| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately
universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in the US? For extra credit; by whom and why? --riverman |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote:
Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why? --riverman Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the only IMPORTED whisk(e)y. |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:42:54 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:
Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in the US? For extra credit; by whom and why? AFAIK, no such answer (and I didn't Google anything) - "medicinal" whisk(e)y, with a prescription, was legal and AFAIK, there were several "brands" available. HTH, R --riverman |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
|
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:
On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote: Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why? --riverman Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the only IMPORTED whisk(e)y. Ah...I didn't realize that there was only one IMPORTED whisk(e)y (and I'm not sure that's accurate, but I wasn't there, so ???), but if that was the case, I'll guess that Joe Kennedy had something to do with it, and IIRC, that would make it something from Seagram's. TC, R ....and BTW, I'm still waiting to see your calculations on the oil spill and Massachusetts... |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 12, 11:39*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote: On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote: Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why? --riverman Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the only IMPORTED whisk(e)y. Ah...I didn't realize that there was only one IMPORTED whisk(e)y (and I'm not sure that's accurate, but I wasn't there, so ???), but if that was the case, I'll guess that Joe Kennedy had something to do with it, and IIRC, that would make it something from Seagram's. Nope, but certainly can't fault your logic. TC, R ...and BTW, I'm still waiting to see your calculations on the oil spill and Massachusetts... ? Did you ask to see those elsewhere that I missed? LOL...calculations were easy. Saw some article that gave the dimensions of the spill. I just multiplied and got the surface area, then looked online to find a state that had that same surface area. For the record, this article http://www.independent.ie/world-news...e-2159086.html puts it at three times the surface area of Mass on May 12. I'd have to use the wayback machine to find the article I saw before, but a google search on the day I posted would probably unearth it. |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:
On May 12, 11:39*pm, wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote: On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote: Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why? --riverman Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the only IMPORTED whisk(e)y. Ah...I didn't realize that there was only one IMPORTED whisk(e)y (and I'm not sure that's accurate, but I wasn't there, so ???), but if that was the case, I'll guess that Joe Kennedy had something to do with it, and IIRC, that would make it something from Seagram's. Nope, I can't agree or disagree with your proposal since I don't know what it is and since I'm not sure if you're saying "nope" to all or none of my guess, I'll wait to see your answer, both to me, if any, as well as your proposed answer to your trivia question, before I respond further. I will point out that Kennedy, via various connections, had interests, contemporaneously disclosed and undisclosed, with the Bronfman family as well as other, er, "families" involved in the legal and illegal "whisk(e)y" business. but certainly can't fault your logic. TC, R ...and BTW, I'm still waiting to see your calculations on the oil spill and Massachusetts... ? Did you ask to see those elsewhere that I missed? LOL...calculations were easy. Saw some article that gave the dimensions of the spill. I just multiplied and got the surface area, then looked online to find a state that had that same surface area. For the record, this article http://www.independent.ie/world-news...e-2159086.html puts it at three times the surface area of Mass on May 12. I'd have to use the wayback machine to find the article I saw before, but a google search on the day I posted would probably unearth it. That article says (or implies, if you prefer, "circumference") about what I expected. This is not like pouring oil onto a smooth, level surface such that it would spread into a generally uniform "puddle." Moreover, there is a fairly large amount of natural seepage of hydrocarbons, including oil, into the Gulf (and most "oceans" worldwide) every day (for the Gulf, about 50,000 gallons a day, using the _low_ estimates, 100,000 using the high). This is spread out over the entire Gulf. The "real-world" picture is more like rivers or a river delta _on the surface_, with ??? of hydrocarbons naturally and artificially dispersed both on the surface _and_ sub-surface, and it has varying structure and viscosity throughout the "column." The bottom line is trying to simplify this into some mathematical formula of area will not work, unless you simply wish to compare the theorized volume of "oil" to the overall volume of the Gulf of Mexico. And even an attempt to do that would be, at best, a series of mathematical assumptions (well, WAGs, really...) as the "Gulf of Mexico" has no universally-accepted borders, but more importantly, the amount of "oil" is not known. Of course, one could do a calculation based on opening size and pressure, but since the exact pressure isn't known nor is the exact composition of the output (and even then, both are dynamic variables as function of time), that would only result in a theoretical momentary calculation as to output at the source, and would provide little or no effective input as to a calculation of the actual surface size of that output. IAC, between Congresspeople and other "Government" officials who know literally nothing about "oil" production and have absolutely no mechanical/technical experience asking inane questions and much of the press who are similarly lacking any knowledge trying to explain it, most of the information I've seen in non-technical reporting varies from general misunderstanding to flat-assed wrong. Surprisingly, BP, at least at this point, seems to be particularly forthcoming about the facts as they learn them, even contradicting "positive" news put forth by others - see Napolitano's statement now more "gas" than "oil," etc. There are more birds with oil (AFIAK, all or mostly pelicans who have been easily and successfully cleaned), but (again, AFIAK) no more unusual turtle finds and certainly no mass kills of fish on the shore. Thus far, while this is certainly not a good thing or even a non-event, the ecological damage appears to be - thankfully - at a minimum. However, the lawyer commercials and print ads are nearly constant, with calls to even "hospitality employees" to seek "major cash compensation" via the multitude of firms now advertising. TC, R |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 12, 10:35*am, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote: On May 12, 11:39*pm, wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote: On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote: Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why? --riverman Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the only IMPORTED whisk(e)y. Ah...I didn't realize that there was only one IMPORTED whisk(e)y (and I'm not sure that's accurate, but I wasn't there, so ???), but if that was the case, I'll guess that Joe Kennedy had something to do with it, and IIRC, that would make it something from Seagram's. Nope, I can't agree or disagree with your proposal since I don't know what it is and since I'm not sure if you're saying "nope" to all or none of my guess, I'll wait to see your answer, both to me, if any, as well as your proposed answer to your trivia question, before I respond further. *I will point out that Kennedy, via various connections, had interests, contemporaneously disclosed and undisclosed, with the Bronfman family as well as other, er, "families" involved in the legal and illegal "whisk(e)y" business. but certainly can't fault your logic. TC, R ...and BTW, I'm still waiting to see your calculations on the oil spill and Massachusetts... ? Did you ask to see those elsewhere that I missed? LOL...calculations were easy. Saw some article that gave the dimensions of the spill. I just multiplied and got the surface area, then looked online to find a state that had that same surface area. For the record, this article http://www.independent.ie/world-news...-size-of-irela... puts it at three times the surface area of Mass on May 12. I'd have to use the wayback machine to find the article I saw before, but a google search on the day I posted would probably unearth it. That article says (or implies, if you prefer, "circumference") about what I expected. *This is not like pouring oil onto a smooth, level surface such that it would spread into a generally uniform "puddle." *Moreover, there is a fairly large amount of natural seepage of hydrocarbons, including oil, into the Gulf (and most "oceans" worldwide) every day (for the Gulf, about 50,000 gallons a day, using the _low_ estimates, 100,000 using the high). *This is spread out over the entire Gulf. *The "real-world" picture is more like rivers or a river delta _on the surface_, with ??? of hydrocarbons naturally and artificially dispersed both on the surface _and_ sub-surface, and it has varying structure and viscosity throughout the "column." *The bottom line is trying to simplify this into some mathematical formula of area will not work, unless you simply wish to compare the theorized volume of "oil" to the overall volume of the Gulf of Mexico. *And even an attempt to do that would be, at best, a series of mathematical assumptions (well, WAGs, really...) as the "Gulf of Mexico" has no universally-accepted borders, but more importantly, the amount of "oil" is not known. *Of course, one could do a calculation based on opening size and pressure, but since the exact pressure isn't known nor is the exact composition of the output (and even then, both are dynamic variables as function of time), that would only result in a theoretical momentary calculation as to output at the source, and would provide little or no effective input as to a calculation of the actual surface size of that output. * IAC, between Congresspeople and other "Government" officials who know literally nothing about "oil" production and have absolutely no mechanical/technical experience asking inane questions and much of the press who are similarly lacking any knowledge trying to explain it, most of the information I've seen in non-technical reporting varies from general misunderstanding to flat-assed wrong. *Surprisingly, BP, at least at this point, seems to be particularly forthcoming about the facts as they learn them, even contradicting "positive" news put forth by others - see Napolitano's statement now more "gas" than "oil," etc. There are more birds with oil (AFIAK, all or mostly pelicans who have been easily and successfully cleaned), but (again, AFIAK) no more unusual turtle finds and certainly no mass kills of fish on the shore. *Thus far, while this is certainly not a good thing or even a non-event, the ecological damage appears to be - thankfully - at a minimum. *However, the lawyer commercials and print ads are nearly constant, with calls to even "hospitality employees" to seek "major cash compensation" via the multitude of firms now advertising. TC, R- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanx for the enlightenment. I had no idea that oil spills were actually good for the environment. Just tell me this: (you must have a great technique for cleaning oil-soaked birds. It took me a couple of hours and the bird died,) How do you do it so "...easily and successfully..." ? Dave Ever thought of hanging out a consulting shingle and going up to Alaska with your spill expertise? I understand there is lots of oil left up there that those incompetents could not clean up after the Exxon Valdez dropped it's load. |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 12, 12:35*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote: On May 12, 11:39*pm, wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote: On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote: Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why? --riverman Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the only IMPORTED whisk(e)y. Ah...I didn't realize that there was only one IMPORTED whisk(e)y (and I'm not sure that's accurate, but I wasn't there, so ???), but if that was the case, I'll guess that Joe Kennedy had something to do with it, and IIRC, that would make it something from Seagram's. Nope, I can't agree or disagree with your proposal since I don't know what it is and since I'm not sure if you're saying "nope" to all or none of my guess, I'll wait to see your answer, both to me, if any, as well as your proposed answer to your trivia question, before I respond further. *I will point out that Kennedy, via various connections, had interests, contemporaneously disclosed and undisclosed, with the Bronfman family as well as other, er, "families" involved in the legal and illegal "whisk(e)y" business. but certainly can't fault your logic. TC, R ...and BTW, I'm still waiting to see your calculations on the oil spill and Massachusetts... ? Did you ask to see those elsewhere that I missed? LOL...calculations were easy. Saw some article that gave the dimensions of the spill. I just multiplied and got the surface area, then looked online to find a state that had that same surface area. For the record, this article http://www.independent.ie/world-news...-size-of-irela... puts it at three times the surface area of Mass on May 12. I'd have to use the wayback machine to find the article I saw before, but a google search on the day I posted would probably unearth it. That article says (or implies, if you prefer, "circumference") about what I expected. *This is not like pouring oil onto a smooth, level surface such that it would spread into a generally uniform "puddle." *Moreover, there is a fairly large amount of natural seepage of hydrocarbons, including oil, into the Gulf (and most "oceans" worldwide) every day (for the Gulf, about 50,000 gallons a day, using the _low_ estimates, 100,000 using the high). *This is spread out over the entire Gulf. *The "real-world" picture is more like rivers or a river delta _on the surface_, with ??? of hydrocarbons naturally and artificially dispersed both on the surface _and_ sub-surface, and it has varying structure and viscosity throughout the "column." *The bottom line is trying to simplify this into some mathematical formula of area will not work, unless you simply wish to compare the theorized volume of "oil" to the overall volume of the Gulf of Mexico. *And even an attempt to do that would be, at best, a series of mathematical assumptions (well, WAGs, really...) as the "Gulf of Mexico" has no universally-accepted borders, but more importantly, the amount of "oil" is not known. *Of course, one could do a calculation based on opening size and pressure, but since the exact pressure isn't known nor is the exact composition of the output (and even then, both are dynamic variables as function of time), that would only result in a theoretical momentary calculation as to output at the source, and would provide little or no effective input as to a calculation of the actual surface size of that output. * IAC, between Congresspeople and other "Government" officials who know literally nothing about "oil" production and have absolutely no mechanical/technical experience asking inane questions and much of the press who are similarly lacking any knowledge trying to explain it, most of the information I've seen in non-technical reporting varies from general misunderstanding to flat-assed wrong. *Surprisingly, BP, at least at this point, seems to be particularly forthcoming about the facts as they learn them, even contradicting "positive" news put forth by others - see Napolitano's statement now more "gas" than "oil," etc. There are more birds with oil (AFIAK, all or mostly pelicans who have been easily and successfully cleaned), but (again, AFIAK) no more unusual turtle finds and certainly no mass kills of fish on the shore. *Thus far, while this is certainly not a good thing or even a non-event, the ecological damage appears to be - thankfully - at a minimum. *However, the lawyer commercials and print ads are nearly constant, with calls to even "hospitality employees" to seek "major cash compensation" via the multitude of firms now advertising. TC, R Good god, you are a suppurating ass. g. and some of you people STILL insist on treating this refuse from an abattoir like an adult human being! :) |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 12, 10:39*am, David LaCourse wrote:
The only whisky that tastes like medicine is Laphroig (Leap Frog). *It smells and tastes like iodine. *Lagavulan (sp) is a close second. Now, how can ANYBODY not respect connoysiers who can't spell the names of the things they are authorities on.....and who won't go to the trouble or are incapable of looking it up? Moron. g. and you STILL think education is a joke. :) |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:25:17 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:
Thanx for the enlightenment. I had no idea that oil spills were actually good for the environment. Just tell me this: (you must have a great technique for cleaning oil-soaked birds. It took me a couple of hours and the bird died,) How do you do it so "...easily and successfully..." ? Dave Ever thought of hanging out a consulting shingle and going up to Alaska with your spill expertise? I understand there is lots of oil left up there that those incompetents could not clean up after the Exxon Valdez dropped it's load. Sarcasm noted...maybe you ought, based on your vast, broad 2 hours of bird-murdering experience, to come on down here and kill some pelicans that would have survived had you not ****ed with them...even the casual reader ought to have noticed that I made no claims to any bird-cleaning experience, successful or otherwise...that said... Comparing this to the Valdez is useless from a number of standpoints. The "oil" in this case is nothing like the heavy crude that spilled essentially on the surface in Alaska. It's a mix of light crude and "gas" that has been mixed with a substantially higher percentage of (warm) water and dispersants before it gets anywhere near the surface. Of the birds I've heard about/seen, they have a slight amount of what looks almost an emulsion of clean "motor oil" and water with a light dose of detergent on them. FWIW, from what I'm hearing from Audubon people, there is more of a danger to the birds from well-meaning but untrained people trying to catch and clean birds, esp. those that don't require cleaning, than from the oil. From what I understand, they are rinsing them with some form of mild avian-safe "detergent" and water. There has been so little of it thus far that there is only a VERY few professionals that have dealt with it, so no, I don't know the exact procedure of pelican-washing in this case, but from what I've seen, it's about like washing a baby (human). Of course, this all may change if/when there is more oil on the surface, but the cleaning procedure required in Alaska, from what I understand from _professionals_, simply won't be applicable here. Have a look at these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/deepwat...se/4596343466/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/deepwat...se/4602560028/ and there are LOTS of other images via the above. Somewhere in it all is an image, somewhat surreal, of guys looking at what looks like a couple of _small_ somethings (they are small, probably naturally-occurring tarballs) on Dauphin Island, while in the background there are about 30 people in Tyveks and respirators and about 100 people in bathing suits sunning, swimming, boarding, etc. And yet again, I'm certainly not claiming that this isn't or won't be serious, but at this point, there seems to be little actual sustained damage, avian or otherwise. HTH, R |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 12, 8:18*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:25:17 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: Thanx for the enlightenment. *I had no idea that oil spills were actually good for the environment. Just tell me this: (you must have a great technique for cleaning oil-soaked birds. It took me a couple of hours and the bird died,) *How do you do it so "...easily and successfully..." ? Dave Ever thought of hanging out a consulting shingle and going up to Alaska with your spill expertise? I understand there is lots of oil left up there that those incompetents could not clean up after the Exxon Valdez dropped it's load. Sarcasm noted...maybe you ought, based on your vast, broad 2 hours of bird-murdering experience, to come on down here and kill some pelicans that would have survived had you not ****ed with them...even the casual reader ought to have noticed that I made no claims to any bird-cleaning experience, successful or otherwise...that said... Comparing this to the Valdez is useless from a number of standpoints. *The "oil" in this case is nothing like the heavy crude that spilled essentially on the surface in Alaska. *It's a mix of light crude and "gas" that has been mixed with a substantially higher percentage of (warm) water and dispersants before it gets anywhere near the surface. *Of the birds I've heard about/seen, they have a slight amount of what looks almost an emulsion of clean "motor oil" and water with a light dose of detergent on them. *FWIW, from what I'm hearing from Audubon people, there is more of a danger to the birds from well-meaning but untrained people trying to catch and clean birds, esp. those that don't require cleaning, than from the oil. *From what I understand, they are rinsing them with some form of mild avian-safe "detergent" and water. *There has been so little of it thus far that there is only a VERY few professionals that have dealt with it, so no, I don't know the exact procedure of pelican-washing in this case, but from what I've seen, it's about like washing a baby (human). *Of course, this all may change if/when there is more oil on the surface, but the cleaning procedure required in Alaska, from what I understand from _professionals_, simply won't be applicable here. * Have a look at these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/deepwat...se/4602560028/ and there are LOTS of other images via the above. *Somewhere in it all is an image, somewhat surreal, of guys looking at what looks like a couple of _small_ somethings (they are small, probably naturally-occurring tarballs) on Dauphin Island, while in the background there are about 30 people in Tyveks and respirators and about 100 people in bathing suits sunning, swimming, boarding, etc. And yet again, I'm certainly not claiming that this isn't or won't be serious, but at this point, there seems to be little actual sustained damage, avian or otherwise. HTH, R Hm..... What about marine invertebrates? Are the phytoplankton being sprayed with some form of mild phytoplankton-safe "detergent" and water? Are the zooplankton being sprayed with some form of mild zooplankton-safe "detergent" and water? And when did gulf coast sunbathers become an offcially recognized indicator species? and by whom? Idiot. g. |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 12, 8:36*pm, Giles wrote:
On May 12, 8:18*pm, wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:25:17 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: Thanx for the enlightenment. *I had no idea that oil spills were actually good for the environment. Just tell me this: (you must have a great technique for cleaning oil-soaked birds. It took me a couple of hours and the bird died,) *How do you do it so "...easily and successfully..." ? Dave Ever thought of hanging out a consulting shingle and going up to Alaska with your spill expertise? I understand there is lots of oil left up there that those incompetents could not clean up after the Exxon Valdez dropped it's load. Sarcasm noted...maybe you ought, based on your vast, broad 2 hours of bird-murdering experience, to come on down here and kill some pelicans that would have survived had you not ****ed with them...even the casual reader ought to have noticed that I made no claims to any bird-cleaning experience, successful or otherwise...that said... Comparing this to the Valdez is useless from a number of standpoints. *The "oil" in this case is nothing like the heavy crude that spilled essentially on the surface in Alaska. *It's a mix of light crude and "gas" that has been mixed with a substantially higher percentage of (warm) water and dispersants before it gets anywhere near the surface. *Of the birds I've heard about/seen, they have a slight amount of what looks almost an emulsion of clean "motor oil" and water with a light dose of detergent on them. *FWIW, from what I'm hearing from Audubon people, there is more of a danger to the birds from well-meaning but untrained people trying to catch and clean birds, esp. those that don't require cleaning, than from the oil. *From what I understand, they are rinsing them with some form of mild avian-safe "detergent" and water. *There has been so little of it thus far that there is only a VERY few professionals that have dealt with it, so no, I don't know the exact procedure of pelican-washing in this case, but from what I've seen, it's about like washing a baby (human). *Of course, this all may change if/when there is more oil on the surface, but the cleaning procedure required in Alaska, from what I understand from _professionals_, simply won't be applicable here. * Have a look at these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/deepwat...596343466/http... and there are LOTS of other images via the above. *Somewhere in it all is an image, somewhat surreal, of guys looking at what looks like a couple of _small_ somethings (they are small, probably naturally-occurring tarballs) on Dauphin Island, while in the background there are about 30 people in Tyveks and respirators and about 100 people in bathing suits sunning, swimming, boarding, etc. And yet again, I'm certainly not claiming that this isn't or won't be serious, but at this point, there seems to be little actual sustained damage, avian or otherwise. HTH, R Hm..... What about marine invertebrates? *Are the phytoplankton being sprayed with some form of mild phytoplankton-safe "detergent" and water? *Are the zooplankton being sprayed with some form of mild zooplankton-safe "detergent" and water? And when did gulf coast sunbathers become an offcially recognized indicator species? *and by whom? Idiot. g p.s. they say a picture is woth a thousand words.....maybe so. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201...ly_in_the.html g. |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Wed, 12 May 2010 18:36:17 -0700 (PDT), Giles wrote:
On May 12, 8:18*pm, wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:25:17 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: Thanx for the enlightenment. *I had no idea that oil spills were actually good for the environment. Just tell me this: (you must have a great technique for cleaning oil-soaked birds. It took me a couple of hours and the bird died,) *How do you do it so "...easily and successfully..." ? Dave Ever thought of hanging out a consulting shingle and going up to Alaska with your spill expertise? I understand there is lots of oil left up there that those incompetents could not clean up after the Exxon Valdez dropped it's load. Sarcasm noted...maybe you ought, based on your vast, broad 2 hours of bird-murdering experience, to come on down here and kill some pelicans that would have survived had you not ****ed with them...even the casual reader ought to have noticed that I made no claims to any bird-cleaning experience, successful or otherwise...that said... Comparing this to the Valdez is useless from a number of standpoints. *The "oil" in this case is nothing like the heavy crude that spilled essentially on the surface in Alaska. *It's a mix of light crude and "gas" that has been mixed with a substantially higher percentage of (warm) water and dispersants before it gets anywhere near the surface. *Of the birds I've heard about/seen, they have a slight amount of what looks almost an emulsion of clean "motor oil" and water with a light dose of detergent on them. *FWIW, from what I'm hearing from Audubon people, there is more of a danger to the birds from well-meaning but untrained people trying to catch and clean birds, esp. those that don't require cleaning, than from the oil. *From what I understand, they are rinsing them with some form of mild avian-safe "detergent" and water. *There has been so little of it thus far that there is only a VERY few professionals that have dealt with it, so no, I don't know the exact procedure of pelican-washing in this case, but from what I've seen, it's about like washing a baby (human). *Of course, this all may change if/when there is more oil on the surface, but the cleaning procedure required in Alaska, from what I understand from _professionals_, simply won't be applicable here. * Have a look at these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/deepwat...se/4602560028/ and there are LOTS of other images via the above. *Somewhere in it all is an image, somewhat surreal, of guys looking at what looks like a couple of _small_ somethings (they are small, probably naturally-occurring tarballs) on Dauphin Island, while in the background there are about 30 people in Tyveks and respirators and about 100 people in bathing suits sunning, swimming, boarding, etc. And yet again, I'm certainly not claiming that this isn't or won't be serious, but at this point, there seems to be little actual sustained damage, avian or otherwise. HTH, R Hm..... Yep, hm...in the unlikely event you have something useful to provide, I'll respond to you... What about marine invertebrates? Are the phytoplankton being sprayed with some form of mild phytoplankton-safe "detergent" and water? Are the zooplankton being sprayed with some form of mild zooplankton-safe "detergent" and water? From current reports from folks with a dog in this hunt, yes, they are. Are these things "safe?" I don't know and neither do you. There have been vaguely somewhat-similar occurrences, but none recently and of reasonably similar scientific factors so as to provide scientific data from which to base a position. At his point, there is no way to determine what the effects will be, made moreso because the situation is dynamic. If you have any useful information that could possibly be of use in this situation, I can get it to the right people. So put up or shut up - do you have any useful information to provide to anyone actually involved in this situation or not? Or, in the probable alternative, are you as per usual injecting your 50-something-year-old coffee-getting-and-flask-washing vocational experience into something about which you have no actual practical or scientific knowledge? And no, the fact that your name was included in a coupla-three papers on essentially useless, grant-funded busywork doesn't impress in the least. This "oil spill" situation will either sort itself out naturally or it will require both scientific and practical expertise that you, thus far, have demonstrated no possession or even understanding. And when did gulf coast sunbathers become an offcially recognized indicator species? and by whom? Actually, considering that "gulf coast sunbathers" have been exposed to varying amounts of generally-similar exposure for as long as "gulf coast sunbathers" have existed, they are perhaps a reasonable indicator, whether this or that "official" body has "recognized" them or not. Idiot. Yes, generally speaking, you are exactly that...and you exhibit no common sense, either... g. And you're a ****in' pussy, too...why are you so afraid of posting under a real name, lil' pup...? HTH, R |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 13, 1:35*am, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote: On May 12, 11:39*pm, wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote: On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote: Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why? --riverman Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the only IMPORTED whisk(e)y. Ah...I didn't realize that there was only one IMPORTED whisk(e)y (and I'm not sure that's accurate, but I wasn't there, so ???), but if that was the case, I'll guess that Joe Kennedy had something to do with it, and IIRC, that would make it something from Seagram's. Nope, I can't agree or disagree with your proposal since I don't know what it is and since I'm not sure if you're saying "nope" to all or none of my guess, I'll wait to see your answer, both to me, if any, as well as your proposed answer to your trivia question, before I respond further. *I will point out that Kennedy, via various connections, had interests, contemporaneously disclosed and undisclosed, with the Bronfman family as well as other, er, "families" involved in the legal and illegal "whisk(e)y" business. but certainly can't fault your logic. TC, R ...and BTW, I'm still waiting to see your calculations on the oil spill and Massachusetts... ? Did you ask to see those elsewhere that I missed? LOL...calculations were easy. Saw some article that gave the dimensions of the spill. I just multiplied and got the surface area, then looked online to find a state that had that same surface area. For the record, this article http://www.independent.ie/world-news...-size-of-irela... puts it at three times the surface area of Mass on May 12. I'd have to use the wayback machine to find the article I saw before, but a google search on the day I posted would probably unearth it. That article says (or implies, if you prefer, "circumference") about what I expected. * Here is the relevant sentence from the article I posted above: "Despite attempts to slow its advance by setting it on fire, the slick now has a circumference of about 600 miles and covers about 28,600 sq miles." Obviously the math supports that they derived area from circumference, but as the spill is not really circular, I'm not convinced they did. They might have gone the other way to provide a mental image that people could grasp. According to wikipedia, Massachusetts has an AREA of about 10,000 square miles. The earlier article I referenced last week gave the dimensions of the oil spill (not circumference) with numbers whose product was something like 9500 mi^2, which is why I said the spill is roughly the size of Mass. But our discussion seems to have gone off of that post to this recent one...OK, I can live with that. I understand the essence of your post...just because a spill is roughly contained within a region does not mean that this is the size of the spill..there can be holes and pockets. Also, that much of the surface content within that region can be derived from sources other than that spill (one site I read yesterday said that accepted estimates are that daily natural subsurface leakage is equal to the volume of this particular spill). Nonetheless...there does exist data (satellite, visual (direct and indirect) etc) to document that there IS something on the surface of the water, and that it seems to fill that region enough to stand out from the background, so I'm not sure what good arguing semantics, or strawmanning back and forth between VOLUME vs AREA vs CIRCUMFERENCE vs DENSITY serves. I suppose we could decide to agree on exactly what percentage of oil cover constitutes 'covered in oil' vs 'unamalgamated surface detritus', or whether or not that particular piece of geography is indeed 'the Gulf of Mexico', and we could even call in Siddhartha to remind us that the Gulf stays there, but the water moves on. But I don't want to go there. I'm happy to just state that the spill looks like its pretty damn big...about the size of Massachusetts the other day, and about the size of Ireland today, according to sources who are providing images to support their claims. But for that matter, there are a lot of folks in Ireland who are not Irish...should we take that into account? --riverman |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 12, 6:18*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:25:17 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: Thanx for the enlightenment. *I had no idea that oil spills were actually good for the environment. Just tell me this: (you must have a great technique for cleaning oil-soaked birds. It took me a couple of hours and the bird died,) *How do you do it so "...easily and successfully..." ? Dave Ever thought of hanging out a consulting shingle and going up to Alaska with your spill expertise? I understand there is lots of oil left up there that those incompetents could not clean up after the Exxon Valdez dropped it's load. Sarcasm noted...maybe you ought, based on your vast, broad 2 hours of bird-murdering experience, to come on down here and kill some pelicans that would have survived had you not ****ed with them...even the casual reader ought to have noticed that I made no claims to any bird-cleaning experience, successful or otherwise...that said... Comparing this to the Valdez is useless from a number of standpoints. *The "oil" in this case is nothing like the heavy crude that spilled essentially on the surface in Alaska. *It's a mix of light crude and "gas" that has been mixed with a substantially higher percentage of (warm) water and dispersants before it gets anywhere near the surface. *Of the birds I've heard about/seen, they have a slight amount of what looks almost an emulsion of clean "motor oil" and water with a light dose of detergent on them. *FWIW, from what I'm hearing from Audubon people, there is more of a danger to the birds from well-meaning but untrained people trying to catch and clean birds, esp. those that don't require cleaning, than from the oil. *From what I understand, they are rinsing them with some form of mild avian-safe "detergent" and water. *There has been so little of it thus far that there is only a VERY few professionals that have dealt with it, so no, I don't know the exact procedure of pelican-washing in this case, but from what I've seen, it's about like washing a baby (human). *Of course, this all may change if/when there is more oil on the surface, but the cleaning procedure required in Alaska, from what I understand from _professionals_, simply won't be applicable here. * Have a look at these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/deepwat...se/4602560028/ and there are LOTS of other images via the above. *Somewhere in it all is an image, somewhat surreal, of guys looking at what looks like a couple of _small_ somethings (they are small, probably naturally-occurring tarballs) on Dauphin Island, while in the background there are about 30 people in Tyveks and respirators and about 100 people in bathing suits sunning, swimming, boarding, etc. And yet again, I'm certainly not claiming that this isn't or won't be serious, but at this point, there seems to be little actual sustained damage, avian or otherwise. HTH, R Some interesting pics in the cites, lots more mostly public affairs and force information purposes. "We shall see" is the real answer to most all right now. Unless of course the thread is prep for some form of predictive wagering schema. On the other thread you haul out the mace in response to Giles' plankton question. As vociferous as was your response, you did not say anything that suggested you understood the crux of his comment. Bottomline is that it would indeed be a pretty thing if detergents capable of dispersing crude oil, were harmless to either zooplankton or phytoplankton. So of course there is bound to be bio damage, but its the tradeoff that is necessary to protect more popular economic and environmental assets. There is no free lunch. We shall see. Dave Think ity, bity, teeny, tiny creatures. Think way smaller than 22s or the rumored 28s. Think itzy bitzy. Then think soap and worse. |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 12, 9:47*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 18:36:17 -0700 (PDT), Giles wrote: On May 12, 8:18*pm, wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:25:17 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: Thanx for the enlightenment. *I had no idea that oil spills were actually good for the environment. Just tell me this: (you must have a great technique for cleaning oil-soaked birds. It took me a couple of hours and the bird died,) *How do you do it so "...easily and successfully..." ? Dave Ever thought of hanging out a consulting shingle and going up to Alaska with your spill expertise? I understand there is lots of oil left up there that those incompetents could not clean up after the Exxon Valdez dropped it's load. Sarcasm noted...maybe you ought, based on your vast, broad 2 hours of bird-murdering experience, to come on down here and kill some pelicans that would have survived had you not ****ed with them...even the casual reader ought to have noticed that I made no claims to any bird-cleaning experience, successful or otherwise...that said... Comparing this to the Valdez is useless from a number of standpoints. *The "oil" in this case is nothing like the heavy crude that spilled essentially on the surface in Alaska. *It's a mix of light crude and "gas" that has been mixed with a substantially higher percentage of (warm) water and dispersants before it gets anywhere near the surface. *Of the birds I've heard about/seen, they have a slight amount of what looks almost an emulsion of clean "motor oil" and water with a light dose of detergent on them. *FWIW, from what I'm hearing from Audubon people, there is more of a danger to the birds from well-meaning but untrained people trying to catch and clean birds, esp. those that don't require cleaning, than from the oil. *From what I understand, they are rinsing them with some form of mild avian-safe "detergent" and water. *There has been so little of it thus far that there is only a VERY few professionals that have dealt with it, so no, I don't know the exact procedure of pelican-washing in this case, but from what I've seen, it's about like washing a baby (human). *Of course, this all may change if/when there is more oil on the surface, but the cleaning procedure required in Alaska, from what I understand from _professionals_, simply won't be applicable here. * Have a look at these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/deepwat...596343466/http.... and there are LOTS of other images via the above. *Somewhere in it all is an image, somewhat surreal, of guys looking at what looks like a couple of _small_ somethings (they are small, probably naturally-occurring tarballs) on Dauphin Island, while in the background there are about 30 people in Tyveks and respirators and about 100 people in bathing suits sunning, swimming, boarding, etc. And yet again, I'm certainly not claiming that this isn't or won't be serious, but at this point, there seems to be little actual sustained damage, avian or otherwise. HTH, R Hm..... Yep, hm...in the unlikely event you have something useful to provide, I'll respond to you... What about marine invertebrates? *Are the phytoplankton being sprayed with some form of mild phytoplankton-safe "detergent" and water? *Are the zooplankton being sprayed with some form of mild zooplankton-safe "detergent" and water? From current reports from folks with a dog in this hunt, yes, they are. *Are these things "safe?" *I don't know and neither do you. *There have been vaguely somewhat-similar occurrences, but none recently and of reasonably similar scientific factors so as to provide scientific data from which to base a position. *At his point, there is no way to determine what the effects will be, made moreso because the situation is dynamic. *If you have any useful information that could possibly be of use in this situation, I can get it to the right people. *So put up or shut up - do you have any useful information to provide to anyone actually involved in this situation or not? Or, in the probable alternative, are you as per usual injecting your 50-something-year-old coffee-getting-and-flask-washing vocational experience into something about which you have no actual practical or scientific knowledge? And no, the fact that your name was included in a coupla-three papers on essentially useless, grant-funded busywork doesn't impress in the least. *This "oil spill" situation will either sort itself out naturally or it will require both scientific and practical expertise that you, thus far, have demonstrated no possession or even understanding. And when did gulf coast sunbathers become an offcially recognized indicator species? *and by whom? Actually, considering that "gulf coast sunbathers" have been exposed to varying amounts of generally-similar exposure for as long as "gulf coast sunbathers" have existed, they are perhaps a reasonable indicator, whether this or that "official" body has "recognized" them or not. Idiot. Yes, generally speaking, you are exactly that...and you exhibit no common sense, either... g. And you're a ****in' pussy, too...why are you so afraid of posting under a real name, lil' pup...? HTH, R I'd be interested in your informed opinions concerning just how they are spraying phytoplankton and zooplankton with some form of mild phytoplankton-safe and zooplankton-safe "detergent" and water. For example, as a flask washer I'm not entirely clear on how these sprays are applied at depths of......oh, say, an inch or thereabouts to 50 or 500 feet below the surface. Thanks ever so much for your patience and cooperation. Moron. g. who, it must be admitted, was nearly certain that giles is a real name. go figure. |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 13, 5:48*am, DaveS wrote:
On May 12, 6:18*pm, wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:25:17 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: Thanx for the enlightenment. *I had no idea that oil spills were actually good for the environment. Just tell me this: (you must have a great technique for cleaning oil-soaked birds. It took me a couple of hours and the bird died,) *How do you do it so "...easily and successfully..." ? Dave Ever thought of hanging out a consulting shingle and going up to Alaska with your spill expertise? I understand there is lots of oil left up there that those incompetents could not clean up after the Exxon Valdez dropped it's load. Sarcasm noted...maybe you ought, based on your vast, broad 2 hours of bird-murdering experience, to come on down here and kill some pelicans that would have survived had you not ****ed with them...even the casual reader ought to have noticed that I made no claims to any bird-cleaning experience, successful or otherwise...that said... Comparing this to the Valdez is useless from a number of standpoints. *The "oil" in this case is nothing like the heavy crude that spilled essentially on the surface in Alaska. *It's a mix of light crude and "gas" that has been mixed with a substantially higher percentage of (warm) water and dispersants before it gets anywhere near the surface. *Of the birds I've heard about/seen, they have a slight amount of what looks almost an emulsion of clean "motor oil" and water with a light dose of detergent on them. *FWIW, from what I'm hearing from Audubon people, there is more of a danger to the birds from well-meaning but untrained people trying to catch and clean birds, esp. those that don't require cleaning, than from the oil. *From what I understand, they are rinsing them with some form of mild avian-safe "detergent" and water. *There has been so little of it thus far that there is only a VERY few professionals that have dealt with it, so no, I don't know the exact procedure of pelican-washing in this case, but from what I've seen, it's about like washing a baby (human). *Of course, this all may change if/when there is more oil on the surface, but the cleaning procedure required in Alaska, from what I understand from _professionals_, simply won't be applicable here. * Have a look at these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/deepwat...596343466/http... and there are LOTS of other images via the above. *Somewhere in it all is an image, somewhat surreal, of guys looking at what looks like a couple of _small_ somethings (they are small, probably naturally-occurring tarballs) on Dauphin Island, while in the background there are about 30 people in Tyveks and respirators and about 100 people in bathing suits sunning, swimming, boarding, etc. And yet again, I'm certainly not claiming that this isn't or won't be serious, but at this point, there seems to be little actual sustained damage, avian or otherwise. HTH, R Some interesting pics in the cites, lots more mostly public affairs and force information purposes. "We shall see" is the real answer to most all right now. Unless of course the thread is prep for some form of predictive wagering schema. *On the other thread you haul out the mace in response to Giles' plankton question. As vociferous as was your response, you did not say anything that suggested you understood the crux of his comment. Bottomline is that it would indeed be a pretty thing if detergents capable of dispersing crude oil, were harmless to either zooplankton or phytoplankton. On the face of it, "dispersal" sounds like a good idea, right? Well..... Left alone, petroleum (being lighter than water) rises to the surface where it quite naturally dispereses. Some of the lighter fractions evaporate, while heavier ones are dispersed to one degree or another by winds, waves, congealing, biological activities and probably many other forces that I don't know about. In any case it spreads out until something, like beaches for example, stops it. The trouble is that wherever it goes, no matter how widely and thinly it spreads, it's going to do some damage. So dispersal via detergents is a better alternative to letting nature run its course.....right? Well..... Remember when dilution was the solution to pollution? Detergents, in simplest terms, act by breaking the bonds that make oils and water mutually immiscible. In essence, using detergents on petroleum makes it soluble in water. Now the reaction products go everywhere. As a highly experienced flask washer I can attest that detergents are NOT "safe".....no kind, nowhere, no how, no time. Detergents are by their very nature biologically active. So of course there is bound to be bio damage, but its the tradeoff that is necessary to protect more popular economic and environmental assets. Maybe. Probably not. However it IS politically expedient.....and that trumps everything. The trick is to minimize or mitigate the damage where it would cost the most votes. And that entails careful analysis and application of all that science can bring to bear on the fundamental problem of determining where it would cost the most votes. There is no free lunch. We shall see. Shades of Barry Commoner. Commoner's second law of ecology (paraphrased): Everything goes somewhere. There is no "away." Dave Think ity, bity, teeny, tiny creatures. Think way smaller than 22s or the rumored 28s. Think itzy bitzy. Then think soap and worse. Interestingly, in a world full of synthetic organic chemicals (over a million of them last I heard.....in an organic chemistry class back in the mid 80's), in a world full of horrifically toxic synthetic pesticides, among the most broadly and persistently effective insecticides remains......wait for it......soap! giles |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 12, 5:42*am, riverman wrote:
Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why? --riverman That would be Jim Beam....for medicinal purposes only... If I am not mistaken,,,during prohibition...there was an allowance per week... My friend...how is it that we share the same radio stations....see you soon... John |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 17, 1:27*pm, John B wrote:
On May 12, 5:42*am, riverman wrote: Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why? --riverman That would be Jim Beam....for medicinal purposes only... If I am not mistaken,,,during prohibition...there was an allowance per week... My friend...how is it that we share the same radio stations....see you soon... John Actually...the IMPORTED whisky I was referring to (and possibly erroneously) is Laphroaig. http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jhb/whisky/smws/29.html |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Sun, 16 May 2010 23:18:34 -0700 (PDT), --riverman wrote:
On May 17, 1:27*pm, John B wrote: On May 12, 5:42*am, riverman wrote: Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why? --riverman That would be Jim Beam....for medicinal purposes only... If I am not mistaken,,,during prohibition...there was an allowance per week... My friend...how is it that we share the same radio stations....see you soon... John Actually...the IMPORTED whisky I was referring to (and possibly erroneously) is Laphroaig. http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jhb/whisky/smws/29.html Y'all may want to check up on that. I've seen "prescription bottles" (or perhaps more correctly, bottles with the "prescription form" on them) from other than Beam and Laphroaig. TC, R |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Thu, 13 May 2010 03:48:25 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:
"We shall see" is the real answer to most all right now. Um, that's what I said about a day ot two after this happened... Dave Think ity, bity, teeny, tiny creatures. Think way smaller than 22s or the rumored 28s. Think itzy bitzy. Then think soap and worse. Ooooh...I thought he was talking about CARTOON plankters... And IAC, it's not soap, it's Corexit, IIRC, 9500A. It's not what was used with Ixtoc (a different Corexit/Nalco/Exxon product, 9527, from the same family) but this is less toxic on its own and in use - unfortunately, there is no way to truly test this kind of thing, so "less toxic" can only mean so much until "real-world" results are seen. From what I understand, lab results are at least promising insofar as "less toxic" goes. Research after Ixtoc was scant and somewhat scattered (there is a report out there - check the Oxford Journals if you can/wish), and while the effects of the 9527 weren't "none," they weren't as bad as one might guess, either. So hopefully with the 9500, things won't be too bad. At the end of the day, it will remain a "we'll see..." HTH, R |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
|
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 17, 4:28*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 03:48:25 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: "We shall see" is the real answer to most all right now. Um, that's what I said about a day ot two after this happened... Dave Think ity, bity, teeny, tiny creatures. Think way smaller than 22s or the rumored 28s. Think itzy bitzy. Then think soap and worse. Ooooh...I thought he was talking about CARTOON plankters... And IAC, it's not soap, it's Corexit, IIRC, 9500A. *It's not what was used with Ixtoc (a different Corexit/Nalco/Exxon product, 9527, from the same family) but this is less toxic on its own and in use - unfortunately, there is no way to truly test this kind of thing, so "less toxic" can only mean so much until "real-world" results are seen. *From what I understand, lab results are at least promising insofar as "less toxic" goes. *Research after Ixtoc was scant and somewhat scattered (there is a report out there - check the Oxford Journals if you can/wish), and while the effects of the 9527 weren't "none," they weren't as bad as one might guess, either. *So hopefully with the 9500, things won't be too bad. *At the end of the day, it will remain a "we'll see..." HTH, R :) g. |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 17, 8:39*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-05-17 17:28:08 -0400, said: So hopefully with the 9500, things won't be too bad. *At the end of the day, it will remain a "we'll see..." Yeah, and, I mean, nuclear weapons weren't all *that* bad, were they? You are becoming more of an idiot every day, Richard. Davey (and don't call me after 10 pm MY TIME) :) g. |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Mon, 17 May 2010 21:39:36 -0400, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-05-17 17:28:08 -0400, said: So hopefully with the 9500, things won't be too bad. At the end of the day, it will remain a "we'll see..." Yeah, and, I mean, nuclear weapons weren't all *that* bad, were they? I guess it depends if you are sender or the recipient...but hey, super premium and the material to make Simms GWhiz waders and Depends gotta come from somewhere, donchaknow... You are becoming more of an idiot every day, Richard. Aw, have you been nuzzling up with goatboys again...? Davey (and don't call me after 10 pm MY TIME) Um, well, I wouldn't hold your breath about before 10 pm YOUR TIME...or Zulu...or GMT...or even by the Aztec calendar... HTH, R |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 17, 2:28*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 03:48:25 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: "We shall see" is the real answer to most all right now. Um, that's what I said about a day ot two after this happened... Dave Think ity, bity, teeny, tiny creatures. Think way smaller than 22s or the rumored 28s. Think itzy bitzy. Then think soap and worse. Ooooh...I thought he was talking about CARTOON plankters... And IAC, it's not soap, it's Corexit, IIRC, 9500A. *It's not what was used with Ixtoc (a different Corexit/Nalco/Exxon product, 9527, from the same family) but this is less toxic on its own and in use - unfortunately, there is no way to truly test this kind of thing, so "less toxic" can only mean so much until "real-world" results are seen. *From what I understand, lab results are at least promising insofar as "less toxic" goes. *Research after Ixtoc was scant and somewhat scattered (there is a report out there - check the Oxford Journals if you can/wish), and while the effects of the 9527 weren't "none," they weren't as bad as one might guess, either. *So hopefully with the 9500, things won't be too bad. *At the end of the day, it will remain a "we'll see..." HTH, R Richard, We have an expression in the West that points out the inadvisability of ****ing into the wind. Before you dig this hole deeper be sure you understand just what a detergent is and what it takes to make a hydrocarbon water miscible. I personally am limited in this matter by my night school HS chem, and the four semesters of bonehead sciences we were required to take at BYU. To make matters worse we were required to attend classes, stay awake and do our own labs, definitly a curse that forever after inoculated me with skepticism towards folk like oil industry PR people with a fondness for 9000 series numbers and gucci shoes. In the words of one of my old economics mentors, Dr Sar Levitan (GWU) "there is no free lunch." These people (BP etc) apparently were not following industry best practices. BP has a problem with safety and this is not the first instance where they crossed the line, You do not need to defend them. We all use and rely on petro products. If some assholes cut corners we need to fix the problem. Not paper it over or pretend. Dave |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Mon, 17 May 2010 20:52:02 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:
On May 17, 2:28*pm, wrote: On Thu, 13 May 2010 03:48:25 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: "We shall see" is the real answer to most all right now. Um, that's what I said about a day ot two after this happened... Dave Think ity, bity, teeny, tiny creatures. Think way smaller than 22s or the rumored 28s. Think itzy bitzy. Then think soap and worse. Ooooh...I thought he was talking about CARTOON plankters... And IAC, it's not soap, it's Corexit, IIRC, 9500A. *It's not what was used with Ixtoc (a different Corexit/Nalco/Exxon product, 9527, from the same family) but this is less toxic on its own and in use - unfortunately, there is no way to truly test this kind of thing, so "less toxic" can only mean so much until "real-world" results are seen. *From what I understand, lab results are at least promising insofar as "less toxic" goes. *Research after Ixtoc was scant and somewhat scattered (there is a report out there - check the Oxford Journals if you can/wish), and while the effects of the 9527 weren't "none," they weren't as bad as one might guess, either. *So hopefully with the 9500, things won't be too bad. *At the end of the day, it will remain a "we'll see..." HTH, R Richard, We have an expression in the West that points out the inadvisability of ****ing into the wind. Before you dig this hole deeper be sure you understand just what a detergent is and what it takes to make a hydrocarbon water miscible. I personally am limited in this matter by my night school HS chem, and the four semesters of bonehead sciences we were required to take at BYU. To make matters worse we were required to attend classes, stay awake and do our own labs, definitly a curse that forever after inoculated me with skepticism towards folk like oil industry PR people with a fondness for 9000 series numbers and gucci shoes. Well, I knew that BYU was pretty weird, but I had no idea that they had oil industry PR people in Gucci shoes attempting to teach you boneheads science...maybe that is why you didn't learn anything useful there...IAC, I had pledges and sorority girls do all my work. Why shoot, I wound up with a couple of degrees from schools I didn't even attend simply by virtue of having given a few of the local Chi-Os the high hard one... In the words of one of my old economics mentors, Dr Sar Levitan (GWU) "there is no free lunch." Well, no one knows exactly what the outcome of this will be, but if anyone would be in a position to make predictions about the possible ramifications of an oil spill and the chemicals used in attempting to mitigate it, one of your old econ mentors would sure be the person to whom you should look... These people (BP etc) apparently were not following industry best practices. Um, "industry best?" Maybe Dr. Sar can explain what the "industry best" was in this situation...FWIW, "the Obama administration" held this well up as an example of how it ought to be done...and also FWIW, IMO, neither your appraisal of "industry best" or the accolade is worth jack ****...there is no "industry best" in something like this - there is only "we hope like a mother****er that this works like we think it will," with the "we" being basically mid-level engineers, operations people, etc. doing the best they know how to do on a project that doesn't have a lot of "industry standard" information to which they can refer. BP has a problem with safety and this is not the first instance where they crossed the line, OK - name "they" - the specific people who you claim "crossed the line," and give the instance in which they did so. You do not need to defend them. I'm not defending anyone because I don't know who to defend (or blame) and neither do you. But from my personal experience with petroleum exploration projects and from what I've seen and heard from people at all levels of the industry (prior to this incident), with a project such as this, much of it is, well, see about "we hope like a mother****er..." We all use and rely on petro products. If some assholes cut corners we need to fix the problem. Not paper it over or pretend. Dave, I'm down here, not you. I've seen a virtual army of people on the beaches in Tyveks, searching for a tarball the size of cat turd (they found 13 on MS beaches this weekend), the 2-3 lawyer commercials every commercial break, and the general ramping-up of the (thus far) ****storm-in-a-teacup. And I saw the total, complete and utter bull**** in the aftermath of Katrina. But I'm also aware of the _many_ rigs and wells in the gulf and the overall "spill per barrel produced" ratio, producing a product that those in the US _demand_. And until it is _clear_ what the damage is, I'm totally opposed to busting anyone's chops over this. If and when BP is shown to be negligent in this, I'm all for busting not only their chops but their ass in a manner appropriate to that negligence. And FWIW, I know a fair number of people in "oil business," from roughnecks to company owners and I cannot think of anyone with a vested interest in the successful completion (IOW, the well producing) of a well "cutting corners" on the pressure control side of things, assuming "cutting corners" is used in the ordinary sense. HTH, R Dave |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 17, 9:53*pm, wrote:
BP has a problem with safety and this is not the first instance where they crossed the line, OK - name "they" - the specific people who you claim "crossed the line," and give the instance in which they did so. You just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. I guess you were too busy to notice that BP was party to ..." the worst industrial accident in the United States for more than a decade" way before (2005) the current BP debacle. You probably do have some acquaintance with Gulf region oil folk. But apparently your memory doesn't include the explosion at the Texas City BP refinery, the leaky BP Alaska pipelines, and the aftermath including the findings of the inquiry panel led by James Baker regarding the corporate culture of unsafe practices and their miserable safety record. Maybe those co-eds you claim to have been boffing should have taught you to do the required reading Before you put your hand up in class. Here is one short rundown on the James Baker panel per BP. "British Petroleum (BP) fired its chief executive, Lord Browne of Madingley, on Jan 13 this year. Three days later, former United States secretary of state James Baker released a report on BP’s safety record and at least one of the reasons for Lord Browne’s involuntary departure from the company was clear. It concluded that BP had a "corporate blind spot" when it came to safety. For once, an accident inquiry looked beyond human error at the operational level and targeted executive decision making. The inquiry panel led by the former secretary Baker can anticipate applause from the ergonomics community. Human factors experts regard scrutiny of the corporate culture and system as a whole as an essential part of an accident inquiry, yet investigators often don’t look higher for mistakes than individual operators. According to The Washington Post on Jan 13, the debacles that tarnished the peer’s reputation included a refinery explosion in Texas, leaky Alaska pipelines that shut down the biggest US oil field, costly delays in a big Gulf of Mexico production platform and a handful of dubious business practices. The Texas fatalities occurred on 23 March, 2005, after gas vapors ignited at BP’s southernmost US refinery and caused an explosion that ripped through employee accommodation on the site. Fifteen people died and more than 170 were injured, making it the worst industrial accident in the United States for more than a decade. Some blame Browne for trying to trim costs in assets acquired with the mergers. The Alaska pipelines hadn’t been cleaned for 14 years, and the Texas City refinery, inherited from Amoco, had a patchy safety record. Former secretary Baker and members of the panel of investigators interviewed more than 700 BP employees, from hourly refinery workers right up to Lord Browne, and conducted public meetings in the communities where the company is a big employer. Their 350-page analysis, “The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Safety Panel Review,” detailed safety failings at the company's five US refineries, from employees too scared to report accidents to an executive class that failed to implement vital safety procedures. The theme of the report is that while BP concentrated on reducing personal injuries at its facilities, it neglected measures designed to enhance the operational safety of the plants themselves. Executives failed to instill culture where this "process safety" was paramount, it said. The report noted that employees were often poorly trained in the safety procedures required to prevent major incidents, while managers were sometimes too focused on increasing production to meet profits expectations. Budget cutting was also an issue. "If a refinery is under-resourced, maintenance may be deferred, inspections and testing may fall behind, old and obsolete equipment may not be replaced, and process risks will inevitably increase," the report said. "The Panel does not believe that BP has always ensured that the resources required for strong process safety performance at its U.S. refineries were identified and provided." The company’s US $22 billion in profits in 2006 buttresses the company against significant pain from government fines and lawsuits won by the families of employees killed in the refinery explosion and the injured survivors. The question is whether the company sees any incentive to make the changes recommended by the Baker panel. " Apparently BP continued on its merry, sloppy and unsafe way. Dave |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:
On May 17, 9:53*pm, wrote: BP has a problem with safety and this is not the first instance where they crossed the line, OK - name "they" - the specific people who you claim "crossed the line," and give the instance in which they did so. You just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. I guess you were too busy to notice that BP was party to ..." the worst industrial accident in the United States for more than a decade" way before (2005) the current BP debacle. You probably do have some acquaintance with Gulf region oil folk. But apparently your memory doesn't include the explosion at the Texas City BP refinery, the leaky BP Alaska pipelines, and the aftermath including the findings of the inquiry panel led by James Baker regarding the corporate culture of unsafe practices and their miserable safety record. Maybe those co-eds you claim to have been boffing should have taught you to do the required reading Before you put your hand up in class. Here is one short rundown on the James Baker panel per BP. "British Petroleum (BP) fired its chief executive, Lord Browne of Madingley, on Jan 13 this year. Huh? Three days later, former United States secretary of state James Baker released a report on BP’s safety record and at least one of the reasons for Lord Browne’s involuntary departure from the company was clear. It concluded that BP had a "corporate blind spot" when it came to safety. For once, an accident inquiry looked beyond human error at the operational level and targeted executive decision making. The inquiry panel led by the former secretary Baker can anticipate applause from the ergonomics community. Human factors experts regard scrutiny of the corporate culture and system as a whole as an essential part of an accident inquiry, yet investigators often don’t look higher for mistakes than individual operators. According to The Washington Post on Jan 13, the debacles that tarnished the peer’s reputation included a refinery explosion in Texas, leaky Alaska pipelines that shut down the biggest US oil field, costly delays in a big Gulf of Mexico production platform and a handful of dubious business practices. The Texas fatalities occurred on 23 March, 2005, after gas vapors ignited at BP’s southernmost US refinery and caused an explosion that ripped through employee accommodation on the site. Fifteen people died and more than 170 were injured, making it the worst industrial accident in the United States for more than a decade. Some blame Browne for trying to trim costs in assets acquired with the mergers. The Alaska pipelines hadn’t been cleaned for 14 years, and the Texas City refinery, inherited from Amoco, had a patchy safety record. Former secretary Baker and members of the panel of investigators interviewed more than 700 BP employees, from hourly refinery workers right up to Lord Browne, and conducted public meetings in the communities where the company is a big employer. Their 350-page analysis, “The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Safety Panel Review,” detailed safety failings at the company's five US refineries, from employees too scared to report accidents to an executive class that failed to implement vital safety procedures. The theme of the report is that while BP concentrated on reducing personal injuries at its facilities, it neglected measures designed to enhance the operational safety of the plants themselves. Executives failed to instill culture where this "process safety" was paramount, it said. The report noted that employees were often poorly trained in the safety procedures required to prevent major incidents, while managers were sometimes too focused on increasing production to meet profits expectations. Budget cutting was also an issue. "If a refinery is under-resourced, maintenance may be deferred, inspections and testing may fall behind, old and obsolete equipment may not be replaced, and process risks will inevitably increase," the report said. "The Panel does not believe that BP has always ensured that the resources required for strong process safety performance at its U.S. refineries were identified and provided." The company’s US $22 billion in profits in 2006 buttresses the company against significant pain from government fines and lawsuits won by the families of employees killed in the refinery explosion and the injured survivors. The question is whether the company sees any incentive to make the changes recommended by the Baker panel. " Apparently BP continued on its merry, sloppy and unsafe way. And how do you propose that the former head of the company, who left the company three years ago (not five as your CnP seems to indicate) is personally responsible for something that happened 3 years after his leaving, as a result of something about which, more than likely, no current member of "board-level" or "chief-level" management was consulted? And FWIW, his resignation merely came earlier than he had already announced it would due to age over a mostly made-up "sex scandal" that would have probably not been an issue except for his being gay. IAC, can the "oil" industry be a dangerous occupation? Absolutely. Do companies attempt to reduce costs? Of course they do, and in all industries, just as prudent individuals do, both in their "business" lives and their "personal" lives. Sometimes that attempt leads to problems, but most times, it remains in the realm of merely "prudent business." Also, keep in mind that the "boom and bust" cycles as well as the commoditization of "oil" has caused quite a bit of instability in industry that is the nearly-sole source of products that the large majority of the citizens of the world _DEMAND_. I realize and accept that a "corporate culture" can and often does "start from the top." OTOH, most of the decisions that can lead to something like this spill come from the bottom up, esp. in the oil industry. In fact, there are a number of individually wealthy people who now own (small in the scheme of things) companies and who started out as pumpers or other "low-level" workers who built their (small) fortunes on that very aspect of the industry. While I don't know for certain in this specific case, I'd say it was entirely possible that none of the "practical" decisions that led to this spill were made any higher than an engineer or superintendent-level position. And based upon personal knowledge in observing those in such positions that I know, I'd say the chances are that those involved made what they believed to be the best all-around decision. I don't like the whole culture of "let's blame someone, or better yet, a corp. and make 'em pay!!!!" nor do I believe that "companies" or "industries" are "evil." I do understand and accept that the upper management can be greedy, incompetent, etc., but the day-to-day operation of individual projects simply isn't dealt with by greedy, incompetent upper management. And I'm about finished with this - either put up or shut up - Again, please name the specific people who you charge are responsible for this spill and give the facts you allege go to prove, even if only by preponderance of the evidence rather than that beyond a reasonable doubt, that responsibility. TC, R Dave |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 18, 9:22*am, wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: On May 17, 9:53*pm, wrote: BP has a problem with safety and this is not the first instance where they crossed the line, OK - name "they" - the specific people who you claim "crossed the line," and give the instance in which they did so. You just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. I guess you were too busy to notice that BP was party to ..." the worst industrial accident in the United States for more than a decade" way before (2005) the current BP debacle. You probably do have some acquaintance with Gulf region oil folk. But apparently your memory doesn't include the explosion at the Texas City BP refinery, the leaky BP Alaska pipelines, and the aftermath including the findings of the inquiry panel led by James Baker regarding the corporate culture of unsafe practices and their miserable safety record. Maybe those co-eds you claim to have been boffing should have taught you to do the required reading Before you put your hand up in class. Here is one short rundown on the James Baker panel per BP. "British Petroleum (BP) fired its chief executive, Lord Browne of Madingley, on Jan 13 this year. Huh? Three days later, former United States secretary of state James Baker released a report on BP’s safety record and at least one of the reasons for Lord Browne’s involuntary departure from the company was clear. It concluded that BP had a "corporate blind spot" when it came to safety. For once, an accident inquiry looked beyond human error at the operational level and targeted executive decision making. The inquiry panel led by the former secretary Baker can anticipate applause from the ergonomics community. Human factors experts regard scrutiny of the corporate culture and system as a whole as an essential part of an accident inquiry, yet investigators often don’t look higher for mistakes than individual operators. According to The Washington Post on Jan 13, the debacles that tarnished the peer’s reputation included a refinery explosion in Texas, leaky Alaska pipelines that shut down the biggest US oil field, costly delays in a big Gulf of Mexico production platform and a handful of dubious business practices. The Texas fatalities occurred on 23 March, 2005, after gas vapors ignited at BP’s southernmost US refinery and caused an explosion that ripped through employee accommodation on the site. Fifteen people died and more than 170 were injured, making it the worst industrial accident in the United States for more than a decade. Some blame Browne for trying to trim costs in assets acquired with the mergers. The Alaska pipelines hadn’t been cleaned for 14 years, and the Texas City refinery, inherited from Amoco, had a patchy safety record. Former secretary Baker and members of the panel of investigators interviewed more than 700 BP employees, from hourly refinery workers right up to Lord Browne, and conducted public meetings in the communities where the company is a big employer. Their 350-page analysis, “The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Safety Panel Review,” detailed safety failings at the company's five US refineries, from employees too scared to report accidents to an executive class that failed to implement vital safety procedures. The theme of the report is that while BP concentrated on reducing personal injuries at its facilities, it neglected measures designed to enhance the operational safety of the plants themselves. Executives failed to instill culture where this "process safety" was paramount, it said. The report noted that employees were often poorly trained in the safety procedures required to prevent major incidents, while managers were sometimes too focused on increasing production to meet profits expectations. Budget cutting was also an issue. "If a refinery is under-resourced, maintenance may be deferred, inspections and testing may fall behind, old and obsolete equipment may not be replaced, and process risks will inevitably increase," the report said. "The Panel does not believe that BP has always ensured that the resources required for strong process safety performance at its U.S. refineries were identified and provided." The company’s US $22 billion in profits in 2006 buttresses the company against significant pain from government fines and lawsuits won by the families of employees killed in the refinery explosion and the injured survivors. The question is whether the company sees any incentive to make the changes recommended by the Baker panel. " Apparently BP continued on its merry, sloppy and unsafe way. And how do you propose that the former head of the company, who left the company three years ago (not five as your CnP seems to indicate) is personally responsible for something that happened 3 years after his leaving, as a result of something about which, more than likely, no current member of "board-level" or "chief-level" management was consulted? *And FWIW, his resignation merely came earlier than he had already announced it would due to age over a mostly made-up "sex scandal" that would have probably not been an issue except for his being gay. * IAC, can the "oil" industry be a dangerous occupation? *Absolutely. *Do companies attempt to reduce costs? *Of course they do, and in all industries, just as prudent individuals do, both in their "business" lives and their "personal" lives. *Sometimes that attempt leads to problems, but most times, it remains in the realm of merely "prudent business." *Also, keep in mind that the "boom and bust" cycles as well as the commoditization of "oil" has caused quite a bit of instability in industry that is the nearly-sole source of products that the large majority of the citizens of the world _DEMAND_. *I realize and accept that a "corporate culture" can and often does "start from the top." *OTOH, most of the decisions that can lead to something like this spill come from the bottom up, esp. in the oil industry. *In fact, there are a number of individually wealthy people who now own (small in the scheme of things) companies and who started out as pumpers or other "low-level" workers who built their (small) fortunes on that very aspect of the industry. * While I don't know for certain in this specific case, I'd say it was entirely possible that none of the "practical" decisions that led to this spill were made any higher than an engineer or superintendent-level position. *And based upon personal knowledge in observing those in such positions that I know, I'd say the chances are that those involved made what they believed to be the best all-around decision. *I don't like the whole culture of "let's blame someone, or better yet, a corp. and make 'em pay!!!!" nor do I believe that "companies" or "industries" are "evil." *I do understand and accept that the upper management can be greedy, incompetent, etc., but the day-to-day operation of individual projects simply isn't dealt with by greedy, incompetent upper management. And I'm about finished with this - either put up or shut up - Again, please name the specific people who you charge are responsible for this spill and give the facts you allege go to prove, even if only by preponderance of the evidence rather than that beyond a reasonable doubt, that responsibility. TC, R Dave- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Gosh. What a transformation: you have gone from being assertively clueless about what a detergent was, to citing Oxford research on dispersants (conveniently leaving out the fact that the dispersant BP spec-ed is 60% as effective and more than twice as toxic as a couple of other EPA tested and certified alternative dispersants), then I call your bull**** on BPs safety record, (Texas City disaster just slipped your bear-trap mind I guess), and now you pretend that the 350+ page Bush-era, James Baker report condemning BPs culture of safety violations and "accidents" doesn't exist, and now you decide the CEO resigned because he was "gay.".(?) Wow. Slow down Loretta, You got more excuses going than the guy who forgot to bring the beer. Parents, this is what can happen with kids who start off ducking homework cause the "dog ate it." Dave |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Tue, 18 May 2010 11:09:46 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:
On May 18, 9:22*am, wrote: On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: On May 17, 9:53*pm, wrote: BP has a problem with safety and this is not the first instance where they crossed the line, OK - name "they" - the specific people who you claim "crossed the line," and give the instance in which they did so. You just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. I guess you were too busy to notice that BP was party to ..." the worst industrial accident in the United States for more than a decade" way before (2005) the current BP debacle. You probably do have some acquaintance with Gulf region oil folk. But apparently your memory doesn't include the explosion at the Texas City BP refinery, the leaky BP Alaska pipelines, and the aftermath including the findings of the inquiry panel led by James Baker regarding the corporate culture of unsafe practices and their miserable safety record. Maybe those co-eds you claim to have been boffing should have taught you to do the required reading Before you put your hand up in class. Here is one short rundown on the James Baker panel per BP. "British Petroleum (BP) fired its chief executive, Lord Browne of Madingley, on Jan 13 this year. Huh? Three days later, former United States secretary of state James Baker released a report on BP’s safety record and at least one of the reasons for Lord Browne’s involuntary departure from the company was clear. It concluded that BP had a "corporate blind spot" when it came to safety. For once, an accident inquiry looked beyond human error at the operational level and targeted executive decision making. The inquiry panel led by the former secretary Baker can anticipate applause from the ergonomics community. Human factors experts regard scrutiny of the corporate culture and system as a whole as an essential part of an accident inquiry, yet investigators often don’t look higher for mistakes than individual operators. According to The Washington Post on Jan 13, the debacles that tarnished the peer’s reputation included a refinery explosion in Texas, leaky Alaska pipelines that shut down the biggest US oil field, costly delays in a big Gulf of Mexico production platform and a handful of dubious business practices. The Texas fatalities occurred on 23 March, 2005, after gas vapors ignited at BP’s southernmost US refinery and caused an explosion that ripped through employee accommodation on the site. Fifteen people died and more than 170 were injured, making it the worst industrial accident in the United States for more than a decade. Some blame Browne for trying to trim costs in assets acquired with the mergers. The Alaska pipelines hadn’t been cleaned for 14 years, and the Texas City refinery, inherited from Amoco, had a patchy safety record. Former secretary Baker and members of the panel of investigators interviewed more than 700 BP employees, from hourly refinery workers right up to Lord Browne, and conducted public meetings in the communities where the company is a big employer. Their 350-page analysis, “The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Safety Panel Review,” detailed safety failings at the company's five US refineries, from employees too scared to report accidents to an executive class that failed to implement vital safety procedures. The theme of the report is that while BP concentrated on reducing personal injuries at its facilities, it neglected measures designed to enhance the operational safety of the plants themselves. Executives failed to instill culture where this "process safety" was paramount, it said. The report noted that employees were often poorly trained in the safety procedures required to prevent major incidents, while managers were sometimes too focused on increasing production to meet profits expectations. Budget cutting was also an issue. "If a refinery is under-resourced, maintenance may be deferred, inspections and testing may fall behind, old and obsolete equipment may not be replaced, and process risks will inevitably increase," the report said. "The Panel does not believe that BP has always ensured that the resources required for strong process safety performance at its U.S. refineries were identified and provided." The company’s US $22 billion in profits in 2006 buttresses the company against significant pain from government fines and lawsuits won by the families of employees killed in the refinery explosion and the injured survivors. The question is whether the company sees any incentive to make the changes recommended by the Baker panel. " Apparently BP continued on its merry, sloppy and unsafe way. And how do you propose that the former head of the company, who left the company three years ago (not five as your CnP seems to indicate) is personally responsible for something that happened 3 years after his leaving, as a result of something about which, more than likely, no current member of "board-level" or "chief-level" management was consulted? *And FWIW, his resignation merely came earlier than he had already announced it would due to age over a mostly made-up "sex scandal" that would have probably not been an issue except for his being gay. * IAC, can the "oil" industry be a dangerous occupation? *Absolutely. *Do companies attempt to reduce costs? *Of course they do, and in all industries, just as prudent individuals do, both in their "business" lives and their "personal" lives. *Sometimes that attempt leads to problems, but most times, it remains in the realm of merely "prudent business." *Also, keep in mind that the "boom and bust" cycles as well as the commoditization of "oil" has caused quite a bit of instability in industry that is the nearly-sole source of products that the large majority of the citizens of the world _DEMAND_. *I realize and accept that a "corporate culture" can and often does "start from the top." *OTOH, most of the decisions that can lead to something like this spill come from the bottom up, esp. in the oil industry. *In fact, there are a number of individually wealthy people who now own (small in the scheme of things) companies and who started out as pumpers or other "low-level" workers who built their (small) fortunes on that very aspect of the industry. * While I don't know for certain in this specific case, I'd say it was entirely possible that none of the "practical" decisions that led to this spill were made any higher than an engineer or superintendent-level position. *And based upon personal knowledge in observing those in such positions that I know, I'd say the chances are that those involved made what they believed to be the best all-around decision. *I don't like the whole culture of "let's blame someone, or better yet, a corp. and make 'em pay!!!!" nor do I believe that "companies" or "industries" are "evil." *I do understand and accept that the upper management can be greedy, incompetent, etc., but the day-to-day operation of individual projects simply isn't dealt with by greedy, incompetent upper management. And I'm about finished with this - either put up or shut up - Again, please name the specific people who you charge are responsible for this spill and give the facts you allege go to prove, even if only by preponderance of the evidence rather than that beyond a reasonable doubt, that responsibility. TC, R Dave- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Gosh. What a transformation: you have gone from being assertively clueless about what a detergent was, to citing Oxford research on dispersants (conveniently leaving out the fact that the dispersant BP spec-ed is 60% as effective and more than twice as toxic as a couple of other EPA tested and certified alternative dispersants), then I call your bull**** on BPs safety record, (Texas City disaster just slipped your bear-trap mind I guess), and now you pretend that the 350+ page Bush-era, James Baker report condemning BPs culture of safety violations and "accidents" doesn't exist, and now you decide the CEO resigned because he was "gay.".(?) Wow. Slow down Loretta, You got more excuses going than the guy who forgot to bring the beer. Uh-huh...all nonsense, so I'm done. HTH, R Parents, this is what can happen with kids who start off ducking homework cause the "dog ate it." Dave |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 18, 12:29*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2010 11:09:46 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: On May 18, 9:22*am, wrote: On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: On May 17, 9:53*pm, wrote: BP has a problem with safety and this is not the first instance where they crossed the line, OK - name "they" - the specific people who you claim "crossed the line," and give the instance in which they did so. You just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. I guess you were too busy to notice that BP was party to ..." the worst industrial accident in the United States for more than a decade" way before (2005) the current BP debacle. You probably do have some acquaintance with Gulf region oil folk. But apparently your memory doesn't include the explosion at the Texas City BP refinery, the leaky BP Alaska pipelines, and the aftermath including the findings of the inquiry panel led by James Baker regarding the corporate culture of unsafe practices and their miserable safety record. Maybe those co-eds you claim to have been boffing should have taught you to do the required reading Before you put your hand up in class. Here is one short rundown on the James Baker panel per BP. "British Petroleum (BP) fired its chief executive, Lord Browne of Madingley, on Jan 13 this year. Huh? Three days later, former United States secretary of state James Baker released a report on BP’s safety record and at least one of the reasons for Lord Browne’s involuntary departure from the company was clear. It concluded that BP had a "corporate blind spot" when it came to safety. For once, an accident inquiry looked beyond human error at the operational level and targeted executive decision making. The inquiry panel led by the former secretary Baker can anticipate applause from the ergonomics community. Human factors experts regard scrutiny of the corporate culture and system as a whole as an essential part of an accident inquiry, yet investigators often don’t look higher for mistakes than individual operators. According to The Washington Post on Jan 13, the debacles that tarnished the peer’s reputation included a refinery explosion in Texas, leaky Alaska pipelines that shut down the biggest US oil field, costly delays in a big Gulf of Mexico production platform and a handful of dubious business practices. The Texas fatalities occurred on 23 March, 2005, after gas vapors ignited at BP’s southernmost US refinery and caused an explosion that ripped through employee accommodation on the site. Fifteen people died and more than 170 were injured, making it the worst industrial accident in the United States for more than a decade. Some blame Browne for trying to trim costs in assets acquired with the mergers. The Alaska pipelines hadn’t been cleaned for 14 years, and the Texas City refinery, inherited from Amoco, had a patchy safety record. Former secretary Baker and members of the panel of investigators interviewed more than 700 BP employees, from hourly refinery workers right up to Lord Browne, and conducted public meetings in the communities where the company is a big employer. Their 350-page analysis, “The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Safety Panel Review,” detailed safety failings at the company's five US refineries, from employees too scared to report accidents to an executive class that failed to implement vital safety procedures. The theme of the report is that while BP concentrated on reducing personal injuries at its facilities, it neglected measures designed to enhance the operational safety of the plants themselves. Executives failed to instill culture where this "process safety" was paramount, it said. The report noted that employees were often poorly trained in the safety procedures required to prevent major incidents, while managers were sometimes too focused on increasing production to meet profits expectations. Budget cutting was also an issue. "If a refinery is under-resourced, maintenance may be deferred, inspections and testing may fall behind, old and obsolete equipment may not be replaced, and process risks will inevitably increase," the report said. "The Panel does not believe that BP has always ensured that the resources required for strong process safety performance at its U.S. refineries were identified and provided." The company’s US $22 billion in profits in 2006 buttresses the company against significant pain from government fines and lawsuits won by the families of employees killed in the refinery explosion and the injured survivors. The question is whether the company sees any incentive to make the changes recommended by the Baker panel. " Apparently BP continued on its merry, sloppy and unsafe way. And how do you propose that the former head of the company, who left the company three years ago (not five as your CnP seems to indicate) is personally responsible for something that happened 3 years after his leaving, as a result of something about which, more than likely, no current member of "board-level" or "chief-level" management was consulted? *And FWIW, his resignation merely came earlier than he had already announced it would due to age over a mostly made-up "sex scandal" that would have probably not been an issue except for his being gay. * IAC, can the "oil" industry be a dangerous occupation? *Absolutely. *Do companies attempt to reduce costs? *Of course they do, and in all industries, just as prudent individuals do, both in their "business" lives and their "personal" lives. *Sometimes that attempt leads to problems, but most times, it remains in the realm of merely "prudent business." *Also, keep in mind that the "boom and bust" cycles as well as the commoditization of "oil" has caused quite a bit of instability in industry that is the nearly-sole source of products that the large majority of the citizens of the world _DEMAND_. *I realize and accept that a "corporate culture" can and often does "start from the top." *OTOH, most of the decisions that can lead to something like this spill come from the bottom up, esp. in the oil industry. *In fact, there are a number of individually wealthy people who now own (small in the scheme of things) companies and who started out as pumpers or other "low-level" workers who built their (small) fortunes on that very aspect of the industry. * While I don't know for certain in this specific case, I'd say it was entirely possible that none of the "practical" decisions that led to this spill were made any higher than an engineer or superintendent-level position. *And based upon personal knowledge in observing those in such positions that I know, I'd say the chances are that those involved made what they believed to be the best all-around decision. *I don't like the whole culture of "let's blame someone, or better yet, a corp. and make 'em pay!!!!" nor do I believe that "companies" or "industries" are "evil." *I do understand and accept that the upper management can be greedy, incompetent, etc., but the day-to-day operation of individual projects simply isn't dealt with by greedy, incompetent upper management. And I'm about finished with this - either put up or shut up - Again, please name the specific people who you charge are responsible for this spill and give the facts you allege go to prove, even if only by preponderance of the evidence rather than that beyond a reasonable doubt, that responsibility. TC, R Dave- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Gosh. What a transformation: you have gone from being assertively clueless about what a detergent was, to citing Oxford research on dispersants (conveniently leaving out the fact that the dispersant BP spec-ed is 60% as effective and more than twice as toxic as a couple of other EPA tested and certified alternative dispersants), then I call your bull**** on BPs safety record, (Texas City disaster just slipped your bear-trap mind I guess), and now you pretend that the 350+ page Bush-era, James Baker report condemning BPs culture of safety violations and "accidents" doesn't exist, and now you decide the CEO resigned because he was "gay.".(?) Wow. Slow down Loretta, You got more excuses going than the guy who forgot to bring the beer. Uh-huh...all nonsense, so I'm done. HTH, R Parents, this is what can happen with kids who start off ducking homework cause the "dog ate it." Dave- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Already? I thought maybe you would at least try the "special source gambit" again, or maybe deny the existence of Jim Baker's 350 page report on BPs renegade safety non-culture, or blame it all on "operator error" of the dead guys, or maybe try to explain away BPs foot dragging on releasing video so that real scientists could estimate the real extent of the spill, or maybe come up with some other classic wee wee-ing into the wind about what is sure looking like a BFD of a greedy screw up by the America-hating Gucci crowd. Hey, there is still time to blame it on the Black guy. Dave |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
What part of "I'm done" is confusing for you?
HTH, R |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
|
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Tue, 18 May 2010 17:36:05 -0600, rw wrote:
On 5/18/10 5:11 PM, wrote: What part of "I'm done" is confusing for you? HTH, R I thought you were "done." What aspect of "done" eludes you? Well, mainly, it's the silent "F" and the short "you"...er, "U" HTH, R |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 18, 5:55*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2010 17:36:05 -0600, rw wrote: On 5/18/10 5:11 PM, wrote: What part of "I'm done" is confusing for you? HTH, R I thought you were "done." What aspect of "done" eludes you? Well, mainly, it's the silent "F" and the short "you"...er, "U" HTH, R Well lets see where we are at: Item: RD and "dispersants" per the insider skinny. Current Reality: EPA has just ordered BP to stop their use of an ineffective and highly toxic dispersant. The EPA order and its tone speaks for itself. BP has been accused in the past of using ineffective and highly toxic dispersants produced in a sweetheart deal by a company controlled by other BP execs. Of course they denied that and, low and behold the ownership was transferred to a shadowy French/ Swiss corp and ownership became very difficult if not untraceable, as if by magic. Item: RD and the "no damage' gibberish. Current Reality: Just look at the pix. Nuff said. Item: RD and . . . . James Baker, Mr. Republican/Corp Lawyer himself, chaired the panel that found BP a safety scoff-law after the BP refinery at Texas City blew up, killing 15 Americans. This is a renegade company with no respect for the lives of our countrymen or our environment. IMHO It is time for them to leave our country. Dave |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On 5/21/10 4:28 PM, DaveS wrote:
On May 18, 5:55 pm, wrote: On Tue, 18 May 2010 17:36:05 -0600, wrote: On 5/18/10 5:11 PM, wrote: What part of "I'm done" is confusing for you? HTH, R I thought you were "done." What aspect of "done" eludes you? Well, mainly, it's the silent "F" and the short "you"...er, "U" HTH, R Well lets see where we are at: Item: RD and "dispersants" per the insider skinny. Current Reality: EPA has just ordered BP to stop their use of an ineffective and highly toxic dispersant. The EPA order and its tone speaks for itself. BP has been accused in the past of using ineffective and highly toxic dispersants produced in a sweetheart deal by a company controlled by other BP execs. Of course they denied that and, low and behold the ownership was transferred to a shadowy French/ Swiss corp and ownership became very difficult if not untraceable, as if by magic. Item: RD and the "no damage' gibberish. Current Reality: Just look at the pix. Nuff said. Item: RD and . . . . James Baker, Mr. Republican/Corp Lawyer himself, chaired the panel that found BP a safety scoff-law after the BP refinery at Texas City blew up, killing 15 Americans. This is a renegade company with no respect for the lives of our countrymen or our environment. IMHO It is time for them to leave our country. Dave Rdean is so full of **** that if you gave him an enema he could be buried in a matchbox. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:28:00 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:
If "I'm done" is still confusing for you, you might get Stevie to explain it. Besides being the Naomi Campbell of innertube modeling, the Rolando Negrin of, um, bone-fishing, and the Brian Keith of all-around almost man-like studididity, he went to Wolfgang's Kollege of Grammatical Nowledge and Bottle Brush Supply and he knows all about that ****... HTH, R |
Whisky/Whiskey trivia question
On May 21, 5:08*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:28:00 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote: If "I'm done" is still confusing for you, you might get Stevie to explain it. Besides being the Naomi Campbell of innertube modeling, the Rolando Negrin of, um, bone-fishing, and the Brian Keith of all-around almost man-like studididity, he went to Wolfgang's Kollege of Grammatical Nowledge and Bottle Brush Supply and he knows all about that ****... HTH, R Dear Predictable, Well I don't imagine you would want to repeat your earlier screed on the beneficial effects of crude oil on the marine environment and the Magical Detergents and/or Dispersants in use by BP, or how there is just no other way to do oil except unsafe and sloppy. Not after the direction things have taken regards the BP screw-up. So of course you are done. Only thing left for you is to blame it on the Black guy. And you will, but that's still to come. Dave |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter