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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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