That’s the headline that should have been published with Seth Bornstein’s June 21 article on the actual volume of oil being
released into the Gulf by BP. A beer cup of arsenic does not seem like a lot when compared to the Superbowl it was sold in, but that amount would kill hundreds of people. Volume is not the issue, it is he kind of substance that is causing the contamination that is the problem. Anyone with an IQ of 50 understands that. “Science” writer indeed!!

Since you are talking about the oil spill by the numbers tell me, what are your calculations on the damages to the eco-system? What of the damages to our health and that of our children?

Are not human and animals dependent on a food chain, that is dependent on fish, seaweed, coral or algae? A dependence that goes from the birds that flies to the bottom feeders in the ocean.

Have you figured out the impact to many human and marine lives that are affected or will be affected by the tar and oil? Will you eat any of the seafood that comes from these waters? Will you fish in our waters or let your children swim in these waters and play on the beach?

What about the livelihood of people living on the coastline? Just the prospect of oil possibly washing onto the beaches will keep the tourist away which will have a domino effect on local employment and the economy near and far.

Is our health not dependent on the health of the food we eat? Who is to say that the fish you are eating has not eaten a tar ball or ingested any oil?

What about the nesting, migration and breeding of birds and fishes?

What is the lasting affect on the food chain and for how many years will this affect plague us?

How can Tony Haywood or anyone else call this disaster, “relatively tiny”? As in your article dated “Monday, June 21, 2010 5:50 AM EDT.”

Who does he think he is, telling us that our pollution is making the world a worse place to live?

If that is the message that Borenstein wants to convey to his readers, then he needs to man up and say it.

Don’t frighten them with bogus science death scenarios masquerading as truth with the AP’s stamp of approval. Of course, if “pollution = bad” was all that is in play here, then we both agree.

But, it’s not. The real equation is “let Seth define pollution = lethal = give me your money.”

Nice try at sarc, bet you’re a big hit at the HuffPo.

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment.

Idiots like Seth Borenstein are just playing out the awful role of the “science” writer who is just raising “awareness” to “serious global problems” that, if unfixed, will either “destroy the world” or “make it a shittier place to live.” Who does he think he is, telling us that our pollution is making the world a worse place to live? Unacceptable.

his latest article states that there is snow in all 49 states and the holdout is hawaii.

in fact, hawaii has had record snowfall in its 14,000 feet high plus or minus mountains this year.

for someone who claims to be a global climate science editor , he is not very bright.

aloha and howdy,

dr james aubrey
dallas

In fact, that’s also my opinion. See? It’s not so hard to label things as opinion–especially since I’m writing at a site that does opinion/commentary.

Wonder if we’ll see any of that from ol’ Seth?

And, it’s not the “calling of people by their first names that’s the problem, but I strongly suspect you know that. It’s the easy familiarity. That’s my opinion too, Scribe

How about investigating a matter of which you’re a part of? Then helping render judgment? Boy, think anyone would have reached a different conclusion with ol’ Seth’s article if contradictory sources had been used? Wonder if another conclusion by the reader would have been reached if Seth had mentioned that one email that we know about? Better hope there’s no more leaks…

Hahaha….you’d make a fine AP science reporter.

We’ll leave it at that, Scribe.

Thanks for another go-around.