US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1152

On July 03 2014 11:01 IgnE wrote:


The video is obviously pretty boring, and doesn't really come to any firm conclusions on anything, preferring generalities. In other words, a standard student thesis. The most interesting points that he made were that it was impossible to adequately determine risk before drilling.

On July 03 2014 14:56 oneofthem wrote:

well it's not new research on particular injection earthquakes, but i don't think anyone can tell you a precise estimate of particular risk right now. takeaway is that risk depends on the site but is generally low.

On July 03 2014 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote:



Yeah something about gas pipelines and probably inducing earthquakes sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Not sure if they have anything better than 'geofoam' yet but seems like if we didn't at least expect them to prepare for inevitable earthquakes we are intentionally building a huge ecological disaster.

On July 04 2014 01:15 xDaunt wrote:
Pretty much any modern construction (ie anything using wood and/or steel for its frame) is going to be fairly earthquake safe.

On July 04 2014 01:39 aksfjh wrote:

Too bad we have a ton of old buildings and other construction that was built using shoddier practices. Also, there's no guarantee that those buildings in those areas are built to withstand it. They can always place studs and load-bearing structures in a way that is susceptible to vibrations and earthquakes, or rely too heavily on bricks/concrete. It's a fallacy to claim that building technology has come so far that it automatically protects from some basic disasters. As tech gets better, corners can be cut to cut costs for the same performance.

On July 04 2014 02:05 xDaunt wrote:

The structures and related code in places like California are designed to withstand MAJOR earthquakes -- far larger than any earthquake that may be fracking-induced. Yes, having that level of engineering is ideal, but it isn't necessary in fracking zones. My point is that modern structures using wood and steel should be sufficient to withstand the kind of minor earthquake that will be experienced in these areas.

On July 04 2014 02:05 xDaunt wrote:

The structures and related code in places like California are designed to withstand MAJOR earthquakes -- far larger than any earthquake that may be fracking-induced. Yes, having that level of engineering is ideal, but it isn't necessary in fracking zones. My point is that modern structures using wood and steel should be sufficient to withstand the kind of minor earthquake that will be experienced in these areas.

On July 03 2014 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote:

Yeah something about gas pipelines and probably inducing earthquakes sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Not sure if they have anything better than 'geofoam' yet but seems like if we didn't at least expect them to prepare for inevitable earthquakes we are intentionally building a huge ecological disaster.

Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R) seems to formally be gearing up for his legal challenge over the runoff results of the race for U.S. Senate in the state.

According to TIME, McDaniel has sent a "Notice of Intent to Challenge" to the campaign of Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), which defeated McDaniel in the runoff election for U.S. Senate in June. The notice of intent is one of the first official steps the McDaniel campaign is taking in its push to fight the results of the runoff.

The McDaniel campaign plans to file an official challenge with the Mississippi Republican Party early next week, McDaniel spokesman Noel Fritsch said to TIME. Fritsch said a legal challenge in court will follow too.

It's unclear if the Cochran campaign has received the notice of intent. Cochran spokesman Jordan Russell said he could not confirm that Cochran's campaign had received the notice. Russell also said the challenge is "baseless."

"Frankly, it's a publicity stunt, an attempt to help him to retire his campaign debt," Russell said of McDaniel.

“Some may think by allowing them to stay here that it’s a more humane option. I assure you it’s not,” he told the committee. “Nobody’s doing any of these children the slightest favor by delaying a rapid return to their countries of origin.” -Rick Perry

Non-communicable diseases have resulted in high morbidity and mortality. The leading causes of mortality are cardiovascular disease, diabetes, external causes, and cancer. Traffic accidents, suicide, drowning, injuries from external causes, and leukemia are the leading causes of death in young people (10-19 years of age). Mental illness, neurosis, alcoholism, general violence, and domestic violence have increased, primarily in urban areas.

Government spending on health was cut from $58 per head per year in 1988 to $17 per head per year in 1991. The average annual number of consultations per person fell from 1.7 in 1985-90 to 1.2 in 1990-92. As a result, by 1998, 2,959 workers had left the health services—1,456 of which were medical staff.

Nicaraguan doctors and nurses receive wages barely over that of doctors and nurses in Malawi—an extremely poor African country whose per capita income is 80 percent below Nicaragua's.

Adolescents account for approximately one-third of maternal deaths.

On July 04 2014 03:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

A lot of things can contribute to earthquakes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_seismicity

They need to be studied and accounted for, but they've never been something to live in fear of.

President Obama's new climate change push was reaffirmed on Thursday when the Department of Energy announced that it will make $4 billion in loans available to clean energy projects.

In a statement, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said:

“As the President emphasized in his Climate Action Plan, it is critical that we take an all-of-the above approach to energy in order to cut carbon pollution, help address the effects of climate change and protect our children’s future. Investments in clean, low-carbon energy also provide an economic opportunity. Through previous loan guarantees and other investments, the Department is already helping launch or jumpstart entire industries in the U.S., from utility-scale wind and solar to nuclear and lower-carbon fossil energy. Today’s announcement will help build on and accelerate that success.”

The Department highlighted several key technologies it anticipates will receive loans, including hydroelectric dams and drop-in biofuels.

Last month, Obama announced new rules for power plants meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ThinkProgress also notes several other DOE announcements to fund green energy projects. The efforts are a step in the right direction, but some climate scientists say it might be too late.

Michael Oppenheimer, a scientist at Princeton University, told Scientific American that "marginal cuts by the U.S. don't have a long-term overall big effect on the climate. What has to happen to have a big effect on the global climate is for all the big emitters to get together and decide that they are all going to cut some substantial fraction."

On July 04 2014 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:

Uhh isn't that just what I said? Looks like the article you are citing shows evidence of humans being responsible for quakes above a 6.0 magnitude and 1000's of deaths and billions in damage. Seems like concern about energy companies/building owners taking appropriate precautions without being forced by law is also a reasonable concern.

I don't think people are fearing the quakes themselves(at least I'm not), it's the stupid humans that have to deal with/prepare for it, that makes me so concerned.

Like I said, despite (or because) the science shows there are risks, I'm sure the 'Right'/ Gas Energy states will strongly support adding new rules and regulations to the gas industry to protect citizens from reasonable concerns... /sarcasm

On July 04 2014 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

No, you're playing off of the anti-science fear mongering. There's nothing about fracking that you need to shit your pants over. It's reasonably safe, and as new problems and opportunities emerge they will be dealt with as they always have been.

On July 04 2014 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:


No ones shitting their pants, unless you have something to tell us? Your suggestion that " as new problems and opportunities emerge they will be dealt with as they always have been." really says it all...

I feel like it's pretty obvious why that statement is so problematic for alleviating the types of concerns I was talking about? Think about how well the risks of deep offshore drilling and the BP spill were 'dealt with'

If not I can explain it. I just got some other stuff I'd like to get done and that seems waaaay too obvious to spend time breaking it down just for you.

Otherwise we have already come to the conclusion that we have different ideas of what 'dealt with' or 'punished' does or should mean when it comes to corporate criminals, and I have no interest in discussing that with you.

On July 04 2014 09:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

"OMG BP SPILL!! **shits pants**"

The environment is getting cleaner, not dirtier, and you're shitting your pants as if there's doom on the horizon thanks to corporate ne'er-do-wells and evil Republicans.