US Politics Mega-thread - Page 678

On December 01 2013 04:58 Djzapz wrote:

So you take water, you add chemicals in it, call it benign so that you don't have to make an argument and call it a day.
Nice.

On December 01 2013 04:53 xDaunt wrote:

It would do you well to have a better understanding of fracking before posting stuff like this. What's pumped into the wells is benign compared to the hydrocarbons that are extracted, which is why oil CEOs chug the fracking fluid as a publicity stunt.

On December 01 2013 04:57 WhiteDog wrote:

You proved that you are biased and unimformed yourself, so... Please stop.

On December 01 2013 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:


Well besides the fact that TONS of cancerous and very unhealthy chemicals are pumped into the ground that haven't been there before (which already sounds pretty troublesome to the average sane person), what do you have to say about that little incident?

http://www.epaosc.org/sites/7555/files/dimock-action-memo-01-19-12[1].pdf

Your beloved fracking was so unbelievable benign that :[...] "13 water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania were contaminated with methane (one blew up). Arsenic, barium, DEHP, glycol compounds, manganese, phenol, and sodium were also found in unacceptable levels in the wells. As a result, Cabot Oil & Gas was required to financially compensate residents and provide alternative sources of water until mitigation systems were installed in affected wells.[...]

Responsible, as Oil & Gas companies naturally are, they obviously replied: " On December 2, 2011, EPA sent an email to several Dimock residents indicating that their well water presented no immediate health threat."

The EPA was quick to reverse their statement:"On January 19, 2012, the EPA reversed its position, and asked that the agency's hazardous site cleanup division take immediate action to protect public health and safety."

We also have a Duke University study from 2011 claiming: "It determined that groundwater tended to contain much higher concentrations of methane near fracking wells, with potential explosion hazard; the methane's isotopic signatures and other geochemical indicators were consistent with it originating in the fracked deep shale formations, rather than any other source"(http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.full.pdf)

On Wikipedia alone you'll find links to about a dozen other fracking related accidents, with animals dying, wells being contamined, people having health issues... and several studies confirming that fracking (directly or indirectly) caused all these stuff.

On December 01 2013 05:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

The chemicals shouldn't be touching the ground water at all.

On December 01 2013 05:16 WhiteDog wrote:

So you're a geologist ? You can prove to us that, no matter the type of soil, rock or whatever, the chemicals will always go where you want to.

Of course, trust Jonny.

International anger over the National Security Agency’s Internet surveillance is hurting global sales by American technology companies and setting back U.S. efforts to promote Internet freedom.

Disclosures of spying abroad may cost U.S. companies as much as $35 billion in lost revenue through 2016 because of doubts about the security of information on their systems, according to the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a policy research group in Washington whose board includes representatives of companies such as International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) and Intel Corp. (INTC)

“The potential fallout is pretty huge given how much our economy depends on the information economy for its growth,” said Rebecca MacKinnon, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington policy group. “It’s increasingly where the U.S. advantage lies.”

Any setback in the U.S. push to maintain an open Internet also could inflict indirect damage on companies such as Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Google Inc. (GOOG) that benefit from global networks with few national restrictions.

On December 01 2013 05:36 WhiteDog wrote:

What about all the argument with "fracking has been going on since 50 years". You were right about that ?

There is a difference between being gently biased, and being totally blind by the way.

On December 01 2013 05:59 WhiteDog wrote:

Yes, except fracking back then and fracking now are two different practice like someone said.

On December 01 2013 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Are they meaningfully different? I think now they also use horizontal drilling, but I don't see why that would increase the risk of groundwater contamination.

On December 01 2013 05:16 WhiteDog wrote:

So you're a geologist ? You can prove to us that, no matter the type of soil, rock or whatever, the chemicals will always go where you want to.

Of course, trust Jonny.

On December 01 2013 05:16 WhiteDog wrote:

So you're a geologist ? You can prove to us that, no matter the type of soil, rock or whatever, the chemicals will always go where you want to.

Of course, trust Jonny.

On December 01 2013 19:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:

The bottom line is that you can both throw arguments that only specialist would be able to assess. And since you can always find fake specialists to support the side you want, the argument is endless.

The question is why in the first place would one naturally trust the interest of big multinational companies, or why would one trust the people that are victims of those methods and scientists that shows evidences days after days of the damages done by fracking.

What I was saying puzzles me is that someone like Jonny will always take the side of private economic interest. Climate change, fracking, international policy: he will always believe what goes into the interest of big businesses. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. It seems absolutely obvious that a businesses will take the side that is the most profitable for them, whatever the consequences, while I don't see why the general public or scientists would oppose a technique like that just for the sake of it.

On December 01 2013 20:35 hummingbird23 wrote:


See also: GMO opposition, antivaccination movements etc. People can be against things that merely sound scary, as opposed to actually dangerous. The problem is regulatory capture, or the threat of such by the very businesses that are supposed to be regulated.

Edit: And also the problem that a large corporation is both powerful and a psychopathic entity by design.

On December 01 2013 19:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:

The bottom line is that you can both throw arguments that only specialist would be able to assess. And since you can always find fake specialists to support the side you want, the argument is endless.

The question is why in the first place would one naturally trust the interest of big multinational companies, or why would one trust the people that are victims of those methods and scientists that shows evidences days after days of the damages done by fracking.

What I was saying puzzles me is that someone like Jonny will always take the side of private economic interest. Climate change, fracking, international policy: he will always believe what goes into the interest of big businesses. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. It seems absolutely obvious that a businesses will take the side that is the most profitable for them, whatever the consequences, while I don't see why the general public or scientists would oppose a technique like that just for the sake of it.

On December 01 2013 19:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:

The bottom line is that you can both throw arguments that only specialist would be able to assess. And since you can always find fake specialists to support the side you want, the argument is endless.

The question is why in the first place would one naturally trust the interest of big multinational companies, or why would one trust the people that are victims of those methods and scientists that shows evidences days after days of the damages done by fracking.

What I was saying puzzles me is that someone like Jonny will always take the side of private economic interest. Climate change, fracking, international policy: he will always believe what goes into the interest of big businesses. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. It seems absolutely obvious that a businesses will take the side that is the most profitable for them, whatever the consequences, while I don't see why the general public or scientists would oppose a technique like that just for the sake of it.