Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:21 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:29,252
Points:1,646,755
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
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:16,535
Points:3,719,725
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Jan 20, 2015 5:54:05 PM

Keep on fracking!

[Edited by: wbacon at 1/20/2015 5:54:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,252
Points:1,646,755
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 20, 2015 11:50:34 AM

Snicker - kinda brings a new twist on things doesnt it.......
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,252
Points:1,646,755
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 19, 2015 5:26:39 PM

“They do the studies to get the results they want,” he said. “They are not going to be objective, they have an agenda.”
.
.
>>>New York state’s controversial new fracking ban was bolstered in part by research written and peer-reviewed by scientists with ties to the anti-fracking movement – drawing criticism that their views were not disclosed when the ban was announced last month.<<<

Gee why does this sound like he constant squeal that the oil companies are paying scientists to give out only research that says drill baby drill?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,252
Points:1,646,755
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 19, 2015 12:06:51 PM

Passer this is in the OP - "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 you say - "Fracking IS important but it is too early to determine its potential health risks. It needs continual study while it is pursued as safely as possible."

There are two thoughts there - the second one I totally agree with - "It needs continual study while it is pursued as safely as possible." Yes we do need to use adequate, reasonable safety rules in the process. Yes we do need to continually question what we are doing and why.

But he first thought in your sentence just does not make sense to me. Its 'too early'??? Say again you were garbled.... We have been doing it for a half century and roughly a million wells. It is not a new process at all.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,825
Points:2,342,830
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 19, 2015 12:26:09 AM

"But to demand that there will be zero accidents is not realistic either."

Of course! But from the title of this topic, that was not the question.

"What we do need to do is make rational decisions based on the relative degree of importance of the problem." I would agree. And also agree with mweyant. It also seems that most agree that the title of this topic was most unfortunate and buried most of the common ground that most would subscribe to:

Fracking IS important but it is too early to determine its potential health risks. It needs continual study while it is pursued as safely as possible.



[Edited by: Passer at 1/19/2015 12:27:01 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,131
Points:603,485
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2015 10:15:25 PM

"It all adds to the discussion . . . I maintain that more studies, MANY more studies, need to be done. Yes, I definitely see the immense value in fracking--don't want to close it down. Somewhat alarming to me that more attention has not been paid to the process, that's all . . ."

100% agreed.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,252
Points:1,646,755
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2015 10:15:03 PM

I guess I am much less concerned about the process because it has been done for so many years on literally hundreds of thousands of wells with overall very few documented cases of problems.

Now can there be major problems - heck yes. It is a dangerous endeavor or process regardless of how careful you are. Accidents will happen and we do need to take adequate steps to minimize them. But we also have to put things in perspective. But to demand that there will be zero accidents is not realistic either.

What we do need to do is make rational decisions based on the relative degree of importance of the problem.

Yes sooner or later some operator will take a dumb chance and he will contaminate a potable aquifer somewhere at some time. But because we know this will happen does that mean we stop all well drilling? Look we all know beyond a shadow of a doubt that every time we get in our car and drive somewhere there is a finite risk of injury or death. We still drive dont we? We all know that planes do crash and people die in the crashes - how many of us will refuse to travel by air?

Lets apply the same standards of no possible harm that some folks want to apply to well drillers to hospitals and doctors. Will we demand that there be a zero tolerance for medical mistakes? You say that is not logical???? Well then why is it logical to demand that same degree of lack of any possible harm to well drillers?
Profile Pic
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:8,431
Points:1,670,040
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2015 9:56:28 PM

"For the study, researchers collected samples of wastewater from both conventional and unconventional shale gas and oil wells in Pennsylvania and New York, from hydraulically fractured wells in Pennsylvania and Arkansas and from treatment plant discharges into rivers and streams at three Pennsylvania disposal sites in Venango and Indiana counties.

The sampling found that levels of ammonium and iodide in fracking fluid wastes and conventional oil and gas drilling wastewater can be equally high."

I guess I thought it was relevant . . .

I indicated myself at the end of the post that I felt that the article left out some information.

It all adds to the discussion . . . I maintain that more studies, MANY more studies, need to be done. Yes, I definitely see the immense value in fracking--don't want to close it down. Somewhat alarming to me that more attention has not been paid to the process, that's all . . .


Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,252
Points:1,646,755
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2015 10:57:24 AM

mweyant - Some thoughts on your post.

The study did not differentiate between conventional well drilling methods and fracking. What it said was that contaminants were found in drilling fluid waste that was improperly disposed of. The technique of fracking was not a concern of the study.

Now since the subject of this topic is the specific technique called fracking what relevance does this study have? However it is still a good study and it does point out that disposal of waste is important and that not doing it right can and does have harmful effects that we need to avoid.

However I still maintain that fracking is a valid and useful tool that has been used for a long time to extract large amounts of oil and gas that we need to operate our economy. Done properly it is not a major concern and is intrinsically no more or less of a problem than conventional techniques.
Profile Pic
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:8,431
Points:1,670,040
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2015 5:42:21 AM

I don't feel that the practice of fracking should be abandoned. I believe that not nearly enough studies have been done to show how we can work with it so that health issues are nil in the future.

" The peer-reviewed study, which will be published this week in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, is the first to identify those contaminants as widespread in the wastewater discharges from spills and treatment plants, including three facilities in the Allegheny River watershed."

The author says it is the first to identify contaminants . . .

Are so few organizations completing studies that this is the first one to identify contaminants? This is troubling to me. Here is the study(in today's news on GasBuddy)

Study: High levels of pollutants from drilling waste found in Pa. rivers

1-14-15

"New scientific sampling and analysis has found high concentrations of ammonium and iodide, two potentially hazardous pollutants, in oil and gas well drilling wastewater discharged into streams and rivers in Pennsylvania and other states."

But then, the article says that the chemical amounts were not measured! I wonder how difficult this is to do . . .

Also, "Mr. Vengosh, in an email response to questions Tuesday evening, said the study did not directly measure the two chemicals -- ammonium and iodide -- in public water treatment plants, but cites a recent report that showed that "even a tiny amount of bromide and iodide can trigger the formation of disinfection byproducts in public water supplies upon disinfection of the water." '

I want to know which report was cited in an email response.
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:11,258
Points:2,166,995
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2015 3:42:35 PM

I75at7AM said: "I'll jump the wesasle"

It looks more like you MANGLED the weasel. It's bad enough that Weaslespit mangled the poor animal's name to begin with, then you have to add your own sadistic twist? ;)
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,856
Points:3,171,600
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2015 3:08:56 PM

Uh, jeski, I'll jump the wesasle (instead of jumping the shark) and say "What do earthquakes in Connecticut have to do with this thread?"
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:11,258
Points:2,166,995
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2015 2:58:31 PM

Uh-oh. All that fracking in Connecticut has caused 12 earthquakes within one week!

Oops. What fracking goes on in Connecticut?

[Edited by: jeskibuff at 1/15/2015 2:59:48 PM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,940
Points:336,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 11:11:27 PM

"I do."

Obviously. You are from LA. I lived in japan for 3 and a half years. Other east coasters that were over there in japan with me were terrified of the earth quakes so I understand and know exactly how crazy and irrational they can be.

"Sorry, I forgot how literal-minded people can be."

Welcome to reality.
If you are going to fear 2 and 3 earth quakes you might as well be afraid of your own shadow too.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,131
Points:603,485
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 4:12:20 PM

"It was Captain Sarcasm."

No doubt - my sarcasm including pointing out that it wasn't I who said such a thing...
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,856
Points:3,171,600
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 3:58:57 PM

Who said that? Gore?

It was Captain Sarcasm.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,825
Points:2,342,830
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 12:48:54 PM

Then, WHAT IS causing those Fracking Earthquakes in Texas??


Even taking the religious view, it could be God for all the recent sinning in Texas as a Warning that if they don't stop their sinning it will be an "overweight" event that next steps on the Richter Scale.

In any case, they must be doing something in which He is not amused!

Or Fracking DOES pose risks proving Denial as a political psychosis or political axe-grinding doesn't change the facts nor stop the potential bleeding nor earth rumblings.

[Edited by: Passer at 1/14/2015 12:49:54 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,131
Points:603,485
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 11:37:33 AM

"Let's see....this thread is about fracking and how it DOES NOT pose health risks......"

So earthquakes don't pose health risks?

Interesting.

"If a big quake hits the San Andreas fault, it will obviously be because of Global Warming!!!!!!"

Who said that? Gore?

"...a logical person would see that tiny earthquakes therefore are not caused by fracking, since tiny earthquakes occur in areas where there is no fracking....."

Your 'evidence' does not prove anything, however further scientific research (rather than the shooting-from-the-hip-with-internet-links approach) might, one way or the other.

But, that would require logical reasoning, which some here seemingly don't have a good handle on based on their random approach to 'proving' things.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,856
Points:3,171,600
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 10:17:12 AM

Let's see....this thread is about fracking and how it DOES NOT pose health risks......the conversation had come around to tiny earthquakes and whether a 2.0 or even a 3.0 can pose a threat......I post how a swarm of tiny quakes in Dallas County cannot be linked to fracking as there is no fracking there......
...a logical person would see that tiny earthquakes therefore are not caused by fracking, since tiny earthquakes occur in areas where there is no fracking......
....but my post of "random" earthquakes in not even related to this topic......

If a big quake hits the San Andreas fault, it will obviously be because of Global Warming!!!!!!
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,131
Points:603,485
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 12:50:36 PM

"Sorry, I forgot how literal-minded people can be."

Yeah, I am dealing with his responses in the NRA thread... good grief.

While I am for fracking, why is it unreasonable to further study the seemingly high correlation to the drastic increase in the number of earthquakes near fracking sites?

Still wondering how 75's posting of random earthquakes in TX are even related to this topic. I guess if there is an earthquake on the San Andreas - but not near a fracking site, he will be posting that as evidence as well that fracking has no ties to earthquakes?

Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,797
Points:3,116,370
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 12:39:49 PM

"If a 3.0 can destroy your house than so could a noreaster. If a house is destroyed by a 3.0 quake or a noreaster then it was not built to code or had a serious structural deficiency."

Sorry, I forgot how literal-minded people can be.
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:25,636
Points:2,336,140
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 12:31:16 PM

"But of course you would be afraid of tiny 2 and 3 quakes because you have no frame of reference for what a real earthquake is."

I do.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,940
Points:336,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 12:20:43 PM

"that would work for some people is if their own house is destroyed. Sad! "

That report only talks about earthquakes being as strong as 2.1 to 3.0

If a 3.0 can destroy your house than so could a noreaster. If a house is destroyed by a 3.0 quake or a noreaster then it was not built to code or had a serious structural deficiency.

But of course you would be afraid of tiny 2 and 3 quakes because you have no frame of reference for what a real earthquake is.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,797
Points:3,116,370
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 11:34:13 AM

I guess the only proof that would work for some people is if their own house is destroyed. Sad!
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,856
Points:3,171,600
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 10:22:38 AM

Hey jayrad, don't forget about all the earthquakes in the Dallas Texas area. Except that " A spokesperson said Dr. Pearson was unavailable for an interview, but he released the following statement on his behalf: “There are no oil and gas disposal wells in Dallas County. And I see no linkage between oil and gas activity [in] these recent earthquakes in Irving.”"

Try a different tree to bark up.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,940
Points:336,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 2:38:23 AM

"I guess unleashing a monster quake could be part of the downside. "

How you going to get a monster quake with out a monster fault line?
Huge earth quakes are found with subduction zones which there are none of any where near Oklahoma, the nearest one is under you.
Do you not know where earthquakes come from?
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:25,636
Points:2,336,140
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2015 10:42:39 PM

"What was the down side?"

I guess unleashing a monster quake could be part of the downside.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,940
Points:336,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2015 10:39:03 PM

If the earthquake is less than 4 miles deep, I bet it was fracking that caused them.
The earth quakes further fracture the oil and gas bearing formations, releasing more oil and gas.
What was the down side?
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:25,636
Points:2,336,140
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2015 11:33:03 AM

Fracking may be causing a spike in Oklahoma earthquakes.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,825
Points:2,342,830
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Dec 11, 2014 2:16:10 AM

"if we get enough gas we can buy more bagels. HUMMMMMMMMM"

But enough gas may not be the key to open the lox...
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,252
Points:1,646,755
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2014 1:21:55 PM

OMG somebody quick hide the bagels.... Well lets think on this a bit - if we get enough gas we can buy more bagels. HUMMMMMMMMM
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,825
Points:2,342,830
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2014 12:59:30 PM

At least you have a sense of humor A1. That will be both of our's salvation.
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,424
Points:829,260
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2014 5:41:43 PM



Passer-

ROTFL
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,825
Points:2,342,830
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2014 5:37:19 PM

"Fracking will stop as soon as every hole that can be fracked gets fracked."

LOL

People better guard the holes in their doughnuts or before you know it, those holes will be fracked by the dough nut$...
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,940
Points:336,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2014 12:18:53 AM

"But they have no right to sell the next generation's souls no matter how "great" a price they got for their own pieces of black gold."

Hahaha, Whatever.
Fracking will stop as soon as every hole that can be fracked gets fracked.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,252
Points:1,646,755
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 6:02:54 PM

Steve we have been fracking for a long time. There have been literally a million or more wells fracked.

This body of experience has proven - or should have proven to you and other antifrackers - that it is a process that has been and can be done safely to the benefit of all of us.

Can accidents happen - yes. Can people make mistakes - yes. Can someone take unnecessary or against policy/law/rules chances - yes. But you dont say the entire thing is bad and should be stopped because of aberrations in an otherwise good safety record.

Using your ideology we would never again use cars - or they would resemble tanks with big bumpers to protect folks and no speed over five mph would be allowed.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,051
Points:852,470
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 4:30:41 PM

I'm just glad we stopped the next ice age on earth in time, aren't you? How much did the whole alar on apples thing cost before it was discovered to be a sham. "Don't let a good crisis go to waste" and create one if there isn't a good one handy.

I realize that this is a futile post as we all died some years ago from the hole in the ozone layer.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,092
Points:464,305
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 4:21:37 PM

The comments about fracking going on for 60 years...

True, but not at the volume being done today. And not so close to residential water supplies.

The comment about well, not many have died from fracking.

It's like the old dangerous intersection. Everybody knows it's dangerous but there have not been that many deaths yet so it is not addressed.

And then somebody important/popular/heart-tugging gets killed there. Next thing ya know the whole place is being torn up and redone.

The thing about fracking being dangerous is sort of like climate change. If we wait until it is clear that this is a stupid idea by that time the damage is already done. Ground water tainted, property values plummet and everybody has to leave an area because we destroyed it. But at least there weren't very many deaths until that happened...

Oh, great. Nice to know.

The folks who lost everything will be so comforted by this knowledge.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,825
Points:2,342,830
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2014 3:06:16 AM

"But Mexicomaria brings up a very valid point - we are obsessing about minutia that may kill us and not paying any attention to hazards of orders of magnitude higher concern."

OK. But this topic is read by teenagers who may be more invested in the future than the almighty influence of current profits for which many good people have sold their soul. This topic is labeled

"Fracking DOESN'T...!"


Not even an argument is entertained or permitted, the usual Right Wing "My Way or I'll Shut Your Government Down" tactic!

Those who believe that nonsense have their heads in the [tar]sand and their souls already sold to their highest black gold bidder.

But they have no right to sell the next generation's souls no matter how "great" a price they got for their own pieces of black gold.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,815
Points:3,852,515
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2014 7:01:58 PM

And the fact is 50 years ago this topic would be called, "Tobacco Smoking Doesn't Pose Health Riskes".

Agreed. People who were around then should remember calls for proof that smoking was harmful. The scary thing is, many people still believe it isn't so bad because other things are bad, a theme eerily echoed in this thread.
Smoking isn't that bad.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 12/2/2014 7:06:49 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,252
Points:1,646,755
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2014 5:38:37 PM

Passer I dont believe you really know much of what your spouting off about. My grandfather who was in France in WW I told us that the guys in the trenches used to call cigarettes "coffin nails". Why you may ask - because among those who had the sense to pound sand they knew that smoking was harmful. People knew that it was harmful - but then as today they choose to smoke. Again why you may ask - because nicotine is a very addictive drug and very hard to stop and stay off of.

But Mexicomaria brings up a very valid point - we are obsessing about minutia that may kill us and not paying any attention to hazards of orders of magnitude higher concern.

The sad sorry facts are that we have been fracking wells for a long time adn we have fracked on the order of a million wells and the instances of environmental problems from fracking are almost nonexistent.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,940
Points:336,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2014 1:20:56 PM

"PEOPLE WHO DON'T LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT!"

Then the liberals are doomed.
Nice knowing ya.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,825
Points:2,342,830
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2014 12:49:09 PM

"I say there is staggering evidence for the cigarette being nothing but a killer...no plus, just a killer."

True, very true. And the fact is 50 years ago this topic would be called, "Tobacco Smoking Doesn't Pose Health Riskes". And I bet so many would "prove" it by quoting the Congressional TESTIMONY of the heads of the Tobacco companies who were under oath at the Congressional Hearings at the time!

PEOPLE WHO DON'T LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT!
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,940
Points:336,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2014 11:17:52 PM

I know precisely what chemicals are used in fracking.
You and passer are still trying to figure it out, so much for "not having your head in the sand".
Profile Pic
mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:27,705
Points:1,964,845
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2014 11:01:03 PM

Isn't it just like me to walk right in in the middle of a conversation and throw in a monkey wrench? Some things are just major pet peeves to me.........this is one.

When it comes to health we spend so much time arguing about minutiae....while being killed by a bulldozer.

Let's look at the top killers of Americans in 2012.

Here are the top 15 killers:

1. Diseases of heart
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases (such as chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma)
4. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
5. Accidents (any injuries that are unintentional)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus
8. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
9. Influenza and pneumonia
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
11. Septicemia
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease
14. Parkinson’s disease
15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids

Care to guess how many of these diseases are caused or directly linked to smoking? Or Obesity. But do politically correct folks ever say, heh, that cigarette will kill you and those who surround you, or that pie will kill you, because you weigh 300lbs.

2nd hand smoke kills others....second hand eating rarely kills others....so here I will just go on about smoking. You quit or you die young, that is it. My mother died of lung cancer, smoker. My sister has a cancer from smoking. My father died of cancer, smoker. Second hand smoke can't have done me any favors.

I say there is staggering evidence for the cigarette being nothing but a killer...no plus, just a killer.

Now, fracking may some day prove to be not healthy but folks if you smoke you are dying RIGHT now, and it is absolutely proven smoking is a killer. So I like to worry about the proven......the deadly killer.
NOtice murder or homicidal moved off the list in 2012........so worry about guns...while cigarettes kill you and probably those you love.

Too bad you asked this question when a health care worker was in the house.

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,092
Points:464,305
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2014 10:01:08 PM

Passer: "But as to its "health risks" the jury is still out, and all the Right's axe grinding about this has achieved is left them with bloody hands which may make it difficult if not impossible for them ever to remove their head from deep within the [tar]sand!"

Heh heh heh. Good one.

And so right on.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 12/1/2014 10:01:35 PM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,940
Points:336,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2014 4:51:29 PM

"Someone needs to learn the difference between fracking and tar sands."

To the anti frack, anti tar sand liberals both recovery activities are one and the same.

Hopefully the liberals are in full freak out mode with my recent revelations. The only promise I make is everything I say is absolutely true, because I find fact often stranger, more disgusting and far more horrifying than fiction.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,940
Points:336,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2014 2:39:23 PM

"oilpan4 you talk of a herbicide used to clean a food processing plant. Why would anyone ever use a chemical developed and used to kill weeds to clean a food processing machine?"

Leave it to a con to ask the correct question.

This "fast burn herbicide" has many uses it is a cheap to produce is a fairly strong highly reactive organic acid that has found use in the agriculture, oil and food industry (maybe elsewhere too).
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,424
Points:829,260
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2014 10:39:31 AM



Passer, "Fracking has definitely helped this country by the huge economic gains it is definitely responsible for......make it difficult if not impossible for them ever to remove their head from deep within the [tar]sand!

Someone needs to learn the difference between fracking and tar sands.

SMH

Or just learn period.

Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,424
Points:829,260
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2014 10:33:29 AM



Passer, "That rant sounds a bit ironic (and rings hollow) since it was by someone who was banned for violating the rules here by personally insulting, forgive the expression, "another one"."

A totally false statement.

But since you seem to know so much, give us the details behind your [false] statement.

SMH

Just another example of liberal [false] 'name calling'.

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,252
Points:1,646,755
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2014 10:09:28 AM

oilpan4 you talk of a herbicide used to clean a food processing plant. Why would anyone ever use a chemical developed and used to kill weeds to clean a food processing machine?
Post a reply Back to Topics