transcendental
spending too much on rocks
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_teal.png)
Member since June 2014
Posts: 459
|
Post by transcendental on Jun 18, 2014 11:35:42 GMT -5
Contamination of drinking water, and illnesses because of this.... disrupting livelihoods of people in fracking areas, you never saw the people who can light their tap water on fire from the methane? Homes exploding because of this. Blowouts in residential areas. .... The gas companies don't deny it, in many cases they provide these homes with alternative water so they don't use their taps.... Leaking wells spewing methane into the air, or leaking thru the ground polluting rivers and streams causing die off of fish and amphibians. The amount of water and chemicals used as lubrication in fracking compared to how much is drawn back up and "disposed " of.
I understand natural gas has a smaller carbon footprint than the alternatives, however I do not find that reason justifiable to its continued praise as a "green alternative" considering the impact it imposes on residents and wildlife of fracking areas. These issues are similar to what happens in oil fields and near coal mines.
Call it what it is not what you want it to be seen as. So far all energy sources have their down sides. Including wind and solar farms disrupting wildlife. Have you ever seen what happens to wind turbines when things go wrong? The blades shatter and send debris flying thru neighborhoods striking property and risking lives. The issue we are faced with is do we want a short term solution that may lead to bigger problems down the road. When what does the carbon footprint really matter in the scheme of the long term. As a previous post mentioned .... natural sources of carbon far exceed any output by man. We should be more concerned with protecting our water and land not polluting it
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_teal.png)
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Jun 18, 2014 12:29:46 GMT -5
interesting, but I would love to see the calculations (which would be easy to verify but aren't shown). It's healthy to be skeptical about everything, after all just because someone has a stage, doesn't make them right. Climate change aside, I really don't want high levels of co2 in the atmosphere. Everyone only needs to put their heads under the covers tonight to see why. That stuffy uncomfortable feeling is due to the excess co2. Sure, plants love it, but our bodies try to get rid of it as fast as possible. My first instinct after reading this was to go to the recent co2 measurements to see if the eruption was detected in global co2 concentrations. It wasn't, or at least I don't see a blip from the major eruption in 2010 (check for yourself) www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/. What this means to me: we have three statements that cannot be correct all together. In our case only 2 of the 3 can be correct. I am not sure who is right, but we can examine the possibilities. 1) Australian prof and CO2 measurements are right. In this case, the volcano is greater significance than human activity, but the volcano is insignificant in the overall rise of global CO2. This begs the question, where is the CO2 coming from? 2) Australian prof and Anthropogenic folks are right. In this case the measurements have to be wrong. This one is easy for for anyone to check. Co2 meters are ~400 bucks and can fit in your pocket. Anyone can can buy one and take our own measurements (I did this, but only have a year of data so far) 3) Co2 measurements and anthropogenic folks are right. In this case the Australian prof made an error in calculation. This would be easy to check if he shared his #'s, but he didn't.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 18, 2014 12:36:16 GMT -5
Contamination of drinking water, and illnesses because of this.... Please provide proof of this comment you made. you never saw the people who can light their tap water on fire from the methane? Homes exploding because of this No I have not seen any legitimate video on this. But I have seen this one. For fracking proponents, it was another piece of good news. The oil and gas industry still was unwrapping the federal government’s acknowledgment that fracking isn’t nearly as harmful to the environment as it previously claimed. By dramatically lowering its methane emissions estimates from natural gas drilling sites, the Environmental Protection Agency has made it much more difficult to argue that the fracking boom is accelerating climate change. SPECIAL COVERAGE: Energy and Environment The developments Monday in Franklin Forks, Pa., also will make it much more difficult to argue that the wildly successful drilling method is harmful to drinking water. The state’s Department of Environmental Protection now says there is no evidence to connect natural gas drilling with high levels of methane in private water wells in the small town, which sits within the Marcellus Shale region, one of the largest known natural gas deposits in the world and exhibit A of how fracking is transforming the American energy landscape. The agency specifically says the gas is coming from elsewhere. “The testing determined that the water samples taken from the private water wells contained gas of similar isotopic makeup to the gas in water samples taken from Salt Springs State Park,” which contains high levels of naturally occurring methane, the DEP said in a statement. The Franklin Forks case attracted national attention and was held up by some environmentalists as another example of the dangers of fracking. It was also the subject of numerous media reports, including a Rolling Stone magazine photo essay that labeled one Franklin Forks family “Fracking’s Real-Life Victims.” The family believed that nearby natural gas drilling was ruining their property and had rendered their water unusable and undrinkable. Similar claims have been made elsewhere in Pennsylvania and in other spots across the nation. Thus far, however, there have been no confirmed cases of fracking contaminating water supplies — an acknowledgment that Lisa P. Jackson, as EPA administrator, made twice to Congress. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/29/pa-environment-agency-debunks-fracking-water-claim/#ixzz350sz2kDM Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter Leaking wells spewing methane into the air, or leaking thru the ground polluting rivers and streams causing die off of fish and amphibians. Please provide the EPA proof of this.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 18, 2014 12:55:42 GMT -5
interesting, but I would love to see the calculations (which would be easy to verify but aren't shown). It's healthy to be skeptical about everything, after all just because someone has a stage, doesn't make them right. Climate change aside, I really don't want high levels of co2 in the atmosphere. Everyone only needs to put their heads under the covers tonight to see why. That stuffy uncomfortable feeling is due to the excess co2. Sure, plants love it, but our bodies try to get rid of it as fast as possible. My first instinct after reading this was to go to the recent co2 measurements to see if the eruption was detected in global co2 concentrations. It wasn't, or at least I don't see a blip from the major eruption in 2010 (check for yourself) www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/. What this means to me: we have three statements that cannot be correct all together. In our case only 2 of the 3 can be correct. I am not sure who is right, but we can examine the possibilities. 1) Australian prof and CO2 measurements are right. In this case, the volcano is greater significance than human activity, but the volcano is insignificant in the overall rise of global CO2. This begs the question, where is the CO2 coming from? 2) Australian prof and Anthropogenic folks are right. In this case the measurements have to be wrong. This one is easy for for anyone to check. Co2 meters are ~400 bucks and can fit in your pocket. Anyone can can buy one and take our own measurements (I did this, but only have a year of data so far) 3) Co2 measurements and anthropogenic folks are right. In this case the Australian prof made an error in calculation. This would be easy to check if he shared his #'s, but he didn't. I guess we all better pull out the bulldozers and and eliminate the largest Co2 emitters. Global Green's City Carbon Index was created in 2011 to show a city's current status on greenhouse gas emissions and policies so residents can quickly become empowered to take action. Cities are responsible for 70% of global CO2 emissions, www.globalgreen.org/articles/global/67
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 18, 2014 13:02:08 GMT -5
The Sautner scam.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 18, 2014 13:12:15 GMT -5
Nah, we don’t leak no methane . . . cause you can only see it from the Space Shuttle at night and there ain’t no mo’ Space Shuttle so there ain’t no mo’ methane. And them fookin’ Rooskies on the ISS don’t count cause . . . Putin.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 18, 2014 13:29:52 GMT -5
Nah, we don’t leak no methane . . . cause you can only see it from the Space Shuttle at night and there ain’t no mo’ Space Shuttle so there ain’t no mo’ methane. And them fookin’ Rooskies on the ISS don’t count cause . . . Putin. ![](http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr330/bushmanbilly/download1_zps71c07ebd.jpg) ![](http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr330/bushmanbilly/download2_zpse949545b.jpg) Hey Rich I found your long lost U-tube video. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
cobbledstones
spending too much on rocks
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_teal.png)
Member since January 2014
Posts: 482
|
Post by cobbledstones on Jun 18, 2014 13:31:33 GMT -5
interesting, but I would love to see the calculations (which would be easy to verify but aren't shown). It's healthy to be skeptical about everything, after all just because someone has a stage, doesn't make them right. Climate change aside, I really don't want high levels of co2 in the atmosphere. Everyone only needs to put their heads under the covers tonight to see why. That stuffy uncomfortable feeling is due to the excess co2. Sure, plants love it, but our bodies try to get rid of it as fast as possible. My first instinct after reading this was to go to the recent co2 measurements to see if the eruption was detected in global co2 concentrations. It wasn't, or at least I don't see a blip from the major eruption in 2010 (check for yourself) www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/. What this means to me: we have three statements that cannot be correct all together. In our case only 2 of the 3 can be correct. I am not sure who is right, but we can examine the possibilities. 1) Australian prof and CO2 measurements are right. In this case, the volcano is greater significance than human activity, but the volcano is insignificant in the overall rise of global CO2. This begs the question, where is the CO2 coming from? 2) Australian prof and Anthropogenic folks are right. In this case the measurements have to be wrong. This one is easy for for anyone to check. Co2 meters are ~400 bucks and can fit in your pocket. Anyone can can buy one and take our own measurements (I did this, but only have a year of data so far) 3) Co2 measurements and anthropogenic folks are right. In this case the Australian prof made an error in calculation. This would be easy to check if he shared his #'s, but he didn't. I guess we all better pull out the bulldozers and and eliminate the largest Co2 emitters. Global Green's City Carbon Index was created in 2011 to show a city's current status on greenhouse gas emissions and policies so residents can quickly become empowered to take action. Cities are responsible for 70% of global CO2 emissions, www.globalgreen.org/articles/global/67Taking this back on topic of the OP, let's do our own comparisons with some available #'s. If we take USGS #'s on the Mount Pinatubo eruption volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php, and the cities link above, then a single year of LA emissions=the Mount Pinatubo eruption (approximately) in terms of CO2 released. That is, if you believe these numbers.
|
|
transcendental
spending too much on rocks
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_teal.png)
Member since June 2014
Posts: 459
|
Post by transcendental on Jun 18, 2014 15:11:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Jun 18, 2014 16:03:08 GMT -5
Here's an interesting read. I doubt that the left wing tree huggers will read it word for word, but still an interesting read.http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/ Well, lets see now. The NPR gets much of it's funding from the federal government. Scientific American is heavily funded by 5 major tree hugger groups. The 2 with .edu in their links get almost all of their global warming research funding from the feds. Who are these groups going to favor in their reports ? And lastly, lets not forget sourcewatch. What about them ? Try this on for size. www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 18, 2014 16:45:15 GMT -5
You didn't reply with what I asked you for, none of these links are comfirmed by the EPA or any government agency. Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom Good articular, but it does not mention actual cases of this happening. Its their theory with no factual backup or case reports. EPA Connects 'Fracking' To Water Contamination This was written in Dec, 2011. The EPA verdict on the video I posted came out in 2012. This is why the Sautner's were so pissed with the EPA. They once sided with the Sautner family, but that was before the results were in. Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana Another good study. These are potential effects not confirmed. Also a theory. The list of risks they list below could be adapted to any industry or work place, Even driving a car. Except for the earthquake point its a generic list. Hell that list is probably in a hair salon safety manual. Risks and Concerns of Fracking. Contamination of groundwater.....shampoo and dies Methane pollution and its impact on climate change... admit it women fart to ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Air pollution impacts......perfumes and transportation Exposure to toxic chemicals.....Goggle the MSDS for any hair die. I would sooner drink frac water that put this on my head. Blowouts due to gas explosion...holding in farts or a gas line leak Waste disposal.....every day trash Large volume water use in water-deficient regions......hair washing etc. Fracking-induced earthquakes Workplace safety Infrastructure degradation Study suggests hydrofracking is killing farm animals, pets This human error has nothing to do with the process. Contaminated fluids not disposed of properly. There are idiots in every profession. Hope these guys are in jail. The next links are to green to comment on. The well failure or Blowout happened and will happen again. Many factors cause blowouts. The main one human error, unexpected higher than normal gas pockets to name a few. No industry is perfect and never will be. If that was possible GM would not know the meaning of the word recall.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 18, 2014 17:07:52 GMT -5
Burn, baby, burn.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 18, 2014 17:33:48 GMT -5
So you want to bring up old video's do ya. This one should give you a wedgie. Who knew? Looks like Glen was right. Skip to the 2:30 mark.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 18, 2014 17:34:46 GMT -5
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 18, 2014 18:19:08 GMT -5
Thats a good link Don. Real reporters up here exposed this about a year or so ago. They paper trailed enviro money back to the Tides in San Fran., the sierra club. the Rockefeller"s and more. Millions of dollars have moved north across the border to fight our oil industry. Just to bad its not working. It has been a boost the the GDP though. Thanks dummies. The Northern Gateway got approved anyway as did the energy east line. And soon the Trans Mountain twinning. The only one they have won is the Keystone, but if Iraq keeps going into civil war, I don't think Barry will have a choice about it any more. Unless he is willing to spend the money for the Navy to escort oil out of the middle east. Talk about the extra carbon foot print that is. 5 or 6 ships to deliver one load. ![](http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr330/bushmanbilly/30788-Fart_bubble_zps01d0e592.jpg) Funny how Bagly Jr. and Hemingway kinda faded out of sight after being caught in bed with the Saudi's. Imagine that! As for the SourceWatch site. Ya pretty hardcore green. Their logo says it all, the only thing it is are missing is a Tea Party rattler.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 18, 2014 18:21:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Jun 18, 2014 18:37:05 GMT -5
AHHH Billy, ya went and burst Obummer's bubble.
|
|
gemfeller
Cave Dweller
Member since June 2011
Posts: 3,859
|
Post by gemfeller on Jun 18, 2014 18:54:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 18, 2014 19:08:19 GMT -5
Sources of funding, eh?
Try Naomi Oreskes in Merchants of Doubt.
|
|
transcendental
spending too much on rocks
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_teal.png)
Member since June 2014
Posts: 459
|
Post by transcendental on Jun 18, 2014 19:18:57 GMT -5
Isn't the epa federally funded too? Not sure who their studies will reflect. All Media is bias, you can pick any topic and get conflicting stories from different sources depending on the view they wish to portray. I never said any of these issues were conclusive, I did however say that more study needed to be done and implied that these issues are not minor ones and need to be taken seriously. I also never expect the industry to be perfect but if risks do become known, shouldn't some type of preventative measures be in place to protect citizens. Like not allowing fracking wells within so far from residences or water sources. I also did a bit of digging into the individuals in the video you posted of the Congressional hearing. Found an interesting article on Elisabeth jones www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20110715-texas-top-oil-gas-regulator-doesnt-share-epa-worries-on-fracking.eceHarold fitch lobbied for interstate oil and gas to approve the access of oil under the great lakes. Kathleen sgamma is the vp of western energy alliance their lobbyist is former chief of staff for the house commitee on natural resources. Dr andy harris is a house rep for md, oil and gas are his third highest campaign contributors. Charles mcconnell's past private sector careers were with gasification tech counsil, clean coal tech foundation of tx, and an advisor to t&p syngas. He too had contributors, oil and gas, Thompson mineral rights trust in Colorado and energy and natural resources economic interest was his 5th highest contributor. Last but not least is holdren who co-chaired the national commission on energy policy when they addressed congress for the urge for natural gas with the clean energy action plan. Currently the north Carolina senator is co-chairman of the state energy policy commission and his top contributor is piedmont natural gas. Whether it's the media or politics everybody's got their fingers dipped in something
|
|