Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scientist finds Gulf bottom still oily, dead

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-11 05:48 PM
Original message
Scientist finds Gulf bottom still oily, dead
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_OIL_SPILL_LINGERS
Feb 19, 3:47 PM EST

Scientist finds Gulf bottom still oily, dead

3:52 p.m. Saturday, February 19, 2011

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A University of Georgia scientist has gone public with video and slides showing how oil from the BP spill remains stuck on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. The images demonstrate that the oil isn't degrading as hoped and has decimated life on parts of the sea floor.

At a science conference in Washington, Samantha Joye aired early results of her December submarine dives around the BP spill site. She went to places she had visited in the summer and expected the oil and residue from oil-munching microbes would be gone by then. It wasn't.

She also showed pictures of oil-choked bottom-dwelling critters.

At the same meeting Saturday, federal officials announced the start of the gulf restoration planning process that BP will pay for.


http://www.marsci.uga.edu/FacultyPages/Joye/research/cold_seeps.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-11 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Science has a liberal bias. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-11 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. (Just like reality)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-11 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Naw, Science couldn't be reality...
...That would mean we'd have to follow it in order to survive...

Oh, crap...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-11 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. Not a lot of news coverage on this. Gee, I guess it's no big deal
Edited on Sat Feb-19-11 08:52 PM by HCE SuiGeneris
:grr:

The fucking fourth estate is not only remiss, it has swung over to become our enemy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-11 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. Not decimated, annihilated.
Decimated reduces by 1/10th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Decimation is closer
While the original meaning of decimation involved a tenth, today’s usage is not as precise:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimated
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/decimated
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decimate#Usage_notes

Usage notes

The definition reduce by one in ten is occasionally cited as "the correct" definition, with severely reduce considered a "misconception," reading decimate as to reduce to one-tenth rather than by one-tenth.

The Cambridge Guide to English Usage states that the nonspecific use of this word to mean devastate or severely reduce the numbers of is ‘nowadays the commonest use of the word in both British and American English, and it’s registered without comment in modern dictionaries.’ It also advises against using numbers with the term, as ‘They are redundant where it means “reduce by one tenth,” and where it doesn't they confound the arithmetic.’

The http://sara.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/saraWeb?qy=decimate">23 occurrences of decimate in the British National Corpus — compare decimates, decimated, and decimating — almost all clearly accord with the nonspecific sense. The only references to the historical sense are two complaints about modern usage and its critics. Neither of these actually uses the term to mean "reduce by one-tenth".

;-)


Annihilation, on the other hand, is the complete destruction. (nihil — nothing.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I wonder how they would have stated
reduced TO one-tenth, instead of reducing BY 1/10th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-11 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
6. Wow, you mean the oil didn't just magically go away?
What a shocker!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-11 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. Live @ AAAS - Samantha Joye on BP Oilspill Impact (Transcript)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 16th 2024, 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC