Michio Kaku: Hurricane in Gulf to dump oil "all over the South"; Potentially 100s of miles inland

[amerfayed]

Source: Opie and Anthony Radio Show

Theoretical Physicist Michio Kaku discusses the ramifications of using nuclear bombs to stop the oil flow. He says radioactive oil and tar balls could be “raining down on hair” & “rooftops”

*SNIP*

“Hurricanes will grab water several hundred feet below surface and loft it up into the sky.”

A hurricane strike in the Gulf of Mexico would dump an oil & water mixture all over the South, potentially reaching hundreds of miles inland, said Kaku.

*SNIP*

Kaku also discussed the possibility of the oil leak lasting most of our lifetimes.

Read more: http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/michio-kaku-hurricane-impact-along-gulf-coast-to-dump-oil-all-over-the-south-potentially-100s-of-miles-inland

---

I heard he's pretty smart...

edit: the link got messed up sorry

[truthisfreedom]

1. Not good news.

[villager]

2. "However, he does not believe this mixture will ignite from lightning."

Hey, whaddya mean -- there's some good news right there!

(various appropriate fed-up emoticons here, etc...)

[RC]

4. We used to have burning rivers, why not burning oceans?

[petronius]

29. Over an appropriate safe place, a rain of flaming tar balls would be really cool

I'm thinking, someplace like Rush's wedding reception or the Bush Library...

[glitch]

37. Cheney's house. Better, perpetually over Cheney wherever he goes. nt

And that goes for his little dog Bush too.

[SILVER__FOX52]

3. It seems to me.....

that the nuclear option should not be dismissed so readily. If a very small, tactical nuclear device could be introduced into the existing pipe at least several yards, that the glassing effect could be produced, without much collateral damage.

[Mojorabbit]

30. I saw a physics expert

on Keith's show the other night explain why it would not work. The top part of the glass would not hold up. I can't remember why. Here is the link to the piece. I hope it comes through ok.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#37500376

[dixiegrrrrl]

35. Perhaps this pic. will help explain the problem with a nuke.

Read the explanation of the red and grey lines, under the pic.
See all the pipelines lying on the floor of the Gulf???

[tpsbmam]

5. Yeah, he's "pretty smart".......okay, genius level smart.....

Not familiar with this source but it's the most complete I found and consistent with everything else I read in shorter biographies I quickly accessed.

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Michio_Kaku

Wiki is also good but lacks "inline citations" so I looked for additional references. Wiki is also consistent with the bits & pieces I read elsewhere.

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

[immune]

6. And then the south can kiss clean drinking water goodbye.

for God knows how many generations.

[Karmadillo]

7. But our President thinks a hurricane would be helpful

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03264725.htm

WASHINGTON, June 3 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Thursday a powerful hurricane could help to break up the huge Gulf of Mexico oil slick, despite fears that the approaching storm season could complicate the clean-up.

U.S. forecasters have warned that the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season will be more active than feared, and one group of scientists has predicted 10 hurricanes, five of them major.

more...

[SidDithers]

11. You need a new hobby...nt

Sid

[Hempathy]

13. What he ACTUALLY said...

was to the effect that, according to experts in the field- compared to smaller hurricanes, large hurricanes might actually be effective in dispersing the oil within the ocean faster.

But- don't let little things like FACTS deter you from posting in the future. :hi:

[Karmadillo]

15. What he ACTUALLY said..."was to the effect that..." LOL

The writer of the article wrote the following headline (not a "to the effect that" headline, but the ACTUAL headline):

Obama: Hurricane may actually help with oil spill

Read it here, yourself: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03264725.htm

:hi:

[Bluebear]

19. We need brand new blood here to interpret for us, after all.

:silly:

[Hempathy]

28. Apparently so...

Some people seem to think that "less damaging" means the same thing as "helpful".

It doesn't.

:hi:

[Hempathy]

27. But he didn't actually say what's in the headline, either.

"It turns out that -- now these are all estimations and probabilities -- it turns out that a big, powerful hurricane, ironically is probably less damaging with respect to the oil spill because it just disperses everything and the oil breaks up and degrades more quickly,"

do you see the word "help" (or "helpful" as you posted)in his quote? :shrug:

FYI- "less damaging" is NOT the same thing as "helpful". But a good thesaurus might be a "less damaging" helpful thing for you to consider. :hi:

[Karmadillo]

32. Wow. You're a quasar of spin.

He draws a distinction between a weaker hurricane, which he claims would just wash the oil up on shore and a more powerful one which "just disperses everything and the oil breaks up and degrades more quickly." If the hurricane disperses everything and the oil breaks up and degrades more quickly, it would be helpful, no? I assume that's why the headline writer and many of those who read the comment assumed Obama was saying the hurricane would be helpful. Unless he meant a hurricane that disperses everything and breaks up the oil so it degrades more quickly would be unhelpful, although that would seem to be a difficult interpretation even for you to make. In any case, his listing of the benefits of a major hurricane appears to be at odds with the opinion of the seemingly more informed physicist in the OP and common sense. I guess we'll have to wait until we have a hurricane to put our President's words to the test. It's like when he characterized offshore drilling as "not risky" and when he claimed oil rigs didn't cause spills during Katrina. What he said and reality turned out to be two different things.

[Hempathy]

40. "less damaging" is NOT the same as "helpful"...is that REALLY so difficult for you to comprehend...?

Apparently so.

[MyNameGoesHere]

33. this hurricane didn't seem to help or make oil pollution better

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/16/usnews.hurricanekatrina

[Hempathy]

41. Obama did't use the word "helpful".

So what's your point...? :shrug:

[MyNameGoesHere]

43. Uh a major hurricane is MORE damaging over all

So what the fuck is your point?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

44. take it up with the scientists and weather channel who were reporting the same thing

BEFORE Obama said anything of the kind

[Hempathy]

47. what semicharmed quark said.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Did he and Deepak Chopra cook that one up?

What a waste of a career.

[Junkdrawer]

14. Did you watch the interview? He was ridiculing the "Nuke the leak" idea....

It wasn't an analysis of a hurricane's impact on the leak.

[Cetacea]

31. Wasted career? Rather he be working for BP?

He's doing quite well, thank you very much, and he's inspired a lot of young to pursue physics.

[Forkboy]

34. If only he was as smart of a you...who posts on an online message board.

[FourScore]

42. LOL.

Good one.:toast:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. I haven't sold out science for woo woo.

You?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. Alarmist, maybe. Woo woo? Hardly. -nt

[Forkboy]

50. Who to take seriously....him, or someone calling himself HiFructosePronSyrup?

He may well be wrong. Your acting as if you're smarter than he is laughable, and just more proof of how seriously you take yourself (which you're alone in...).

You're free to post, or send me privately if you want your real name kept private, scientific papers and theories you have put forward in your field. Otherwise, all I have to go on is your public persona here on DU, which just isn't all that impressive.

This is the part where people in your position claim they don't care if they're believed or taken seriously, so sure are they in their correctness that they deem those questioning them unworthy of the time it takes to prove them wrong. Kind of like those woo woos.

Your move.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Mmm, nah.

That's OK. I'm fine with anonymity.

"This is the part where people in your position claim they don't care if they're believed or taken seriously, so sure are they in their correctness that they deem those questioning them unworthy of the time it takes to prove them wrong."

Well, yeah, pretty much. The difference between me and woo woos is that they're making claims about the natural world. The only claim I'm making is that I'm not concerned with your opinion. Oh, and I'm hardly alone in thinking Chopra Kaku has gone off the deep end.

[Forkboy]

52. "I'm fine with anonymity."

I'm betting you're used to it, in fact.

I truly have nothing to go on except your views here on DU, and as I said, that's not impressive. Such a scientific mind as yours will understand why your body of work on DU doesn't impress even a fraction as much as Kaku's does. Your word on the matter might as well be from any internet blowhard, and in fact, it clearly is, as you can't show me a single reason why you should be taken more seriously on this matter than Kaku. You're just another online jackass braying, expecting people to take your word for something based on....what, exactly?

And minus evidence to the contrary, that you either can't or won't produce (I'm leaning hard to the "can't" side), you don't deserve to be taken seriously. Even your highly scientific mind can grok that, no? I'm a skeptic through and through, and your word isn't nearly enough. And yes, I'm skeptical of Kaku's claims as well, but unlike you he has a track record in science....you have posts on video games and porn.

The only claim I'm making is that I'm not concerned with your opinion.

Woo woos say the same thing when asked for evidence they can't produce.

Oh, and I'm hardly alone in thinking Chopra Kaku has gone off the deep end.

Well, woo woos are hardly alone in thinking chemtrails are real. Is this an example of the type of rigorous scientific thinking you act like you possess? You seem to share a lot in common with those woo woos that upset you so...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. My body of scientific work isnt' a subject of conversation here.

Neither is Kaku's for that matter, but his comments on his loony radio talk show.

"And yes, I'm skeptical of Kaku's claims as well, but unlike you he has a track record in science"

Ah, appeal to authority. So much for being a skeptic through and through. Hey, Michael Behe's got some fine academic credentials too.

[Forkboy]

55. LOL @ you complaining about an appeal to authority.

After you saying "Oh, and I'm hardly alone in thinking Chopra Kaku has gone off the deep end." Ad Populum...an appeal to popularity. I'm sure your great big brain knows what that means. I'm sure it also knows the meaning of the word "hypocrite".

Also, mine wasn't an appeal to authority, it's a statement of fact based on the evidence available. You've shown nothing to prove that you have ANY track record in science, let alone one better than Kaku's, and in fact have offered plenty of evidence that you're not even smarter than I am (a low bar to set that you have yet to clear lol). My statement was correct. The whining about it is beneath you. Wait, what am I saying?

My body of scientific work isn't a subject of conversation here.

Yes, that much is clear. You probably clean beakers.

Michael Behe's got some fine academic credentials too.

Which is why scientists should be judged on their work. At least those with the guts to present it, which rules you out.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. You call me a "braying jackass"

yet it appears you're just disagreeing to be disagreeable. You've already agreed with my original point that Kaku's full of shit on this, so where's the conflict?

"Ad Populum...an appeal to popularity. I'm sure your great big brain knows what that means."

My great big brain knows what it means, and my great big brain knows that you're using it wrong. I'm not claiming my opinion is valid because other people agree with me. I'm simply rebutting your false claim that I'm alone in my opinion.

"You've shown nothing to prove that you have ANY track record in science, let alone one better than Kaku's"

Kaku and I have the same exact track record on publishing material on hurricanes pushing oil hundreds of miles inland. Zero.

"in fact have offered plenty of evidence that you're not even smarter than I am"

I am unimpressed with your evidence. You denied using argument from authority, even though you just used it again.

"You probably clean beakers."

Indeed I do, sir. I'm elite, but I'm not elitist.

"Which is why scientists should be judged on their work. At least those with the guts to present it, which rules you out. "

I'm not asking to be judged on my scientific work. Nor am I asking Kaku to be judged on his.

[jwirr]

9. Radioactive acid rain. Quite a combination.

[liberaltrucker]

10. Dr Kaku, a theoretical physicist, is out of his area of expertise

With all due respect to his genius.

[immune]

12. Well then

I guess we're back to trusting BP's expert flacks to give us the straight story. Good luck with that.

Wouldn't anybody, including a college dropout, have a basic understanding of what a hurricane will do with all that oily ocean water? Does it take an expert to figure it out?

[liberaltrucker]

21. Would you want a gynecologist diagnosing your heart ailment?

Just askin'

[immune]

23. I think that's apples and oranges.

If a doctor killed me with a wrong diagnosis it wouldn't make a hill of beans to the topic at hand. We're talking about a whole ecosystem that's dying and no matter who's right or wrong, there's not much doubt that there will BE a hurricane in the near future and then we'll all know who got it right. Not that we can do much about it, either way, except grieve for all that will be lost.

[liberaltrucker]

24. Not apples and oranges at all

My point is that a prominent scientist theorizing outside his
discipline should be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing more.

:think:

[immune]

36. Grains of salt, globs of oil

Kaku may be dabbling outside his area of expertise, but then I'm an Immanuel Velikovsky fan so it works out for me.

And as I said, we'll see who's right in the fullness of time.

The real point here is that if you, or I or any other poor damn slob changed the oil in our vehicles and dumped it in the dirt, or even in a mud puddle in our yards, they'd be rubbing our noses in it PDQ. Some animals are more equal than others, and that scientific fact can be replicated as many times as necessary.

[JanMichael]

54. Actually it depends on the 'ailment'. A gynecologist is still an MD.

While specialist this person is still a physician who should know just a tad about cardiovascular problems. If not you may want to check on the license.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=19561

Bad example.

[miyazaki]

18. His Cassini Mission ramblings turned me off,

and just about every other engineer/physicist.

[glitch]

38. He interviews a lot of people with their own expertise outside of his. He is able to learn and

transmit what he learns. Shouldn't be all that remarkable.

[Junkdrawer]

16. This post COMPLETELY mischaracterizes his interview. n/t

[lunatica]

17. I love Michio Kaku!

I can't remember what channel the series of shows he had were one but they were outstanding. He may still have them.

[HughMoran]

22. His books will blow your mind too

Smart guy. Not sure what his expertise is here and since he's not a media wonk, he gives a lot of off the cuff remarks that make him easy to misinterpret - as has happened in the 2 posts I've seen where he's quoted.

[alfredo]

20. Fuck it, might as well dance.

[opihimoimoi]

25. so where are the things we can do now to contend w the mess?

Where is the system set up to SOLVE this ASAP???

[immune]

39. Seems to me there ARE systems set up

but apparently BP and the fed government are rejecting them all. What I want to know is why that's the case.

[opihimoimoi]

49. the need for greed results in CHEAPNESS...THEY WENT WITH CHEAP

[Igel]

26. Yeah.

That would explain the red fish that landed on our patio during Ike.

Now, had they been ignited by lightning they'd have been blackened red fish.

Oh. Wait. The only thing Ike delivered was wind and rain. No red fish. No shrimp. No mud. Not even kelp. (At least that would have been useful in making sushi.)

Did I mention the critical thinking study I read last year? It was fascinating. They found researchers in industry and in academia, some in social sciences, some in physical and biological sciences. Then they gave them problems that required critical thinking in areas other than the ones they had their PhDs or expertise in. Most of them displayed critical thinking on par with high schoolers. Which wasn't all that surprising, since the last time they had upgraded their database of facts on those topics had been high school (or undergraduate general ed requirements, but we've got to allow for forgetting stuff). The point being that you can't critically think at a high level without sufficient knowledge and command of the facts combined with training in the kinds of problems and pitfalls in a discipline. (So, of course, I listen to education theorists try to tell others that "critical thinking" is a fact-independent skill. Uh-huh.)

A super PhD in physics is no better than I am when it comes to history, just as a wonderfully gifted literary theorist really can't mount a reasonable critique of string theory. The second is butt-obvious. The first, somehow, eludes people.

[PCIntern]

45. You know you're REALLY in trouble when

one of the few places to get legit news is the Opie and Anthony radio show, while CNN and their brethren are out spinning BP bullshit.