Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:51 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Fracking doesn't pose health risks. Back to Topics
flyboyUT

Champion Author
Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 4:15:24 PM



Haven't seen one single case where fracking has caused a health risk. But the luddite libs are still against it.
.
>>>While New York Governor Andrew Cuomo vacillates on whether to allow fracking in New York State, a coterie of publicity savvy activists posing as public health experts are spearheading a disingenuous crusade to prevent the exploitation of the vast quantities of natural gas trapped in shale thousands of feet beneath New York’s Southern Tier. The leaders of this movement, millionaires with estates in natural gas-rich areas, have thus far successfully manipulated public opinion and the media by linking fracking to water and air pollution.

But fracking doesn’t pollute water or air. No documented instances of adverse health effects have been linked to fracking, nor have any occurrences of groundwater contamination been confirmed from the more than 1 million wells that have been hydraulically fractured over the past 50 years. Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said as much last year when she was queried on this subject, and her former boss, President Obama, supports hydraulic fracturing.<<<

Yet these people continue to lie and harm others - for purely political reasons. And few if any liberals will call them out on it.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 27, 2015 4:22:23 PM

By all means - stop using Nat Gas and oil - go green - save the environment......
.
.
>>>Ivanpah is a $2.2 billion dollar solar energy projected aimed at powering up to 140,000 homes for twice the electrical cost. It also killed 3,500 birds in the first year of its operation (the Desert Sun):

More than 3,500 birds died during the 377-megawatt Ivanpah solar project’s first year of operation, a new report estimates.

Bird deaths were known at the “power tower” project, which is located in San Bernardino County off Interstate 15 just southwest of the Nevada border. But how many was unclear. Even at the 3,504 estimate, the report considers the deaths a “minimal proportion of local, regional, or national populations” of birds.>>>
.
.
So you dont like solar - but dont even think of going windfarm ----
.
.
>>>In the end, using 58 mortality estimates that met their criteria, they came up with an estimate. According to the current literature somewhere between 140,000 and 328,000 birds die each year from collisions with wind turbines. That's not all, explains the blog Natural Reactions:

In addition, it appears that there is a greater risk of fatal collisions with taller turbines. This is a real problem, as larger wind turbines may provide more efficient energy generation. Consequently, it is expected that new wind farms will contain even bigger turbines, which will result in even more bird deaths. Future developments therefore will have to give very careful consideration to potential wildlife impacts when planning the type of turbine to install.<<<<
.
.
.
Rumble it still kinda looks like fracking for gas and oil is not a problem --- unless your not looking at reality.....
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,503
Points:3,951,685
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Apr 27, 2015 12:23:13 PM

"I can guarantee you that you have consumed food or drink contaminated with these compounds. Unless you grow all your own food.
And look, we are not that messed up."

The fact you aren't dead or riddled with cancer today doesn't prove it is safe to dump millions of gallons of poisons into the earth and hope Scotty beams them up.
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:16,988
Points:3,839,605
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Apr 27, 2015 8:41:59 AM

Fracking has been going on for 60 years! Why all of a sudden is it controversial? Is it because it poses effective competition to opec?
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:14,044
Points:342,890
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2015 10:15:32 PM

Sure why not? Better miles below the earth then on surfaces that prep your food.
I can guarantee you that you have consumed food or drink contaminated with these compounds. Unless you grow all your own food.
And look, we are not that messed up.

Years ago I encountered a bottle of pepsi, another time a year to 2 later milk that had something in it, more recently in 2005ish (yeah 10 years ago) a can of beef stew. Each food/drink was very different, all had the same funky taste, kind of metallic and had a soapy smell. Each time I poured it out and didn't think anything of it.
Not too long ago I encountered these chemicals in bulk for the first time, then I knew what was in my food. I never forgot that smell.
Turns out everyone uses the same chemicals.

A worker could be severely hurt, killed, blinded by chemicals in use at a industrial food processor almost as easily as in an oil recovery operation.
Maybe even more easily since the chemicals are heated to around 160'F and are constantly in use somewhere.

And just like the frackers, the industrial food processors reuse that water that is full of the expensive chemicals, the acids, caustic, sanitizer wash water and even the rinse water for washing the inside of the food processing equipment that is never meant to be opened up and scrubbed by hand, it all gets reused.
Before you barf, the end rinse uses "process water" which is going to be cleaner than typical city water.

But all those chemicals aren't dumped into the machine with a guy pushing around a chemical cart. Its all automated, the concentrated chemicals pumped and mixed with water in huge 40,000 gallon vats. At some points in the process the chemicals are separated from your food by nothing more than a rubber seal.
The company that makes the these valves says the seals need to be replaced every 3 months, yeah that never happens.

That chemical acid sanitizer that contaminated my pepsi, milk and beef stew, I use it to eat the mineral scale off stainless steel valves before I rebuild them.
The nitric and phosphoric acid wash would work better but I don't go any where near that stuff if I can help it. The nitric acid is so concentrated it looks black.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,503
Points:3,951,685
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2015 7:02:03 PM

"The food industry uses a lot of the same compounds."

And that somehow makes it okay for fracking companies to inject them into the ground out of sight?
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:14,044
Points:342,890
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2015 4:45:00 PM

" Methanol, BTEX compounds ( benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene), diesel fuel, lead, hydrogen flouride, napthalene, sulphuric acid, crystalline silica, and formaldehyde, plus the unknowns, the 'proprietary' or 'trade secret.' compounds, are injected into the ground from which we draw drinking water."

The food industry uses a lot of the same compounds. Well obviously they don't use lead, at least in the U.S. and you don't see organic solvents very much.
But they use sulfuric acid, organic peroxides, and other industrial oxidizers by the truck load.
Profile Pic
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:2,737
Points:1,344,875
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2015 12:09:29 PM

right
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,503
Points:3,951,685
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2015 10:47:01 AM

I am against many things about fracking, especially the poisonous chemicals. Methanol, BTEX compounds ( benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene), diesel fuel, lead, hydrogen flouride, napthalene, sulphuric acid, crystalline silica, and formaldehyde, plus the unknowns, the 'proprietary' or 'trade secret.' compounds, are injected into the ground from which we draw drinking water.
We are supposed to trust the process that creates cracks to allow gas to be released for us will NEVER create cracks that allow these chemicals to migrate to the water table. I don't understand the mindset that doesn't demand the use of less toxic chemicals.

Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:14,044
Points:342,890
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2015 7:20:53 AM

Individual payoffs are ineffective.
I would be surprised if they did not fund steaming pools of sewage like gas land and that lettered network special that showed the flaming water coming out of the garden hose.
They just throw a bunch of crap at the wall and go with what ever sticks.

The frackers pay me hundreds of dollars a year to support them.
In winter of 2008/2009 all my gas bills were over $200 a month during the colder months (4 or 5) in Virginia.
Now in newmexico, I haven't seen a gas bill over $70 and it gets a lot colder here than in viriginia.
And the industrial facility I work at burns around 1.6 billion BTUs per day of mineral derived natural gas (we also have waste water bio gas, saves the company around $1000/day) so I also have them evil frackers to think for creating a more profitable company.
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:16,988
Points:3,839,605
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2015 4:58:38 AM

How much do you think OPEC is payinng passer to be against fracking? The process that is really hurting opec.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,503
Points:3,951,685
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2015 1:10:24 AM

"then have to pay for an OSHA, EPA approved filtering setup for those effected. Then clean it up if possible."

And if not possible? Shrug and go "we thought it was safe"?
It is possible to perform dialysis on a human body. It is not possible to filter all the water in an aquifer.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:20,208
Points:2,352,910
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Apr 26, 2015 12:34:06 AM

"Fracking doesn't pose health risks."

All the evidence shows that the title of this topic is in error.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 25, 2015 3:59:42 PM

oilpan you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You already know that telling treehuggers the truth about what they do will give them a serious case of the nevergetovers and probably cause them to light another bong full of that there Colorado wackybaccy....or something.

Dont you feel bad now......
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:14,044
Points:342,890
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 25, 2015 3:56:01 PM

"Every fracking job requires 2 million to 4 million gallons of water"\

Bohoo, the food processing plant I maintain utilities at uses just over a half million gallons of water every day.
And before I started working there they didn't reuse or recycle any water at first, they were using almost 800,000 of water a day.

Around where I live now oil companies were going to use CO2 trapped under ground in Colorado's natural gas reservoirs and pipe it to texas and newmexico to replace water used in wells to displace oil but that idea got blocked by the anti pipe line liberals.
So we continue to use water and vent the CO2 to the atmosphere.
I can tell, you guys really care about the environment....
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:14,044
Points:342,890
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 25, 2015 3:50:04 PM

So in rare cases where ground water is contaminated then the oil company needs to fix it. The should provide truck loads of bottled water to effected people immediately, then have to pay for an OSHA, EPA approved filtering setup for those effected. Then clean it up if possible.

"If they don't recycle the water it is very toxic"

You are correct they don't recycle it that would be a pointless waste of money. So they just reuse it. It has the mix of chemicals they need already in it, what else would they do with it?

"Can we afford fracking?"

We tried with out it and natural gas prices soared up to $12 per million BTU.

What I don't understand is why you liberals love the oil companies so much.
You do realize they would love nothing more than to be "forced" to sell their natural gas to us all as at double, triple or even quadruple the current price and not have to spend any money and pay for the risks that go along with drilling and fracking.
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:4,223
Points:1,107,470
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2015 2:38:03 PM

If they don't recycle the water it is very toxic; but even with recycling it's using billions of gallons of fresh water that is needed for life.

So what uses of water must we give up so we can have water for fracking?>

Can we afford fracking?

or, would they say you can frack your water and have it too???!!!
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:4,223
Points:1,107,470
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2015 2:37:32 PM

If they don't recycle the water it is very toxic; but even with recycling it's using billions of gallons of fresh water that is needed for life.

So what uses of water must we give up so we can have water for fracking?>

Can we afford fracking?

or, would they say you can frack your water and have it too???!!!
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:24,309
Points:914,655
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2015 10:29:08 AM

Yes, Oilpan, you are right. It is possible to filter out the metals and even BTEX with various charges of ionized charcoal, for example. I used to do this when I cleaned up large spills in the open. For small amounts. The problem here is it is going in the ground water and cannot be "filtered out" until you remove it from the ground.

It gets into the environment once it is gone into the groundwater. Who knows where it goes from there? You do not. Why allow it to be put there to start with. That is what environmental pollution is all about. Polluting the environment. Then we have to clean it up and filter it out. These are NOT minor problems.



[Edited by: btc1 at 4/24/2015 10:30:34 AM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:14,044
Points:342,890
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2015 12:51:03 AM

Those can be filtered out.
A minor, fixable problem that appears to occur rarely.
What was the issue?

[Edited by: oilpan4 at 4/24/2015 12:52:13 AM EST]
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:26,543
Points:2,519,515
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 11:19:01 PM

Careful there rumble. Your link has the word science in it.........
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,503
Points:3,951,685
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 11:12:50 PM

"Cases of groundwater contamination have been hotly debated, but the new study finds that the overwhelming evidence suggests it has happened, albeit not commonly. Is the methane contamination observed in drinking water a precursor to other toxins -- arsenic, various salts, radioactive radium and other metals -- making their way up slowly? The researchers do not yet know. A few recent studies suggest the answer could be "yes" in rare cases."

What the? Twice the link function has just disappeared!
3rd time's the charm.
Environmental costs, health risks, and benefits of fracking examined

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 4/23/2015 11:15:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 11:06:17 PM

Oilpan - you are most probably correct in your second statement.

As far as the use of 3 and 5 like they did. I never said I agreed with the whole article. A three is very hard to detect from and distance and as yo said a 5 is orders of magnitude more energy - enough that maybe even btc might feel it.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:14,044
Points:342,890
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 10:01:15 PM

To group 3 and 5 in the same sentence is misleading.
Too many people already think that the moment magnitude scale is linier (if linier then a 5 would have 160% the power of a 3). Because this is a log scale a 5 is 1000 times more powerful than a 3.
This is only high school math.
As you increase in power you see a decrease on the same order in the numbers of these quakes that occur. For example there are millions of 3.0 and less earthquakes each year. The number of quakes in the 5 range is only a little over 1,000.
This is only high school (if that) earth science.

I think the problem is btc1 lacks the capability to understand what a logarithmic scale is.

Or he is playing that liberal card of if the science doesn't agree with what he feel the way things should be then its false.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 6:40:40 PM

"I see the cons keep their tirade against factual science in full bloom."
.
.
Nonsense btc - I just used the exact same argument that has been beaten to death by the antifrackers and other treehuggers.

I keep on hearing that the BIGEVILOIL pays for the research that supports their side. Yes they do pay for their own research and so does the pesticide companies - mainly because it is required by law. But when the research is published the first thing you and others who are trying to stop the producers of fuel of ag chemicals or whatever spew forth is that the data is tainted because the people doing it have some kind of tie to BIGEVILOIL. Well that rule cuts both ways!!!!!!

.

Look when you come up with research data that is produced by knowingly biased folks who are funded by the treehugger groups you had better expect for that to be shown as a fact. Who did the peer reviews btc? Were there any people who didnt already have a bias against fracking review the papers?

Btc - I call down the BS flag on you on this one.........
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:24,309
Points:914,655
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 6:27:48 PM

I see the cons keep their tirade against factual science in full bloom.

SMH
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 4:15:17 PM

Goooooollllleeeee why am I not surprised. The antifrackers use dubious data to prove their case.
.
.
.>>>New Report Details The Staggering Corruption Of Science Behind NY’s Fracking Ban
.
.
“[T]he Cuomo administration’s report relies on highly questionable sources, including research papers with strong ties to the fringe activists who helped hasten the ban in New York,” according to a new report by the oil industry-backed group Energy In Depth (EID).

“Yet these same sources were misrepresented as purveyors and curators of ‘bona fide’ science by Cuomo officials,” EID reports.

In December 2014, Dr. Howard Zucker, acting New York health commissioner, released his long-delayed report on fracking, which predictably came to the conclusion that the well-stimulation method was not proven to be safe. Zucker famously said, “Would I let my child play in a field nearby? My answer is no.” (Zucker forgot to mention he was unmarried and had no children.)

But EID notes that Zucker’s 184-page report has some serious flaws. For starters, the research the Cuomo administration relied upon included “reports that were financed and produced almost entirely by professional opposition groups.”

For example, the “Global Community Monitor” (GCM), a paper that was touted by Zucker, was authored by researchers with explicit ties to environmental groups. Not only that, all three peer-reviewers of the study “failed to disclose their personal opposition to shale development,” according to EID.

One peer-reviewer, Sandra Steingraber, literally co-founded the group New Yorkers Against Fracking.

Steingraber says (with a straight face) she’s unbiased when it comes to fracking, but she was recently caught on a phone conference with Maryland anti-fracking activists saying “we have to create the narrative [laughs] for the data.”

“You’ve got a lot of science, but now you have to take it like a Gladiator and go into the political arena with it,” Steingraber told activists in audio obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“We can’t hold back when we’re accused by industry of not being objective because we’re being advocates,” she said. “Those two things are actually not opposed to each another.”

EID notes that environmental activists with the Health and Environmental Funders Network (HEFN) and the Sustainable Markets Foundation (SMF) had financial ties to the GCM paper to the tune of $3.7 million. These groups also had financial ties to left-wing media outlets “including InsideClimate News, Grist and National Public Radio” and exceeding $2.2 million.

“This research and media coverage directly benefited campaign organizations that have received in excess of $16 million from the HEFN and SMF to build the political case for banning shale development in New York,” EID found in its report.<<<
.
.
.
Sure they use "peer reviewed research" reviewed by their peers in the pay of the antifrackers..... Yet these same people are the very first to squeal like stuck hogs if any research is done by the oil and gas companies to see if what they are doing is safe....

Hypocrisy - thy name is treehugger.......
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 3:45:37 PM

So btc your going to say that nothing has changed in the energy markets for the last 60 years. Say again you were garbled!!!!

Your going to say that the only thing Nat Gas is used for is home heating too I suppose?

Once more btc try - really try this time - what will the effect be if we say no more fracking?

Then can yo show where fracking has for sure caused actual documented hazards in human health.

By the way a 2 earthquake is a joke and not a hazard....
.
.
They are almost impossible to feel.
.
.
>>>This depends on the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake!

According to the US Geological survey, people do not normally perceive earthquakes with magnitudes lower than 3.0. By definition the Modified Mercalli scale rates earthquakes that happen but cannot be felt by humans at intensity 1.

Earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 3 can normally be felt by humans. The intermediate range between magnitude 3 and 5 (the point where damage to buildings typically starts to occur) rate from II to V on the Mercalli intensity scale.

At magnitudes of 5 - 6 low to moderate damage may be done to structures and are usually felt by everyone in the affected areas. This is equivalent to a Mercalli intensity of VI (for magnitude 5) - VII (magnitude 6). <<<
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:14,044
Points:342,890
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 2:16:13 PM

"However, are you trying to tell me earthquakes are not a health problem?"

If you think a 3 magnitude earth quake is a health hazard then you obviously have no frame of reference for what a 3 is like.

"All it has done is to drop the cost to the customer a few cents."

That's a steaming load of crap if I ever saw one.
In 2008 natural gas was going for over $12 per million BTU.
Now it hasn't been above $5 per million BTU in a few years.
A few cents my back side. More like hundreds of dollars per heating season.

It is no longer economically practical to keep fracking and hasn't been for a few years now. Do you want to know why people keep fracking?
They keep doing it just incase the insane liberals ram a fracking ban through somewhere. A fracking ban guarantees a loss of millions of dollars in revenue to a well owner. So now fracking is purely preventive, just incase a fracking ban gets rammed through somewhere.
So you have your selves to thank for the unending fracking boom that has been going non stop since the last natural gas price spike and even through a price crash.
It briefly slowed down when gas dropped below $2 per million BTU, to where the fracking companies didn't have a year long waiting list all the time.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:20,208
Points:2,352,910
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 1:02:48 PM

"...living is dangerous to your health."

True, but by the title of this topic, "Fracking" is less dangerous than living. Which means that the title of this topic is hyperbole from hell and reduces its supporters "credibility" to little more than petty propagandists who will do anything to grind their axe. Perhaps they misheard and misunderstood "axe and ye shall receive"?
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:24,309
Points:914,655
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 12:57:15 PM

fly, all the houses I have lived in, except when I was a small child used natural gas. We never had to frack to get it. Are you trying to say we were about to run out so we had to start fracking? Hardly. All it has done is to drop the cost to the customer a few cents. We do not have to make a choice between wood burning or gas.

You are just being silly in trying to make your point. Which is pointless.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 12:44:37 PM

Btc - read again ---
.
"The key is to attempt to judge the relative risks involved and then make a reasoned decision."
.
and
.
"So btc on balance whatcha gonna do burn wood or coal or natural gas????? Maybe you will sit in the dark and shiver?????"
.
.
.
btc you cant just sit back and say you against fracking without dealing with the effects of not fracking and trying to balance he consequences of fracking vs not fracking.

Your beginning to remind me of those folks who cry that OTR diesel trucks emit toxic exhaust so we must ban them. But they never seem to figure out what effects this will have. That is similar to those who cry that the worlds fleet of merchant marine ships use too much fuel and are polluting the oceans and air so we must stop fossil fueled shipping......

Yep trucks and ships do burn fuel so before yo say stop what is your alternative?

There have been tons of accusations of harm caused by fracking for gas. Few if any of them are proven much less pas the "so what" test. If the actual effects of fracking are so slight that it is almost impossible to determine what they are much less the seriousness of these effects I see no reason to stop the process. ESPECIALLY since the "antifrackers" are not willing to discuss the effects of replacing the energy used by fracking with some other form of energy.

Living is hazardous to your health. Save your health and stop living seems to be the thinking of the "antifrackers".
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:24,309
Points:914,655
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 11:48:25 AM

fly, "Hey btc - I just figured something out - living is dangerous to your health."

You are right. So why add to that risk by fracking?
Profile Pic
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:2,737
Points:1,344,875
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 10:35:46 AM

You are correct about fracking
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 10:29:01 AM

Hey btc - I just figured something out - living is dangerous to your health.

Nothing in life we do is totally risk free. Yet there are those who seem to demand it from any processes that produce energy regardless of its source or the tools used to get it from where it it to your end point user.

The key is to attempt to judge the relative risks involved and then make a reasoned decision.

Example - using nat gas to heat your home is nice but it entails getting it from the ground to your home. Using wood to heat your home is how it was done when everyone was "much greener". Its a renewable resource etc. But there are huge health hazards involved in cutting down the trees and reducing them to stove wood size via a fossil fuel powered chain saw plus the hazards of loading, unloading, splitting, stacking, bringing in the home, burning it with all the attendant dangers of fire and then the for real health hazards of breathing the smoke plus polluting the air.

So btc on balance whatcha gonna do burn wood or coal or natural gas????? Maybe you will sit in the dark and shiver?????

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 4/23/2015 10:29:24 AM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:24,309
Points:914,655
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 10:11:39 AM

sgm, you know I hate to disagree with you. However, are you trying to tell me earthquakes are not a health problem? Can they not cause injury and even disease from resulting trauma?

But, to appease the strictness of this thread, health risks are evident.
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:26,543
Points:2,519,515
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 10:09:49 AM

AC, not sure why that is. I just clicked on it and up came the AP story on yahoo news.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:24,476
Points:3,291,245
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 10:01:12 AM

"Oklahoma geologists have documented strong links between increased seismic activity in the state and the injection into the ground of wastewater from oil and gas production, a state agency said on Tuesday."

That's an earthquake risk. This thread is clearly about health risks. You're going off-topic!
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:24,309
Points:914,655
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 9:18:30 AM

From Raw Story.

"Oklahoma geologists have documented strong links between increased seismic activity in the state and the injection into the ground of wastewater from oil and gas production, a state agency said on Tuesday.

Oklahoma is recording 2-1/2 earthquakes daily of a magnitude 3 or greater, a seismicity rate 600 times greater than observed before 2008, the report by the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS) said."
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:32,566
Points:3,659,070
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2015 12:52:19 AM

Jayrad - that link of yours came up, not as Yahoo and AP, but as a source called "Addicting Info." I'm telling you what I saw, my friend.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:14,044
Points:342,890
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2015 1:00:23 AM

And why is this a problem for you out in LA?
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:26,543
Points:2,519,515
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 11:41:02 PM

AC that last link was an AP story on yahoo news.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:32,566
Points:3,659,070
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 11:36:40 PM

Jay - beg pardon but "Addicting Info" as a primary source? Well, I'm skeptical, to say the least.

Now, years ago in Ohio they also had some minor tremors due to the Air Force injecting wastwater into some wells at too high a pressure. It is known that minor surface tremors can be caused by overpressuring a well. I grant you that.

But this article is bogus. They're talking TECTONIC activity. Tectonics means continental PLATES moving. Here, now. Let's think about the pressures that are involved, versus the sheer WEIGHT of a tectonic plate, even at the edge. Peanuts. Not even peanuts - not even dust specs. Again, surface tremors down to the well depth? OK. But when major quakes usually occur many MILES deep, wells don't go down that far. And yes, I know something about oil drilling and wells.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:14,044
Points:342,890
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 10:36:01 PM

"And you have never commented on something not in your area? To do so would be hypocrisy."

Only if it has the potential to effect or spread to my area.

And you oh so conveniently dodged answering.
How is fracking that is not any where near California going to hurt you?
Is cheaper natural gas hurting you in some way?

Or are you just going to keep up the usual liberal spin and dance routine?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 10:26:28 PM

Jay I agree that we should by all means be free to comment on things outside our immediate area. Maybe oilpan was trying to get at the concept that the dangers mentioned were too slight to be of concern.

Heck if you take anything out of the ground or put anything in the ground that deep there will be minor earth movements of some kind - that has to take place - adding or subtracting from a space does make changes. But if the earth movement is so slight that it is factually insignificant and has zero potential to cause any damage why should we be concerned?

Heck Jay if a freight train rumbles through a neighborhood it does more shaking than those quakes.
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:26,543
Points:2,519,515
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 10:21:01 PM

"And why is this a problem for you out in LA?"

And you have never commented on something not in your area? To do so would be hypocrisy.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:20,208
Points:2,352,910
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 9:43:53 PM

"Much ado about nothing it seems."

The CEO's of the major tobacco companies swore, under oath, in front of Congress, the same thing.

"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 6:19:29 PM

These earthquakes are so slight that probably only sensitive instruments can detect them. Much ado about nothing it seems.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:14,044
Points:342,890
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 3:03:31 PM

"Study links Texas earthquakes to natural gas drilling."

And why is this a problem for you out in LA?
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:26,543
Points:2,519,515
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2015 1:13:34 PM

Study links Texas earthquakes to natural gas drilling.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:30,595
Points:1,760,915
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2015 3:36:20 PM

Passer maybe some day you will try to deal with the content of the post and the ideas. You do know that attempts to disparage the poster are frowned on in this website dont you.

Now back to the post---- From the article - >>>“The American public deserves to know whether environmentalists are attacking US energy companies at the behest of a Russian government that would like nothing more than to see their international competition weakened,” Will Coggin, a senior research analyst at the EPA, said in an emailed statement.

“In the face of mounting evidence, environmental groups are going to have to start answering hard questions about their international funding sources,” Coggin said.

The overlap between executives at firms with ties to Russian oil interests and a multi-million-dollar donor to U.S. environmentalist groups has some experts worried that Russians may be replicating anti-fracking tactics used in Europe to attack the practice in the United States.<<<

.
.
.
Passer do yo have any comment at all on the substance of the article? You know the "environmental groups" being funded by Russia to damage the economy and fuel production of the United States?

I do remember in a different topic the liberals going all wowsers upset over some research guy they didn't agree with who abide by his employers rules but the liberals didn't like that a whole lot and didn't like the source of some of his funding.

Passer are you OK with this apparent "conflict of Interest"?

Oh yeah Passer - FYI - I choose to use the term Treehugger because of a request from a friend of mine who happens to be quite liberal. He didn't like the terms I was using (much less respectful). I agreed with him that this term was acceptable - well to him anyway.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:20,208
Points:2,352,910
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2015 2:12:35 PM

"Seems like the treehuggers are just another form of useful idiot!"

HINT: When you have to call those who disagree with you, names, that replaces the actual facts you don't have.

If you really had science on your side you wouldn't have to revert to name calling.

Of course to the Tea Party, like their ISIS strange bedfellows in defunding DHS, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISAGREE.

Sorry flyboyUT who is afraid to even question whether fracking poses health risks but I am proud to be one of your idiots who dares disagree with the foolish name of this topic named with all the maturity of a child.

In my experience the last group I questioned who dismissed their questioners as a "useful" idiots were the owners of the Tobacco Companies in the 1960's who swore, under oath, before Congress that their products were "safe".

Like Conservatives everywhere, as soon as you get a question, you must dismiss the questioners with your petty names that make you look like a child who was spanked too often.



[Edited by: Passer at 3/2/2015 2:13:40 PM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics