If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Why this year's Gulf dead zone is twice as big as last year's   (motherjones.com) divider line 64
    More: Interesting, gulf, Gulf dead zone, Mississippi Delta, water body, severe storm, U.S. Geological Survey  
•       •       •

8051 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Aug 2013 at 8:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-15 08:15:29 AM  
Global warming!

/amidoingitright?
 
2013-08-15 08:15:40 AM  
FTA: Why such massive annual dead zones? It's a matter of geography and concentration and intensification of fertilizer-dependent agriculture.

Are you farking kidding me? Is this sponsored by BP?
 
2013-08-15 08:16:34 AM  
Must not be that interesting
 
2013-08-15 08:16:43 AM  
I left a dead zone near my desk yesterday after eating at Taco Bell for lunch.
 
2013-08-15 08:21:47 AM  
Your mom?
 
2013-08-15 08:24:28 AM  
Lana.

Lana.

Lana.

Laaaanaaaaaa.

What?!

Dead zone.
 
2013-08-15 08:26:24 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Why such massive annual dead zones? It's a matter of geography and concentration and intensification of fertilizer-dependent agriculture.

Are you farking kidding me? Is this sponsored by BP?


No, this is scientifically accurate.  The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.  Crude oil has some organisms capable of metabolizing it.

This environmental damage essentially represents the side effects of 90% of US farming.  That's a lot of shiat.  Dissolved oxygen is a big deal, and it is the single biggest concern of your local waste-water treatment plant too.

//and double last year wouldn't make sense with an underlying cause of deepwater horizon.
 
2013-08-15 08:27:20 AM  
This could help.
 
2013-08-15 08:29:03 AM  

ikanreed: No, this is scientifically accurate. The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.


Those are just the only ones visible to us which they couldn't deny. The oil didn't just disappear because they sunk it. It's still down there, on the bottom. How do you think all the microorganisms and plants on the bottom are doing? You know, the ones which put oxygen into the water and stop places from becoming dead zones.
 
2013-08-15 08:30:31 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: ikanreed: No, this is scientifically accurate. The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.

Those are just the only ones visible to us which they couldn't deny. The oil didn't just disappear because they sunk it. It's still down there, on the bottom. How do you think all the microorganisms and plants on the bottom are doing? You know, the ones which put oxygen into the water and stop places from becoming dead zones.


Oils don't sink.  Come on, basic chemistry here.
 
2013-08-15 08:31:42 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: ikanreed: No, this is scientifically accurate. The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.

Those are just the only ones visible to us which they couldn't deny. The oil didn't just disappear because they sunk it. It's still down there, on the bottom. How do you think all the microorganisms and plants on the bottom are doing? You know, the ones which put oxygen into the water and stop places from becoming dead zones.


Also, christ, phytoplankton that produce O2 are mostly found in the first 10 meters of water.  Basic biology too, duder.
 
2013-08-15 08:32:15 AM  
The Iowa River?

[checks article, sees maps]

Yup.
 
2013-08-15 08:32:39 AM  

ikanreed: Oils don't sink. Come on, basic chemistry here.


This your first time hearing about the oil spill, or are you being intentionally dense?

There was this thing called Corexit which they used to sink all the oil so people like you would think it disappeared.
 
2013-08-15 08:35:01 AM  

ikanreed: J. Frank Parnell: ikanreed: No, this is scientifically accurate. The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.

Those are just the only ones visible to us which they couldn't deny. The oil didn't just disappear because they sunk it. It's still down there, on the bottom. How do you think all the microorganisms and plants on the bottom are doing? You know, the ones which put oxygen into the water and stop places from becoming dead zones.

Oils don't sink.  Come on, basic chemistry here.


Ahem:

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/submerged-oil-pollu ti on-western-gulf-mexico-restoration-coming-after-2005-dbl-152-oil-sp

That said, ya, BP is probably not responsible for the dead zone, or at least not all of it; that's been around for years before their latest blow-out, iirc.
 
2013-08-15 08:38:16 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Why such massive annual dead zones? It's a matter of geography and concentration and intensification of fertilizer-dependent agriculture.

Are you farking kidding me? Is this sponsored by BP?


The Deepwater Horizon spill was so bad, it created Gulf Dead Zone decades before it happened?

Sounds like the work of Obama's time machine. GULFDEADZONEGATE!
 
2013-08-15 08:40:29 AM  

ikanreed: Also, christ, phytoplankton that produce O2 are mostly found in the first 10 meters of water. Basic biology too, duder.


Explain to me why an oil spill isn't also a threat to phytoplankton.
 
2013-08-15 08:44:18 AM  
I'm going to guess it has something to do with a substance that comes out of the ground
 
2013-08-15 08:47:59 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: ikanreed: Also, christ, phytoplankton that produce O2 are mostly found in the first 10 meters of water. Basic biology too, duder.

Explain to me why an oil spill isn't also a threat to phytoplankton.


Explain to me how oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico caused algae-bloom dead zones in Lake Erie in the 1960s and 1970s?
 
2013-08-15 08:50:55 AM  

BMFPitt: J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Why such massive annual dead zones? It's a matter of geography and concentration and intensification of fertilizer-dependent agriculture.

Are you farking kidding me? Is this sponsored by BP?

The Deepwater Horizon spill was so bad, it created Gulf Dead Zone decades before it happened?

Sounds like the work of Obama's time machine. GULFDEADZONEGATE!


Beat me to it.

Oh well, just for fun:

THE OIL SPILL.... IT'S TRAVELING... THROUGH TIME!

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-15 08:52:02 AM  
Actually, i've decided i have better things to do today than deal with this crap.

I leave you with this and this. And bid you good day, sir.
 
2013-08-15 08:52:17 AM  
Yes, yes, there is a lot of death but what will survive and what will become of it. What we need is a real solution.

/#9
 
2013-08-15 08:55:30 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Actually, i've decided i have better things to do today than deal with this crap.

I leave you with this and this. And bid you good day, sir.


Durr, crude oils are a fundamental building block of life, and thus aren't particularly toxic.  Dispersants dissolve fundamental building blocks of life.  I wonder what effect that could have.

//Oil spills are still really terrible.
 
2013-08-15 09:02:52 AM  

ikanreed: Durr, crude oils are a fundamental building block of life, and thus aren't particularly toxic. Dispersants dissolve fundamental building blocks of life. I wonder what effect that could have.


Not sure if trolling, or actually that dumb.

9/10 if trolling, 'cause I'd totally accept that as a genuine, ignorant opinion. Needs a bit more of an edge, though. "Durr" was a nice touch but maybe throw in a hint of conspiracy theory?
=Smidge=
 
2013-08-15 09:03:09 AM  
Aaand, this.

ikanreed: Durr, crude oils are a fundamental building block of life, and thus aren't particularly toxic.


Sad that i can't even tell if you're being serious. Oil is very toxic.
 
2013-08-15 09:17:51 AM  
I think you're looking only at the negative side of all this. I like the fact that when I fry Gulf shrimp it comes with its own oil.

consciouslifenews.com
 
2013-08-15 09:30:06 AM  
This must be a plot by the vast right-wing conspiracy (who controls the MSM)

The messiah promised us change.
www.upl.co
I guess feeling up children in airports and snooping on everyone's phones and internet traffic became a higher priority. Because... terrorism.
 
2013-08-15 09:30:50 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Actually, i've decided i have better things to do today than deal with this crap.

I leave you with this and this. And bid you good day, sir.


Translation:

"I didn't read the article and now I look silly.  EJECT!  EJECT!  EJECT!"
 
2013-08-15 09:43:39 AM  

It's all about drainage.

bplusmovieblog.files.wordpress.com

DRAAAINAGE!!!
 
2013-08-15 09:46:32 AM  
TL;DR:

Because last year's was abnormally low, that's why.
 
2013-08-15 09:55:52 AM  
Replace that toxic corn culture with say, hemp, and watch what happens.
Two ironic thoughts.
Indians gave us corn and casinos.
 
2013-08-15 09:56:07 AM  
While the Deepwater Horizon certainly didn't help it, the phenomenon has been tied to use of artificial fertilizers for a good long time now. It's a byproduct of the very thing that allows big-city liberals to use condescending terms like "fly-over country," which translates to, "the part of the country that keeps us from having to resort to cannibalism, in our quest for fresh food." Without large-scale agriculture, growth of urban areas would have been curtailed by the logistical limitations of shipping fresh food into them. Of course, this fresh food would have been severely limited in quantity, were it not for modern agricultural advances, including artificial fertilizers. On top of this, we denizens of "fly-over country"would have made sure we got ours first, as the economics of shipping dictates.
 
2013-08-15 10:01:10 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Aaand, this.

ikanreed: Durr, crude oils are a fundamental building block of life, and thus aren't particularly toxic.

Sad that i can't even tell if you're being serious. Oil is very toxic.


Crude oil isn't very toxic.  Refined oil is hella toxic.  Check EPA toxicity reports.
 
2013-08-15 10:02:47 AM  

HAMMERTOE: It's a byproduct of the very thing that allows big-city liberals to use condescending terms like "fly-over country," which translates to, "the part of the country that keeps us from having to resort to cannibalism, in our quest for fresh food."


With the increase in urban farming, utilization of rooftops, and a general cooling effect this have you may want to rethink your statement.

Just saying
 
2013-08-15 10:07:54 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: ikanreed: No, this is scientifically accurate. The BP spill caused some wildlife harm, but it tended to mostly be the much hire organisms on the food chain like birds.

Those are just the only ones visible to us which they couldn't deny. The oil didn't just disappear because they sunk it. It's still down there, on the bottom. How do you think all the microorganisms and plants on the bottom are doing? You know, the ones which put oxygen into the water and stop places from becoming dead zones.


Do yourself a favor and RTFA and you won't sound ignorant. This was going on long before the BP spill. And it's also happening in the Chesepeake and Lake Erie.
 
2013-08-15 10:09:00 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Actually, i've decided i have better things to do today than deal with this crap.

I leave you with this and this. And bid you good day, sir.


Or you could just leave, I guess.
 
2013-08-15 10:10:02 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: HAMMERTOE: It's a byproduct of the very thing that allows big-city liberals to use condescending terms like "fly-over country," which translates to, "the part of the country that keeps us from having to resort to cannibalism, in our quest for fresh food."

With the increase in urban farming, utilization of rooftops, and a general cooling effect this have you may want to rethink your statement.

Just saying


Assumption of facts not in evidence
 
2013-08-15 10:14:51 AM  
 
2013-08-15 10:21:53 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Why such massive annual dead zones? It's a matter of geography and concentration and intensification of fertilizer-dependent agriculture.

Are you farking kidding me? Is this sponsored by BP?


BP makes fertilizer now?  This is an algae problem created by high K levels in the water.  The algae bloom causes extremely low oxygen levels, too low for fish to survive.
 
2013-08-15 10:25:35 AM  
Hello Mother Jones.  A few questions for you.

Agriculture only amounts to half the runoff.  Care to mention human sewage and lawn care for the Chesapeake(mentioned for the Mississippi)?  (Seriously, even though we do have water, unlike crazier states, you think they could get in a dig at US lawn culture).
You included a handy map of Maryland (and PA/DE) chicken farming.  Care to include a map of MD population as well?  Care to guess which has a higher correlation?
What crops are you suggesting farmers grow instead of soybeans and corn (especially in the midwest)?  (This is a real question, but I'm guessing that it wasn't included because even hippies don't want to eat it, and Mother Jones readers don't want to read about mass farmed livestock feed).
 
2013-08-15 10:26:12 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: neversubmit: Assumption of facts not in evidence

Yes, nothing like what I described exists what so ever


reading comprehension fail
 
2013-08-15 10:27:29 AM  

neversubmit: reading comprehension fail


Apparently
 
2013-08-15 10:30:57 AM  

snocone: Replace that toxic corn culture with say, hemp, and watch what happens.


Food prices will rise and people will starve?

Corn is a calorie crop; hemp isn't. You'd get the same effect by replacing corn with cotton.

\Hell, corn is basically the premier calorie crop. It's the dominant foodstuff on three continents. It's why it's so wildly popular. It's also easier on the environment than rice, alfalfa, sorghum, etc.
 
2013-08-15 10:34:29 AM  

yet_another_wumpus: What crops are you suggesting farmers grow instead of soybeans and corn (especially in the midwest)?


And why are we advocating soil-intensive foreign species, versus corn or beans -- which are native to the Americas.
 
2013-08-15 10:39:21 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: HAMMERTOE: It's a byproduct of the very thing that allows big-city liberals to use condescending terms like "fly-over country," which translates to, "the part of the country that keeps us from having to resort to cannibalism, in our quest for fresh food."

With the increase in urban farming, utilization of rooftops, and a general cooling effect this have you may want to rethink your statement.

Just saying


Y-you really think a city can grow enough on urban farms to be self-sustaining.

Protip: You can't.

You will always need "flyover country."

We are with you forever.

Deal with it.
 
2013-08-15 10:57:16 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Actually, i've decided i have better things to do today than deal with this crap.

I leave you with this and this. And bid you good day, sir.


BP did their bit
They fired the boss
That'll fix things...
 
2013-08-15 10:58:12 AM  

Elegy: IdBeCrazyIf: HAMMERTOE: It's a byproduct of the very thing that allows big-city liberals to use condescending terms like "fly-over country," which translates to, "the part of the country that keeps us from having to resort to cannibalism, in our quest for fresh food."

With the increase in urban farming, utilization of rooftops, and a general cooling effect this have you may want to rethink your statement.

Just saying

Y-you really think a city can grow enough on urban farms to be self-sustaining.

Protip: You can't.

You will always need "flyover country."

We are with you forever.

Deal with it.


Well, in a strictly science-fiction perspective, hydroponics and some sort of cheap unlimited energy like fusion could yield incredibly controlled high density agricultural production.  In near terms that's, as you said, basically impossible.
 
2013-08-15 10:58:55 AM  

This text is now purple: yet_another_wumpus: What crops are you suggesting farmers grow instead of soybeans and corn (especially in the midwest)?

And why are we advocating soil-intensive foreign species, versus corn or beans -- which are native to the Americas.


"Corn" of today has little or nuttin to do with "native species".
Same with "wheat".
 
2013-08-15 11:00:09 AM  

sbchamp: J. Frank Parnell: Actually, i've decided i have better things to do today than deal with this crap.

I leave you with this and this. And bid you good day, sir.

BP did their bit
They fired the boss
That'll fix things...


No you know where that little pink cheeked yachting cherub is today?
 
2013-08-15 11:07:49 AM  

snocone: "Corn" of today has little or nuttin to do with "native species".


Maize is two gene substitutions away from its native small bushy plant form. It still freely hybridizes with it.
 
2013-08-15 11:14:50 AM  
Too many people pissing in the pool.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report