It's called spin. Tell someone something. Then facts based in reality that arrive later will be challenged. Humans just do not challenge the first fact with equal vigor. From the NY Times of 14 May 2010:
Quote:
Size of Oil Spill Underestimated, Scientists Say
Two weeks ago, the government put out a round estimate of the size of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico: 5,000 barrels a day. Repeated endlessly in news reports, it has become conventional wisdom.
But scientists and environmental groups are raising sharp questions about that estimate, declaring that the leak must be far larger. They also criticize BP for refusing to use well-known scientific techniques that would give a more precise figure. ...
BP later acknowledged to Congress that the worst case, if the leak accelerated, would be 60,000 barrels a day, a flow rate that would dump a plume the size of the Exxon Valdez spill into the gulf every four days. BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, has estimated that the reservoir tapped by the out-of-control well holds at least 50 million barrels of oil.
|
So is this an Exxon Valdez scale disaster? No. Other factors apply such as this is 'sweeter' oil, water temperature, and oil dissipation causing natural actions to become more effective.
05-14-2010, 01:17 PM
Hybrid Mode
