Pretty sure think that isn't fed by pumps since it is right by the pass... hopefully they will figure out a way to block it with booms but who knows. That water is so dirty that know one would notice an oil slick... Crab Island is a different story.

Effing breaks my heart to think about all those beautiful beaches up there.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3493/...d7bf49fc_o.jpg

If the oil kills all the manatees will we still have no wake zones?

Really sucks we already have a town home locked in for the August Poker Run. The owner of the town home told us when we were there in 08 that the water gets pumped in from a few miles offshore, that is why it was always so clear. I don't think you could just shut the pump down, other wise it would dry up back there......sad

That was funny and horrible at the same time.

Speaking of dead wildlife. :hothead:

This is the kind of stuff that really pisses me off about our so-called 'media' these days.

***

the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 obviously got an enormous amount of coverage, but it's striking that even incidents like the 1978 Amoco Cadiz accident off the coast of France got far more media attention than the current BP spill. (Brulle focused on nightly network coverage because, he points out, that's still the biggest driver of public opinion in the country—after all, only a very small subset of people read the Times.)

So what accounts for the difference? Imagery, for one. After the Exxon Valdez disaster, you had scores of images of ducks and otters slathered in crude. There were pictures of dead whales washed up against gleaming black rocky beaches. It was lurid—and impossible to ignore. By contrast, Brulle points out, not nearly as much oil from the BP accident has reached the shores of the Gulf Coast yet. Even groups like Greenpeace have only been able to rustle up a few pictures of a handful of ducks covered with oil. That's not the sort of thing that drives TV coverage. And it may mean that the current spill makes far less of a dent in public opinion than past disasters have.

Part of the explanation here is that BP has been quite deft at managing appearances. For one, they've poured more than 300,000 gallons of chemical dispersants to break up the oil before it can reach the beaches, causing it to sink down to the sea floor. In some cases, these dispersants may be more harmful, ecologically speaking, then letting the oil wash ashore. We don't know what is in these chemicals and there's a very high potential that they could do a lot of damage to the food chain in the Gulf. That's precisely why Exxon was constrained from using dispersants in Prince William Sound back in 1989. But, from BP's perspective (and the Obama administration's), avoiding the sort of graphic imagery that Exxon had to deal with in Alaska has an undeniable appeal.

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/graph1.JPG

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/graph2.JPG

For one, they've poured more than 300,000 gallons of chemical dispersants to break up the oil before it can reach the beaches, causing it to sink down to the sea floor. In some cases, these dispersants may be more harmful, ecologically speaking, then letting the oil wash ashore. We don't know what is in these chemicals and there's a very high potential that they could do a lot of damage to the food chain in the Gulf. That's precisely why Exxon was constrained from using dispersants in Prince William Sound back in 1989.


The oil and the dispersants will be washed right down the west coast of Florida and into the Florida Straits where all that wildlife and coral reefs will be at risk.

Pretty lengthy, so just the link

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/What-w...&asset=&ccode=

Confidential BP documents released. Haven't seen the underwater video yet.

Dawn soap.....

LOL :lolhit: