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.