Will the BP Oil Spill Set Off A Tsunami?

David DeGraw's article is fine. I have no questions about what he says and will only say that his honesty about not being certain that what the helium.com article says being a [real] concern is [appreciable].

But I do have some questions and a little criticism about the helium.com article that he excerpted from and provided a link for fully reading. I posted a comment in the page for his article and will simply requote it while making a couple of minor modifications.

What I’d like to know is how reliable helium.com and the several people with articles on this hypothetically catastrophic tsunami caused by a massive methane gas explosion are. Who are these people? No bio’s are provided for them, and the article at helium.com isn’t even dated or date-stamped. It clearly was recently written, but should nevertheless be dated for when it was posted and/or written. More importantly, bio’s should be provided for readers to be able to know what kind of scientific backgrounds and, therefore, expertise(s) these people have.

Also, what their claims about a hypothetical tsunami caused by a massive explosion of the methane gas are based on should be explained. If it’s only theory and isn’t based on any precedent events that have been [proven] to have factually occurred, then how are readers going to know whether the articles are scientifically reasonable, or not?

Quoting from the helium.com article: “More than 12 months ago some geologists rang the warning bell that the Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig might have been erected directly over a huge underground reservoir of methane”.

Who are these geologists? Where did they ring the warning bell? Who did they warn? Did they also write about it, and if they did, then are the articles accessible by the public? Et cetera.

Professional writers would include all of the above kind of information, all pertinent details, in my opinion.

The article provides links to two Youtube videos and the URL’s are invalid.

What kind of professionalism is this?

Note that I’m not saying that the helium.com article is false in any respect; only saying that it’s lacking details that good sources would provide, and this is only after having read the first page of the 3-page article (if we remove the "print" at the end of the url and then load the resulting url). One thing they wouldn’t do is provide links to non-existant webpages; especially when the helium.com article and the Deep Horizon accident are very recent. Links often become “dead” over time, but valid links last for quite a while, years, except when censorship is performed, or a page has been moved to an accessible archive, or a page a link is for was wrongly posted to begin with. I don’t see why the latter reason would apply with the videos the helium.com article provides URL’s for, and also don't think Youtube would censor these videos unless they were provably lies, f.e.; but maybe it was done in this case and for other reasons than the videos consisting of fraudulent claims.

In any case, the helium.com article seems to be professionally questionable. If everything it says was truthfully written, with no intended fraud, or fabrications, then the article should be revised appropriately.

After all, what even the short excerpt made by David DeGraw says could potentially cause a lot of people residing in the hypothetical areas of danger from the hypothetical tsunami to flee before the hypothetical tsunami hypothetically happens. To risk causing the flight of many people based on hypothetics isn't a friendly way of treating each other!