Jack LaLanne’s death at 96 and the quest for eternal youth

January 24, 2011

By Sam Redman

It is so sad to learn that Jack LaLanne has died. I liked him a lot.

But, I had already felt this same sadness several months ago when I saw a snapshot of him sitting with his son, in a full multi-megapixel photo taken perhaps six months ago in a restaurant near his home in California, showing him in close up crystalline detail. When I saw the photo, I had commented that I was very disappointed to discover that he, at age ninety-five, looked very much like many other men whom I have known who have been fortunate enough to make it into their mid-nineties, nothing spectacular and certainly not a model of the secrets of the preservation of youth. He definitely appeared (from the photo) capable enough to be sitting on his own in a public place without assistance and even bright eyed and happy. But he looked like a typical 95 year old (even somewhat frail) and really not any better than many other similarly active nonagenarians I have known. What was shocking to me (as someone who has been fascinated with LaLanne’s health guru empire over the years) was that he didn’t look like anyone who had discovered answers to the hidden mysteries or the methods of preserving the radiance and energy of youth.

Now the reason for my dismay stemmed from having seen photos and videos of him in his seventies, which did give that “youthful secret” impression to a great extent. However, as I approach the “golden” age of 70 myself (just turned 69 a few months ago), from my own “health trip” experiences and having met and talked with many very healthy people in their seventies, who simply exercise moderately and follow a medically acceptable dietary regimen, I find that looking similar to the way Jack LaLanne appeared at that age, achieving (or maintaining) a somewhat youthful robustness, is quite common and easily attainable. Actually many of those I have met could pass for men in their fifties if they chose to maintain such a deception. Of course, a lot of their state of being (and my own health) may be not be due to good health practices, but the benefits of favorable genetics and the good fortune of not being exposed to environmental situations which could cause debilitating and crippling illnesses.

And while I have observed and known these dynamic, youthful septuagenarians, I have yet to know anyone in their mid to late nineties who, although appearing pleasantly healthy and capable, didn’t look their age (the way Jack LaLanne looked in that recent photo).

So, as I said, I was saddened then… because, like some others have posted, I have always wished the best for him and was always hopeful that somehow Jack had truly discovered that fountain of youth and that he would still show that age defying robustness in his nineties (and into his hundreds) and be looking like he did in his seventies. But, he didn’t; he looked very old (just like you might expect of someone his age).

I still believe that it is very wise to follow good health measures, living moderately and exercising appropriately, because I have experienced those benefits myself (and people often say… “I can’t believe you are almost seventy,” although perhaps they are just stroking my ego). But, from what I have seen in those who make it into their eighties and nineties, it seems apparent that practicing all the disciplines (at least what is currently known) doesn’t yet provide a way to avoid the inevitable ravages of old age. Jack LaLanne’s experience has been quite a senescence reality check for me.

Although really, I suppose that such an epiphany is just another step in what some people call, “discovering one’s own mortality.”

— Sam


Sometimes the media needs to report the truth

January 22, 2011

By Sam Redman

An excellent article appeared in New York Magazine describing the need for honest reporting concerning the prospects for recovery for Gabrielle Giffords. You can read the essay by clicking here.

I’ve been looking for this sort of perspective to be published for some time. While we all wish any victim of a traumatic accident such as she experienced the very best, it should be realized from the nature and wording of the very guarded “optimistic” physician statements that the true prospects for a recovery to a normal state are actually quite grim (or certainly unknown). But, for most television viewers and readers of daily newspapers in print and online, anything other than a complete and rapid restoration of her faculties would be totally unexpected. However, it seems apparent, after the initial “squeezing” of hands in response to a verbal request that there has been nothing further which would confirm she was ever able to use this squeezing (or later improved hand dexterity) to signal answers to questions, such as one squeeze or one tap or one extended finger for “yes,” two for “no,” three for “repeat the question” or similar primitive response coding, used for other patients who can’t speak or see (even in comatose situations), but who can at the least move their fingers. And while that current state may not mean that communicative capacities are not going to be realized during her rehabilitation, it is actually quite irresponsible for various media reports to convey her situation as different than what it is.

Information from neurologists, unrelated to her case, but commenting concerning the bullet path, seems to indicate that while many brain functions (such as motor capacities) are at least partially operating, the area controlling speech (and that which enables thought processing and reasoning) is where most damage likely occurred. Sometimes that damage is repairable, but other times not. Many victims do achieve various levels of recovery and there is real hope that she could have again the ability to speak and move well enough to enjoy a life in many ways similar to what she knew prior to the accident. But, the key word here is “hope” and that is the perspective which needs to mollify the reports of her progress and prognosis.

Instead of the happy assumptions which many news bulletins seem to convey, really we can only conclude that her motions, such as giving a neck rub (which might have been just a repetitive rote low level motor memory), moving her hand across Ipad gallery images, and being fascinated with rings, are similar to those that an infant would do at various stages of early development. Babies, who can’t yet speak or walk, will smile and recognize objects and they will focus on and play with round items (like rings), as well as touch screen gallery pics (six to nine month olds will swipe across smart phone gallery images once they see it done or discover it from their own experimentation). From what some doctors have stated, especially in articles which were published long before this incident, rehab in such traumatic brain injuries can sometimes be much like teaching a baby to speak and move and walk.

It all (evidently) depends on the extent of the bullet’s damage… most press never considers the possibility that she may only reach a stage of limited functionality (simple bathroom tasks such as brushing teeth and limited bathing and other personal hygiene routines). That’s the situation in literally thousands of head trauma victims even where the very best rehabilitation techniques have been employed.

That superb article in New York Magazine is the first I’ve seen to consider any other possibilities than those which describe a “miraculous” recovery (including some which talked about her going home in week and being back in Congress shortly thereafter).

Similar (in reverse) to reporting about the oil spill, where the media wanted no good news to surface, here many reporters only seem to want to describe this situation from a Pollyanna viewpoint… that she will be, “good as new in no time.” Truth in reporting is often a rarity today. Very sadly, if the prognosis for Giffords is as bleak as it might be (or even anything less than a fully functional recovery), there will be unnecessary psychological injury to millions of people who simply won’t be prepared for what is most likely the realistic outcome.

Of course, I , like so many others, will be watching and waiting with every hope that her case is going to be one of those “miracle” recoveries and that she can return to full capacity as a Congress person or even a more lofty role (as some are already predicting). But, like the article in New York Magazine presents, I believe that our hopes should be tempered with factual status reports which give everyone the vantage of realistic expectations.

Added note: In the past few days I have seen more articles which are detailing the realism of the prospects for her recovery and the arduous nature of such a rehabilitation even when most successful. Here are two very good articles which are actually quite encouraging, while being realistic about what might be more dire scenarios. One is an article compliled from Associated Press reports on the Google news service which talks about the details of the rehab which she might experience.

A second article from the New York Times describes the recovery path of a young man, now a college student (who is also mentioned in that first article). He suffered a very similar gunshot wound to the brain as Gabrielle Giffords and his progress and current capacities certainly give hope concerning her outcome while realistically explaining his limitations and permanent handicaps as well as the difficulties he endured in achieving the level of functionality which he has accomplished.

Both of those articles seem (along with the New York Magazine piece) to signal an encouraging and welcome trend toward letting the public gain an understanding of what are realistic hopes for Gabrielle’s recovery.


Tony Romo’s happy place

December 21, 2010

By Sam Redman

I just read a news report saying that Tony Romo (the Dallas Cowboys quarterback) had been put on injured reserve, so that he will now officially be out for the season. He started the season with a 1 win and 7 loss record, but his play was ended (perhaps fortunately for him) by a slam-to-the-turf “sack,” which resulted in a broken collar bone injury. So, Tony can now focus, ostensibly, on recovery and rehab in the off season and come back with a refreshed and renewed body (and mind) to face the new football year. However, I wonder if Tony, who does show remarkable skills at times in his passing and and in his ability to mount successful drives in critical situations, can ever achieve that elite level of being a consistently winning quarterback. It appears that Tony has a different mental approach than the winning quarterbacks whom I have observed over the years. He seems to have learned a fascinating psychological concept which he evidently has adopted wholeheartedly… probably one which has been taught to him by gurus who believe that they know how to take the mind of an athlete into a state of being where winning is automatic and natural.

Once Tony got his 65 million dollar deal… is when he developed his zen-like attitude, which could be paraphrased as, “Losing a football game isn’t something to be frustrated about… it’s not the most important thing in your life.” He then became a relaxed happy guy without a worry in the world.

Now, I do think he does take the game seriously, however not with the kind of anxiety that other players feel (that “want to win” anxiety that Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, talked about), but instead he seriously pursues his way of just going out there and having some fun… and if that fun time results in big plays or even a win, then he is very pleased and excited. But, in this insouciant special mental place, if he throws interceptions or ends up losing, then he just doesn’t “sweat it.” After all, there are more important things to ponder like falling in love and making trips to exotic places (the old “que sera, sera”). In many ways, I sort of admire him for being able to detach himself from the anxiety of winning or losing and play with that devil-may-care smiling attitude, because it is actually possible that it could work to bring about wins…. sort of mentally getting in “the zone” and just letting nature take its course to achieve athletic perfection.

I truly think that he has embraced this theory (probably based on many positive winning experiences from play when he felt he was “there” in his happy place zen zone)… that the old “be happy, don’t worry, everything is gonna be alright,” will eventually make him that ultimate super quarterback, if he just can do it with the total abandonment where he achieves that child-like zeal and pleasure of “let’s just go have some fun.” Once his contract was inked… then he was free to explore those mental experimentations into the world of not worrying about winning or losing but, just becoming a free spirit playing a kid’s game.

However, I don’t think he can achieve it. I like the premise, but I don’t think it works enough of the time to make “be happy, don’t worry” a workable way to play football. But, of course, after football he will have a great and wonderful wealthy life with all the pleasures that a 65 million dollar deal can bring. Maybe then he can lecture and write a self help book about, “just going out there and having some fun.”


How to diminish the iconic “Cowboys” brand

December 18, 2010

by Sam Redman

There has been some recent speculation regarding the licensing away of the naming rights to what is presently known as “Cowboys Stadium.” Corporate sponsors don’t actually line up for these ball park and stadium naming deals, because to get the full value of such a sponsorship they must also purchase air time advertisements during television and radio broadcasts to get the mention of their brand in association with the venue and the event. However, such a deal for Cowboys Stadium might be as much as 300 million dollars for a long term contract, ironically because of the assumed inferred association with the already well known and well regarded name of the “Cowboys” football team. However, it may be a situation of the proverbial, “selling one’s birthright for a bowl of porridge,” the phrase oft used as the universal descriptor of a really bad deal.

What should be obvious is that the most logical sponsor is “The Dallas Cowboys, ” themselves, a brand name that ranks as one of the world’s most famous (for now), in other words, leaving things just as they are. Keeping the name, “Cowboys,” on the stadium protects the brand’s viability and insures its longevity and prominence.

Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys football franchise, has made a fortune trading on the Cowboys name. A puzzling paradox emerges in giving up the name to the stadium, because one of the reasons he can get other sports events, such as boxing into the arena (or quasi sporting “spectaculars,” like monster truck rallies) is because of the caché of them being held in “Cowboys Stadium,” a structure which is becoming recognized as the eighth wonder of the world and currently being called by the name “Cowboys Stadium” by every announcer without restriction (or the purchase of television advertisements during all of those varying events, from boxing to rodeo to basketball).

It was a genius move from the start when Jones chose to call this world famous landmark, “Cowboys Stadium.” The moment it becomes something like Tostitos Stadium or Pepsi Park, the brand value of the name “Dallas Cowboys” is vastly diminished and it runs a strong risk of losing its international significance and marketing value. Marketing professionals everywhere recognize and respect that the name, “Dallas Cowboys,” is currently a brand as significant as Kleenex or Coca-Cola and its own value as a now traditional (even sentimental) American iconic name should be preserved and regarded as a priceless corporate asset worth protecting (and exploiting).

The cost to the franchise in lost revenue from the sale and licensing of the name on what is now “Cowboys Stadium” realistically could be far more than what would be received in any naming rights deal. Great, memorable and cherished, brand names, which are recognized world-wide, come along but rarely… this one should be ensured its permanence.


Tackling with two hands below the belt

November 24, 2010

Recent head injuries in the NFL have caused some rule changes regarding helmet-to-helmet contact resulting from tackles of so-called “defenseless” players, primarily quarterbacks and receivers in certain situations where they are “unaware” of an approaching other player. But, those rule changes are vague and inconsistently applied and serious career-ending injuries will continue to occur. However, there is an approach which could be utilized which would not only virtually eliminate head injuries from tackles, but would improve the game from several perspectives.

The mechanism of touch football’s “two hands below the belt” rule could be incorporated into the NFL game so that all tackles would be conducted from slightly above the waist to just above the knees. The problem with shoulder area and chest tackles is simply that the heads of both players are on the same level on a “collision course” with nothing between them but air. The two helmeted heads and are, in effect, freely moving objects travelling in space (an example of Newton’s first rule of motion, where an object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by an outside force). When two chests collide, the heads have nowhere to go but directly towards each other with nothing to stop the motion except the other helmet.

While some die hard violence aficionados would scream that such a change would make football into an unwatchable sport, it is actually possible that the game could truly become more interesting… higher scores, more yards gained and we would witness the development of some exciting, more sophisticated, methods of waist to above the knee tackling.

The obvious resulting benefits of a more injury-free game would enable players to have longer playing times and enjoy better lives after their careers have ended. The game would further improve because great players playing longer would result in a refining of the talent to levels never before seen in the sport of professional football (imagine if the likes of Aikman or Montana or LT were still around instead of having to retire prematurely). Instead of only the lucky (and often not so talented) surviving, primarily it would be greats still playing and competing with similar amazing super stars.


Private channels on your TV – including Youtube

October 9, 2010

by Sam Redman

In my previous posting I talked about the benefits of Roku (just scroll down to read about it). But, now Roku is even more amazing. One of the new additions is Private Channels, which should really be called “Custom” channels, because once they have been created, you may then submit them to Roku and if acceptable they will be made available to everyone right from their set-top boxes. Of course, that “set-top” box doesn’t fit on the top of a new flat screen TV or your DLP projector, so that’s another anachronistic term like “video taping,” which is no longer accurate, but will be used probably for years to come.

The private channels are quite remarkable. You can view the ones which Roku has chosen to make “public,” you can create them yourself… with their downloadable developer kit, or you can access other people’s private channels, if they provide you with the simple password code which makes a private channel selectable and viewable on your own set-top box. Of course, private channels can be kept truly private (for just you or your family), but any created channel can be offered to groups of people or even to the public on the web (by publishing the access codes for the channels which a user has has generated). This is an excellent example of “Open” architecture, which really represents the future of television (and computing in general).

I recently learned about the “nowhereman site,” hosted by a gentleman who has turned making Roku private channels into an art. I visited his page at http://thenowhereman.com/roku/ and read about the special private channels he has created, which include Youtube and others of wide interest. It is easy to add those additional channels, such as Youtube (full youtube viewing access) or Archives.org (public domain movies… with more every month as they reach copyright expiration). Both are now working great on my TV. After getting the code from his site, you have to go online to http://owner.roku.com and then on the “My Account” page just click the link labeled, “Add Private Channel.” You will be prompted to enter a code (get the codes for Youtube and Archives.org from that “nowhereman” site). Then after twenty-four hours, those will appear in your “Private Channels” selection on your TV Set-top box settings screens. Here is a trick: those new channels (like Youtube), which you entered online with codes, will appear instantly on your set, if after entering your codes online you just go to your set-top box, then newly select any existing private channel (then your coded ones appear simultaneously along with your new choice from the available list).

Plus, I also became aware of a very nice compilation of Private Channels called the “Roku Channel Database,” located here http://www.roku-channels.com/home. This is good summary of what’s known to be available now and shows the Roku available channels, plus it provides you with many codes from individually created channels, which people all over the country are adding to frequently (the “nowhereman” channels are listed there too). It is not as extensive a list as you might hope for, but similar to smartphone apps, the quantity will most likely be growing week by week.

There are many private channels which have already been added for you (which, as I mentioned previously, then makes them really “customized” channels made public). Some of their offerings are very interesting. To create your own private channel go to the Roku developer page http://www.roku.com/developer and get the developers’ kit. After you create yours, then there are two ways you can make it public. First, you can publish those special codes anywhere like “nowhereman” has done (or you can just circulate the codes to your own circle or group and thereby keep it for limited audiences). The second way is to submit your private channel to Roku for approval for their public distribution (it will then appear as a set-top box Private channels listing), but they have certain standards (regarding observing standard copyright infringement regulations, as well as reasonable propriety restrictions), which might keep many Private Channel renderings from being suitable for public distribution.

These customized channels are very reminiscent of the public access channels on early cable networks and like those, really do once more open up the world of broadcasting to just about everyone. Although those old cable public access channels certainly showed us that most people didn’t have a lot of broadcasting talent to offer. You will find that the range of quality in the “Private” channels is somewhat similar to those early cable experiences, but often you can find a little gold… somewhere amongst all the dross.

— Sam


When it comes to TV why not have it all?

August 25, 2010

by Sam Redman

There’s lots of talk lately about ways to use various internet mechanisms to show programs and videos found only online, but displayed by clever means on your television set. The general argument is that by following a few steps it might be possible to just “cut the cord” to cable or satellite television subscriptions and be able to watch equivalent programming, either free or very cheaply (at a fraction of what the cable costs). But, the reality is that commericial television (which includes both the network shows, plus the huge range of cable programs) is simply far superior to what’s only available on the internet and it really comes down to people kidding (or lying to) themselves that they are going to “mash up” for a small amount of expense, an entertainment product which is going to equal or surpass what’s available when you include both the conventional channels (network and cable), as well as the generous array of what’s also on the web.

There are so many ways to waste your days away… but if the discussion is about how to get the best video (screen) entertainment and is not merely about how to do it without extravagance (meaning that money isn’t the object), then the best approach is to include them all.

I have Directtv (small satellite disk on my roof)… simply because it is the only service which provides the full NFL package (all NFL games live from all locations) on my set, plus also on my smartphone (the Droid) and on any remote internet connected computer (like my broadband carded laptop) when I am away from home. With a great (huge screen) HD media room that NFL package makes for some jovial gatherings many times during the football season. Other than football and other sports, of which some events are PPV (pay for view), which I only have used infrequently, Directtv provides a 130 or so choice selection of the various channels and an always changing list of movies (about 30), some “free” in the subscription and others PPV (pay for view). Of course, all that’s not cheap… it is about $150.00 per month.

I also have AT&T commercial grade DSL (which provides five IP addresses with highest speed they offer). Then, with one of those dedicated ip addresses configured for my wifi, I can avail myself of the best of the internet on my laptop and my smartphone (Droid), as well as on all my television sets.

The wifi connection provides me with Netflix (available on all the sets in your home, with separate special boxes), which is quite remarkable. I first go online on my laptop to search their huge database of films and put them on my list…. then they show as choices on my televisions. It is true on-demand tv. But, most significant is that when I signed up for Netflix, they required me to install and use a Roku box (which delivers all of its content from my internet wifi connection). And what a surprise it was to discover Roku, because it is actually full of content (although Netflix would have been enough to satisfy me). Roku has about 50 channels. Some require a subscription, like Netflix, and others like, Amazon videos, are rented on a showing-by-showing basis (like PPV). Many of these channels (if not all) are internet available, but seeing them on the big screen is a so much better experience. Many of the Roku channels are totally free (advertiser supported, but the ads are far less frequent than on conventional commercial tv). One such Roku channel is Revision 3, which produces (or distributes) all original programming. One of the Revision 3 shows is called Scam School (which is just a lot of fun, describing simple tricks you can do at a bar or a party). Most of these low budget produced shows are reminiscent of the old public access channels on cable, but their amateurish nature makes them often more watchable than something more slickly produced. Check out Roku on line… it is quite a discovery.

Plus, with my Netflix membership, I also get DVDs delivered to my door for conventional playback watching. And finally, I have a most amazing video karaoke machine with a collection rivaling any karaoke bar (and has its own camera to create live performances for those who find that enjoyable). That’s a big hit now and then, bringing out the performer in lots of people who had only ever done their singing in the shower.

So… my approach is to have a broad range of media opportunities which can entertain a variety of guests in my home. I know it sounds crazy (and pseudo intellectually boastful), but I really don’t watch much more than four or five hours a week myself… because I am mostly a reader (still love books). However, it is just so nice that such a wide video selection is there whenever I feel the fancy or have friends over who just can’t function without something moving on a screen.


Google’s new Software Construction kit

August 12, 2010

By Sam Redman

Many years ago (in 1982), a programmer named Bill Budge created a unique software program called Pinball Construction Set, which provided a graphic user interface with various elements for dragging and dropping on the screen all the different graphic images of parts of a virtual pinball machine, so that a user would be able to design their own totally unique, functioning pinball video game, but without programming, other than specifying such things as speed of a flipper or a plunger, or other characteristics of play for those and any of the other perhaps 50 different images of pinball parts (simulating the real mechanical parts which a hardware pinball machine builder would use to construct an actual physical arcade machine). Once a user’s design was completed by these simple steps they would have created an original (and unique) iteration of a pinball machine, each of which could be saved as individual programs, which could then be distributed to others. They sold about 300,000 copies of the construction set software.

But, what was more significant in the annals of programming is that Pinball Construction Set got the attention of software programmers everywhere because it defined in many people’s eyes the archetype of what a true “no programming required” software creation device could be, in other words, the objective now was to produce a “Construction set construction set.” Over the years, many people have worked on such a project (including Bill Budge for a while), and while that goal has been elusive, programmers today still pay tribute to that Pinball Construction Set as the model for such sought after “programmer-less” software construction tools.

Spreadsheet macro languages have had characteristics of such “software” creation tools and, in fact, that was our objective in the development of the unique macro generation tools in Lucid 3D in 1989 (many readers may be familiar with the program… you can search the NYTimes archives to read about it). But, while that was our goal (to allow users to select and cleverly assemble their choices of any of the hard coded features of Lucid software, thereby creating their own unique applications) the ultimate realization of the released macro tool (while amazingly simple and powerful), alas, was that it too, had become yet another programming language, still requiring users to learn principles of computer logic and the proper syntax of instruction expressions.

But when I first got the notice regarding the new Google Android tool (called the App Inventor), I thought about that Pinball Construction Set (the Google description sounds a lot like the promos did for that product all those years ago). But, of course this one promises to be that long sought after “construction set construction set.”

I believe that it can be done and I am thinking that if not in the first versions then eventually, subsequently, the goal will be reached. It still will require good design and good logical thinking (and testing and debugging) which might, as others have noted, remove a lot of would be software developers from the pack… but, it still sounds like this product has the makings of a breakthrough.


Media can’t handle Gulf good news

August 2, 2010

By Sam Redman

It’s time to accept the good news. The oil is gone… there are no tiny oil droplets remaining beneath the surface. Since no oil can be found on the ocean and nothing is on the beaches, that’s all the doomsayers can come up with… “tiny droplets are hidden beneath the surface” (which of course, can’t be found). Whatever droplets might have been produced by the natural emulsification process of the ocean water’s movement and the chemical dispersants which enable the oil to emulsify faster have now been consumed the same way naturally seeping oil has been digested every single day of every year for the past many millenniums. Although I discussed this briefly in an earlier post, it bears repeating (and expanding) for those who arrived here on a recent web search. The gulf has literally thousands of oil seeps which occur naturally. These put out oil every day and have for probably thousands of years. The volume of that naturally seeping oil every year far surpasses what came out in this “spill” over the few months when the well was uncapped. Over that long period of seeping oil time (could have been millions of years) a very special bacteria has developed (evolved) in the gulf waters, a peculiar microbe which was designed by creative nature to consume this oil very rapidly. In the warm gulf waters with that bacteria present there is no way any “tiny oil droplet” could survive even a few days.

You keep hearing “experts,” who all have their own agendas (they are those who make a living just taking the easy position of castigating all chemicals irrespective of scientific data), saying that these dispersants used are going to do untold damage. However, the gulf has enormous capacity to consume and handle the chemicals (which are actually non-persistent, meaning they themselves degrade rapidly) such as those found in the dispersants. The ingredients in the Corexit compound are actually the same ones commonly used in industrial, office and school floor cleaners, which are mopped up with water and then flushed down our sewer systems. There are far more gallons of those chemicals which go into our rivers and streams daily in the United States than were used in handling this entire spill. By the time they reach the gulf, none of those are detectable… all destroyed to their natural elements by simple degradation. A conservative calculation shows that the Mississippi River deposits more than 3.3 million gallons of water into the Gulf every second. In a month that’s 8 quadrillion (8 thousand billion) gallons of new water flooding in every month. A US government site says it is 11.5 thousand billion gallons per month (that’s 11.5 quadrillion). Now you know why they call it “The Mighty Mississippi.” That flow continuously causes constant movement outward, away from the Louisiana shores and serves to cleanse anything which might have contaminated the area around the Delta.

The gulf basin itself contains 643 quadrillion gallons of water (a quadrillion is a thousand billion). The tiny amount of oil, even if it were 100 million gallons, is literally like one eye dropper drop in a swimming pool, and if this were a swimming pool teeming with specially designed oil consuming bacteria, they would eat up that single drop very rapidly.

The fish, shrimp and oysters are unlikely to be affected at all from this truly insignificant hiccup on the quadrillions of gallons of gulf waters. And even if all of the harvest were lost for a year for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama the dockside value would be $226 million for the shrimp and $61 million for the oysters. And the revenue from all the commercial fish and shellfish harvest from all five U.S. Gulf states is valued annually at $661 million. Now, think of it, if the entire year’s production for all fish, shrimp and oysters were lost it would be less than one billion dollars.

But, the entire year of all of those isn’t lost (and the fisherman got paid to do skimming during the “spill”) and now most are able to start work again (if not already, then very soon), so the economic cost is going to be far, far less than if an entire year’s production were lost. The beaches are open. Recreational fishing is open. Commercial fishing is being restored rapidly. The oil which wasn’t skimmed (that was about 20% of what was released) has evaporated (it’s a very thin oil, somewhat like kerosene, to start with and is quite volatile) or has been consumed by bacteria. The beaches are clean. In fact, with the crews doing the cleanups daily, finding really very few tar balls, the beaches have always been very usable… but now they are getting the “official” green light for full usage.

So… it is time to rejoice. Time to start praising the circumstances which now look so good in contrast to the doom and gloom which has been spread so long. The media did a job on the public and that has caused the recreation industry to suffer. But there are so many with a financial stake in the crisis continuing; from those who are being paid for “make work” to occupy their boats either looking for oil to skim, which can’t be found, or looking for the one per day tar balls on the beaches, which are virtually non existent (tar balls from the “seeps” have been seen occasionally on these beaches since I was a little child) to those who profit from doing investigations about ongoing “hidden” damages. Environmental groups which are funded by government (and now BP money) want to keep justifying their “work” to test the waters and to create doomsday theories about what “might happen” or to conduct ongoing recovery projects in areas which simply recover naturally just by the normal growth of plants and wildlife. So you will hear many people continue to beat that drum that the oil crisis is going to reek ongoing havoc, because the disaster recovery business is a giant money making venture. One parish “president” was moaning because the peripheral services like the catering of food for the beach cleaning crews was being discontinued. And with BP pledging the 20 billion and the government saying that isn’t even the limit, there are many opportunists with their hands out who simply don’t want this “disaster” to be over.

An example of the way the media has treated this situation is illustrated in an Associated Press news article which was published today (August 2). It has appeared in newspapers all over the country and the world (because it is from the AP), supposedly a trustworthy news organization. In the article which is ostensibly positioned to be telling about the FDA declaring seafood safe for human consumption they say that “…even some Gulf fishermen are questioning whether the fish and shrimp are OK to feed to their own families. ” And then they quote only one who made the following absolutely ridiculous comparison and remark:

“If I put fish in a barrel of water and poured oil and Dove detergent over that, and mixed it up, would you eat that fish?” asked Rusty Graybill, an oysterman and shrimp and crab fisherman from Louisiana’s St. Bernard Parish. “I wouldn’t feed it to you or my family. I’m afraid someone’s going to get sick.”

Of course, any reasonable person can understand that such an example is totally unscientific (as anyone can know by becoming familiar with the facts) and is blatantly and completely irrelevant to the real situation present in the gulf, but the AP article fails to point out how ludicrous the comparison is nor does it provide any sort of counter argument by a scientific authority (or merely an educated person) to explain why the likelihood of fish being contaminated in the gulf from this spill or the dispersants is actually only very remotely possible.

What is further troublesome is the shallowness of these reporters because they knew that such an illogical example would appeal to the uneducated masses who (like that fisherman seems to be) are part of the current “dumbing down of America” campaign which an article like this serves to perpetuate. And how can it be explained that a fisherman could make such a statement to the media when he would know that by doing so he was only serving to continue the media invoked national panic and further cause harm to his own way of life? If not from ignorance, his total lack of loyalty to his trade and his livelihood and his region can possibly only be explained as stemming from greed. It might be that he has already seen the first payouts from BP for his lost income to date and he has hopes (maybe even influenced by local attorneys trying to organize a class action lawsuit) that if the public can be kept from buying the seafood, the chances of him making a big score in subsequent legal actions will be greatly enhanced.

But why would the writers of this story present it the way they did with that nonsensical analogy about fish being contaminated in a barrel? There is only one explanation for that… their only agenda is sensationalism with no regard for the truth. To them keeping the bad news alive and enabling the crisis to continue keeps them on the job longer. Good news ends the story, but distortion and misrepresentation gets them wide and continuing circulation.

And who is going to suffer from those greedy people who want to perpetuate the myth that this is “going to go on and on” for years? It’s those who have all the peripheral jobs to the fishing and recreational industries (and the gulf economy in general) because of bad publicity keeping visitors away and making people think that perhaps the seafood is contaminated. It’s time for the media to quit airing the whining locals with their own self-interests in the “recovery bonanza” and the “experts” with their comments like “we don’t know what the ongoing effects will be,” which means that in spite of admittedly not knowing anything about it, in other words; they don’t have any data, they are willing to repeatedly say that ridiculous phrase, which means nothing, to scare the public with the spectre of the unknown.

The truth is what is needed here, but since the truth is “good news,” we won’t be hearing that from the media if they can prevent it. The old adage in the media world is “good news isn’t news, unless you are talking about sports or lower taxes.” The oil spill crisis being over? They aren’t going to let that get much air time.


A modest impact – Hayward was correct

July 27, 2010

By Sam Redman

People wonder… where did all the oil go? Their point of reference is usually the Valdez spill, because we know that oil mostly ended up on the shores and then stayed around for many years. But, the situation in the gulf is quite different.

The oil from the gulf is not the same as what was experienced in the Exxon Valdez spill. This oil is a very light, very degradable oil while the Valdez oil was a heavy thick crude, prone to very slow degradation. Forty percent of this kind of oil simply evaporates. Perhaps twenty percent was able to be collected or burned and the remaining forty percent is being rapidly consumed and digested by naturally occurring bacteria, which already inhabit the gulf waters, doing that very same specific task, eliminating naturally occurring oil seepage every day (long before this spill ever occurred). That is a fact which many may not have known or have overlooked; there are thousands (yes thousands) of oil seeps on the gulf ocean floor which occur naturally and that oil is consumed by resident, specifically evolved, bacteria which are conveniently now readily available to dispose of the oil from this spill.

And there are the simple realities of the tropical conditions of warm air and warm water which combine to create a perfect situation to cause this kind of light oil to evaporate and it provides the ideal incubator conditions for the bacteriological consumption of the oil. Louisiana’s coastal marshes are totally different from the frigid waters of southern Alaska, although both are teeming with birds and fish. Cold, icy water slows decomposition. The warmer water temperature in the Gulf of Mexico is ideal for decomposing either spilled or naturally seeping oil.

The churning waters of the gulf this time of year from the tropical storms, plus the strong outflow at the Mississippi River Delta(the largest river in the country) contribute to the oil being dispersed into tiny droplets, making both evaporation and bacteriological consumption occur more easily.

The truth (if anyone really wants the truth) is that it is extremely likely that the facts will bear out Tony Hayward’s shouted down prediction that “the overall environmental impact will be very, very modest.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.