What's up with TARGET: EPA! ??
POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Friday, December 23, 2011 01:45
VIEWED: 10529
PAGE 4 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko: but by flushing it down the water table to force gas out of the ground,
It should be noted that the fracking fluids are not being pumped into the water table, but well below it. Water wells are normally around a few hundred to maybe 3000 feet deep. Gas wells are in the order of 5000 to 6000 feet deep.
It should also noted that deep well injection has been used to dispose of waste materials since the 50's.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
I can't tell if this is ignorance or propaganda.
2/3 of that water comes back up to the surface where it either splashes back to a surface pool, is sent to a water treatment plant or is spread on the roads as salt. Then it enters the groundwater.
Oh, and what Sig said, which I just saw. The nature of geology, you know.
Sig, thanks for the link. Josh Fox is putting himself in a Julian Assange level of danger. He's a hero, and I think we have to recognize that before they get him, not just after.
Quote:
Originally posted by KWICKO:
Maybe the fracking tapped into a heretofor unknown vein of chlorofluorocarbons and dioxyns
This cracked me up. After just listening to another Josh Fox clip Sig just posted, I'm thinking it works especially well if delivered in the total deadpan.
Quote:
Originally posted by M52NICKERSON:
It should also noted that deep well injection has been used to dispose of waste materials since the 50's.
Ooh, and industry favorite. No, it hasn't, that's actually a lie, just an ordinary one. Water has been used to displace fossil fuels since the 50s, but no one was pumping a million gallons of chemical WMDs into the bedrock of America's agricultural heartland until the Halliburton loophole of 2005 made it legal for them to do so.
But, Mike has a point: They used to tell women to paint their faces with lead paint so they would look good on their way to the watch factory where they would lick the radium so as to stick it on the watches, and make them glow in the dark. Of course, they did it then, so I'm sure it's safe.
BTW, for those who do not recognize it, the excuse flags Nick as an industry spokesman, as no one else uses that line.
Quote:
We are all not dead or dying yet.
This is either a clever or just unfortunate word ordering.
No, flat out no. All of us are not "not dead or dying." Many of us are dead, and many of us are dying. That's why they're adding 5 floors to the local cancer center. We've been told we live on a primary brain cancer hotspot. A waitress at the local soda fountain just died of it. This is becoming amazingly common for a one in a million condition. I've now known as many people to die of fracking contamination as from war, gang violence, suicide and AIDS. the only thing it hasn't displaced is car crashes, and perhaps what we might call old age. Also, medical malpractice, which is still way up there.
So, it's only been running a few years, and already we're dying.
Pizmo,
No, everyone is not in on it. But if there weren't a willful hand of evil in it, then the lawsuit-conscious businessmen would curb the damage to avoid the liability.
I think you have to believe in the existence of evil in order to understand this one. Greed alone does not explain it.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
2/3 of that water comes back up to the surface where it either splashes back to a surface pool, is sent to a water treatment plant or is spread on the roads as salt. Then it enters the groundwater.
...and the treatment plants would be where chemicals would be removed or made inert.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ooh, and industry favorite. No, it hasn't, that's actually a lie, just an ordinary one. Water has been used to displace fossil fuels since the 50s, but no one was pumping a million gallons of chemical WMDs into the bedrock of America's agricultural heartland until the Halliburton loophole of 2005 made it legal for them to do so.
Water to displace fossil fuels is not deep well injection to get ride of waste, which has indeed been around for some time.
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/history.cfm
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
BTW, for those who do not recognize it, the excuse flags Nick as an industry spokesman, as no one else uses that line.
Yes, because industry is so worried they sent me to Firefly.net to cover up the truth!
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
No, flat out no. All of us are not "not dead or dying." Many of us are dead, and many of us are dying. That's why they're adding 5 floors to the local cancer center. We've been told we live on a primary brain cancer hotspot. A waitress at the local soda fountain just died of it. This is becoming amazingly common for a one in a million condition. I've now known as many people to die of fracking contamination as from war, gang violence, suicide and AIDS. the only thing it hasn't displaced is car crashes, and perhaps what we might call old age. Also, medical malpractice, which is still way up there.
See, it far more likley that you are making shit up then it is that I'm a industy plant.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That was a snark intended to imply that you were swallowing the company line, and now regurgitating it.
This is something regulators do a lot. And yes, it's worth it to industry to go to regulators and feed them nonsense so that they will spew it. Industry doesn't care where they spew it. They don't care where anything gets spewed.
IIRC, this was a thread on the EPA, and I can tell you that, while I admit they do not agree with me on the issue of a possible Blue Gold* conspiracy, they do think that there is no gas. The feeling at the agency seems to concur with the NYT piece that fracking is a ponzi scheme and they are suspicious of yield claims. They are also seriously concerned about the groundwater and biosphere contamination with CFC and other additive toxins. Far more concerned than you are posting here, and a good number of those are industry people.
* the idea that water monetization firms like BP capital, Bechtel, and Halliburton, are pouring money into the fracking business because they see profit from another channel.
So, sure, I may see holocaust-like conspiracies where they don't exist, but much better that someone see them and herald the possibility that there is a stealth terrorist attack when it's not there then that no one be allowed to dare suggest such a thing if that is the case that this is what is happening.
I guess, IOW, consider me to be the anti-pirate news. I'll occasionally say "It's the Nazis" just in case it is.
I would snark you for throwing out the baby with the bathwater by rejecting everything I say just because you disagree with some of it, but so far, it looks to me like you've rejected everything everyone has said on the board thus far. So, at least it's not personal 
ETA: The point was the inject of the chemicals themselves, not to displace them.
Also, there's a fundamental logical flaw in the belief that water treatment by vaporizing volatiles or diluting solutes (legally 10:1 is sufficient) has any serious mitigating effect on the end macro contamination.
Specifically, doctors say my sister was likely not poisoned by drinking the affected water, but by inhaling the fumes that evaporated from it, containing light weight CFCs such as TCE.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Not as far as I'm concerned; when one is constantly seeing conspiracies, one is not living their life in my opinion; living in fear and seeing conspiracies everywhere (which you do seem to do) is not living. I think psychologists would find you an example of what they have discovered in holocaust-survivor children:
So, sure, I may see holocaust-like conspiracies where they don't exist, but much better that someone see them and herald the possibilityQuote:
I've not mentioned it before and won't again, and I have no right to judge you. I could also be totally wrong. I've just seen a pattern in your thinking which gravitates to conspiracies about so many things, it made me wonder. Some of your bliefs and opinions are so far out in left field, I don't know where they could possibly come from. And all this IS my HUMBLE opinion...I've just not been able to figure out where else some of the stuff you believe--and in some cases think EVERYONE believes--could possibly originate
Evidence shows that the children of Holocaust survivors, referred to as the “Second Generation”, can be deeply affected – both negatively and positively -- by the horrific events their parents experienced. The intergenerational transmission of trauma is so strong that Holocaust-related influences can even be seen in the “Third Generation”, children of the children of survivors.
According to studies, the long-term effects of the Holocaust on the children of survivors suggest a "psychological profile." Their parents’ suffering may have affected their upbringing, personal relationships and perspective on life. Eva Fogelman, a psychologist who treats Holocaust survivors and their children, suggests a second generation 'complex' characterized by processes that affect identity, self-esteem, interpersonal interactions and worldview. http://judaism.about.com/od/holocaust/a/hol_gens.htm commonalities Gorko sees in children of survivors are feelings of being separate or “different” from the rest of the world; having an “escape plan” and security issues... http://www.chron.com/life/houston-belief/article/Holocaust-survivors-t
rauma-filters-through-1702341.php
I sincerely hope your sister makes a full recovery, by the way. I just think what she experiences and what you see around you is not necessarily indicative of the wider world. Nor do I deny the existence of such pollution; I would be the last person on earth to do so, given my priorities. I just don't think it's a "conspiracy", except insofar as there's certainly a "conspiracy" to do away with regulation, which I believe inhibits maximizing profit.Quote:
Certainly greed explains it; liability isn't a deterrent. Surely you've heard of all the times the corporation has made more money off what they do than any "fine", to the point where they figure that into the equation--how many people might sue versus how much profit can be made. Liability can be hidden (a normal human failing), can be delayed (and corporations know just how to do so), avoided (with enough money you can hire great attorneys) and can be calculated (there's a word for just that about people in insurance companies); that you need to believe in "the existence of evil" is something that's personal to YOU, not everyone.
if there weren't a willful hand of evil in it, then the lawsuit-conscious businessmen would curb the damage to avoid the liability... I think you have to believe in the existence of evil in order to understand this one. Greed alone does not explain it. Quote:
I don't know how you come to that, as I've seen no such thing on the board as a whole.
it looks to me like you've rejected everything everyone has said on the board thus farQuote:
BTW, for those who do not recognize it, the excuse flags Nick as an industry spokesman, as no one else uses that lin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
That was a snark intended to imply that you were swallowing the company line, and now regurgitating it.
This is something regulators do a lot. And yes, it's worth it to industry to go to regulators and feed them nonsense so that they will spew it. Industry doesn't care where they spew it. They don't care where anything gets spewed.
I get that sometimes. When people like you don't want to listen to reason and hear why some of your arguments are incorrect.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
IIRC, this was a thread on the EPA, and I can tell you that, while I admit they do not agree with me on the issue of a possible Blue Gold* conspiracy, they do think that there is no gas. The feeling at the agency seems to concur with the NYT piece that fracking is a ponzi scheme and they are suspicious of yield claims. They are also seriously concerned about the groundwater and biosphere contamination with CFC and other additive toxins. Far more concerned than you are posting here, and a good number of those are industry people.
Really, well you can't tell that by the EPA website!
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/i
ndex.cfm
You can even see in a past study of fracking the EPA found no evidence of ground water contamination, but as they should left the door open for more research.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So, sure, I may see holocaust-like conspiracies where they don't exist, but much better that someone see them and herald the possibility that there is a stealth terrorist attack when it's not there then that no one be allowed to dare suggest such a thing if that is the case that this is what is happening.
I guess, IOW, consider me to be the anti-pirate news. I'll occasionally say "It's the Nazis" just in case it is.
I would read the story of Chicken Little if I where you.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I would snark you for throwing out the baby with the bathwater by rejecting everything I say just because you disagree with some of it, but so far, it looks to me like you've rejected everything everyone has said on the board thus far. So, at least it's not personal
Not everything, just the things that are not true, which has been a lot.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
ETA: The point was the inject of the chemicals themselves, not to displace them.
citation needed
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Also, there's a fundamental logical flaw in the belief that water treatment by vaporizing volatiles or diluting solutes (legally 10:1 is sufficient) has any serious mitigating effect on the end macro contamination.
No those are facts. Volatiles breakdown in the air. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp19.pdf Trichloroethylene has a half life of about in the air of about a week.
Also water treatment is more involved then diluting anything.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Specifically, doctors say my sister was likely not poisoned by drinking the affected water, but by inhaling the fumes that evaporated from it, containing light weight CFCs such as TCE.
Really, I would ask how he is coming to that conclusion since not many CFC have been definitely linked to cancer.
research and learn
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/index.asp
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't have to rely on the website, I know people in the EPA. Also, though the CFCs in question are labeled as carcinogens in your own link, I don't need to rely on govt. labeling, as I am in a scientific cancer research group.
Let me leave you with a little story. Years ago, after just completing my grad school prep in biochem, I felt pretty smart. I was sitting in a bar and talking to a guy, and telling him all I knew about nutrition. A friend of mine pulled me aside and said "That man that you're talking to just coached his team to his country's first ever gold medal in the olympics. You might want to shut up and listen." So, I took it to heart. A few weeks later I found myself seated next to a man sipping on Cappuccino and talking about chess. I'm very good at the game, and have a lot to say on it, but I remembered the words, and decided to shut up and listen. The man sitting across from me had a number of valuable tips to share, and though I did not recognize him, as I had never seen him, I had in fact read several articles by him, he was Gary Kasperov. I was very glad I'd quelled the impulse to talk and tell him what I know.
That is all I have to say.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
So while fracking may not be a good idea it is not going to be the end of everything.
Well, for those whom it kills, it rather WILL be the end of everything...
I don't think Nick's any kind of plant, industry, potted, or otherwise. I think he's seeing things from a different perspective, one that is more trusting of government and industry than mine, DT's, or Frem's, for instance. But I absolutely don't think Nick is arguing from a position of maliciousness.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think a lot of the hostility towards the EPA is it's protective function. The EPA is like a condom. Condoms are no fun. Like a condom, the EPA comes between our sensitive bits and the free market. That's no fun. Hence, the EPA must be destroyed.
Also, the EPA is good for us, like broccoli. Things that are good for us are no fun, like broccoli. Therefore, devil take the EPA, and also the broccoli from my plate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike
I considered that angle, but looking into it what I found was that while you have a point: "industrial byproducts are being added to fracking fluid as a means of getting rid of them" it doesn't seem that this matches the scale and scope of what's going on here.
I can't find any reference to the industry either spinning or CFCs or haloalkanes, or spinning off the billions of gallons being used here. It does seem to me that the WMDs in this case are being intentionally synthesized for the purpose of adding them to the fluid.
I don't want to say "source it or surrender" but I am genuinely interested if this is the case, if you have anything on the quantity and toxicity of byproducts that would lead to this conclusion. It's certainly a logical one, OTOH, you have to consider that all three fracking major backers, BP capital, Bechtel and Halliburton, are heavily invested in water monetization schemes, so there's a 4x for the money. Obviously, these guys are cheap bastards, so even if they wanted to intentionally poison the water supply, they would go with toxins they had on hand if they had them.
I don't have links to specific sources or cites; this is entirely my opinion on the matter, based on what I've been hearing from several different sources, none of whom seem to have made the link yet - government deregulation of fracking fluids, allowing industry to claim them as "proprietary" mixes so that they needn't disclose WHAT they're sending down the hole, and the knowledge that pretty much every refinery site in the nation is basically a Superfund site in the offing. It all starts to make sense when you start linking them, but then it gets even worse, with the increased efforts at tort reform aimed at limiting the maximum fiscal exposure of corporations in lawsuits, AND the Supreme Court's rulings in the recent WalMart and AT&T class-action suits which broke up the class action status of said suits and in effect may do away with such things completely in the near future.
So this is industry being told, "Do whatever you want; we don't care. And furthermore, if anyone ever tries to come after you, the courts are on your side, because you paid for them to be."
We are rapidly approaching the tipping point where the only recourse left to the victims of corporations will be violent action in the form of suicide attacks and car-bombs aimed at company headquarters. I don't condone it or cheer it, but I definitely see it coming. But let's just all pretend to be surprised when it starts happening, okay? ;)
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
I think a lot of the hostility towards the EPA is it's protective function. The EPA is like a condom. Condoms are no fun. Like a condom, the EPA comes between our sensitive bits and the free market. That's no fun. Hence, the EPA must be destroyed.
Also, the EPA is good for us, like broccoli. Things that are good for us are no fun, like broccoli. Therefore, devil take the EPA, and also the broccoli from my plate.
I like broccoli. I don't like condoms. Condoms are so unlike broccoli.
Apologies to Gandhi. ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME