What's up with TARGET: EPA! ??
POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Friday, December 23, 2011 01:45
VIEWED: 10529
PAGE 3 of 7
Hello,
This reasoning is rational.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”
Jacob Hornberger
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony,
Thanks, but I'm afraid it's cold comfort under the circumstances. I would sincerely like to HOPE that both DT and I are very wrong on this, but the pieces are falling into place rather too easily, it seems. :(
And I'm not sure being inadvertently killed by evil actions is really any better than being killed by PLANNED evil actions.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 also wonder if the US govt's plans to get rid of its own CFC based chemical WMD stockpiles, if this is how they decided to do that: By using them on America.
I was, of course, snarking Rap, but I'm also serious: If he sees his job as defending America, then America is right now under attack, and he's not defending it, which makes him useless, and another piece of excessive govt. spending which could be cut.
I'm quite serious about the terrorism. This is a threat, just like on 9.11 we were attacked by terrorists, I don't think there's a single dissenter on that, we just happen to disagree on who those terrorists were.
MTR and horizontal hydraulic fracturing are forms of attack, they're actual bombings of america, and these CFCs are WMDs, the kill people, and are banned from use in warfare for that reason. The military actually keeps TCE and DCM on hand as "industrial cleaning agents" instead of non-toxic ones, a fact which kills more soldiers than the enemy. You know, or at least Frem does, that the *reason* they do this is so they they will always have chemical weapons on hand in case they want to throw all the rules of engagement in the trash if they actually need to win instead of just running a constant grinding war for economic and political purposes.
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:
To propagate your own genetic line by eliminating the competition.
That would be why there is genocide, and war, and weapons, and violence, or why men evolved to be strong, to fight off other men, in short, the one of the cornerstones of evolution.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT:
Hundreds Arrested (Including Me) in DC: The Protest Against the Keystone XL Pipeline and Why the Uproar
Kate Follot
Quote:
I'm just a person who is passionate about helping breech the gap between the public and real life events, especially internationally.
Ending only September the 3rd, a group is planned to protest every day for two weeks, and more than 2100 people have signed up. Already, an estimated 222 people have been arrested, 65 on Saturday, 45 on Sunday, 52 on Monday and 60 on Tuesday, including Canadian actors Margot Kidder (best known as Lois Lane in four of the original Superman movies) and Tantoo Cardinal (indigenous actor best known for her roles in Legends of the Fall, Dances with Wolves, and Smoke Signals).
Arrestees whose ID stated they resided in DC were released after paying a $100 fine while 55 other participants from last Saturday’s demonstration were kept in jail for two nights before having all charges dropped and being released. On Tuesday afternoon, they were greeted with food and drink outside the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Moultrie Courthouse by a group of supporters.... {more}
http://planetsave.com/2011/08/24/hundreds-arrested-including-me-in-dc-
the-protest-against-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-and-why-the-uproar/
Of course, you will not find this covered by the major media.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NICK I took... oh, less than three seconds... to type "deep well problems" into google, the very first citation from the Journal of Water Pollution Control (1977... not a new problem!) said
Quote:Stuff like this happens all the time... sometimes catastrophically like the BP well blowout, sometimes little by little. Deep well injection- like (ahem!) nuclear power is not a 100% safe, foolproof technology. You have to think about the consequences of failure, because failure is part of the real world.
The growing use of deep wells for disposal of wastes seems to suggest that the earth has an enormous capacity to store liquids. This, unfortunately, is not true: The earth actually contains few empty spaces and liquids can only be accommodated by compressing or displacing existing fluids or deforming the surrounding strata. Nearly three-quarters {Prolly more now- Signy} of the existing wells in the US operate at pressures greater than gravity flow. The possible consequences of high pressure injection include the fracturing of geologic strata, migration of wastes along existing faults and fractures, rupture of rock formations many miles away and movement of waste up the well casing, resulting in the aquifer contamination, and the triggering of seismic activity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 be noted that fracking fluids aren't SUPPOSED to be pumped into the water table, and yet they keep showing up in the water. It's probably coincidence, though. Maybe the fracking tapped into a heretofor unknown vein of chlorofluorocarbons and dioxyns...
Thing is, you (and the people doing the actual fracking) don't really know HOW and WHERE the rock is going to fracture, or where the fluids will go once the rock DOES fracture.
Quote:
It should also noted that deep well injection has been used to dispose of waste materials since the 50's.
Heck, they used to use depleted uranium in Fiesta Ware dishes, too, but I'm sure it's okay. The 50s were that quaint time when we were actually told that dying of radiation sickness was really not a bad way to go, as it was actually quite painless.
Sorry, but arguing from a point of view that "that's the way it was done in the 50s" doesn't really fly very well with me. Heck, why not have a cigarette and a shot of whiskey before your commute, just to calm your nerves?
Not picking a fight, Nick - just pointing out what I see as a few flaws in your reasoning.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
NICK I took... oh, less than three seconds... to type "deep well problems" into google, the very first citation from the Journal of Water Pollution Control (1977... not a new problem!) saidQuote:Stuff like this happens all the time... sometimes catastrophically like the BP well blowout, sometimes little by little. Deep well injection- like (ahem!) nuclear power is not a 100% safe, foolproof technology. You have to think about the consequences of failure, because failure is part of the real world.
The growing use of deep wells for disposal of wastes seems to suggest that the earth has an enormous capacity to store liquids. This, unfortunately, is not true: The earth actually contains few empty spaces and liquids can only be accommodated by compressing or displacing existing fluids or deforming the surrounding strata. Nearly three-quarters {Prolly more now- Signy} of the existing wells in the US operate at pressures greater than gravity flow. The possible consequences of high pressure injection include the fracturing of geologic strata, migration of wastes along existing faults and fractures, rupture of rock formations many miles away and movement of waste up the well casing, resulting in the aquifer contamination, and the triggering of seismic activity.
I never claimed they where 100% safe, or that they where a good idea. Just stated that have been used for quite some time.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
It should also be noted that fracking fluids aren't SUPPOSED to be pumped into the water table, and yet they keep showing up in the water. It's probably coincidence, though. Maybe the fracking tapped into a heretofor unknown vein of chlorofluorocarbons and dioxyns...
Thing is, you (and the people doing the actual fracking) don't really know HOW and WHERE the rock is going to fracture, or where the fluids will go once the rock DOES fracture.
Your right they do show up in water, but not just places where fracking is going on. Most of these chemicals have been used for years in other industries.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Heck, they used to use depleted uranium in Fiesta Ware dishes, too, but I'm sure it's okay. The 50s were that quaint time when we were actually told that dying of radiation sickness was really not a bad way to go, as it was actually quite painless.
Sorry, but arguing from a point of view that "that's the way it was done in the 50s" doesn't really fly very well with me. Heck, why not have a cigarette and a shot of whiskey before your commute, just to calm your nerves?
Not picking a fight, Nick - just pointing out what I see as a few flaws in your reasoning.
The point was that pumping chemicals into the ground is not new. Is it a good idea, no. We are all not dead or dying yet. Hell the vast majority of ground water is not contaminated. So while fracking may not be a good idea it is not going to be the end of everything.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME