PDA

View Full Version : What, Not one



wolfdancer
03-16-2011, 05:01 PM
post about the Japan Nuclear disaster? I would have thought, given the self-claimed expertise of the board's mens-a candidates, "Frick and Frack" about "all things considered"
XXX (http://images.ha.com/lf?source=url%5bfile%3aimages%2finetpub%2fnewnames %2f300%2f4%2f6%2f4%2f0%2f4640198.jpg%5d%2ccontinue onerror%5btrue%5d&scale=size%5b220x350%5d%2coptions%5blimit%5d&source=url%5bfile%3aimages%2finetpub%2fwebuse%2fno _image_available.gif%5d%2cif%5b%28%27global.source .error%27%29%5d&sink=preservemd%5btrue%5d)
we would get some insider's commentary. Perhaps the phone/int lines in Ohio and N.C. were affected by the reactor "incident"

sack316
03-16-2011, 05:15 PM
I do have one comment... although I know it was a desperate hail mary attempt, it was dumb to use sea water to try to cool the reactor.

Sack

Sev
03-16-2011, 05:54 PM
There will new and interesting species created in the near future.

wolfdancer
03-16-2011, 06:27 PM
I know that nuclear power plants have both a primary cooling system to cool the core, and a secondary system to cool the primary loop.Sea water has been used in our subs and generating plants as the secondary coolant. There's a tremendous amount of heat involved.....it would not be cost efficient, nor energy efficient to build some form of refrigeration unit, perhaps
http://www.esnarf.com/5646.jpg

Gayle in MD
03-16-2011, 11:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do have one comment... although I know it was a desperate hail mary attempt, it was dumb to use sea water to try to cool the reactor.

Sack </div></div>

It was dumb too build it there in the first place.

Yep, I've always been against using nuclear power, nukes, all nukes, anywhere, any place, any time.

I notice we aren't hearing much about the fact that several of G.E.'s Employees, resigned, many years ago, over design flaws, in this Japanese Nuclear Power facility. As if building it right there where it stands, wasn't dumb enough already.

The result will be the usual down playing of the devastating human and ecological results.

I truly do believe, the love of money, really is the root of all evil.

G.

pooltchr
03-17-2011, 06:04 AM
If you don't like Nuclear energy, and you don't like drilling for oil, and you don't like drilling for natural gas, and you don't like the environmental impact of burning coal, just how do you suggest that we meet the energy needs of the 300 million citizens of the US?

Steve

sack316
03-17-2011, 11:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know that nuclear power plants have both a primary cooling system to cool the core, and a secondary system to cool the primary loop.Sea water has been used in our subs and generating plants as the secondary coolant.
</div></div>

Treated sea water can be fine, which has been (I'm assuming) filtered to make it usable even as a secondary system. But just dumping sea water straight to a nuclear reactor? Anyone who knows anything about chemical reactions, and realize that now only what is known... but also unknown... within the water would think twice about such a solution.

Sack

sack316
03-17-2011, 11:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It was dumb too build it there in the first place.</div></div>

True dat

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I notice we aren't hearing much about the fact that several of G.E.'s Employees, resigned, many years ago, over design flaws, in this Japanese Nuclear Power facility. As if building it right there where it stands, wasn't dumb enough already.</div></div>

I heard about that too.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep, I've always been against using nuclear power, nukes, all nukes, anywhere, any place, any time.
</div></div>

I look at it differently when it comes to energy, though. It's kind of like if we had to ship product, and choosing between doing it by truck or by airplane. Well, we all know airplane is the safest way statistically by far. But that one instance of a plane crashing is HUGE news. Whereas the hundreds of daily instances of vehicle wrecks we MAY only hear about locally, if at all.

So problem with a nuclear plant... HUGE news (as rightly so). We can see right then, at that moment, the possible catastrophe. How does it weigh in with the silent damage we may slowly do on a regular basis through coal powered plants?

Truth is, nuclear is cleaner and safer (airplane). But a problem with one is also incredibly tragic, and the catastrophe from it is practically instantaneously visible.

It's a tough call with no "right" answer I suppose... legit arguments can made for/against either or both.

Sack

wolfdancer
03-17-2011, 12:03 PM
Blubber and whale oil!!

wolfdancer
03-17-2011, 12:06 PM
you are referring to caustic embrittlement, perhaps?

sack316
03-17-2011, 12:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you are referring to caustic embrittlement, perhaps? </div></div>

Perhaps... but no need to cuss at me /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

wolfdancer
03-17-2011, 12:31 PM
Au contraire, mon frère, er, mon ami
one has to resort to such language from time to time to place emphasis, and insure that one's main point is "being heard"

ugotda7
03-17-2011, 12:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Au contraire, mon frère, er, mon ami
one has to resort to such language from time to time to place emphasis, and insure that one's main point is "being heard" </div></div>

Well, the bias from the liberal media in negative coverage of conservatives is overwhelming....to deny this is to deny reality.

sack316
03-17-2011, 01:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Au contraire, mon frère, er, mon ami
one has to resort to such language from time to time to place emphasis, and insure that one's main point is "being heard" </div></div>

That is SOOO NOT true... damnit!

Oh... wait /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-17-2011, 01:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It was dumb too build it there in the first place.</div></div>

True dat

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I notice we aren't hearing much about the fact that several of G.E.'s Employees, resigned, many years ago, over design flaws, in this Japanese Nuclear Power facility. As if building it right there where it stands, wasn't dumb enough already.</div></div>

I heard about that too.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep, I've always been against using nuclear power, nukes, all nukes, anywhere, any place, any time.
</div></div>

I look at it differently when it comes to energy, though. It's kind of like if we had to ship product, and choosing between doing it by truck or by airplane. Well, we all know airplane is the safest way statistically by far. But that one instance of a plane crashing is HUGE news. Whereas the hundreds of daily instances of vehicle wrecks we MAY only hear about locally, if at all.

So problem with a nuclear plant... HUGE news (as rightly so). We can see right then, at that moment, the possible catastrophe. How does it weigh in with the silent damage we may slowly do on a regular basis through coal powered plants?

Truth is, nuclear is cleaner and safer (airplane). But a problem with one is also incredibly tragic, and the catastrophe from it is practically instantaneously visible.

It's a tough call with no "right" answer I suppose... legit arguments can made for/against either or both.

Sack </div></div>

What makes Nuclear Power out of the question for me, is the crooked corporations which will build it for profit, and then lie about what is going on when they screw it up!

It's just one more opportunity for the energy industry, to kill others, through their own greed, and incompetence, and their lack of respect for preserving human life, the planet earth, and the health and safety of it's inhabitants, above all else.

We surely haven't exhausted our ingenuity, for technological advances, in energy, and the reason why we haven't avanced by leaps and bounds, and created cleaner and better methods of producing energy, is because the corporations pay off politicians, to block it.

Nuclear Power, may not kill often, but the numbers who die from it, are never fully calculated, over time. After Chernobyl, thyroid cancer went up 500 percent. That area is still off limits, destroyed, and who knows for sure, for how long.

If men are stupid enough to build Nuclear Power Plants, on top of the most likely locations for earthquakes, right over fault lines, what else will they do for money???


BTW, why do you suppose when they stopped the fracking, in Ark., the shocks stopped? And also, why is it when there is a group denying scientific findings, it's always the Grand Oil Party???

Do you recall when the Bush Administration, redacted information about Scientific studies about Global Warming, censored them, which we tax payers paid for?

You can't deny it all, you know. They did hold secret meetings with energy, and went all the way to the supremem court, to keep them secret...Greenspan DID say that Iraq was about OIL. I don't make this stuff up, you know.

G.

sack316
03-17-2011, 02:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
What makes Nuclear Power out of the questions for me, is the crooked corporations which will build it for profit, and then lie about what is going on when they screw it up!</div></div>

The main crooked corporation in this particular instance would be GE. I think they have something to do with a certain cable news network, if memory serves me correctly /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If men are stupid enough to build Nuclear Power Plants, on top of the most likely locations for earthquakes, right over fault lines, what else will they do for money???</div></div>

I'll agree with ya on that part. Check out California, something is bound to happen there eventually!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, why do you suppose when they stopped the fracking, in Ark., the shocks stopped?</div></div>

Seismic activity did not stop. It did go down some. We can tune a proper frequency on a bridge and create a similar reconstruction based on sound waves alone. A sports stadium going crazy causes greater fluctuations in seismic activity than have been in evidence here. There are 7 wells in that region, 2 have been shut down due to emergency order. 5 have not.

Stick to the water pollution argument on this one before jumping on the earthquake bandwagon just yet.

Sack

pooltchr
03-17-2011, 02:09 PM
Poor Gayle.
Hates nuclear power.
Hates companies that drill for oil.
Hates companies that drill for natural gas.
Hates companies that burn coal to make electricity.

But has no problem driving her car, fueling up her boat, using electric lights, operating her kitchen appliances, etc.

Here's an idea....turn off your computer and save some electricity!

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-17-2011, 02:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
What makes Nuclear Power out of the questions for me, is the crooked corporations which will build it for profit, and then lie about what is going on when they screw it up!</div></div>

The main crooked corporation in this particular instance would be GE. I think they have something to do with a certain cable news network, if memory serves me correctly /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

<span style="color: #990000">So what? Do you think that changes what I think about the subject? Ronald Reagan worked for G.E., remember? That doesn't color my views about NPP's either.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If men are stupid enough to build Nuclear Power Plants, on top of the most likely locations for earthquakes, right over fault lines, what else will they do for money???</div></div>

I'll agree with ya on that part. Check out California, something is bound to happen there eventually!

<span style="color: #990000"> Yes, I've read about that, and Barbara Boxer is trying to do smething about it as we write. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, why do you suppose when they stopped the fracking, in Ark., the shocks stopped?</div></div>

Seismic activity did not stop. It did go down some. We can tune a proper frequency on a bridge and create a similar reconstruction based on sound waves alone. A sports stadium going crazy causes greater fluctuations in seismic activity than have been in evidence here. There are 7 wells in that region, 2 have been shut down due to emergency order. 5 have not.

<span style="color: #990000">That isn't what I read, and posted, and linked here.</span>Stick to the water pollution argument on this one before jumping on the earthquake bandwagon just yet.

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"> I'm addressing your statement. And, actually, unless someone has seen "Gasland" I don't take their opinions on the subject of FRACKING seriously.

G. </span>

sack316
03-17-2011, 02:19 PM
I've read about it but have not seen it. Everything I have read on it has to do with water and air pollution. I do not recall mention of earthquakes.

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-17-2011, 02:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've read about it but have not seen it. Everything I have read on it has to do with water and air pollution. I do not recall mention of earthquakes.

Sack </div></div>

I don't either, I just remember thinking about the likelihood of Fracking, causing Earthquakes, while watching it, as if it isn't already doing enough harm, as it is...irreversable harm, BTW.

Now, Scientists are saying it.

G.

sack316
03-17-2011, 02:27 PM
So in Fox's journey across the country, studying and visiting with families in areas where fracking took place... he encountered no evidence of earthquakes affecting a single area? Hmmmm....

Which is why I said stick to the pollution argument. That has merit. The Earthquake bandwagon is just too new and isolated to jump on just yet.

As I said, a loud stadium technically causes seismic changes, which technically would be considered causing an earthquake. Mythbusters caused one at Stewart's rally in an experiment, didn't see anything come tumbling down.

A) there is no definitive linkage between fracking and the seismic shifts... that's why 2 of the 7 wells are shut down now, to study it.

B) What seismic shifts there have been, have been small.

Not saying it's impossible by any means. Just saying don't jump on this bandwagon yet. Stay with the pollution arguments.

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-17-2011, 02:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So in Fox's journey across the country, studying and visiting with families in areas where fracking took place... he encountered no evidence of earthquakes affecting a single area? Hmmmm....

Which is why I said stick to the pollution argument. That has merit. The Earthquake bandwagon is just too new and isolated to jump on just yet.

As I said, a loud stadium technically causes seismic changes, which technically would be considered causing an earthquake. Mythbusters caused one at Stewart's rally in an experiment, didn't see anything come tumbling down.

A) there is no definitive linkage between fracking and the seismic shifts... that's why 2 of the 7 wells are shut down now, to study it.

B) What seismic shifts there have been, have been small.

Not saying it's impossible by any means. Just saying don't jump on this bandwagon yet. Stay with the pollution arguments.

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000">Did you read my link on the subject? </span>

Gayle in MD
03-17-2011, 02:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So in Fox's journey across the country, studying and visiting with families in areas where fracking took place... he encountered no evidence of earthquakes affecting a single area? Hmmmm....

Which is why I said stick to the pollution argument. That has merit. The Earthquake bandwagon is just too new and isolated to jump on just yet.

As I said, a loud stadium technically causes seismic changes, which technically would be considered causing an earthquake. Mythbusters caused one at Stewart's rally in an experiment, didn't see anything come tumbling down.

A) there is no definitive linkage between fracking and the seismic shifts... that's why 2 of the 7 wells are shut down now, to study it.

B) What seismic shifts there have been, have been small.

Not saying it's impossible by any means. Just saying don't jump on this bandwagon yet. Stay with the pollution arguments.

Sack </div></div>


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/arkansas-earthquakes-2011-fracking_n_835868.html

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- The number and strength of earthquakes in central Arkansas have <span style='font-size: 14pt'>noticeably dropped since the shutdown of two injection wells in the area, although a state researcher says it's too early to draw any conclusions.</span>


"We have <span style='font-size: 14pt'>definitely noticed a reduction in the number of earthquakes, especially the larger ones," </span>said Scott Ausbrooks, geohazards supervisor for the Arkansas Geological Survey. "It's definitely worth noting."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Center for Earthquake Research and Information recorded around 100 earthquakes in the seven days preceding the shutdown earlier this month, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>including the largest quake to hit the state in 35 years – a magnitude 4.7 on Feb. 27.</span> A dozen of the quakes had magnitudes greater than 3.0. In the days since the shutdown, there have been around 60 recorded quakes, with only one higher than a magnitude 3.0. The majority were between magnitudes 1.2 and 2.8.</span>


The two injection wells are used to dispose of wastewater from natural-gas production. One is owned by Chesapeake Energy, and the other by Clarita Operating. They agreed March 4 to temporarily cease injection operations at the request of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The commission said preliminary studies showed evidence potentially linking injection activities with nearly 1,000 quakes in the region over the past six months.</span>

But Ausbrooks said it's too soon to tell if the decline in quakes is directly related to the injection well closures, adding that the drop could just be a normal low period of the swarm cycle.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Either way, I wouldn't expect (the earthquakes) to quit immediately," he said. "If there is a relationship, the seismic activity could go on for weeks, months or even years."</span>

Chesapeake Energy has said it does not believe there is a connection between the injection wells and the area's seismic activity.


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif <span style="color: #990000"> WOW, what a surprise!!! LMAO! </span>

A six-month moratorium on new injection wells in the area took effect in January to allow time to determine what relationship, if any, there is between the wells and the earthquakes.

The Fayetteville Shale, an organically-rich rock formation underlying the region, is a major source of natural gas in Arkansas. Drillers free up the gas by using hydraulic fracturing or <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"fracking," which requires injecting pressurized water to create fractures deep in the ground.</span>

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>That's not true. Cheney's Halliburton Loophole, arranged for these pigs to be able to keep secret their carcinogenic, toxic chemicals used in these operations. People who lived near these operations, fell ill, animals with no coats, faucet water, catching fire, a range of illnesses, and then, no one would buy their property, who would want it, with the wells all contaminated, with carcinogenics?</span> </span>

The two injection wells at issue dispose of "frack" water when it can no longer be re-used by injecting it into the ground.

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Nice name, isn't it....'Fracking Water' but that isn't what it is, in reality, even the air coming out of the holding tanks, was proven to be full of toxins. </span> </span>

The state's Oil and Gas Commission will reconsider the issue at a meeting March 29 when both sides will get to testify.


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Oh Whoopie! I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it! </span> </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

wolfdancer
03-17-2011, 03:01 PM
while informing me not to believe the "hype", he suggests instead, that I believe his version of events. I believe the freaking fracking was the major contributing factor, or .....it was just a strange coincidence, just "one of those things..."

sack316
03-17-2011, 03:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...with only one higher than a magnitude 3.0. The majority were between magnitudes 1.2 and 2.8.</div></div>

look up the seismic readings for the area over a long period of time

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...<u>potentially</u> linking... </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But Ausbrooks said it's too soon to tell if the decline in quakes is directly related to the injection well closures, adding that the drop could just be a normal low period of the swarm cycle.</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A six-month moratorium on new injection wells in the area took effect in January to allow time to determine what relationship, <u>if any</u>, there is between the wells and the earthquakes.</div></div>

These quotes are all that I am saying. Is it worth looking into and studying? Yes!

Is there potential relation? Possibly.

Do we need to start jumping up and down, join arms and chanting over some discovered fact? No, because that hasn't happened.

Tens of thousands of these things worldwide over a period of 60 years and we now have ONE recorded instance of some such event, that has yet to be determined if there is causal linkage. Forgive me for waiting a bit before citing this as fact against it. There are other factual and repeated patterns of problems with this. All I'm suggesting is to keep your argument there for now.

Sack

sack316
03-17-2011, 03:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">while informing me not to believe the "hype", he suggests instead, that I believe his version of events. I believe the freaking fracking was the major contributing factor, or .....it was just a strange coincidence, just "one of those things..." </div></div>

Tens of thousands of these wells commercially over a period of 60 years and we now have exactly ONE such reported instance, that even those studying say it is not determined yet if there is a causal linkage between the two. Yeah, I'd use discretion on using this a factual basis for argument for right now.

Sack

wolfdancer
03-17-2011, 03:31 PM
I'm not arguing...I believe there to be a connection, and you don't.
We then can agree to disagree

Gayle in MD
03-17-2011, 04:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...with only one higher than a magnitude 3.0. The majority were between magnitudes 1.2 and 2.8.</div></div>

look up the seismic readings for the area over a long period of time

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...<u>potentially</u> linking... </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But Ausbrooks said it's too soon to tell if the decline in quakes is directly related to the injection well closures, adding that the drop could just be a normal low period of the swarm cycle.</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A six-month moratorium on new injection wells in the area took effect in January to allow time to determine what relationship, <u>if any</u>, there is between the wells and the earthquakes.</div></div>

These quotes are all that I am saying. Is it worth looking into and studying? Yes!

Is there potential relation? Possibly.

Do we need to start jumping up and down, join arms and chanting over some discovered fact? No, because that hasn't happened.

Tens of thousands of these things worldwide over a period of 60 years and we now have ONE recorded instance of some such event, that has yet to be determined if there is causal linkage.

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>If you are talking about Fracking sites, you are quite wrong. Fracking is a relatively recent assault, on our environement, remember, Dick Cheney's Halliburton Loophole???? That was put in place to aid the filthy oil men in this country, legislation to allow them to HIDE the pollutants they have been using. That wasn't sixty years ago.

</span> </span>
Forgive me for waiting a bit before citing this as fact against it. There are other factual and repeated patterns of problems with this. All I'm suggesting is to keep your argument there for now.

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> You did what you always do, you cherry picked the parts that you think sound the least alarming, and left out the parts which I highlighted for you. That's your usual style.

First of all, you stated they were all small, that's not true, if you read the article I posted, then you'd see, one was one of the biggest in decades, the larget in thirty-five years!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Center for Earthquake Research and Information recorded around <span style='font-size: 14pt'>100 earthquakes in the seven days preceding the shutdown </span>earlier this month, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>including the largest quake to hit the state in 35 years – a magnitude 4.7 on Feb. 27.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>A dozen of the quakes had magnitudes greater than 3.0.</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>In the days since the shutdown, there have been around 60 recorded quakes, with only one higher than a magnitude 3.0. The majority were between magnitudes 1.2 and 2.8.</span> </div></div>

Additonally, obviousy, there are other statements, which suggest that the activity, "Seems" to be linked, to the Fracking. Do you really think that they can disrupt the earth, and no domino results could follow? We are talking about shifting plates, are we not? Increased activity, which subsided when it was halted.

Do you realize how many Fracking sites there are across this country? Do you know how many of them are lined up right along seriously dangerous faultlines?

I am just as concerned about the pollution, they are creating, and HAVE been creating, with gross negligence. All the poisons they are putting in our water, AND air, and not just in our wells, but deep underground....They are using carcinogenics in the drilling fluids! They are polluting the entire deep water system, rivers and streams, farms and urban areas. That alone, is enough reason, to shut them down.

Additionally, comparing the rationality of plane crashes, per number of flights, to Nuclear Power Plant Meltdowns, around the world, is hardly reasonable, all things considered. the resulting contamination, does't just vanish, you know. It is there for future generations.

I don't think I stated, nor sounded, like I was about to start jumping up and down, waving my arms, Sack, I think I may have studied this issue quite thoroughly, understand the vast health and econogical threats, humongous numbers of people who will be detrimentally impacted by both Fracking, and increasing threats from our aging Nuclear Power Plants, placed in dangerous locations, near huge populations.

As regards fracking, many already HAVE been made very ill, and lost everything they owned, because of it, and additionally, our aged Nuclear Power Reactors, over a hundred of them, around this country, some built right over, and/or near, Faultlines, proves the gross irresponsibility and deceit of the energy industry..

Now, to you, A rightie, none of that may seem worth being hugely concerned about. Perhaps you'd prefer to consult your stastical comarisons, like flying in jets, vs. riding in cars, but then, it is a FACT, that Republicans, their media, their Scientists, are paid, to promote the irrational Tree Hugger, ideology, and to pooh pooh to Science, when it does not support further assaults on our environment, and its' inhabitants, in the interest of filling up their pockets.

It seems quite clear to me, at least, that the right, doesn't show concern about anything, that has anything to do with pollution. Are they really THAT oblivious to the threats? Do they not drink the water, breath the air, care about what they leave to their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren?

It's also quite clear, that according to a vast number of Scientists, and a worldwide organization of THE MOST highly respected Scientists, among which there is a very large concensus of agreement, 98%, I have read, about our increasing dangers, from Climate change. It IS real.

You deny that, also? Perhaps, you do not,.... but the Republican Party has made that their goal, to dilute the warnings, from the experts. Their denial of Climate change, and lack of respcet for the scientific warnings which we have been getting for years now, and which Bush was caught censoring, is positively disguting, to me.

Would you like to change your original statement, that they were all teeny, tiny little burps? They weren't. Secondly, they were getting larger, as time went on, hence, something HAD to be done, to be on the safe side.

Additionally, my friend, you don't need to teach me HOW to think, I am quite capable of knowing what is, and isn't, cause for great concern. The polluting that is going on, and has been going on, has taken a severe toll on this planet, whether you want to admit it, or not.

In fact, actually, I'd say, some jumping up and down, waving arms in the air, is a bit late, since most of the damages have already occured, and a great deal of it over the last three plus decades, since Reagan removed the solar panels from the White House, as a gesture to his corrupted friends, the Grand Oil Party...

So, thanks to the Grand Oil Party, and money hungry corporations, without conscience, we now have over a hundred, 104, potential Nuke Bombs, in deterioration, and Republicans are in the midst of cutting the funding, to oversee them.

At the same time, they are making it more difficult for poor women, to access birth control, and abortions. Sorry, but those are the facts. George Bush, ended providing prophylactics in the third world countries, where AIDS was raging. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

The world is eating itself alive, from over population, and these religious fundamentalist nuts, are trying to outlaw Birth Control!

I think it's well past time to wave the arms in the air!

G.

</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
03-17-2011, 04:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't think I stated, nor sounded, like I was about to start jumping up and down, waving my arms,


I think it's well past time to wave the arms in the air!

G.

[/b] [/color] /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

When have you ever stopped??????

Steve

Sev
03-17-2011, 05:46 PM
Gayle's type are the ones that scream and holler about every form of available energy and how evil it is and must be stopped but are completely clueless and in capable of coming up with and designing a replacement for them that has 0 environmental impact.

Typical answer: Surely somebody will think of something.

wolfdancer
03-17-2011, 06:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and in capable of coming up with and designing a replacement for them that has 0 environmental impact. </div></div>
Yes, I believe from the context of your post, as written.....that she and other non engineering types, like her...are "in capable", er, incapable of designing such a system. That does not mean that they haven't the right to comment on a disaster such as this. I have to wonder if Americans living on the West coast, or even further inland.. will be affected?
You will probably add some glib comment to that....but that occurrence will weaken the country....

pooltchr
03-17-2011, 06:57 PM
Did I miss your coronation? Did you get named the official forum spelling and grammar police officer?

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-17-2011, 06:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and in capable of coming up with and designing a replacement for them that has 0 environmental impact. </div></div>
Yes, I believe from the context of your post, as written.....that she and other non engineering types, like her...are "in capable", er, incapable of designing such a system. That does not mean that they haven't the right to comment on a disaster such as this. I have to wonder if Americans living on the West coast, or even further inland.. will be affected?
You will probably add some glib comment to that....but that occurrence will weaken the country....
</div></div>

They cannot address the issue of how Republicans have blocked us from committing to clean energy research and development.

In order for them to be honest about it, they would have to own up to the fact that President Carter, tried to get us on the correct path, to clean energy, and Reagan, the fascist, mocked him for it, they all did.

I wonder how far along we would be in modern technology, research and development, for clean renewable, non toxic fuels, had our nation not been lied to and diverted away from embracing the challenge, by the Grand Oil Party.

I can tell you one thing, those thusands of young Americans who died in the Middle East, would likely still be here today, had we done the RIGHT THING, way back when Carterr tried to change our energy direction.

G.

Gayle in MD
03-17-2011, 07:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and in capable of coming up with and designing a replacement for them that has 0 environmental impact. </div></div>
Yes, I believe from the context of your post, as written.....that she and other non engineering types, like her...are "in capable", er, incapable of designing such a system. That does not mean that they haven't the right to comment on a disaster such as this. I have to wonder if Americans living on the West coast, or even further inland.. will be affected?
You will probably add some glib comment to that....but that occurrence will weaken the country....
</div></div>

LOL, one must be an energy scientist, expert engineer, in order to have an opinion.

Makes perfect sense. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

wolfdancer
03-17-2011, 07:11 PM
it's a tough, a dirty, and a thankless, job, but somebody had to step forward and do it. You might then say it was self-appointed.
The official title is Grammar Czar!!!

pooltchr
03-17-2011, 07:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it's a tough, a dirty, and a thankless, job, but somebody had to step forward and do it. You might then say it was self-appointed.
The official title is Grammar Czar!!! </div></div>


Great! Just what we need...another czar!
Are you funded by Obama's stimulus?
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Steve

wolfdancer
03-17-2011, 09:13 PM
I am supported by private donations

sack316
03-20-2011, 03:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you are talking about Fracking sites, you are quite wrong. Fracking is a relatively recent assault, on our environement, remember, Dick Cheney's Halliburton Loophole???? That was put in place to aid the filthy oil men in this country, legislation to allow them to HIDE the pollutants they have been using. That wasn't sixty years ago.
</div></div>

Correct, what you refer to about Cheney specifically wasn't 60 years ago. But that has nothing to do with what I said about tens of thousands of wells and 60 years of commercial existence.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hydraulic fracturing for stimulation of oil and natural gas wells was first used in the United States in <u>1947</u>. It was first used commercially by Halliburton in <u>1949</u>, and because of its success in increasing production from oil wells was quickly adopted, and is now used worldwide in tens of thousands of oil and natural gas wells annually. The first industrial use of hydraulic fracturing was as early as 1903, according to T.L. Watson. Before that date, hydraulic fracturing was used at Mt. Airy Quarry, near Mt Airy, North Carolina where it was (and still is) used to separate granite blocks from bedrock. </div></div>

The above is from the wikipedia entry.

And refer to what I do as cherry picking if you want. But all I did was take quotes from your own article that say exactly what I said... which is that they don't know for certain yet if there is a link. There could be, there may not be.

Looking through the narrow scope of this one area alone, certainly I'll grant you there would be the appearance of some kind of cause-effect here. Looking over the course of 60 years and tens of thousands of these wells being in existence, and only one such instance being discovered it looks a little bit different... and will require some study (which they are in the process of doing).

And actually, to your surprise I'm sure, I am against fracking.

Sack

LWW
03-21-2011, 02:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't think I stated, nor sounded, like I was about to start jumping up and down, waving my arms,


I think it's well past time to wave the arms in the air!

G.

[/b] [/color] /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

When have you ever stopped??????

Steve </div></div>

What's amazing is that she blames Cheney for starting fracking, ignoring the historical fact that it's been around since 1903..

JohnnyD
03-22-2011, 07:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am supported by private donations </div></div>
Figures,your too lazy to work.

Gayle in MD
03-22-2011, 08:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you are talking about Fracking sites, you are quite wrong. Fracking is a relatively recent assault, on our environement, remember, Dick Cheney's Halliburton Loophole???? That was put in place to aid the filthy oil men in this country, legislation to allow them to HIDE the pollutants they have been using. That wasn't sixty years ago.
</div></div>

Correct, what you refer to about Cheney specifically wasn't 60 years ago. But that has nothing to do with what I said about tens of thousands of wells and 60 years of commercial existence.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hydraulic fracturing for stimulation of oil and natural gas wells was first used in the United States in <u>1947</u>. It was first used commercially by Halliburton in <u>1949</u>, and because of its success in increasing production from oil wells was quickly adopted, and is now used worldwide in tens of thousands of oil and natural gas wells annually. The first industrial use of hydraulic fracturing was as early as 1903, according to T.L. Watson. Before that date, hydraulic fracturing was used at Mt. Airy Quarry, near Mt Airy, North Carolina where it was (and still is) used to separate granite blocks from bedrock. </div></div>

The above is from the wikipedia entry.

And refer to what I do as cherry picking if you want. But all I did was take quotes from your own article that say exactly what I said... which is that they don't know for certain yet if there is a link. There could be, there may not be.

Looking through the narrow scope of this one area alone, certainly I'll grant you there would be the appearance of some kind of cause-effect here. Looking over the course of 60 years and tens of thousands of these wells being in existence, and only one such instance being discovered it looks a little bit different... and will require some study (which they are in the process of doing).

And actually, to your surprise I'm sure, I am against fracking.

Sack
</div></div>

Well then, why not tell me about why you're against fracking???

You seem to always want to buid a case that goes against whatever dangers that the scientific world is becoming alarmed over.

Does it occur to you that the Fracking of old, that you reference, was not done using the toxic chemicals they use today?

Or, that the technology for detection, wasn't what it is today?

Cheney held secret meetings, allowing the energy corporations to write their own regulations, which ended up menaing, no regulations, he did so partly, to create the Halliburton Loophole. Why do you think he did that? It had never happened before. The Bush Administration weakened ALL oversight, of ALL environmental protections, including arsenic in our water, and pollutants in our air.

As far as we know, it wasn't until those protections were allowed to be covvered up, that people began to become ill, and reported faucet water, catching on fire, and animals dying, ad cancer rates, and other motor disabilities, showing up around those fracking sites. They are contaminating the aquifir, with protections from Cheney, and Republicans.

It's always the repiglicans, who work against protecting the environment, and it's always a right leaning pundit, or voter, who minimizes what they're doing to the earth, and all of us, our kids, grand kids, and future generations.

Again, they don't call it the Grand Oil party, for nothing. Remember, Drill Baby Drill?

Repulsive to me! Without their obstruction for clean energy, over the last thirty years, there is no telling how much progress we might have made, by now. One thing is for sure, we would have accomplished far more in the interest of preserving the halth of the planet, and it's occupants, without decades of Republican/Corporate corruption.

G.

sack316
03-22-2011, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Well then, why not tell me about why you're against fracking???

You seem to always want to buid a case that goes against whatever dangers that the scientific world is becoming alarmed over.</div></div>

That should be relatively evident considering the numerous times I've said "stick to the pollutants argument" in this thread. But if I must (and apparently I must) explain... simply put I don't like the idea of some of the chemicals used, the manner in which they are controlled, in some cases the proppant used and its methodology, etc. etc. etc. (etc used in place of continuing the pollutant and contamination possibilities... which you already know about so I don't think I need to go into great detail here. If I must, then please let me know.

I am against it not only because of the environmental concerns, but also economic concerns as well. Any damage that may be done (loss of land, life, etc.) and cost of cleanup or restoration from it is unknown.... hence it is unknown if it is even cost efficient to use.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does it occur to you that the Fracking of old, that you reference, was not done using the toxic chemicals they use today?

Or, that the technology for detection, wasn't what it is today?</div></div>

So what was the point of these 2 lines? If we revert back to the exact same way of doing it "X" number of years ago you'd be ok with it then? Why not just say "wow Sack, I didn't realize how long man has been fracking"? Yes I am fully aware a wide variety of liquids can be used for the procedure, such as water. Even air can be used. In fact, fracking is a naturally occurring phenomenon anyway.

To my knowledge, in the 60+ years it has been commercially done, a wide variety of chemicals have been used. So if you have something that says otherwise (as your comment seems to imply) I would love to see it. Thanks! And on that note, then would I be safe to assume that this "fracking of old" you mention would be acceptable to you?

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-23-2011, 06:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Well then, why not tell me about why you're against fracking???

You seem to always want to buid a case that goes against whatever dangers that the scientific world is becoming alarmed over.</div></div>

That should be relatively evident considering the numerous times I've said "stick to the pollutants argument" in this thread. But if I must (and apparently I must) explain... simply put I don't like the idea of some of the chemicals used, the manner in which they are controlled, in some cases the proppant used and its methodology, etc. etc. etc. (etc used in place of continuing the pollutant and contamination possibilities... which you already know about so I don't think I need to go into great detail here. If I must, then please let me know.

I am against it not only because of the environmental concerns, but also economic concerns as well. Any damage that may be done (loss of land, life, etc.) and cost of cleanup or restoration from it is unknown.... hence it is unknown if it is even cost efficient to use.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does it occur to you that the Fracking of old, that you reference, was not done using the toxic chemicals they use today?

Or, that the technology for detection, wasn't what it is today?</div></div>

So what was the point of these 2 lines? If we revert back to the exact same way of doing it "X" number of years ago you'd be ok with it then? Why not just say "wow Sack, I didn't realize how long man has been fracking"? Yes I am fully aware a wide variety of liquids can be used for the procedure, such as water. Even air can be used. In fact, fracking is a naturally occurring phenomenon anyway.

To my knowledge, in the 60+ years it has been commercially done, a wide variety of chemicals have been used. So if you have something that says otherwise (as your comment seems to imply) I would love to see it. Thanks! And on that note, then would I be safe to assume that this "fracking of old" you mention would be acceptable to you?

Sack </div></div>

No, it isn't acceptable, BUT, since you still don't get it, IF I MUST, I will attempt to explain it to you once again.

The chemicals they have been using in the last fifteen to twenty years, are more dangerous than ever before.

Secondly, you are wrong, it is NOT a natrual phenomenon.

Additionally, it was under reconsideration, as a practice, and hence, the Cheney, halliburton Loophole.

You have posted opposition, without any links to prove them.

I recommend that you find, and watch, the documentary, GASLAND.

After that, you should locate the several documentaries by PBS, which I'm sure, someone as smart, and vastly knowledgeable as you, can find on your own.

After that, maybe we can discuss the issue.

And, as for the contributing dangers from Fracking, to it's impact on Earthquakes, obviously, the jury may be out on that, however, so far, indications are that there has been an impact, since an area of our country, has experienced the worst shocks in thirty-five years.

I hardly think they would have stopped the drillilng in that area, without cause.

Additionally, to simply say you don't like the idea of putting chemicals into the earth, falls far short of acknowledging all of the resulting, current damages, accumulated illnesses, deaths, and long lasting results, of Fracking, which have been building throughout the unconscionable practice, which, minimize all you wish, have been ushered through, by collusion between the REpublicen party, in concert with energy corporations who don't give a flying **** what they do to people, or the environment, and which have been deregulated, supported, and protected, for decades, by the Grand Oil party, which has been bribed.....to act against the best interests of the country, and the world.

There is nothing normal, nor natural, about Fracking!

G.

pooltchr
03-23-2011, 07:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The chemicals they have been using in the last fifteen to twenty years, are more dangerous than ever before.


G.

</div></div>
The last 15 to 20 years? Let's see, that would mean.....Oh, No! You aren't blaming Clinton for this, are you??????

Steve

sack316
03-23-2011, 02:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Secondly, you are wrong, it is NOT a natrual phenomenon.
</div></div>

And this is why I should know better than to even try to have these discussions. First, explain to me how volcanic sills and dikes exist (for one example). Show me how this is not a natural occurrence and you'll probably win a nobel prize for turning the Geology world on its head!

Second reason why I should know better... even when I am agreeing with you, you still want to argue with me about it!!! This whole thing started with me saying you should stick with the pollution and contamination argument on this until they study and find out for sure something on the earthquake thing. And finally, in this last response you say:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And, as for the contributing dangers from Fracking, to it's impact on Earthquakes, obviously, the jury may be out on that </div></div>

which was all I asked in the first place was to maybe not quite quote it as pure and solid fact just yet. Otherwise, I was in agreement with you, and yet you still want to give me lessons and argue! For example you say:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Additionally, to simply say you don't like the idea of putting chemicals into the earth, falls far short of acknowledging all.... </div></div>

When I clearly said earlier:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....etc. etc. etc. (etc used in place of continuing the pollutant and contamination possibilities... which you already know about so I don't think I need to go into great detail here. If I must, then please let me know. </div></div>

I didn't go into acknowledging it all because I was talking to you, who I know doesn't need me to go into great detail on that (hint: that was a compliment to your knowledge on the pollution/contamination matters involved).

Thanks!

Sack

JohnnyD
03-23-2011, 03:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The chemicals they have been using in the last fifteen to twenty years, are more dangerous than ever before.


G.

</div></div>
The last 15 to 20 years? Let's see, that would mean.....Oh, No! You aren't blaming Clinton for this, are you??????

Steve </div></div>
Excellent post about the truth.Thank you sir.

The truth will set them free.

LWW
03-24-2011, 03:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JohnnyD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The chemicals they have been using in the last fifteen to twenty years, are more dangerous than ever before.


G.

</div></div>
The last 15 to 20 years? Let's see, that would mean.....Oh, No! You aren't blaming Clinton for this, are you??????

Steve </div></div>
Excellent post about the truth.Thank you sir.

The truth will set them free. </div></div>

Gee has ran from this in every discussion on fracking.