"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 5/4/2010 3:15 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 5/3/2010 11:05 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 5/3/2010 9:18 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
...
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:
Han wrote:
One good thing may be that in the armer Gulf more of the sticky
and
toxic components will evaporate before getting into the
ecosystems.
(I can hope, can't I?).

Nahh, when the volatiles evaporate, that's when the sticky stuff
gets
_real_ sticky. And if you've lived in that area you'll have
experienced slowly sinking into a paved road if you stand still too
long.

As a child I spent time on the Dutch North Sea beaches. Dad carried
a
bottle of turpentine or some such so we could was the tar of our
feet
before going home. Those tarballs were probably from fuel oil from
the
ships going by, but were annoying nevertheless. Never thought about
them
as particularly toxic when they were tar balls. Really liquid oil,
like
what floated on the Rhine were we swam, that was something else ...

The hotels in Santa Barbara have tar remover along with the shampoo
and
soap.

However the oil in Santa Barbara is from a purely natural source.


So is the oil in the Gulf.

The oil in Santa Barbara was there before humans, it is not the result
of drilling or industry or any other activity of humans.



As is the oil in the Gulf. Both sources have been drilled.

Check again. Santa Barbara has a natural oil seep.


The Gulf probably has some. In both cases, the oil is Natural. In the case
of the current Gulf blowout, the amount of oil is likely a drop in the
bucket when compared to natural leakage.