BP's Oil Disaster Causes Mutated Seafood

[quote name='Clak']Thinking back, I remember how Obama was accused of being a big ol' bully to the poor oil companies. What a crock, if anything he should have been harder on them. But what's done is done, now we get to live with it. So, what is a company to do when they've potentially harmed an entire industry?[/QUOTE]
I'm almost done with that thread and it's hilarious. There's only one person on Obama's jock for 30+ pages. I'm so glad a decided to use CAG for what it was intended for instead of just jumping into vs. like some of our more prolific posters.
 
Would somebody please tell me what is going on here? By here I mean the vs threads. Thread after thread I am seeing a group of people blaming mods for allowing other people to have opinions that do not mesh with their own. I know that this type of website (gaming) will have a young membership. Why in a forum that is open to all members, is it being called to be turned into a clique and only those clique members can say anything about anything? Calling for an all out exclusion of people whose opinions are not the same as your little group is just shallow.

I think I saw someone post that if that is what you all really want why don't you go start a club on the site where only like-minded people need apply. That way you can all pat each other on the back all day and agree with each other all the time. Sounds boring but I say knock yourselves out.

Now I can be called out for my immaturity on calling someone an idiot and mental case but in the short time I have been here I have been called the equivalent and worse. That should not be allowed by me or anyone. I think we all need to grow up a little bit.
 
[quote name='YendelTrex']Would somebody please tell me what is going on here? By here I mean the vs threads. Thread after thread I am seeing a group of people blaming mods for allowing other people to have opinions that do not mesh with their own. I know that this type of website (gaming) will have a young membership. Why in a forum that is open to all members, is it being called to be turned into a clique and only those clique members can say anything about anything? Calling for an all out exclusion of people whose opinions are not the same as your little group is just shallow.

I think I saw someone post that if that is what you all really want why don't you go start a club on the site where only like-minded people need apply. That way you can all pat each other on the back all day and agree with each other all the time. Sounds boring but I say knock yourselves out.

Now I can be called out for my immaturity on calling someone an idiot and mental case but in the short time I have been here I have been called the equivalent and worse. That should not be allowed by me or anyone. I think we all need to grow up a little bit.[/QUOTE]

stay on target Porkins, stay on target...
 
[quote name='Clak']yThere basically is no BP brand gasoline, it's all the same shit made with the same oil. There's no difference in gasoline until it reaches the owners basically, then they add whatever additives they use. Plus the BP stations you see aren't gonna be owned by BP, so in the end you really aren't going to hurt BP.[/QUOTE]

This
Wish it wasn't the case but its absolutely true
Automatically made me think back to late last year when Canada started all this BS about "Ethical Oil" laying the groundwork or "case" for Keystone. As if since theres such a thing as conflict diamonds , then of course theres the equivalent of "Conflict Oil". :roll:

More importantly (and on topic) Boycotting BP would have un-desired consequences. (like all boycotts) Ultimately the independent owners would become a liability to the brand. Which then , BP would just repackage with a new brand /logo (Amoco / Arco The stupid green and yellow helios etc , etc)
 
Sarcasm much?

We're a pretty inclusive bunch and as much fun as the lefties make fun of the righties (and vice versa), it's mostly done in fun.

You also have to remember that most of the lefties here are pretty well educated and will pick apart a goombah talking points argument within three posts.
 
It's nothing about differing opinions. It's some people are just willfully ill informed and post non-sense repeatedly. Some are just trolls and post stuff deliberately to try to rile people up etc.

But as I've said, its also on the others to quit taking the bait from the usual suspects. You know they're going to have shitty, uniformed opinions, and post them in inflammatory ways to try to rile you up, why bother responding when all it's going to do is annoy you and amuse them?

As someone that stays out of that stuff for the most part, it's frustrating as there's never any good discussion on here anymore as most every thread ends up with the same few people arguing over similar stuff in different threads over and over again.

I'm at a point where I think I'm just going to stop reading the vs. forum as I just get nothing but annoyance out of it anymore. I'd rather just stay here in my Ivory tower and not deal with the idiocy of the uniformed, undereducated masses. Much less a bunch of brain dead gamers! :D
 
Thanks for the info guys. :D

I am starting to get the dynamics of vs. and understand that includes that the most of the people posting go way back and are just saying, arguing, and debating the same things over and over.
 
EPIC exchange from the last thread:

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']...states stats refuting some nonsense from knoell...[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Strell']Watch me refute your facts, FoC:

Those facts are gay.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
darth_vader_nooo1.jpg


I forgot to carry the cock![/QUOTE]

[quote name='Strell']Finally! An instance where you CAN divide by 0![/QUOTE]

LOLZ...I can only aspire to be as biting as FoC. I miss that guy.
 
[quote name='YendelTrex']Now I can be called out for my immaturity on calling someone an idiot and mental case but in the short time I have been here I have been called the equivalent and worse. That should not be allowed by me or anyone. I think we all need to grow up a little bit.[/QUOTE]
Now where the fuck did someone call you worse than and idiot, mental case, junkyard dog, and a couple other things you've thrown my way?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm going to post a snide remark that's only slightly on subject. So you've been warned.

Remember when certain posters were talking about how the Obama Administration wasn't going easy on BP. Yeah. He gave the appearance while likely making whatever backroom deals that worked to his administration's (or his own, personal) advantage. BP wasn't hit hard enough for this (hopefully some of the private lawsuits get more traction, as they should) - but please, go on pretending that the Democratic Party is so much better than the Republican Party when it comes to saving our planet and protecting the little people.

Now, will follow, the posts deriding the Republican party for their various anti-planet issues. Which is fine, most of it is deserved. But the Democrats will continue to get a free pass for their ability to be more subtle in how they work in the favor of big business.

Also of note, it was a Democratic Congressman that introduced the bill that limited BP's damages to $75 million to private parties. I wonder if the estate of Walter Jones Sr. got a thank-you card from BP.
[/QUOTE]

He did get them to pony up $20 billion, right? It got you and the Paul's upset, but I think it's more than they would have done to help the people affected by the spill
 
They bitch that he was too hard on the oil companies, and then try to wag their fingers in our collective faces when stories like this start getting out. Yeah many of us did defend the government fining BP harshly, and I'd defend them being much more harsh if something else like this happened. I don't even care if it does make other companies think twice about oil exploration, it just isn't right to let these companies fuck up royally and get away lightly. If your business involves performing dangerous, ecologically (and other ally's) threatening work, you should think twice about the risks involved. If you aren't prepared to do everything you can to correct your fuck ups, then don't do it.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Now where the fuck did someone call you worse than and idiot, mental case, junkyard dog, and a couple other things you've thrown my way?[/QUOTE]

Oh I can say much worse about you but now that I have some experience with you I can't with good conscience do it and I don't think that the PC people in here would be to accepting of it either. So I will just call you my "special" friend and from here on out treat you accordingly.
 
[quote name='Clak']They bitch that he was too hard on the oil companies, and then try to wag their fingers in our collective faces when stories like this start getting out. Yeah many of us did defend the government fining BP harshly, and I'd defend them being much more harsh if something else like this happened. I don't even care if it does make other companies think twice about oil exploration, it just isn't right to let these companies fuck up royally and get away lightly. If your business involves performing dangerous, ecologically (and other ally's) threatening work, you should think twice about the risks involved. If you aren't prepared to do everything you can to correct your fuck ups, then don't do it.[/QUOTE]
The funniest argument, well one of them anyways, from the last thread was that the government was extorting that $20 billion from BP. fucking hilarious.

[quote name='YendelTrex']Oh I can say much worse but now that I have some experience with you I couldn't with good conscience and I don't think that the PC people in here would be to accepting of it either. So I will just call you my "special" friend and from here on out treat you accordingly.[/QUOTE]
So in other words, no one said shit to you, but you decide to project your derision towards me anyways. If you're going to whine like a child about others playing to rough with you, you should be able to cite specifics.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
So in other words, no one said shit to you, but you decide to project your derision towards me anyways. If you're going to whine like a child about others playing to rough with you, you should be able to cite specifics.[/QUOTE]

Hey there special friend :D!!

I'll give you this tip for free. When you don't answer questions from people yourself then expect those people to answer your questions. It is not only rued but not good social behaviour.

Big-Oil-Loop-Current.jpg
 
[quote name='Clak']Please GTFO if you've got nothing to really contribute to the thread, which you apparently don't. I refuse to let this thread devolve into another us vs. you BS pile.[/QUOTE]

Just ignore Bob. Seriously. He is a known and confirmed turfer. Good at it though. Yet another thread torpedoed and sunk.

M-I-S-S-I-O-N A-C-C-O-M-P-L-I-S-H-E-D

[quote name='YendelTrex']Oh I can say much worse about you but now that I have some experience with you I can't with good conscience do it and I don't think that the PC people in here would be to accepting of it either. So I will just call you my "special" friend and from here on out treat you accordingly.[/QUOTE]

A new challenger appears!

Your comments are just a tad disingenuous, mate. This board swings pretty liberal but if you'd read a bit you might realize we actually engage in civilized banter from time to time when an informed poster turns up. Javery is a smart guy that elicits a good response from us. Hell, thrustbucket is a dyed in the wool conservative yet he's such a cool dude that I've offered to put up my own time to help him with his personal struggles (although he has politely refused).

However, the vast majority of the time we're left with Bobbeh, Knowl and their alts. Confirmed trolls that couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag so they use noise their preferred sidearm. Lovely. We've got nothing better to do They're the only dissenting opinion so we shout right back at them.

Closing thought:

We may be posting on a video games site but this is a politics subforum. Passionate, etc. There is a warning sign posted on the door about how we like to play so if you can't hang then, well, don't.
 
Alllllrighty then. I'm going to try not to feed this troll any longer in this thread. Chase is relatively new to vs. too, so....

Back on topic.

From reading about this phase of the spill, it's apparent that the dispersants are the primary cause of the problem, which was somewhat predicted when they were being used. There was some discussion about the use shooting up the trophic levels and destroying the food chain, but they were largely ignored. What I'm curious about is what those fishermen are doing with the contaminated seafood. I mean it can't be healthy for them to be exposed to those things either. I suppose it'll only be a matter of time before we have a mass outbreak of cancer in the area. Too bad we won't have a system to take care of those folks.
 
It's funny - I've repeatedly been accused of trying to protect BP - yet no one bothers to quote the part where I said, more than once, the $20 Billion wasn't enough.

Yes, I criticized the way the money came about. Pretend this had happened in the Bush Administration. After a secret, closed-door meeting between Bush, the AG and BP, BP pays up an amount of money that's no where near enough to cover damages, then BP gets off virtually scott-free.

I could see everyone here being perfectly okay with that.
 
Out of sight, out of mind, that's why those dispersants were used. It visually cleaned up the area faster, which I'm sure BP wanted the get done ASAP, all of those photos of the huge oil slicks on the surface weren't helping them any.
 
I haven't been following this thread. However, a radio show this morning featured a man from down that way saying the BP folks, and even the Coast Guard, rebuff locals' evidence that there is still a problem and still much work to be done.

There was a bit about how the stuff BP was using isn't even legal in their home country. That's...bad, methinks.
 
^ Damn good op-Ed
Again, The perception seems to be that if you're harsher in regulations towards a BP or ban them from obtaining new drilling permits off our shores ,that action is somehow going to effect the price of gas for Americans. Its totally contrary to the way the Cartel of Sheikhs set up their markets. As most of you already know(at least I hope you do) They BID for these leases and contracts. In that sense we have them over a barrel from the word go. Whatever standard we expected corps to submit in their bids , all the competition would attempt to out-do one another.
Going back to perception , there it is in a nutshell.
Elected officials and the general public have been led to believe that you cant go against these guys without damaging your own purse, and it isnt true
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']A new challenger appears![/QUOTE]

Thank you for the informative and friendly response and referring me to the "warning sign". I could tell by the bulk of the posts and the thread titles/subject matter here in vs that " This board swings pretty liberal ".
I realize as well that I will have to be cautious as I am the new kid on the block.
bodysnatchers1-300x163.jpg


I also understand the battle lines have been drawn and the war has been raging long before I arrived even so I not a conscientious objector (so to speak) and have no plans of just observing. ;)

Back on topic....

I just ran across this OLD "article"..and found it interesting.

The Chaos Of Clean-Up. http://earthjustice.org/features/the-chaos-of-clean-up

The review demonstrates the wide range of potential impacts from exposure to the chemicals found in dispersants. From carcinogens, to endocrine disruptors, to chemicals that are toxic to aquatic organisms, some of the ingredients in oil dispersants are indeed potential hazards. For instance, of the 57 ingredients,

  • 5 chemicals are associated with cancer
  • 33 chemicals are associated with skin irritation, from rashes to burns
  • 33 chemicals are linked to eye irritation
  • 11 chemicals are suspected or potential respiratory toxins or irritants
  • 10 chemicals are suspected kidney toxins.
As for potential effects on the marine environment,

  • 8 chemicals are suspected or known to be toxic to aquatic organisms
  • 5 chemicals are suspected to have a moderate acute toxicity to fish
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All that is only scratching the surface on the effect to marine life. The amount of and variety of dispersants used will be studied for years and years to come.
Toxicity of the cancer causing variety is bad for the wildlife and US in the sense that we consume the fish. The harshness of Corexit in that area derives from bioaccumulate. (the small fish eat Corexit mixed with oil and are poisoned , The bigger predators consume those smaller fish and end up with higher levels of poison in their flesh)

When it gets to an area of mutant fish , studies show that Corexit has endocrine-disrupting attributes. (artificial estrogen interference) EDC's cause adverse effects like hormone biosynthesis(developmental, reproductive, neurological and immune effects)
Beyond the Mr Burns 3 eyed mutant fish , Human beings exposed to these toxic levels of EDC's suffer from bacteria transmission like Brucella

"A former research report showed that unborn babies exposed to Gulf of Mexico's water, beaches, air, land or seafood may be at higher risk hearts malformed before birth and having lifelong congenital heart disease, a study that also shed more light on sharp increases in both Gulf miscarriages and Gulf dead baby dolphins."
 
[quote name='confoosious']why do you jackholes have to change everything into a political debate?[/QUOTE]
Because everything is political and it's the name of this sub-forum?:lol:
 
[quote name='dohdough']Because everything is political and it's the name of this sub-forum?:lol:[/QUOTE]

Yeah, if you talk about games then it will get moved to the General Gaming forum and you won't be able to call anyone jackholes. Is that what you want EdRyder?? :)
 
[quote name='EdRyder']I dont know how the hell I got dragged into that side show. I couldn't care less who calls who a jackhole , jackhole.[/QUOTE]

Another humorless prat. Just what vs needs...
 
[quote name='Clak']Out of sight, out of mind, that's why those dispersants were used. It visually cleaned up the area faster, which I'm sure BP wanted the get done ASAP, all of those photos of the huge oil slicks on the surface weren't helping them any.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I read a report that claimed the majority of dispersants was applied directly to the well head.(The goal obviously being that it would never visibly rise to the surface)
Again , The regulatory system authorized the use of dipersants with no guidelines on amount, variety or duration.
So in my mind it all goes back to the bid for the contract. "When something goes wrong , we have these chemicals" And that was just "good enough" for TPTB.

It should be simple , Cant cap that deep, cant drill that deep. Then, instead of crossing their fingers and stockpiling chemicals they'll have to R&D alternatives. (you know , like a submersible with mechanical arms that can inject cement into the wellhead in less than motherfucking 4 months)
 
It definitely seems like they were completely unprepared for something like this happening. Personally I think that before these wells are explored companies should have to prove they are prepared to handle a situation just like this, and prepared doesn't mean "We've got these chemicals we'll spray on it". Their solution was basically to disperse the oil into the ocean in the hopes that it would just go away, and that's pretty fucking sad that they can just do that. That's such a childish way of dealing with something it isn't even funny.
 
I just finished reading the National Commission on the Deepwater Spill
http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/

It is really well written, shockingly so and moves along at a fast pace. It is clear, well researched, well-articulated and if you are at all interested, I strongly recommended downloading and reading the free pdf. Especially if you want an unbiased opinion of how this could have happened, could it happen again and how to prevent it from happening in the future.
 
I absolutely blame Obama for the Macando spill. "Better than Bush" isn't fucking good enough in my book. He sided with Big Oil, plain and simple. The $20 bil became a liability max in reality, even though everyone at the time promised it wouldn't be. Obama's peeps got the number out there to look tough and BP's people took it because they knew there was no fucking way real liability was that low.

Obama looks like an industry shill because he was an industry shill. The $20 bil number made an Obama defender of me, a defense I feel ashamed for mounting now that I've seen how quickly he pivoted to fellating the oil interests afterwards. We don't have all that money disbursed because Obama's admin doesn't give a shit. We don't have serious charges because Obama's admin doesn't give a shit. The new rules are a complete joke and continue the theater of safety around these wells. And how bout we give more leases while we're at it! See, we [heart] big oil! Please don't make it a political issue!

Sure, he was better than the gaggle of oil money pole smoking douchebag governors of the gulf, but I didn't vote for him to be marginally better than Haley Barbour.

This absolutely was Obama's Katrina. At least you can rebuild that sunken POS town. There ain't no fixin this destroyed gulf. I have a beach 30 mins from me that I can never ever go to or eat out of and all I got was this shitty t-shirt and new leases.

I've lived near oceans all my life. I love the taste of salt water and the feeling of how it sticks to you when you dry off. And now my body of water is off limits for basically fucking eternity. fuck you and your $20 bil Obama.

Callin it like I see it.

Oh, and that bitch is still leaking: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/is-bps-macondo-reservoir-leaking-more-oil-133333488.html
[quote name='nasum']Speed - Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't pregnant women not suppoed to eat crustaceans anyway? Could just be an old wive's tale or something but that's in my head as a no-no for some reason.[/QUOTE]
My wife is a crazy fanatic about all things healthy while pregnant so that she can cheat a couple of times. *A* crawfish when the season came was one of em. But yea.
 
A engineer gets charged with obstruction because he deleted some text messages, justice is served!

I honestly feel sorry for the gulf region, from natural disasters to man made ones, the whole region has just taken a pounding in recent years.
 
I don't think Obama turned out like ANYONE expected. But holy shit, could you imagine if he pulled an FDR? The peanut gallery would be going even more insane.

Oil shill-ness aside, people were already giving him shit for making BP pay $20 billion into a fund alone. It's like we're in bizarro-land or something.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Oil shill-ness aside, people were already giving him shit for making BP pay $20 billion into a fund alone. It's like we're in bizarro-land or something.[/QUOTE]

The ends don't justify the means.

Instead of allowing things to go through the legal system as they should have, Obama had secret backroom meetings where it would appear he cut deals to A) Make himself look better and B) Get BP off the hook cheaply.

I don't see how anyone can think this is a good thing (except, of course, Obama and BP).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The ends don't justify the means.

Instead of allowing things to go through the legal system as they should have, Obama had secret backroom meetings where it would appear he cut deals to A) Make himself look better and B) Get BP off the hook cheaply.

I don't see how anyone can think this is a good thing (except, of course, Obama and BP).[/QUOTE]
The means was an additional charge against him, not the primary one. People were bitching about even the idea of making BP pay, muchless that amount.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The ends don't justify the means.

Instead of allowing things to go through the legal system as they should have, Obama had secret backroom meetings where it would appear he cut deals to A) Make himself look better and B) Get BP off the hook cheaply.

I don't see how anyone can think this is a good thing (except, of course, Obama and BP).[/QUOTE]
It did make him look good at the time because it was the right thing to do at the time. It was predicated on continuing investigation and monitoring of what was unquestionably gross incompetence that had lead to an externality so insane that our system just isn't capable of handling it (hence the title of my thread on BP, A libertarian's guide to externality costing).

I don't fault him for not knowing what to do or how to react. I fault him for making the conscious decision to not only not act above the $20 bil when it became obvious that wasn't going to cover the damage, but to issue more leases without requiring a better plan than what was brought to the table to fix it (which is, quite literally, more skimmers).

If the only thing that came out of this was a plan on how to handle this in the future, I'd be ok. Even that didn't happen. He is scared of being called a big government regulator in an area so badly in need of regulation that it completely fucked 600 quadrillion (yea, with a q) gallons of water on an entire continental shelf.
 
Yeah, can't have the government forcing companies to be responsible and pay for their mistakes, that might set a dangerous precedent. Hell, a company could actually end up going bankrupt, the horror.

I wonder, how badly does a company have to fuck up the be banned from doing business in this country? I mean short of being linked to terrorists, just how badly do you have to fuck up? Apparently nothing short of an earth shattering catastrophe is enough.
 
[quote name='dohdough']The means was an additional charge against him, not the primary one. People were bitching about even the idea of making BP pay, muchless that amount.[/QUOTE]

Which people? Corporatists and their right-wing cronies? Most people have no problem with someone paying for their criminal negligence. He had the backing of most the people even right-wingers. But, again, no fundamental difference than most politicians; he caters to the elites.
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']Which people? Corporatists and their right-wing cronies? Most people have no problem with someone paying for their criminal negligence. He had the backing of most the people even right-wingers. But, again, no fundamental difference than most politicians; he caters to the elites.[/QUOTE]

Not sure where you live, but almost any state with a coast near oil-rich waters will be sympathetic to the oil industry. I know in VA there is alot of support for drilling off the VA coast, and the Obama administration recently approved doing seismic surveys, which in the wake of the BP spill is absolutely insane. Absolutely insane.
 
[quote name='camoor']Not sure where you live, but almost any state with a coast near oil-rich waters will be sympathetic to the oil industry. I know in VA there is alot of support for drilling off the VA coast, and the Obama administration recently approved doing seismic surveys, which in the wake of the BP spill is absolutely insane. Absolutely insane.[/QUOTE]

First, that population is not much compared to the entire US population. Second, even those who live in those areas would largely agree that BP should pay for its criminal negligence... unless they will personally profit from this. Regardless, this doesn't matter. They are a tiny minority.
 
The state governments are sympathetic because of the benefits to the state, or rather I should say, the things that the leaders can claim they brought to the state. If it brings more jobs to the area they can boast about that etc. On the other hand, those who run businesses which depend on tourists probably aren't loving BP right now. I've thought about taking a trip down to New Orleans this summer since I've never been, but I won't be eating seafood if I do.
 
I love it, I fucking love it.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/epa-official-resigns-crucify-outcry-frack-172924123.html

But "before SMU prof Al Armendariz had even warmed the seat at his post as EPA regional chief," Brant Hargrove wrote in the Dallas Observer, "he was pilloried as an activist whose research into the air pollution caused by fracking operations made him unfit to run a five-state office overseeing some of the industry's most important drilling grounds."
Click to expand...
Yeah, his research into how fracking damages the environment made him unfit to work for the EPA. In bizzarocon world that makes perfect sense. One person in the EPA shows a backbone, in a video a few years old even, and they resign. No wonder the EPA is so ineffectual, they're not allowed to be.
 
He says he has become too much of a distraction. I say be a distraction. It should make for good discussion about the important things...maybe.
 
Exactly, get people talking about it. At the least it will get some folks to show their true colors. We'll finally get to see their priorities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top