Re: BP paying for silence

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by OldGringo38, May 23, 2010.

  1. OldGringo38

    OldGringo38 Guest

    On 5/22/2010 5:25 PM Just to please that super-ego, §nühw¤£f wrote the
    following tidbit of information:
    > Looks like BP is buying off people to keep quiet about the effects of the Gulf Oil Disaster...
    >
    > "One of the biggest hurdles to covering the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was actually getting a good look at the oil. For somewhat
    > murky reasons (health, safety of fragile habitats), press has been repeatedly forbidden to enter impacted areas by the Coast Guard, BP,
    > or the Fish& Wildlife Service. I was on the ground in the Gulf, and trying to get the story from one of the fishermen contracted to work
    > with BP was like asking them if they'd like a root canal on the spot. Word is that cleanup workers are told if they talk to press, they're fired.
    >
    > http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy...you-wont-see-the-worst-of-the-gulf-oil-spill/
    >
    >

    Lets go hydrogen. Piss on BP, and all the rest of the Oil mongers.

    --
    OldGringo38
    Just West Of Nowhere
    Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
    http://www.NuBoy-Industries.Com
     
    OldGringo38, May 23, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. OldGringo38

    chuckcar Guest

    OldGringo38 <> wrote in
    news:ht9pb1$s19$-september.org:

    > On 5/22/2010 5:25 PM Just to please that super-ego, §nühw¤£f wrote the
    > following tidbit of information:
    >> Looks like BP is buying off people to keep quiet about the effects of
    >> the Gulf Oil Disaster...
    >>
    >> "One of the biggest hurdles to covering the BP oil spill in the Gulf
    >> of Mexico was actually getting a good look at the oil. For somewhat
    >> murky reasons (health, safety of fragile habitats), press has been
    >> repeatedly forbidden to enter impacted areas by the Coast Guard, BP,
    >> or the Fish& Wildlife Service. I was on the ground in the Gulf, and
    >> trying to get the story from one of the fishermen contracted to work
    >> with BP was like asking them if they'd like a root canal on the spot.
    >> Word is that cleanup workers are told if they talk to press, they're
    >> fired.
    >>
    >> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/05/22/5-reasons-you-wont-see-
    >> the-worst-of-the-gulf-oil-spill/
    >>
    >>

    > Lets go hydrogen. Piss on BP, and all the rest of the Oil mongers.
    >

    Where are you going to get it all and Who's going to pay for converting
    all the vehicles on the road? I seriously like the idea - *if* it still
    involves an internal combustion engine only - but we simply don't have
    the infrstructure to switch right now.


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, May 23, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. OldGringo38

    Meat Plow Guest

    On Sun, 23 May 2010 01:33:14 +0000, chuckcar wrote:

    > Where are you going to get it all and Who's going to pay for converting
    > all the vehicles on the road? I seriously like the idea - *if* it still
    > involves an internal combustion engine only


    It never did involve an internal combustion engine. At least not in a
    fuel cell version.
     
    Meat Plow, May 23, 2010
    #3
  4. OldGringo38

    chuckcar Guest

    "§nühw¤£f" <> wrote in
    news:Xns9D8159915368snuhwolfyahoocom@216.196.97.142:

    > chuckcar <> clouded the waters of pure thought with
    > news:Xns9D80DAE3F1B50chuck@127.0.0.1:
    >


    >>> Lets go hydrogen. Piss on BP, and all the rest of the Oil
    >>> mongers.
    >>>

    >> Where are you going to get it all and Who's going to pay for
    >> converting all the vehicles on the road? I seriously like the idea
    >> - *if* it still involves an internal combustion engine only - but
    >> we simply don't have the infrstructure to switch right now.

    >
    > Its currently a zero sum game too. Splitting seawater to make
    > hydrogen takes more energy than it produces.
    >

    And Gasoline is quite likely the same. Certainly celery is the worst loser
    in such energy conversions: it delivers something like 1/20th of what it
    costs to produce and deliver. They mean nothing. What's important is a)
    the polution generated by such and b) the maintenance costs of the energy
    production method used to convert it. Solar is non-poluting (*if* you ignore
    the toxic materials used in production of the cells themselves) bu high
    maintenance. Nuclear is extremely high return, but requires extremely highly
    skilled labour to maintain properly. Hydro is high return, but limited
    geographically and affects salmon populations and can affect other ecologies
    in unknown ways. There are such negatives in *all* forms of energy production.

    However, this looks encouraging:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production

    If you ignore the fact that copper is toxic as well and now you're
    adding it to water and will have to retrieve it somehow.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, May 23, 2010
    #4
  5. chuckcar <http://tinyurl.com/2bout62>:

    > "Idiot-tard":
    >
    >> chuckcar <>:

    >
    >>>> Lets go hydrogen. Piss on BP, and all the rest of the Oil
    >>>> mongers.
    >>>>
    >>> Where are you going to get it all and Who's going to pay for
    >>> converting all the vehicles on the road? I seriously like the idea
    >>> - *if* it still involves an internal combustion engine only - but
    >>> we simply don't have the infrstructure to switch right now.

    >>
    >> Its currently a zero sum game too. Splitting seawater to make
    >> hydrogen takes more energy than it produces.
    >>

    > And Gasoline is quite likely the same. Certainly celery is the worst
    > loser in such energy conversions: it delivers something like 1/20th of
    > what it costs to produce and deliver. They mean nothing. What's
    > important is a) the polution generated by such and b) the maintenance
    > costs of the energy production method used to convert it. Solar is
    > non-poluting (*if* you ignore the toxic materials used in production of
    > the cells themselves) bu high maintenance. Nuclear is extremely high
    > return, but requires extremely highly skilled labour to maintain
    > properly. Hydro is high return, but limited geographically and affects
    > salmon populations and can affect other ecologies in unknown ways. There
    > are such negatives in *all* forms of energy production.
    >
    > However, this looks encouraging:
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production
    >
    > If you ignore the fact that copper is toxic as well and now you're
    > adding it to water and will have to retrieve it somehow.



    Back in the late 1800's our forefathers and foremothers used
    whale oil as the primary source of energy. I do not know if
    they used it for sex-lube as well; and except for Hawaii, there
    was no need for surf-board-waxes... The Hubbel telescope still
    uses whale oil today - little known fact, but true enough.
    It is, however, one of the great mysteries of our time as to
    exactly *how* NASA gets the whales way up there to donate their
    oils, but that is probably a matter of great national security.

    I'm not saying to start the whaling again; that could be inhumane!

    But since the population of our planet has increased so exponentially
    since those early whale-oil times, and fat people take up so much
    more room as well as consume disproportianate amounts of resources...
    every country should donate its fat people to an energy conversion
    facility; thereby, efficiently solving two of planet Earth's most
    pressing problems at once. Lean, green and clean... Yep, that's the
    ticket. And no more worries about where you're going to be sitting
    on airliners anymore. "Happy days are here again." And people are
    motivated to eat right and get exercise. It's a win-win-win-win-win!

    HTH.

    --

    I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^; and I'm not talking to the aliens
    because Stephen Hawking said it's not such a good idea :

    http://tinyurl.com/2g76h4c [http://www.timesonline.co.uk]

    http://tinyurl.com/396ljz4 [for those who need illustrations]

    Repent! The end is near.... So, smoke 'em if you got 'em.
     
    Bucky Breeder, May 25, 2010
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alex
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    7,300
  2. Sparks
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,747
    Neil Stratford
    Jul 12, 2005
  3. Martin

    Silence detection

    Martin, Feb 3, 2006, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    729
    Darren J Longhorn
    Feb 4, 2006
  4. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    450
    DVD Verdict
    Nov 26, 2003
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    998
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page