EF! Fined $1million in Idaho

[charliew]

In article <5695en$8al at gazette.engr.sgi.com>,
   jmsully at isdn-sc70.corp.sgi.com (John M. Sully) wrote:
>
>In article <568lal$6sc_003 at pm7-97.hal-pc.org>, 
charliew at hal-pc.org writes:
>> If you want to see a "really good recommendation", look 
in 
>> Scientific American, October, 1991.  There is an article 
>> entitled "Soiled Shores" that describes a technique known 
as 
>> hydrostatic loading, in which the authors advocate 
requiring 
>> tankers to sail only partially loaded to prevent oil 
spills. 
>> Unfortunately, the authors are totally full of crap, as 
>> their argument has a *big* scientific flaw in it.  Is it 
any 
>> wonder that people do not automatically flock to the 
>> environmental viewpoint?
>
>So, what's the big scientific flaw?
>
>--John
>
>

Partially loaded tankers float higher in the water than 
fully loaded tankers.  In effect, the pressure on the 
outside of the tanker's hull is always higher than the 
pressure on the inside of the tanker's hull, unless the 
tanker's contents are pressurized with light hydrocarbons or 
nitrogen.

If you want a *long* reply that I sent to the editors of 
Scientific American back in 1991, I can send you the same 
letter.  Assuming that you have the article in question, you 
should be able to follow the discussion.

Obviously, my big complaint for such a recommendation rests 
on the fact that this form of regulation is expensive, but 
it doesn't affect the problem in any way.  At a minimum, if 
more regulation is enacted, it should be at least moderately 
effective in its action (it should partially or wholly 
accomplish its goals).  Such is not the case with the 
hydrostatic loading idea.

Have a nice day.