Well-connected, dear sir.

Very good points - it is only the surface appearance, and the retention of oil from sandy beaches that appears to be the focus.

The only good part is that, in addition to killing off most of the reefs in the Caribbean, the warm climate will help breakdown the oil more quickly than in arctic climes.

What, no mention of the Marxist drilling platform sinking?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37125549/ns/…

Surely there is some arcane fact we "MUST" pay attention to, now that both socialism AND capitalism have failed at deep sea drilling?

Charles,
I believe a far better comparison than Three Mile Island (there were no deaths or major injuries at the accident site itself) would be Chernobyl. But, even that horrible accident shouldn't deter us from using nuclear power as an alternative energy source. NP provides France with greater than 70% of its power. It is safe and reliable. Yes, I understand the caveat of "What to do with its waste?" But, that is a high priority research aim in the industry right now. Nuclear power should be considered. Fossil fuels are indeed, endangered and dangerous as the Deepwater Horizon disaster proved.

@4 We know what we want to do with the waste: bury it underground where Someone Else lives, far from us. If we could just get Someone Else to agree to it, we'd be in business.

I think you're right on, Charles. Maybe some good will come of it yet.

Three Mile Island didn't really open the public's mind. Anti-nuclear organizations simply started suing anybody who wanted to create a new nuclear power plant and the expenses of legal defense dissuaded companies from opening more plants. Now companies are citing the lack of horrible results of Three Mile Island and touting nuclear over oil and coal. And I can't see that "the industry" gives a goddamn about what to do with the waste, so that won't stop them; they build the plants, they don't have to deal with the waste. The wells gushing are another reason for nuclear to be pushed.

I hope you're right Charles.

Before Deepwater Horizon, the whole idea of alternative fuels was not taken seriously at all; after, the ears and minds of the public might finally open to (and even adopt) new ideas.

I'm not holding my breath. I wish I could — the smell of oil was wafting through New Orleans last night.

@9 that was from the fraternity rubdowns ...

Three-mile island didn't kill the nuclear biz. Nobody died at three-mile, but the hype and praise followingThe China Syndrome did the industry in. This disaster unfortunately will not make a dent in the thousands of rigs churning daily without incident.

I'd also like to point out the complete lack of radiation leakage to public from Three Mile Island, and the problems that caused it were corrected in newer plant designs. Additionally, I'd have no problems taking a single mountain in the middle of Nevada and stuffing it full of nuclear waste. Fossil fuel power generates FAR more waste than nuclear power does (1500 times more- http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.…).

Woah. This was your first post that made sense in a long long time. I like.

Unfortunately, nuclear isn't practical from a financial standpoint and takes too long to roll out:

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-13-…

There are, as ever, some new designs that might change that, but even the best of the current designs are subject to massive cost overruns and delays:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/busine…

We're all going to hell for this

I just watched an expert on CNN say that this is no 5,000 barrel gusher, it's more like around 70,000 barrels a day

2,940,000 fucking gallons of oil a day. Exxon Valdez was 10,800,000