PDA

View Full Version : Oil Rigs an Enviormental Miracle


Nativeshark
10/15/2014, 08:53 AM
Should more oil rigs be built as a way of generating revenue and create areas which organisms live and reproduce? Seems like a win-win-win-win situation. Everyone wins.

Oil platforms provide important habitats for fish

Oil platforms off the Southern California coast are some of the world’s most productive marine fish habitats, a new study has found.
The research could inform decisions to be made about the inevitable decommissioning of the world’s roughly 7,500 oil and gas platforms. Rather than completely removing them, underwater portions could be left intact to provide habitat for increasingly threatened fish populations on natural reefs.

Marine biologists at Occidental College, UC Santa Barbara and the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management estimated rates of production for the entire community of fish associated with oil platforms, comparing them to previous research that made similar measurements in highly productive estuary, coastal lagoon and coral reef ecosystems.

They found that the platforms tended to produce about 10 times more fish biomass — chiefly various species of rockfish and lingcod — than other more conventional marine habitats studied in the Pacific and North Atlantic oceans, Mediterranean and North seas, the Gulf of Mexico and along the coasts of South Africa and Australia.

When compared to the fish production on natural rocky reefs at similar depths off the Southern California coast, the platforms, on average, produced more than 27 times as much fish, according to the study.

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=6544

Alexraptor
10/15/2014, 10:44 AM
Yeah, aside from the little fact that Fossil Fuels are polluting and damaging the planet, and I don't mean Global Warming.
Not to mention the massive destruction and harm potential oil leaks can cause the environment, which is a matter of not if, but when, and even has already happened.

So no, everybody definitely does not win.

Nativeshark
10/15/2014, 11:16 AM
Yeah, aside from the little fact that Fossil Fuels are polluting and damaging the planet, and I don't mean Global Warming.
Not to mention the massive destruction and harm potential oil leaks can cause the environment, which is a matter of not if, but when, and even has already happened.

So no, everybody definitely does not win.

By damaging the environment do you mean run hospitals in order to save the lives of children, fly humanitarian aid to the sick people in Africa, run water purification plants to help reduce deaths from the #1 killer in the world diarrhea. Without energy many children will die. Do you want the children to die?


Maybe you mean close down oil platforms in California and just buy oil from ISIL. I heard they are stocked with it.


Maybe you should reduce your use of fossil fuels in order to save the environment. Some ways you can reduce your fossil fuel usage is not flush the toilet when you urinate (if its yellow let it mellow, if its brown flush it down), close down your fish tank and stop using the computer for non essentials such as talking about fish online.

Coelli
10/15/2014, 11:23 AM
I'm sure the folks in the Gulf of Mexico don't feel like they got a winning deal.

By damaging the environment do you mean run hospitals in order to save the lives of children, fly humanitarian aid to the sick people in Africa, run water purification plants to help reduce deaths from the #1 killer in the world diarrhea. Without energy many children will die. Do you want the children to die?

Red herring. Your post was specifically about the environmental impacts, not about how oil companies are really great humanitarians in disguise. :)

I think it's a great idea to leave them out there once they're decommissioned if they're helping in the long term. I don't think building more oil platforms under the premise that they're helping the environment is really an argument that holds water (har har).

Dmorty217
10/15/2014, 11:47 AM
I worked the BP oil spill and let me tell you you could put in 10,000 oil rigs as "habitats for sea life" as you put it, but it won't reverse the fact that sea life is still suffering from that spill and it never will fully be back to normal. Now decommissioned oil rigs left in the ocean make great habitats for sea life until a storm breaks them loose and they float away. For the record I Don't care about sick people in Africa. Everyone acts like ANYTHING that happens in the world is Americas problem and that couldn't be further from the truth.

lboud39
10/15/2014, 12:03 PM
I worked the BP oil spill and let me tell you you could put in 10,000 oil rigs as "habitats for sea life" as you put it, but it won't reverse the fact that sea life is still suffering from that spill and it never will fully be back to normal. Now decommissioned oil rigs left in the ocean make great habitats for sea life until a storm breaks them loose and they float away. For the record I Don't care about sick people in Africa. Everyone acts like ANYTHING that happens in the world is Americas problem and that couldn't be further from the truth.

Not too many rigs float. The ones that do don't support as mush life as the ones that have metal structures attached to the bottom. These have greater vertical habitat and can be left in place or cut below the waterline and toppled over to prevent navigation hazards.

http://www.bsee.gov/Exploration-and-Production/Decomissioning/Rigs-to-Reefs/

Jpugh73
10/15/2014, 12:08 PM
++++1 amen that brother!

Grandlotus
10/15/2014, 12:12 PM
Yeah, aside from the little fact that Fossil Fuels are polluting and damaging the planet, and I don't mean Global Warming.
Not to mention the massive destruction and harm potential oil leaks can cause the environment, which is a matter of not if, but when, and even has already happened.

So no, everybody definitely does not win.

Carbon Dioxide is what plants breath and what we exhail...so your saying we pollute simply by exhaling?

:lolspin:

Dmorty217
10/15/2014, 12:35 PM
Not too many rigs float. The ones that do don't support as mush life as the ones that have metal structures attached to the bottom. These have greater vertical habitat and can be left in place or cut below the waterline and toppled over to prevent navigation hazards.

http://www.bsee.gov/Exploration-and-Production/Decomissioning/Rigs-to-Reefs/

Most rigs that are being put in the ocean now are floating deep water rigs because there isn't anymore oil to get in shallow waters since we have been using up that oil for decades now... But your point isn't lost

Timfish
10/15/2014, 02:44 PM
. . . For the record I Don't care about sick people in Africa. . .

May I suggest you look at the news. We're all connected whether we like it or not and problems that may seem to be strictly a local or regional issue often turn into something more when not dealt with early.

Grandlotus
10/15/2014, 05:20 PM
We are only 'all connected' because the president refuses to close flights into and out of Lybia and halt the issue on southern boarder from allowing illegals spewing over the boarder.
Also, why did the president send 3000 troops right into the center of Ebola country?

Lots the country can do but for some reason the elites and 1%ers don't care about me and you.

billsreef
10/15/2014, 05:48 PM
No politics allowed on RC ;)

Alexraptor
10/15/2014, 07:30 PM
Carbon Dioxide is what plants breath and what we exhail...so your saying we pollute simply by exhaling?

:lolspin:

Personally I can't ever recall exhaling nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. :rolleye1:

Grandlotus
10/15/2014, 08:29 PM
Personally I can't ever recall exhaling nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. :rolleye1:

Fossil fuels release 'carbon'. Aka: carbon dioxicide.

What are you referring to?

We had the coldest summer on record and the second worse winter here last year in Philly.

Grandlotus
10/15/2014, 08:32 PM
No politics allowed on RC ;)

Whoops.
Did not know what I said was politics, just basic topics of the day. My statements were not bias.

ichthyogeek
10/15/2014, 11:24 PM
[QUOTE]Carbon Dioxide is what plants breath and what we exhail...so your saying we pollute simply by exhaling?/QUOTE]

The carbon dioxide being produced from the combustion of fossil fuels like oil and coal come from dead producers that died a very long time ago. Like, dinosaur age long time ago. Oil is made from dead photosynthetic marine organisms. That carbon was locked away. We don't pollute by exhaling because we are not releasing carbon that was locked away thousands of years ago. It is the same principal as using algal biofuel as opposed to oil. The algal biofuel we burn is from carbon locked within the same time period. The oil we burn is from carbon locked from a different time period.

billsreef
10/16/2014, 06:21 AM
Personally I can't ever recall exhaling nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. :rolleye1:

Fossil fuels release 'carbon'. Aka: carbon dioxicide.

What are you referring to?

It's not just mass quantities of CO2 released (which is a problem in such quantity), but also those pollutants mentioned by Alex that are also released with the burning of petroleum products. Think extra nitrogen loading in your tank and adding acids to your tank (nitrous and sulfuric) without adding any buffer.

We had the coldest summer on record and the second worse winter here last year in Philly.Some areas also had hotter than normal for both seasons. West Coast has been having an incredible prolonged drought. Also the polar vortex escaping the polar region and giving you that unusually cold winter happened to be an effect of "global warming". Yes, it seems counter intuitive, but it has to do with a change in global temperature gradients which normally would keep such a thing more restricted. Arctic winters are actually getting shorter, ice coverage greatly reduced and thinner.

alton
10/16/2014, 07:03 AM
Personally I don't like floating oil rigs, If you can secure it to the floor of the ocean with four legs than I am good. I would think the earth has been getting warmer since the ice age? I look as it like a large block of ice, at first it barely melts but as the block of ice gets smaller it melts faster. And unless you stick it back into the freezer it will melt away. With the increase of 98 degree heaters running around the earth what are we to do? I really do not want to see another ice age.

Grandlotus
10/16/2014, 07:25 AM
billsreef,

I look at bigger issues than slight changes in the make up of our air, like:

Pole Shifting : North and South Poles have been moving a lot over these last 10 years
Burn Temperature of the Sun: The sun does not burn at a constant rate and has hot and cold periods
Milankovitch cycles: Our earth, much like the poles and sun are not constant and our earth moves farther and closer to the sun on thousand year cycles.

Just do a quickie search on these topics and give yourself five minutes to learn some 'non-human' problems...
Like how did the Ice Age (Snowball Earth) warm up when there was no humans?

Nativeshark
10/16/2014, 07:43 AM
Some areas also had hotter than normal for both seasons. West Coast has been having an incredible prolonged drought. Also the polar vortex escaping the polar region and giving you that unusually cold winter happened to be an effect of "global warming". Yes, it seems counter intuitive, but it has to do with a change in global temperature gradients which normally would keep such a thing more restricted. Arctic winters are actually getting shorter, ice coverage greatly reduced and thinner.

The drought in California is due to the redirecting of canals and irrigation systems. California had an expansive irrigation system which filled lakes and was used by farmers. A species of smelt was declared endangered so all these canals and irrigation systems were directed back into the ocean.

The whole idea of a polar vortex has been around for over 100 years. When they do occur it will get cold for a couple of days not a whole year. Polar vortexes occur on other planets not only earth.

The world is constantly changing. As more time goes on the more changes are going to happen. Unless you don't believe in plate tectonics.

hhxjAAnwNKM

Dmorty217
10/16/2014, 08:02 AM
May I suggest you look at the news. We're all connected whether we like it or not and problems that may seem to be strictly a local or regional issue often turn into something more when not dealt with early.

I'm well aware of what's going on in Africa and now the United States because of no plan of action. It's the aid workers that are spreading Ebola around the world and no one else. So you see we as Americans are trying to help while only making the problem worse and bringing it to our shores

lboud39
10/16/2014, 11:07 AM
Most rigs that are being put in the ocean now are floating deep water rigs because there isn't anymore oil to get in shallow waters since we have been using up that oil for decades now... But your point isn't lost

Your correct that the newer rigs are semi-submersible. But the thousands of structures that are already in place and attached to the bottom are the ones that provide the most habitat and are being removed the fastest.

http://savetheblue.silverleafcms.com/live-video/

Not sure if the cameras are still up, cant access the site at the moment.

atreis
10/16/2014, 04:58 PM
I'm well aware of what's going on in Africa and now the United States because of no plan of action. It's the aid workers that are spreading Ebola around the world and no one else. So you see we as Americans are trying to help while only making the problem worse and bringing it to our shores

Thomas Duncan (the person that brought Ebola to Texas) wasn't an aid worker. His was on a business trip for his employer.

billsreef
10/16/2014, 06:57 PM
billsreef,

I look at bigger issues than slight changes in the make up of our air, like:

Pole Shifting : North and South Poles have been moving a lot over these last 10 years
Burn Temperature of the Sun: The sun does not burn at a constant rate and has hot and cold periods
Milankovitch cycles: Our earth, much like the poles and sun are not constant and our earth moves farther and closer to the sun on thousand year cycles.

Just do a quickie search on these topics and give yourself five minutes to learn some 'non-human' problems...
Like how did the Ice Age (Snowball Earth) warm up when there was no humans?

I am well of all the "non human" natural factors in climate fluctuation. By themselves they are insufficient to explain the current rates of global warming and ocean acidification that we are seeing. What you are referring to as "slight" changes to the make up of our air are indeed having significant impacts.

The drought in California is due to the redirecting of canals and irrigation systems.

Redirecting canals and such is distribution problem. Drought is a major lack of rainfall, something not influenced by canals.

The whole idea of a polar vortex has been around for over 100 years. When they do occur it will get cold for a couple of days not a whole year. Polar vortexes occur on other planets not only earth.

Never said the vortex was anything new. It was the unusual dip so far south and it's "staying" power. Here's some good reading from the Weather Underground on the subject.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2665

Nativeshark
10/16/2014, 07:36 PM
Redirecting canals and such is distribution problem. Drought is a major lack of rainfall, something not influenced by canals.




Sorry I assumed you were using drought like the media is using it. If you want to use the technical term for drought.


Some areas also had hotter than normal for both seasons. West Coast has been having an incredible prolonged drought.

This is wrong there is no prolonged drought. You gave into the misinformed media. The shortage of freshwater is due to the closing and redirecting of canals not lack of rainfall. Northern California is having record rainfall . Mt. Hood had record snowfall this year.




Never said the vortex was anything new. It was the unusual dip so far south and it's "staying" power. Here's some good reading from the Weather Underground on the subject.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2665

Lets not forget plate tectonics.

billsreef
10/16/2014, 07:59 PM
This isn't from the media. Much of CA has been under drought, in the technical sense.

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

As for plate tectonics, the comparison would be if we were to start dropping explosives along the San Andreas fault line.

Dmorty217
10/16/2014, 08:16 PM
Thomas Duncan (the person that brought Ebola to Texas) wasn't an aid worker. His was on a business trip for his employer.

I think your missing the point... If you go to a Ebola infected region you SHOULD NOT be allowed back. Now we have it speading around our country because of lack of Saftey measures and turning our heads the other way. He is a Liberian national by the way, not a US citizen.

KafudaFish
10/16/2014, 08:40 PM
Sorry I assumed you were using drought like the media is using it. If you want to use the technical term for drought.



This is wrong there is no prolonged drought. You gave into the misinformed media. The shortage of freshwater is due to the closing and redirecting of canals not lack of rainfall. Northern California is having record rainfall . Mt. Hood had record snowfall this year.


Lets not forget plate tectonics.

It takes many years for an area to recover from a severe drought. You are forgetting that groundwater plays a major factor in this.

Nativeshark
10/16/2014, 08:57 PM
It takes many years for an area to recover severe drought. You are forgetting that groundwater plays a major facor in this.

What is this even suppose to mean? How did I forget about ground water? What does drought recovery have to do with the redirecting of canals?


Ground water or the water table will not recover anytime soon without man made canals. Humans built canals and irrigation systems which turned ponds into lakes and dust into moist dirt. We then took these canals away, no mother earth is going back to how it would be without human interaction.


http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5921

Grandlotus
10/16/2014, 09:02 PM
Bill, these insignificant points I raised, that you just brush off as nothing, warmed up our earth to its current status while our earth was completly frozen. I find it funny that you pick and choose facts to focus on.

If fossil fuels are really as evil as you say they are and as dangerous as you speak about, at the rate we burn them the whole world should have been dead by now, but this is not the case.

Grandlotus
10/16/2014, 09:07 PM
I think your missing the point... If you go to a Ebola infected region you SHOULD NOT be allowed back. Now we have it speading around our country because of lack of Saftey measures and turning our heads the other way. He is a Liberian national by the way, not a US citizen.


Amen, brother!

Nativeshark
10/16/2014, 09:11 PM
Bill, these insignificant points I raised, that you just brush off as nothing, warmed up our earth to its current status while our earth was completly frozen. I find it funny that you pick and choose facts to focus on.
.

He does that all the time. Instead of staying on topic and defending his view he will pick on something irrelevant and try to chane the conversation. There was a great thread in the scuba section were he tried convincing people that's weights aren't ment to bring you down in water. Once he got called out on it he tried doing his take a piece of someone's comment, take it out of context and then put a twist on it, he got called out for doing that to. That thread was a classic,

billsreef
10/17/2014, 06:27 AM
What is this even suppose to mean? How did I forget about ground water? What does drought recovery have to do with the redirecting of canals?


Ground water or the water table will not recover anytime soon without man made canals. Humans built canals and irrigation systems which turned ponds into lakes and dust into moist dirt. We then took these canals away, no mother earth is going back to how it would be without human interaction.


http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5921

Canals that drain off water are still a distribution problem. Drought is having no water to distribute. I'd avoid listening to explanations of politicians, especially when they forget the lack of rainfall part. Note that dip at the end of the graph. That extreme lack of rainfall overrides any issues with canals in terms of drought.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/sotc/drought/2013/10/ca-p-Reg004Dv00Elem01_01102013_pg.gif

Bill, these insignificant points I raised, that you just brush off as nothing, warmed up our earth to its current status while our earth was completly frozen. I find it funny that you pick and choose facts to focus on.

If fossil fuels are really as evil as you say they are and as dangerous as you speak about, at the rate we burn them the whole world should have been dead by now, but this is not the case.

Never said the natural factors were insignificant. What I said was they were incapable of providing the current rates of changes we are seeing by themselves. To expand further, the anthropogenic effects are causing the rate to be drastically increased. Sort of like a race car using nitrous for that boost of power and speed. As for your last paragraph, your making assumptions that the science doesn't support, but that also goes hand in hand with your assumptions that the anthropogenic factors are insignificant.

He does that all the time. Instead of staying on topic and defending his view he will pick on something irrelevant and try to chane the conversation. There was a great thread in the scuba section were he tried convincing people that's weights aren't ment to bring you down in water. Once he got called out on it he tried doing his take a piece of someone's comment, take it out of context and then put a twist on it, he got called out for doing that to. That thread was a classic,

:rolleyes:

The idea for weights is neutral buoyancy, not negative. But then I like swim above the reef, and not stand on it. Something that is harder if you are over weighted. BTW, whose the one bringing in irrelevancies?

atreis
10/17/2014, 06:29 AM
I think your missing the point... If you go to a Ebola infected region you SHOULD NOT be allowed back. Now we have it speading around our country because of lack of Saftey measures and turning our heads the other way. He is a Liberian national by the way, not a US citizen.

His citizenship is irrelevant. The virus doesn't care. There are many non-citizens living in the US, and many US citizens living in other countries. Many thousands of both are asked to travel for business, or choose to travel for pleasure every day.

What is your definition of an infected region? Seems to me there is now Ebola in Texas. Are you proposing closing the Texas border? (Or walling off Dallas?) What about Ohio? No cases yet, but an infected person visited Akron via Cleveland.

At what point does a region switch from being a non-infected region to an infected region, requiring closing of the border?

You do realize that preventing people who have traveled to that region (whatever it is) traveling to US is not sufficient, yes?

Let's say, we have an employee of a company who lives in the US. This person is asked to travel to Europe and do some work there. While there, something comes up at the company's location in Africa (a location where Ebola is spreading through the general population), and the person is asked to go there to help take care of whatever problem the company is having. When done, the person returns to Europe, finishes up what the person was doing there, and books the return flight to the US. At this point, the person is notified that he can't return to the US because he visited an "infected region". Where is the person made to stay? What if the person is a US citizen and the European country doesn't want the person to stay in Europe (where he poses a risk to the country's citizens) and insists on deportation?

Let's say that this person inadvertently infects a European worker at the hotel who has a trip planned to the US. This European citizen has not traveled to Africa or any other "infected region" but could still infect people in the US.

Sorry, but it's just not as simple as you would like to think. (The long incubation period really doesn't help either.)

The BEST solution is:
1. For the short term, do our best to stop the spread everywhere where it is currently present, most especially in Africa.
2. For the medium term, invest in research for early detection so that quarantining individuals can be effective.
3. For the longer term, invest in research for a method of immunization.

KafudaFish
10/17/2014, 08:21 AM
What is this even suppose to mean? How did I forget about ground water? What does drought recovery have to do with the redirecting of canals?


Ground water or the water table will not recover anytime soon without man made canals. Humans built canals and irrigation systems which turned ponds into lakes and dust into moist dirt. We then took these canals away, no mother earth is going back to how it would be without human interaction.


http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5921

Simple. A drought means there is a deficiency/lack of moisture that has a negative impact on us and the environment. These impacts can be short-term such as during a growing season or they can be long-term such as the changes to the hydrology of a major river.

You stated that there isn't a severe drought occurring in California because there has been an increase in rainfall in northern California and Mt. Hood has had record snowfall. This single season of average to above average precipitation may have an impact on the intensity for the immediate future but looking at the long-term, which can be as long as five or more years, may not have a huge impact especially if conditions remain dry. I have heard 20 years can be a timeline regarding severe drought and the reversal of the effects.
One of the five categories to determining drought conditions is soil moisture content. You would think that water would easily infiltrate dry soil but because the soil has been compacted much of that water simply runs off. Landslides anyone?

If you look at the percent area of drought in California for 2014 on 12.31.2013, the percent area was just under 28% for D3-D4 and 0% for D4. On 7.15.14, they were 81.85% and 36.49% and on 10.7.14 they were 82% and 58% respectfully.

Look at the drought monitor website and check out the California map for this week for 2014, and repeat for 2010, 2005, and 2000 and tell me what the map is showing you.

How is this trend not showing severe drought? One of the problems with water issues is we as a whole are a wet society and we think short-term. We have dry to drought conditions, we get some rain, and all of a sudden those issues are gone. People return to the status quo, conditions have not changed, and now people are being limited to watering their grass and they get upset.

As far as your website that you referenced there are two interesting points:
1. "With current precipitation at near-record lows......"
2. "Promises to avoid another man-made drought."

Precipitation is another index that categorizes drought conditions. Why would you state that there isn't a severe drought when your sources state that there is one because there has and is a negative impact on us (growing food and unemployment)?

As far as the second one, this is kind of a slippery slope, because the redirection and storage of water is a short-term solution (see how that seems to come up again?). All that is happening is the water is being shifted from one area to another. Additional water isn't being created and it really isn't changing the weather is it?

Not sure how we went from the oblivious that complex habitat increases fish biomass to Ebola to drought but it is fun isn't it?


Funny how everything relates to everything else huh?

Dmorty217
10/17/2014, 10:28 AM
His citizenship is irrelevant. The virus doesn't care. There are many non-citizens living in the US, and many US citizens living in other countries. Many thousands of both are asked to travel for business, or choose to travel for pleasure every day.

What is your definition of an infected region? Seems to me there is now Ebola in Texas. Are you proposing closing the Texas border? (Or walling off Dallas?) What about Ohio? No cases yet, but an infected person visited Akron via Cleveland.

At what point does a region switch from being a non-infected region to an infected region, requiring closing of the border?

You do realize that preventing people who have traveled to that region (whatever it is) traveling to US is not sufficient, yes?

Let's say, we have an employee of a company who lives in the US. This person is asked to travel to Europe and do some work there. While there, something comes up at the company's location in Africa (a location where Ebola is spreading through the general population), and the person is asked to go there to help take care of whatever problem the company is having. When done, the person returns to Europe, finishes up what the person was doing there, and books the return flight to the US. At this point, the person is notified that he can't return to the US because he visited an "infected region". Where is the person made to stay? What if the person is a US citizen and the European country doesn't want the person to stay in Europe (where he poses a risk to the country's citizens) and insists on deportation?

Let's say that this person inadvertently infects a European worker at the hotel who has a trip planned to the US. This European citizen has not traveled to Africa or any other "infected region" but could still infect people in the US.

Sorry, but it's just not as simple as you would like to think. (The long incubation period really doesn't help either.)

The BEST solution is:
1. For the short term, do our best to stop the spread everywhere where it is currently present, most especially in Africa.
2. For the medium term, invest in research for early detection so that quarantining individuals can be effective.
3. For the longer term, invest in research for a method of immunization.


His citizenship is very relevant... If he is a citizen of Liberia he shouldn't be coming to the states to get treated for Ebola... Doesn't make sense. Clearly your going to argue the opposite of what I say. Let me know what you think when someone you know or one of your family members contracts Ebola here in the states because they let these people back in the country and they die. I think your out look won't be such a uneducated one. The solution is really simple stop going there to help them. People in Africa die of starvation, thirst, and many other things that never cross our minds everyday. This isn't Americas problem but it's becoming our problem because we keep letting the infected ones into our country and also sending/letting people travel to these regions. A infected area would be one that thousands of people have Ebola ie west Africa. Your logic about a European infecting someone because they went to Africa further drives home the point, STOP letting These people to travel to Africa period. By the way no one goes to Africa for business trips unless your in the diamond industry and no company sends their employees to west Africa at a time like this so your logic if flawed. When Ebola becomes a epidemic in this country because of people who look the other way such as yourself, maybe then you will rethink your logic. If you notice the CDC keeps having press conferences to "reassure" everyone that everything is ok is your first indication that things ARE NOT ok. Remember back in February when Obama called ISIS the "JV" team... Look where we are now. Our government has no plan of action for this looming crisis and we have ONE hospital equipped to deal with this and it's Emery, so tell me how that's going to work? Oh yeah and instead of trying to find cures for diseases like cancer and diabetes lets try to contain a Ebola outbreak because we as Americans are sending people to help those in Africa... Are the Chinese or Russians sending their people to Africa to try and help with clean water, food, or Ebola... NO and they never will and for good reason. Those who care so much about those issues it's real simple sell your belongings, give up your citizenship and move to Africa

Dmorty217
10/17/2014, 10:32 AM
Oh and forgive me if I don't take what a "hippy" from yellow springs says seriously. I won't be responding back to anything you reply because your clearly arrogant and uneducated about how diseases spread. You know kind of like how AIDS is still a real problem in Africa but not in any other parts of the world... Education is a powerful tool if you choose to use it

Also I can't say what I think should really be done to the areas in Africa that have the Ebola outbreaks happening since there are far too many people in this country who's feelings would be hurt and get all bent out of shape

Dmorty217
10/17/2014, 10:47 AM
Nativeshark sorry that your thread has gotten so off topic

BrianD
10/17/2014, 10:48 AM
No politics allowed on RC ;)