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