Celtic_soulja

Will they have it cleaned up before Alex comes along?

Yes. I'm bloated and cramping and irritated.

Seriously DB Tom, if you have all this immense knowledge of everything as you continously state you do. Then it is you we should be blaming for all this. Right? Damn you DB Tom, where were you on this oil spill man? WTH? And since you've got ALL the answers, what will happen if a hurricane shoots through the gulf over the next month. That's something I've been thinking about the past few days. Does ANYONE know what would happen if a hurricane hit the oil spill in the gulf? I’ve been poking around to see what I can come up with. Some people are saying it could cause crude oil/seawater emulsion. Could catch fire with lightening and cause a flaming hurricane leaving an oily emulsion coating over everything in its path. Which is complete bs. This is water and crude oil emulsion. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/6084611-5...tent=a714012024 if the conditions are not controlled, emulsion becomes unstable. Emulsion would be impossible because the oil seawater mix would be 98% to 2%, well above below the amount of oil concentration you would need. You would also need propellers to agitate the mix, when you are using just movement and force like a hurricane you can get reverse emulsion that is quite disgusting. You would have a better chance of emulsion with a tropical storm because it agitates much more shallow and therefore that would increase the oil concentration in the mixture. Again without agitators it would be reverse emulsion if anything and this forms like an oily sticky rubbery booger crap at the top, it is still lighter than water and would be easily blown in the wind all over God’s creation during a tropical storm. Again I think this is highly unlikely because of the amount of water to oil. So I couldn’t really see this happening thank God. They are saying it is dumping at a rate of 200,000 gallons per day. It could take as long as 3 months before they intercept the leaking well with their release well. That’s ridiculous and if they crimp it, they risk worse per day numbers than 200,000 gallons. Either way if you leak at the current rate for three months you’re talking 20 million gallons until the leak is taken care of. 20 million gallons spreading over the Gulf of Mexico, adding a hurricane that displaces 100m deep of surface water. Bigger hurricanes can spread sea spray miles inland. How far it spreads the sea spray, or in our case oil and seawater, depends on the size, speed, and strength of the hurricane. Considering the time frame that they are giving to stop the leak (3-4 months), and the time of year. Hurricane season in the Gulf starts in June. It is not all that far fetched. Over water spills are bad enough, but if they get a storm that carries the oil from the surface of the Gulf and splays it all across miles of land they are in real trouble. Not to mention the ground water table in Florida is as shallow as four feet in some areas. This oil could be tracked all over the place in a relatively short amount of time. Containment, if it is even possible, would be the worst nightmare in oil spill history. Not because of the amount but because the area. Also, oil is lighter than sea water and therefore if the average hurricane can spray seawater several miles inland, how much further could is spray oil? It would be a real disaster if the oil is still highly flammable, as the west coast of Florida records the most lightening strikes in the entire world annually. Again I don’t believe the concentration is strong enough and most of the gasses that make crude volatile evaporate after 48 hours. However, I do believe there is a very outside chance at something like this happening. This is not only a catastrophe, but also could not have happened in a worse area at a worse time of year. This could be a lot worse and I am praying that they get it plugged up correctly and quickly. I hope they can contain it and clean it up before something dreadful happens. If a good amount of this oil makes it inland via storms, the impact could be truly devastating. Those are the things I could see happening if they don’t fix things in a hurry.

1.21 gigawatts GREAT SCOTT. Dude, if you say I got it all wrong. Then its YOUR responsibility to explain it mr. Wall Street physicist. So you are also a rocket scientist, real estate mogul, goldman sachs liason, your brother in law is a bilderberg right? Have you travelled to the moon as well? Let me guess, you're sitting on a perpetual motion cold fussion time machine that will be able to clean up oil spills, stop hurricanes, and destroy immigrants and the working class that cause the blight in inner cities? I never claimed to be a physicist, so I don't mind if I got some of my post wrong. The ONLY point I was trying to prove is that there IS room to improve on current science. Since you are such a friggen scientist, you would have already known that and oh, yeah, would have been much less ignorant in saying that you cannot make Nuclear reactor engineering more efficient. As if we have not done so over the years ALREADY. You Are A Douche

http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/target/wal...s_target01.html it's called looking around at prices. Not exaclty voodoo economics genius

I get it, I just disagree.

anyone got any midol?

How would explaining it in terms a physicist can understand benefit this forum? Most of us would not understand it. I know you wouldn't understand it. Are you just being a schmoe? Well here goes. I will do my best. Okay, in nuclear reactor physics you are forming a critical/subcritical fission process. Neutrons split a nucleus creating causing fission. The "fuel" that the neutron is trying to cause fission with was once Plutonium, now it is Uranium. Which is MORE EFFICIENT because you can chemically reproduce the energy source after usage much more easily. The most common absorber of energy from fission is graphite, but graphite actually reflects some of the energy back to the core during the process. MAYBE ADVANCES IN WHAT IS USED FOR ABSORBING THE ENERGY could help retain more and leave less to go to waste. They also use neutron moderators, water or heavy water or zirconium hydride. That absorb some of the energy as well. There is an optimal level of neutron moderators right now, but maybe if there are better moderators to be had they would absorb less while still having the control powers of current moderators. There have already been advances, and considering we have not really put a great emphasis on it over the past decade or so, there could be many more advances in the times ahead. Considering most of the nation views nuclear power very skeptically, and the field is underfunded IMO, many of the greatest minds go work for Sachs instead of advancing our society through nuclear physics we have such an evil view on nuclear weapons, but we can actually use the leftover unabsorbed nuclear waste in nuclear bombs, I'm just saying. IMO, DC Tom, there are so many variables that leave plenty of room for advances to make the process safer and more efficient. More energy being absorbed, less going to waste, more being used without chemical reprocessing, more efficient use of waste on and on and on and on. Science is not settled and it will ALWAYS continue to build on itself. And the Ethanol thing is not as bad as you or Magox is saying, but it isn't a great solution to the energy problem either IMO. If you want me to sit here and defend a solution that I have already admitted. IS NOT A SOLUTION. Then you're just being a shmoe. What do you have against Biodiesel? Are you and Magox still googling it to find out what's wrong with it. You've had plenty of time to find the flaws in Biodiesel. Oh here is a breakdown of how Plutonium works, how inefficient that was compared to Uranium. http://wwwndc.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/cgi-bin/...ern/U234.intern

Everything turned out fine no? Stop being a drama queen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3AlFe8l4OE and there is a good picture of you Oligarchic government anyone? anyone? hehehehe

you could be on to something there

That's why I did it Jim. I'm sorry I do find it annoying when people miss the point because they are busy correcting the grammar and spelling mistakes. Seriously I was just doing it to show how annoying it is. That wasn't my point. I was not saying it makes it okay, I said it speaks volumes about how bad it is in Mexico that people would risk death to get here. I do not understand what you are asking. Why would they not go to Canada, because I am whining about the law? I don't follow. I don't even think the mexican immigrants know I'm whining about the laws. At any rate, I believe they come here because it's closer. I could be wrong. Why don't Cubans paddle to iceland? It's most likely because it's closer, but also that we advertise freedom and opportunity. I think we should give the statue of liberty back to France.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...sBmmQ&pos=8

I can't stand that guy either. Every time I hear him talk I want to punch him.

I'm not going to defend Ethanol. All I said is the transition for the tanks, piping etc. is not as bad as some other alternatives. I have already stated NUMEROUS times that I think it is impractical. Of course not everyone on this board can read. I do not think a food based fuel is the right way to go. I've said it, and said it, and said it. Because you could not argue my stance on biodiesel, you, like them, are trying to liberal media me. Now Nuclear research I will defend. A fingertip sized bead has as much power production as a barrel of crude. If we can put more money and time into research I think there is a VERY lucrative future in it. Don't listen to DC Tom, I never said that we are going to redefine the laws of physics. He just doesn't believe that Galileo built on Newton and Einstien built on Galileo. He believes that Einstien always existed, or that Newton still exists, or that they really just got together and wrote the bible of science and nothing new can be discovered. E-mc2 is the end all for Nuclear science. We are done. Evolved. Finished. I think a bit differently.

It would be "Just do it within the parameters of the law" not "do it in the law". and I have nothing against immigrates either. I would have to know what an immigrate is first though to really make up my mind. The laws are obviously unfair. Fighting to enforce these ridiculous laws do nothing but destroy human life on both sides. It sucks up money that shouldn't have to be spent. If an immigrANT is willing to risk his life crossing the border, that should tell you something about where they are coming from. That is number one. Number two, how do you expect an immigrANT to pay 1,000 dollars when they are coming here BECAUSE THEY ARE BROKE. Oh, I understand, it is just another way to "keep out" the poor. Would not want to have to share YOUR pie with such worthless people now would you. The agony. My political "clout" is in a small friggen town. I never said I was Celtic the future President of the United States. I will do what I can in MY town, but there is not much I can do in Redneck central. Something tells me I wouldn't appeal to those folks. I'm not intolerant enough and I'm not ignorant enough to appeal to that bunch. I'd have my picture with a hitler mustache in no time, trying to speak to those folks. That being because they do not know the difference between Facist Nazism, Communism, or Socialism.

Yeah, you know us undocumented workers, have to stay on the move. Ignoramus

Dude you are truly a reject with nothing better to do than say "nosa". You are so cool. Thank you so much for noticing my "discovering" the period. I will let you know when I notice you started using your brain.

Hand. Did you mean had? Learn to spell you dolt. You are so stupid you probably couldn't even run a lemonade stand. Oh, you probably write the signs for the Tea Party. Oh, let me define hand for you so you can successfully use it in your next post. Oh, do you need help with the proper usage of the word had?

If Ethanol is such a bad idea, (which economically it is IMO) maybe you guys should talk to your lovers at Goldman Sachs, I heard they are down with the Ethanol game. It has created like a quarter million jobs. Displaced 1.9 billion of imported barrels of crude oil. Added 228 billion to the GDP. Has added about 33.7 billion for federal tax revenue and 17 billion to local tax revenues. After costs the government has only made 3 billion, but how many industries that are government controlled are actually running in the green, no pun intended. I still think you can only take it so far, but I'm just saying it isn't nearly as terrible as you two are trying to say. "I encourage you to look at all of the contributors playing a role in rising food costs. Making ethanol the scapegoat oversimplifies the issue and it derails a product that is good for our economy, our environment and helps to lessen our demand for foreign oil. " Bob Stallman, a rice and cattle producer from Columbus, Texas, and president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. This was distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. Yeah, but I am sure Magox is much more in tune with the farming business than the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Just like DC is much more of an expert on what I say than I am. Issss Laughable man...HAH HAH...

I used to think you had some intelligence. Did I NOT say that Ethanol is NOT YET PRACTICAL? I thought I did, ah who am I kidding. You always know what I am saying better than I do. So if we scale it up "like I want", which is how large? I am sure if you read my post you can make up how big I wanted to scale up to. And yeah, I completely said that we should learn new laws of physics to eliminate nuclear waste. In no way did I say put more money into RESEARCH to make it more efficient. Have you been drinking? Okay, lets try this. Are you saying that we are no more efficient than we were say thirty years ago? Have thier not been scientific advances in science? Or am I imagining all of this. Oh, no what you are saying is that we have advanced all we are going to advance. I see. I see. We've always known the completely immense power of the theory of relativity, and we cannot build upon it any further. Science never builds on itself to move forward. People never advance studies. Have another one buddy. I never thought you would give me the opportunity to say this and mean it. You are being a MORON

I am not saying ignore the problem of undocumented workers. I am saying if it didn't cost 1,000 bucks and a literacy test. THERE WOULND'T BE A PROBLEM. After the security laws passed our immigrants couldn't afford or were not able to pass the literacy tests, and more than half of our immigrant population began coming illegally. Thus the costs of human life ON BOTH SIDES could EASILY be avoided. Not to mention the costs in money we pour into stopping workers from coming here that is actually good for the economy and not bad.

I got my statistics from a site that is put together for fallen officers across the nation. It's designed by the departments and a nonprofit organization. I was comparing Illinios because it is NOT a border state. You guys were all dancing around the fire singing "kill the mexicans" because of a drug crime that HAPPENED to be a Mexican drug dealer. I was pointing out that in OTHER states officers get slaughtered at a much higher rate, and that if Mexicans are all drug dealers like many of these people on here are trying to feed me, wouldn't cops get shot much more often in border states? It's either that or THE TWO ARE NOT CONNECTED SO TRYING TO CONNECT THEM IS RACIST PROPAGANDA

Another thing I would definitely do is dump major funding into Nuclear research. As it stands now after usable power from Nuclear we leave more than 90% waste. There has to be major advances in Nuclear power. I believe that the ridiculous amounts of energy created can be more efficiently harnessed and put a MAJOR dent in how much power we have to get from coal mines and overseas. We just kinda gave up on Nuclear power because of the waste.