On Dec 2, 3:25 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 12:29 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

And here we have it folks. A classic case of the alarmist
extremist. Note there is no definition of what constitutes a
"toxic
spill". Today, when there is a vehicle accident on the highway
and
gas or diesel fuel is released, it's considered a toxic spill.
But is it a big deal and environmental disaster? Of course
not.
Depending on the location, it might be an immediate threat to
public health.
I will not give you the obvious examples because your reason for
being in
this discussion is to disagree.
The point is that environmental fear mongering alarmists like to
use
words likie "toxic spill" to scare people. A spill from a simple
car
accident of fuel or antifreeze isn't what most people would think
of
when they hear toxic spill, yet today it qualifies and clean up
crews
are routinely dispatched and the incident logged.
Do you think they should NOT be dispatched?
For the most part, yes, I think that as well--it's massive
overreaction.

Train car of benzene, sure -- car wreck w/ a hole punched in the
radiator...ummhhh, not so much...
Great! We have a chemist in the discussion. Why is it illegal to
dump these things into a hole in the ground?
That's controlling a deliberate act rather than results of a minor
accident.

Think "deeper". Why is it illegal?

Separate question: Tanker filled with diesel fuel - what do YOU
think should be done if there's an accident and the whole load spills
onto a highway?
Offload as much as possible, and pick up what can be, of course.
Full-body HAZMAT suits and the whole deal they've turned it into as a
welfare program for the emergency response lobby--leave it home or
send it back as soon as determine what it was. If it's in a rural
area, easiest solution of the residual would typically be to simply
burn it off, controlling the perimeter.

Pick it up of course? You said that.
No, what I wrote was "what can be"...

Why should it be picked up?
Well, it has some value if nothing else if it has pooled somewhere such
that it can be.

The entire load has spilled. There's a teaspoon left in the tanker.
Sh^htuff happens. Not often that _all_ is lost, however, before
somebody can get there to offload the remainder. Often, if it's an
actual traffic accident that caused it, the solution is already in place
as previously mentioned.

It's not reasonable action I question, it's the practice of carrying
those to extremes that spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars
for no useful effect on insignificant problems that I wonder about...

--

You're still missing something here. Think harder, if possible.

You're after a different agenda; I'm not playing (of course, I knew that
from the git-go, I do recall the CCA/ACQ thread(s) and your general
paranoia)...

Paranoia? No.

Do you believe petroleum products belong in your drinking water? I'll bet
you do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Obviously DPB and I agree. You need some sense of balance. When
most people hear the words "toxic spill" they think of tens of
thousands of gallons of something really dangerous, like dixon or
nitric acid, or Love Canal, not a car accident with 15 gallons of
gasoline or some antifreeze. And please show us where that ever
constituted an imminent theat to public health.

The obvious point here is envrionmentalist extremists like to site
numbers like "400 toxic waste spills in Alaska as a reason to ban any
drilling for oil. Many of those 400 incidents could be as simple as
an auto accident releasing 15 gallons of gasoline or some antifreeze
on a highway, which are considered a toxic spill here today. Or it
could be spilling a mere 50 gallons of oil from a barrel. And no,
neither I nor anyone else here suggested those shouldn't be cleaned
up. Only that incidents like this get added to the list of "toxic
spills" and then distorted all out of porpotion compared to the real
environmental impact. If you compare those environmental risk to any
reasonable standard, like 50,000 Americans die in auto accidents every
year, you come to the conclusion that the risk/reward ratio favors
drilling.

I showed you 2 incidents that were part of reported superfund sites.
When people think of superfund sites, they think of Love Canal. One
Prudhoe Bay incident involved a spill of crude covering a whopping 375
sq ft. The other was I think maybe 50 barrels of a light oil
emission that covered 50 acres. Big Fning deal. Both are easily
handled, yet they get included as toxic spills and included as part of
a "super fund site". And then they are used by extremists to justify
not drilling in millions of acres of ANWR that has significant, and
possibly huge oil deposits. In a time when we are overly dependent on
foreign oil and running a trade deficit, what logic is there in
that?

And to those that don't want to drill in ANWR, what exactly is your
solution? Are you in favor of more nukes? More coal? How may
miners die mining coal compared to those working on oil rigs?
Putting windmills offshore NJ or Cape Cod? Drilling off the eastern
coast or elsewhere in the US.

Or should the growing world population move into caves? Instead of
telling us what you don't like and tell us what is your solution for a
growing world population?