Skip to main content

View Diary: Uncappable underground blowout spills thousands of barrels of tar sands oil in Cold Lake, Alberta (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Since the airspace controls for the Mayflower, AK (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, OldDragon, Larsstephens, johnniec

    were limited in altitude, nothing about the air space controls
    imposed at that disaster site prevented overflights above the controlled flight altitude.

    •  Drones for the people. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Puddytat, here4tehbeer

      Time to hit Toys 'R Us.

      Each person stands on a shadow. Bill Reynolds

      by northsylvania on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:33:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed, there are valid reasons to limit access (0+ / 0-)

      folks here should realize there are valid reasons to limit access to environmental disaster sites.  As mentioned above, airspace controls are often put in place to improve safety of workers on the ground and workers monitoring the disaster from above.  Ground access restrictions are for worker and potential visitors' safety.  In the Gulf, every reporter and environmental activist wanted a video of their own hand dipped in crude.  This was surely the case in Mayflower too.  It is unlikely they had a good understanding of the risks posed by physical contact and inhalation.  

      •  Limiting access to environmental disaster sites... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a gilas girl

             I do  not believe for one minute that visitor/media safety is the reason these companies limit access. IF
        that were the case,  they would allow pool coverage for the media.

        •  you're not alone (0+ / 0-)

          in this belief

          Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. (Click on orange text to go to linked content.) Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:42:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not alone, but still not right (0+ / 0-)

            I get that they are protecting themselves by limiting the amount of information that can be gathered at a disaster site, but look at the Arkansas example (my state and I'm upset about it), media was not prevented from observing the site from a distance or from flying over it.  They were only prevented from low elevation flights.

            In the Gulf, crude oil (and often dispersants) were everywhere.  If anyone came in contact with those substances and then got sick, they'd sue BP.  Why would the company want to allow media free reign to all dip their bare hands in crude to make a story?

            I agree that greater scrutiny of disaster sites would be great, but there are legitimate safety and liability concerns at play as well.  Remember that the EPA is already all over these things with their own sampling teams.  Usually the state DEQ people are there too.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site