You didn't get the point of my broccoli concentrate. There are many things that at natural high dilution cause no problems. Radon from granite, Uranium in the Morrison formation in Utah, natural oil seepage all over the world. But then man comes along and concentrates these chemicals so they can be exploited. The Gulf of Mexico is a large place but a spill is localized by its very nature. When an oil platform has a spill it is not spilling in the entire gulf it is wiping out wildlife along one section of the coast. That kind of catastrophe cannot be compared to a natural seepage. Natural seepage never gets to a high enough concentration at any point to overwhelm the natural balance of the ecology. The ecology is built to handle by natural breakdown the levels of natural seepage. <br><br>Adding up the numbers of natural seepage world wide and comparing it to one oil spill and saying, "oh the natural seepage is so much bigger" is like saying an atomic bomb blast in Manhattan is no big deal because the natural uranium in the environment is much much higher (which it is in total like the way you are doing with oil).<br><br>That is why what you are doing to these numbers is a crock. The Santa Barbara oil spill compared to natural seepage was miniscule. But it devastated Santa Barbara. The Exxon Valdez was miniscule compared to natural seepage but it devastated hundreds of miles of coastline of Prince William Sound which still have not recovered. That was 1989. The fish are still gone. You want to do that to our coast so we can get another year of driving SUVs?<br><br>Please cite a scientific paper which compares natural seepage of oil to oil spills and comes to the conclusion that oil spills are no big deal. <br><br><br><br>
The Valdez was 11 million gallons, quite a large amount and as a result many more safeguards were enacted.<br><br>Santa Barbara was 3 million gallons, and was old technology in regards to oil platforms, they have many more safeguards now.<br><br>Try again, and you made some left field nuke comparison with Manhattan, stay focused, we're talking oil not nukes. And how many times do I have to give you all Geography lessons, the Gulf of Mexico is huge, Manhattan is a pimple on the butt for a size comparison.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Natural seepage never gets to a high enough concentration at any point to overwhelm the natural balance of the ecology.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Show me a scientific paper that comes to that conclusion.<br><br>------>#1 - JD's Trivia game<br><br>------>#2 - MM-MCF Trivia game
No one would write such a stupid paper because it is arguing a point where there is no counter argument. It would be like writing a paper proving there is no God. First there has to be a valid counter argument before such nonsense would be peer reviewed. <br><br>So you have to go first. Show me one paper that discusses even the remote possibility of natural oil seepage doing anything damaging to the environment. I'll even go out on a limb and say there is no valid paper using any of the numbers you are quoting. Meanwhile we can discuss all of these safeguards that are in place which caused McCain to call off his visit to New Orleans because of the stench of an oil spill a few days ago would have been embarrassing.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.