal their incompetence and the true extent of the damage.

[Lord Mord]

Zap,

1. Obama should not cover up for BP's lies and to help them break the law.

To be fair, though, I don't think anyone's saying that he should cover up for them, or help them to break the law.

2. Obama should not attempt to salvage his reputation by lying to the public about the safety of the beaches and the fishing.

Well, this infers a whole lot. 1) That he is lying to the public about safety, and 2) that he is trying to salvage his reputation, and 3) that his lies are in service to his reputation. 1) is indicated but not proved, 2) is reasonable and to be expected, though again not proved, and 3) is the least proved of all. Pure conjecture.

People who live in the area, tourists, companies and stores that buy seafood from the Gulf, have a right to know if there is still danger. They should not be force fed the rosiest statistics from government scientists.

I think force-fed is a little heavy-handed. OTOH, I agree that finding that absolute brightest lining and reporting only that is also less than responsible.

3. The Federal government should not have shielded BP from scrutiny from the press. The government should not have helped BP deny access to reporters covering the story.

Well, that's certainly a colorful spin on the government actions. It may even be accurate. Once again, not proved, and not necessarily a reasonable inference.

So, in summary, my objections to the Gulf cleanup pertain to the high level of secrecy the government and BP chose to impose on the Gulf and the constant stream of lies the government and BP have used to conceal their incompetence and the true extent of the damage.

I agree that the secrecy doesn't appear to be helping anyone, and it's too bad, if the government is doing what it earnestly believes it reasonably can that they don't feel they can be more open about it.

[The Progressive]

I have not "retreated" from anything.

Surely you're having a nervous breakdown as usual Zap, but I'm always charitable to the mentally retard so I'll retrace your inane argument in chronological order.

First, on 02 August 2010 - 03:01 PM, you claimed that Obama is poisoning people by linking to an article which noted that state-controlled fishing areas in the affected region has reopenened and that some people expressed skepticism about the safety of seafoods from the region. I pointed out that the reopening of those fishing areas are at state's discretion and has nothing to do with Obama; and this is where your mental faculty, or reading ability, or both, broke down. From the article you linked to:

Smell tests on dozens of specimens from the area revealed barely detectable traces of toxic substances, the Food and Drug Administration said. The state of Louisiana has also been testing fish tissue for oil since May and has not found it in amounts considered unsafe.

Experts say smell tests may sound silly but are a proven technique that saves time and money.

Scientists studying the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska found that the villagers' own smoked fish contained levels of the contaminant hundreds of times higher than those found in the shellfish tainted by the oil spill.

As for the dispersants, the Environmental Protection Agency said the ones used in the Gulf have low toxicity in humans, meaning the public health risk is low.

Ralph Portier, an aquatic toxicologist at Louisiana State University, said that all the data and testing he has reviewed so far show that seafood caught in the recently reopened areas of the Gulf is safe, and he would feel comfortable eating it. President Barack Obama ate Gulf seafood when he visited Mississippi a few weeks ago."

So Obama is trying to poison people by forcing the state to reopen its fishing area against its wish, and eating the same poisonous foods that he's trying to poison people with?

But being the villainous villain that he is, perhaps Obama has taken the antidote before eating them, lol.

I never made the argument that the government should have taken over BP and taken total control of the clean up. I have no position on that topic since I do not know enough about the pros and cons to make an informed decision.

That's funny because just one post before that, you were screaming most hysterically that the government shouldn't have appoint BP to clean up the mess and challenging their expertise.

[Hereward]

This argument is something I could sympathize with, if it wasn't for its obvious clash with economic and legal reality.

Not to mention the clash with geopolitical reality. Can you imagine the British reaction if a supposedly friendly country effectively nationalised one of its biggest companies?

[Datepalm]

Not to mention the clash with geopolitical reality. Can you imagine the British reaction if a supposedly friendly country effectively nationalised one of its biggest companies?

Would it be amusing? Becuase I think it should be done just for that.

Really, why shouldn't the UK toss BP under a bus?

[Usotsuki]

Datepalm, you're just being mean because the British Empire was disappointingly flat. :P

You probably missed the dividend outrage caused by the absurd American belief that shocking corporate incompetence should have consequences for British shareholders.

The argument advanced by a fair proportion of the UK pundit class was that since the BP dividend amounts to around fifteen per cent of the total dividend payments in the UK anything that temporarily blocks that flow of money constitutes a vicious and unwarranted attack on cuddly pensioners and their lovable pets. (That pension funds hold only a portion of their assets in shares, that any pension fund that relies on a single company is run by halfwitted lumps who should be shot twice for incompetence, and that dividends aren't actually an entitlement but a payment that should be contingent on the firm's performance can all be safely ignored.)

The outrage over the temporary cessation of dividend payments would be dwarfed by the fury stemming from any American "theft" of a company whose assets were so carefully built up over the years through a charming mixture of larceny, blackmail, bribery, deception and brute force.

As David Cameron noted when questioned about the Koh-i-Nor without the stuff we stole we have almost nothing so keep your grubby hand in your pockets and stay away from what are now our shiny things.

[Hereward]

Flat? We owned the Himalayas, the Hindu Kush and the Gog and Magog hills!

[Datepalm]

As David Cameron noted when questioned about the Koh-i-Nor without the stuff we stole we have almost nothing so keep your grubby hand in your pockets and stay away from what are now our shiny things.

But this isn't some historical grievance,* its a company that broke the law here and now. I get that theres a nice bit of spin justifying it, but aren't there like...laws? If a branch of a UK based coffee shop chain publicly clobbers dead some lemurs in Namibia, contravening that nations famously strict animal rights laws, is the UK going to try to get them out of trouble too?

*off the top of my head the only thing the the Brits stole here (except, you know, peace) was the lintels off the Church of the Holy Sepulchere, where Jesus was crucified. Classy, that. We'd ask for it back, but I don't think the political situation could handle it.

[Usotsuki]

Flat? We owned the Himalayas, the Hindu Kush and the Gog and Magog hills!

Indeed but the Great White Queen also ruled the seas so on average flat even if we don't include Norfolk.

If a branch of a UK based coffee shop chain publicly clobbers dead some lemurs in Namibia, contravening that nations famously strict animal rights laws, is the UK going to try to get them out of trouble too?

If the dead lemur trade was highly profitable and the Lemur Corpse Exchange was influential and lemurcide had support in the major media groups of course it would.

[Tobin]

I'm actually pretty disgusted by the whole thing -

We who live in Florida and on the Gulf coast know the truth - the oil is not gone.

Yet you see all this cheerful crap on TV about how 'successful' the cleanup is and how 'most of the oil is recovered' - it makes us wonder if the rest of the country actually believes it.

The full range of impact that this disaster has yet to be truly felt.

[Nymeria Sand]

The well still isn't secure.

Well not secure; final kill and relief well needed

[ThinkerX]

I'm actually pretty disgusted by the whole thing -

We who live in Florida and on the Gulf coast know the truth - the oil is not gone.

Yet you see all this cheerful crap on TV about how 'successful' the cleanup is and how 'most of the oil is recovered' - it makes us wonder if the rest of the country actually believes it.

The full range of impact that this disaster has yet to be truly felt.

Like I posted a few pages back in this thread: BP, with the full implied consent of the government (though this will be vehmently denied) will embark on a massive public relations campaign to make people elsewhere in the country think that the problem is solved while denying all the claims they possibly can, including a huge number of completely legitimate ones. By the time cases are filed and this mess hits the courts, most people outside the afflicted regions (and quite a few people in them) will be of the view - based on the propaganda campaign - that the people filing the suits are not so much needing compensation as they are greedy people out to extort all the money they can. That some of them will actually be guilty of this - and pronounced so on nationwide television - will taint all the rest. Meanwhile, BP settles for pennies on the dollar, out of court with possible, possibly with strong non-disclosure agreements.

[Lord Mord]

Tobin,

I'm actually pretty disgusted by the whole thing -

We who live in Florida and on the Gulf coast know the truth - the oil is not gone.

Yet you see all this cheerful crap on TV about how 'successful' the cleanup is and how 'most of the oil is recovered' - it makes us wonder if the rest of the country actually believes it.

The full range of impact that this disaster has yet to be truly felt.

I'm sorry that's been your experience, but I have to say I have not heard anything about successful cleanup or about most of the oil being recovered. I don't know how anyone who knows anything, and seriously I mean anything, about the Exxon spill, or about the toxicity of oil, or about how substances diffuse in a standing body of water, let alone in ocean currents, can possibly think the worst of this is behind us.

[Zap Rowsdower]

Panel: Gov't blocked scientists on spill estimate

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration blocked efforts by government scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could become and committed other missteps that raised questions about its competence and candor during the crisis, according to a commission appointed by the president to investigate the disaster.

Among other things, the report says, the administration made erroneous early estimates of the spill's size, and President Barack Obama's senior energy adviser went on national TV and mischaracterized a government analysis by saying it showed most of the oil was "gone." The analysis actually said it could still be there.

For the first time, the documents — which are preliminary findings by the panel's staff — show that the White House was directly involved in controlling the message as it struggled to convey that it, not BP, was in charge of responding to what eventually became the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

Citing interviews with government officials, the report reveals that in late April or early May, the White House budget office denied a request from NOAA to make public its worst-case estimate of how much oil could spew from the blown-out well. The Unified Command — the government team in charge of the spill response — also was discussing the possibility of making the numbers public, the report says.

The report shows "the political process was in charge and science really does not have the role that was touted," said Christopher D'Elia, dean of environmental studies at Louisiana State University.

Hope! Change!