Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Again same nonsense that everyone was told about the gulf spill, Alaska pipeline, etc...have you visited the gulf lately? Have you talked to the people living there? Misinformation and gilded reporting in the further promotion of preconceived agendas paints a picture that fails to resemble the truth. I guess thats what extremists do best, spew BS.
OK, asshole, instead of lying flap-yap, here is the reality;
EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL: Ten Years Later
STATE OF THE SOUND
Toxic effects linger.
To the naked eye, Prince William Sound may appear normal. But if you look beneath the surface, oil continues to contaminate beaches, national parks, and designated wilderness. In fact, the Office of Technology Assessment estimated beach cleanup and oil skinning only recovered 3-4% of the Exxon Valdez oil and studies by government scientists estimated that only 14% of the oil was removed during cleanup operations.[15]
A decade later, the ecosystem still suffers. Substantial contamination of mussel beds persists and this remarkably unweathered oil is a continuing source of toxic hydrocarbons.[16] Sea otters, river otters, Barrows goldeneyes, and harlequin ducks have showed evidence of continued hydrocarbon exposure in the past few years.[17]
The depressed population of Pacific herring a critical source of food for over 40 predators including seabirds, harbor seals and Steller sea lions is having severe impacts up the food chain. Wildlife population declines continue for harbor seal, killer whales, harlequin ducks, common loon, pigeon guillemot, and pelagic, red-faced cormorant, and double-crested cormorants.
Exxon-funded scientists have repeatedly dismissed evidence of on-going effects to wildlife from the massive 1989 oil spill by claiming that oil seeps contribute a bigger background source of hydrocarbons in bottom sediments in Prince William Sound.[18] Yet, they dismiss coal as a possible source due to ignoring location of known deposits and other factors about its fingerprint. A new study by the National Marine Fisheries Service concluded that the source is coal, and that coal hydrocarbons are not chemically available to impact wildlife.[19]
Oil is more toxic than thought.
Even before the spill, scientists knew that a drop of oil could kill a birds egg. But after studying the impact of the Valdez spill, they now believe oil pollution is at least 100 times more toxic to fish than previously known. It is also more persistent.
In Katmai National Park wilderness, oil remained along the rocky coast with only slight weathering compared to freshly spilled oil after more than 5 years. Chemically, it was like 11-day old Exxon Valdez crude, with high concentrations of toxic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).[20] In the past, it was presumed that wave action would have rapidly removed oil in such areas. Future releases of toxic oil can still affect wildlife.
New studies by the National Marine Fisheries Service show that even very low levels of weathered Exxon Valdez oil (0.5 to 1 part per billion PAHs) are toxic at the early life stages of salmon and herring.[21] This data on toxicity to salmon eggs shows that current Alaska water quality standards allow hydrocarbon levels that can impair reproduction.
Exxon Valdez spill resulted in profound physiological effects to fish and wildlife. These included reproductive failure, genetic damage, curved spines, lowered growth and body weights, altered feeding habits, reduced egg volume, liver damage, eye tumors, and debilitating brain lesions.
bullshit...
I've been fishing at Valdez since the oil spill and the fishing is great and it's back to it's beautiful self...as for all the scary stuff they say could happen, that can happen with anything spilled into water
If those 4-10 times current density batteries hit the market=oil very dead.
If those 4-10 times current density batteries hit the market=oil very dead.
Awesome! More coal burning power plants.
If those 4-10 times current density batteries hit the market=oil very dead.
Awesome! More coal burning power plants.
We could build a thermal plant over Yellowstone and not build a single coal plant.
If those 4-10 times current density batteries hit the market=oil very dead.
Awesome! More coal burning power plants.
We could build a thermal plant over Yellowstone and not build a single coal plant.
If those 4-10 times current density batteries hit the market=oil very dead.
Awesome! More coal burning power plants.
We could build a thermal plant over Yellowstone and not build a single coal plant.
Awesome! More coal burning power plants.
We could build a thermal plant over Yellowstone and not build a single coal plant.
I'm sure people would take issue with placing a power plant in the middle of a premier National Park... Even libtards.
Bottom line:
to liberals mankind is a pollutant and should be purged from the face of mother earth.
Bottom line:
to liberals mankind is a pollutant and should be purged from the face of mother earth.
More propaganda from the left so they can line Warren Buffet's pockets.
Plants and tree can be replanted. We aren't Canada. We can supervise.
If something is spilled, it get's cleaned up. If i spill milk on the kitchen floor, I don't whine and moan about how evil the dairy industry is. I get to work, clean up the spill and continue living my life.
We are supposed to let people die from lack of heat and food because we cannot produce enough gas when we have all the technology to avoid mistakes and/or clean up the ones that are made? That doesnt make sense to me.
'Every Plant And Tree Died': Huge Alberta Pipeline Spill Raises Safety Questions As Keystone Decision Looms | ThinkProgress
As the Obama administrations decision regarding whether to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline draws nearer, the latest disaster is raising serious concerns about the safety of Canadas rapidly expanding pipeline network.
A massive toxic waste spill from an oil and gas operation in northern Alberta is being called one of the largest recent environmental disasters in North America. First reported on June 1, the Texas-based Apache Corp. didnt reveal the size of the spill until June 12, which is said to cover more than 1,000 acres.
Members of the Dene Tha First Nation tribe are outraged that it took several days before they were informed that 9.5 million liters of salt and heavy-metal-laced wastewater had leaked onto wetlands they use for hunting and trapping.
Every plant and tree died in the area touched by the spill, said James Ahnassay, chief of the Dene Tha.
As the Globe and Mail reports, the Apache disaster is not an anomaly:
The leak follows a pair of other major spills in the region, including 800,000 litres of an oil-water mixture from Pace Oil and Gas Ltd., and nearly 3.5 million litres of oil from a pipeline run by Plains Midstream Canada.
After those accidents, the Dene Tha had asked the Energy Resources Conservation Board, Albertas energy regulator, to require installation of pressure and volume monitors, as well as emergency shutoff devices, on aging oil and gas infrastructure. The Apache spill has renewed calls for change.
A recent Global News investigation found that over the past 37 years, Albertas extensive network of pipelines has experienced 28,666 crude oil spills in total, plus another 31,453 spills of a variety of other liquids used in oil and gas production from salt water to liquid petroleum. That averages out to two crude oil spills a day, every day.
The incident comes on the heels of accusations from the provincial New Democratic Party that Alberta Energy Minister Ken Hughes is withholding the results of an internal pipeline safety report pending the U.S. governments decision regarding Keystone XL. The report was commissioned last summer by Alberta Energy following a series of toxic spills including the Plains Midstream Canada spill that leached 475,000 liters of oil into the Red Deer River, a major source of drinking water for central Alberta.
Marinade on that for a sec...
That's awful!
Less than 2 square miles.
We must immediately shut down our energy intensive economies, just to be safe.
That's awful!
Less than 2 square miles.
We must immediately shut down our energy intensive economies, just to be safe.
I'm sorry I forgot it only matter at 2.1 square miles and above. Since you obviously cant bring a good argument your sill sarcasm is not a point. Additionally, if you believe that oil stops affecting an area that its actually on, you're an idiot
Just like you spilling paint in your yard is 'bad'.... just as a tractor trailer turning over and leaking is 'bad', though that would spill more 'oil' than was spilled here...
This is a winger site making a mountain out of a molehill yet again.. because of their winger agenda.... and you spout it off because of your similar winger agenda
So it is bad? But not that bad and the trees are exaggerating?
How many trees are we talking about here? Fer chissakes... How many trees burned in wildfires last week. As with the cycle of life, the trees will return.
That's awful!
Less than 2 square miles.
We must immediately shut down our energy intensive economies, just to be safe.
I'm sorry I forgot it only matter at 2.1 square miles and above. Since you obviously cant bring a good argument your sill sarcasm is not a point. Additionally, if you believe that oil stops affecting an area that its actually on, you're an idiot
Bottom line:
to liberals mankind is a pollutant and should be purged from the face of mother earth.
yep...
That's awful!
Less than 2 square miles.
We must immediately shut down our energy intensive economies, just to be safe.
I'm sorry I forgot it only matter at 2.1 square miles and above. Since you obviously cant bring a good argument your sill sarcasm is not a point. Additionally, if you believe that oil stops affecting an area that its actually on, you're an idiot
What's your solution to this unimaginably huge disaster?
Put me in my place with your massive intellect!
I'm sorry I forgot it only matter at 2.1 square miles and above. Since you obviously cant bring a good argument your sill sarcasm is not a point. Additionally, if you believe that oil stops affecting an area that its actually on, you're an idiot
What's your solution to this unimaginably huge disaster?
Put me in my place with your massive intellect!
It's not a huge disaster skippy. Everyone knows that once oil goes less than 2 miles it's negative effects on plant and wildlife is nullified by the oil God Tarmaculus
