This Little Pipeline Protest

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,727
Isn't there similar dissatisfaction in American communities regarding frakking even though it's supposedly safe?
Yeah, supposedly it raises the chances of earthquakes. It hasn't been proven, but facts aren't needed for the social justice warriors of the world to ban together and save this great earth.
 

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
Isn't there similar dissatisfaction in American communities regarding frakking even though it's supposedly safe?
It has caused a lot of damage to private well waters, contaminating them with waste water, spills etc., not to mention the Aesthetic impact & destruction of habitat in PA. The Aesthetic impact isn't that important but when you grow up in these areas, and notice the damage to surroundings it is alarming.

Most of the areas that they Frack in have tributaries that lead to water sources for larger towns, if it starts having an impact there I believe that would be down the road. Those towns are small rural towns though, so unless it spreads to more populated areas I doubt many will hear about it or care.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Maybe so but the real answer is to work toward a solution to become independent of petroleum. In the meantime the USA is stuck with a petroleum based fuel source and none of us are willing to give up the convienence it provides. With the convienence comes trade offs.
Something we agree on.:unsure
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Yeah, supposedly it raises the chances of earthquakes. It hasn't been proven, but facts aren't needed for the social justice warriors of the world to ban together and save this great earth.
That's the only thing you think people have issues with Fracking about?

And you are the on railing against somebody abut facts?:lol
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
It has caused a lot of damage to private well waters, contaminating them with waste water, spills etc., not to mention the Aesthetic impact & destruction of habitat in PA. The Aesthetic impact isn't that important but when you grow up in these areas, and notice the damage to surroundings it is alarming.

Most of the areas that they Frack in have tributaries that lead to water sources for larger towns, if it starts having an impact there I believe that would be down the road. Those towns are small rural towns though, so unless it spreads to more populated areas I doubt many will hear about it or care.
Dude its about the earthquakes.

SJW:geek
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,727
That's the only thing you think people have issues with Fracking about?

And you are the on railing against somebody abut facts?:lol
Who the fuck said it was the only thing? I'm just about fucking sick of you running from thread to thread putting words in people's mouth just so you can fucking argue. Stop that shit. And, I'm dead serious.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Who the fuck said it was the only thing? I'm just about fucking sick of you running from thread to thread putting words in people's mouth just so you can fucking argue. Stop that shit. And, I'm dead serious.
I put no words in your mouth, you said the issue was "earthquakes".

Don't freak out about me using your own words, you used earthquakes as the reason people had an issue with fracking, you did not say among other things, you specifically said earthquakes.

And what are you threatening to do to me because I used your exact words?

Are we meeting in Temecula?
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,727
I put no words in your mouth, you said the issue was "earthquakes".

Don't freak out about me using your own words, you used earthquakes as the reason people had an issue with fracking, you did not say among other things, you specifically said earthquakes.

And what are you threatening to do to me because I used your exact words?

Are we meeting in Temecula?
Did I use the word only? Did I say, "the only issue I see that people are having is earthquakes"? Did I? No, I fucking didn't. So, you added that little word to create an argument for yourself. You do that shit all the time, and I for one, and am fucking sick of it. And, I can tell you, I'm not the only one.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Did I use the word only? Did I say, "the only issue I see that people are having is earthquakes"? Did I? No, I fucking didn't. So, you added that little word to create an argument for yourself. You do that shit all the time, and I for one, and am fucking sick of it. And, I can tell you, I'm not the only one.
Earthquakes is not even the biggest issue people have with fracking so even with your semantics argument it still was a wack answer.

I am not creating an argument I said what I said and you are the one flying off the handle threatening people.

Yeah people have an issue with me that's quite a newsflash, what point are you trying to make?

And stop with that bullshit about me being some shit starter in here there are only 2 people I ever really get into with and that is usually in 1 thread.
 

Texas Ace

Teh Acester
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
23,401
And stop with that bullshit about me being some shit starter in here there are only 2 people I ever really get into with and that is usually in 1 thread.
It's not BS.

You're an obnoxious contrarian who argues just to argue. You do this in every subject possible.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,931
It's not BS.

You're an obnoxious contrarian who argues just to argue. You do this in every subject possible.
Truth.

I particularly like his "So what you're saying is..."
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Chromium-6 may flow in the drinking water of 200 million Americans, based on a new report by Environmental Working Group.

Chromium-6, the cancer-causing chemical best known for its role in the Erin Brockovich story, has been found at higher-than-recommended levels in the tap water supplying two-thirds of all Americans, according to a report from the Environmental Working Group.

EWG, a nonprofit research organization, analyzed Environmental Protection Agency data on more than 60,000 samples collected at water utilities in all 50 states between 2013 and 2015. They found chromium-6 at levels deemed unsafe by public health officials.


“Americans deserve to know if there are potentially harmful levels of a cancer-causing chemical in their tap water,” David Andrews, a senior scientist at EWG and co-author of the report, told the PBS NewsHour.

Chromium-6 occurs naturally in the environment, but high quantities are also produced by industrial projects. Pollution can occur when these industrial sites fail to follow proper waste disposal methods, such as with unlined coal ash ponds.

“The difficulty with chromium-6 is how to set a standard to protect human health during windows of development,” Andrews said.

Even in small amounts, chromium-6 can cause skin burns, pneumonia, complications during childbirth and stomach cancer.

More than 16 million Americans drink water contaminated with toxic chemicals that can be traced to military and industrial sites, according to new research from Harvard University. Photo by Adam Lister/via Getty Images
In 2014, California became the first state to put a cap on chromium-6 in drinking water. Photo by Adam Lister/via Getty Images

While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies chromium-6 as a known carcinogen, there is no federal standard on the maximum amount of chromium-6. In 1991, the EPA set a regulation for total chromium, but that includes chromium-3, which is a naturally occurring chemical and essential human nutrient.

Then in 2014, California became the first state to put a cap on chromium-6 in drinking water, settling on a value of 10 parts per billion. But public health researchers based in in the state wanted a much lower goal of .02 ppb — 1/500th the state’s mandate.

Where’s the chromium?

EWG’s analysis, displayed in an interactive map, found 1,370 U.S. county water supplies with chromium-6 levels above California’s benchmark.

EWG found that Oklahoma, Arizona and California have the highest statewide averages of chromium-6. Phoenix has the highest of any city by far, followed by St. Louis and Houston with comparatively high levels.

“There should be no carcinogen in water,” Dr. Lynn Goldman, former EPA assistant administrator of toxic substances under President Bill Clinton, told the PBS NewsHour. “The overall problem here is, what does it take for EPA to speed up its standard-setting process?”

The EPA has been conducting a comprehensive health review of chromium-6 since 2010, when the first nationwide tests for the carcinogen began in response to a previous EWG report.

Goldman said the holdup over setting a federal regulation for chromium-6 is likely due to the fact that testing for chromium-6 toxicity is difficult and few people have proper experience with it.

In an emailed statement, an EPA spokesperson wrote the agency is assessing the health risks of chromium-6 and plans to release its findings for public comment next year. They also pointed out that only 2 percent of water systems tested by the agency had levels exceeding California’s enforceable water standard of 10 parts per billion. That is much lower than the 75 percent of systems, cited by EWG, that had levels higher than 0.02 parts per billion.

EWG’s report did not include samples from private well samples, where an estimated one-third of Americans get their drinking water.

The good news: as we have reported, there are filters you can buy to remove the chemical from your tap water. An ion exchange water treatment unit is the most effective.
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
So everyone in govt is on the dole and that's the sole issue. Ok. Offer a better and different solution then please.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
So everyone in govt is on the dole and that's the sole issue. Ok. Offer a better and different solution then please.
The solution is less govt in this case. In that the oil industry's business model is based on enormous govt subsidies. We're using a 20th century fuel source that should have gone the way of the dinosaurs it was made of.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
The solution is less govt in this case. In that the oil industry's business model is based on enormous govt subsidies. We're using a 20th century fuel source that should have gone the way of the dinosaurs it was made of.
The conundrum however is that there will be a cost to be paid either way. If the petroleum industry was forced to go on its own the cost of gasoline would be at least twice what it is and and probably more. All the by products of petroleum would increase the costs of many more consumer items from hundreds of products. The public simply pay it through taxes and the government makes up the difference through deficit budgets.

Our petroleum based technology is utilized through transportation, military defense and hundreds of consumer products. The entire world exists considerably through this product and it isn't going away real soon. It is so important to nations that wars are waged to control it so it really should surprise no one that governments are willing to do what is necessary to see that they have the upper hand even to the extent of generous subsidies to keep it within their control.
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
The solution is less govt in this case. In that the oil industry's business model is based on enormous govt subsidies. We're using a 20th century fuel source that should have gone the way of the dinosaurs it was made of.
Yes, and the alternatives realistically are what? Make the changes when you can offer solutions that can really work and people can afford. Until then we should concentrate on making the product as safely obtainable and efficient as possible.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
At least this is for something important - preserving the American lifestyle and economy. We've destroyed climates and decimated cultures so there's affordable Coke, shiny rocks for women to wear, a straighter highway and football stadiums.
Those aren't exactly products of petroleum. Moreso products of affluent societies. The largest polluter in the world is China. Their quest to become more affluent disregards all measures to curb pollutant practices. These are the facts not necessarily the way it should be.
 
Last edited:

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Yes, and the alternatives realistically are what? Make the changes when you can offer solutions that can really work and people can afford. Until then we should concentrate on making the product as safely obtainable and efficient as possible.
Nuclear, wind, solar.

Cars that run on batteries and induction motors. Real mass transit.

The only thing we lack is the will. We could be off fossil fuel in a few years if America just decided to.
 
Top Bottom