Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Marcellus Shale: An Environmental Disaster In The Making
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by daxs View Post"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
Comment
-
Originally posted by redhawk View PostNow if someone had any intelligence they would collect some samples and analyze whats in it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rollinslover64 View PostThere's no mystery.Here is what's in it.At least the ones that can affect health.
http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/...4/fracking.pdf
Even worse than I thought.“Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
― Cormac McCarthy
Comment
-
Just about as dangerous as the laundry detergent you flush into the water supply every day.
Fracking causing (not just exacerbating) earthquakes reaks of sensationalism.
Anyone that thinks there isn't some trade-off to harvesting natural resources is mistaken. However, there does appear to be a hysteria surrounding the harvesting of NatGas making fracking a whipping boy for everything.
I never thought the "environmentalists" would fight hand in hand with Big Oil to prevent the development of a viable domestic energy alternative.
Interesting to watch it gyrate in the mass media though.A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View PostJust about as dangerous as the laundry detergent you flush into the water supply every day.
Fracking causing (not just exacerbating) earthquakes reaks of sensationalism.
Anyone that thinks there isn't some trade-off to harvesting natural resources is mistaken. However, there does appear to be a hysteria surrounding the harvesting of NatGas making fracking a whipping boy for everything.
I never thought the "environmentalists" would fight hand in hand with Big Oil to prevent the development of a viable domestic energy alternative.
Interesting to watch it gyrate in the mass media though.
If the answer to both questions is no, then it is not "Sensationalism" but precautionary.
Those "dangerous" laundry chemicals are not being pumped into the earth, but are being released into our waste systems, a big difference. And to be honest, there are alternative "Green" cleaning solutions, nut they are a little more expensive then the mainline ones so most people would rather save a buck then the environment. So much for that argument.
So, should people not be concerned with might be a side effect of a process? Or should they just proceed blindly as usual?"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
Comment
-
Comment
-
You cannot prove a null hypothesis to be true. One can only reject or not reject it.
If you are against fracking at all costs these arguments are great to make.
For example "proving" the null hypothesis true:
Hippie farts cause earthquakes.
Earthquakes happen
Therefore hippie farts cause earthquakes.
or
Hippie farts don't cause earthquakes
Earthquakes happen
Therefore we cannot reject the hypothesis that hippie farts don't cause earthquakes, but that does not make it a true statement.
Call me selfish, I like to fly fish, the lower the price of nat gas goes the less acid rain we get from the midwest. Not to mention cars burning gas is pretty much agreed to be the biggest polluter besides cow (and hippie) farts. Burning nat gas in cars would help the environment a lot but yeah you have to pump toxic chemicals into the ground with unkown repercussions. Better then pumping the toxic chemicals into the air, or is it?
Anyway wouldn't carcinogens in the drinking water fix the biggest problem the environment has right now? You should be all for fracking given the risks you alledge, if you are a true environmentalist.
I'm very confused.A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View PostYou cannot prove a null hypothesis to be true. One can only reject or not reject it.
If you are against fracking at all costs these arguments are great to make.
For example "proving" the null hypothesis true:
Hippie farts cause earthquakes.
Earthquakes happen
Therefore hippie farts cause earthquakes.
or
Hippie farts don't cause earthquakes
Earthquakes happen
Therefore we cannot reject the hypothesis that hippie farts don't cause earthquakes, but that does not make it a true statement.
Call me selfish, I like to fly fish, the lower the price of nat gas goes the less acid rain we get from the midwest. Not to mention cars burning gas is pretty much agreed to be the biggest polluter besides cow (and hippie) farts. Burning nat gas in cars would help the environment a lot but yeah you have to pump toxic chemicals into the ground with unkown repercussions. Better then pumping the toxic chemicals into the air, or is it?
Anyway wouldn't carcinogens in the drinking water fix the biggest problem the environment has right now? You should be all for fracking given the risks you alledge, if you are a true environmentalist.
I'm very confused.
My fear is that because of the amount of money to be made by the corporations, the coondition of the economy today which makes fracking attractive to the politicians because of the tax money it brings in coupled with the jobs it will supposedly create, and of course the boost to the local economies, that dceisions are being made for the wrong reason.
What I am opposed to is decisions being made that could adversely affect the health or the safety of thousands of people without knowing the long term effects."If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
Comment
-
The U.S. has a surplus of NatGas as it exports quite a lot (over a trillion cubic feet in 2010). The claim we need to get the gas that currently is stored in the Marcellus Shale to reduce our usage of coal, or oil is specious. We don't use all that we produce at present. The gas in the marcellus shale isn't going anywhere, and as the world supply decreases, the value will only increase."There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling . . . let us go." -from "The Call of the Wild" by Robert Service
My trail journal: DuctTape's Journal
Comment
-
If the US fails to adapt to an economcial energy resource it will, as well as Canada, export to foreign consumption. One particular play's development is somewhat irrelevant to the strategic whole. You have shale plays in the midwest burning off natgas as a byproduct because the infrastructure has been opposed by those caring for the "environment".
I have yet to see an Adirondack tie in except for the reduction in emmission or preventation of deforestation that comes from utilizing natural gas as an energy source.
If the environmentalists and big oil continue to perpetuate the status quo, there will be additional liquification plants constructed to export the resource to the people that are willing to pay to burn it, and that's Europe and China. Those LNG exportation plants should be opposed but inevitably economics, in the presence of a quasi regulated economey [read NYS and not Canada or PA/WV MT], will dictate their construction. Then we lose, lose.
Yes it's not that black and white but I am using literary prose. Apoligies if I am being political or offensive I do not see how this topic can be discussed otherwise.A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Comment
Comment