[QUOTE=Stopper;46810511][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking[/url]
please[/QUOTE]
Again, it's an infinitesimally minor risk and greatly exaggerated by the anti-smoking lobby.
Nuclear is not the best option, granted
however, we have enough material to keep the human race occupied for around 10,000 years
also, the "water pollution" you are talking about is far less than fracking and can easily be controlled (its also not radioactive, dont even bother pulling that claim)
by the way, more people have died in the last year of chinas air pollution than in all of nuclear reactors combined ever (and the only thing to even put a dent in the number of deaths/injurys caused by nuclear energy was Chernobyl. The accident of Chernobyl wasn't a random "nuclear accident," it was good old Soviet stupidity)
Frankly, I believe we should be using a lot more nuclear energy for now until solar and wind energy develops enough to be practical large scale
Meanwhile, Nevada state legislators have allowed pretty much unrestricted fracking across the entire northeastern part of the state. Where I live. Time to move
[quote]
If you have idiots or poor regulation, broken equipment, faulty stuff, etc then yes you will get some of these problems.[/quote]
Welcome to the modern world. Output must be high and costs must be low. Go ahead and cut as many corners as you can so long as not too many people notice.
[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;46808590]I live on Skaneateles Lake in NY ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skaneateles_Lake"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skaneateles_Lake[/URL]), one of the cleanest and best-tasting water sources in the world. Our lakes water is so clean that our towns tap water supply comes directly from it, [B]unfiltered[/B]. We also supply said water to the nearby city of Syracuse(also unfiltered) as their water supply has been completely contaminated by pollutants.
If fracking had been allowed anywhere near Skaneateles Lake, I am sure it would have adversely and irreparably affected the purity of it's water and ruined this symbol of nature forever.
Today is a good day.[/QUOTE]
I also live in central New York and the first thing that came to mind with this post was [url=http://www.onondaganation.org/land-rights/onondaga-lake/]Onondaga Lake[/url].
But seriously, excluding that lake, we have some pretty good water.
I thought North Dakota was suffering from huge black water waste sites threatening, and destroying local water tables, all from fracking.
Is that not true?
[QUOTE=Saigon;46810684]Again, it's an infinitesimally minor risk and greatly exaggerated by the anti-smoking lobby.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe it's a genuine risk that has been greatly understated by the pro-smoking lobby?
[QUOTE=OvB;46810636]Oklahoma has had a sharp increase in seismic activity since 2008 and it's been linked to fracking.[/QUOTE]
Fracking is not really the causal factor though.
These earthquakes are largely caused by the disposal wells that are used for waste fluids. The actual fracking procedure in of itself is not really the cause of these earthquakes.
In addition, most of these earthquakes are small and barely felt by humans most of the time (and even fewer cause any damage), and that the worst ones tend to be in areas that already have faults in the land. Again, additional regulation and geological surveys of the affected areas can be used to help avoid these earthquakes (or at least ones causing damage).
[QUOTE=Deng;46811343]In addition, most of these earthquakes are small and barely felt by humans most of the time (and even fewer cause any damage)[/QUOTE]
Can confirm, I've felt like two since 2008.
I'm surprised that some of the same people that regularly argue that we should embrace nuclear power because it's safe when properly maintained and regulated are in this thread arguing that we should ban fracking because it's unsafe when it's not properly maintained and regulated.
Most power sources come with some degree of risk, but opposing a power source that can be safe and efficient when regulated with proper federal oversight is misguided. Many of the arguments against fracking have been used against nuclear power in the past, and there's a similar theme of scaremongering and hyperbole.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46811155]I thought North Dakota was suffering from huge black water waste sites threatening, and destroying local water tables, all from fracking.
Is that not true?[/QUOTE]
Nope. North Dakotan legislature and the Bank of North Dakota has been handing out fines like candy, and threatening oil companies with the closure of all their operations if that even comes close to happening. For the moment, some North Dakotan senators are trying to call for a seasonal fracking measure in order to ensure that all fracking is done during say winter so that their are less chances of issues occurring.
[QUOTE=catbarf;46811806]I'm surprised that some of the same people that regularly argue that we should embrace nuclear power because it's safe when properly maintained and regulated are in this thread arguing that we should ban fracking because it's unsafe when it's not properly maintained and regulated.
Most power sources come with some degree of risk, but opposing a power source that can be safe and efficient when regulated with proper federal oversight is misguided. Many of the arguments against fracking have been used against nuclear power in the past, and there's a similar theme of scaremongering and hyperbole.[/QUOTE]
It's quite simple really - building nuclear power plants means that someone designs the reactor which when built to specification and when properly maintained can run for decades with ease. We've been doing that and it's been working fine.
Fracking being a commonplace method means that you'll have thousands of sites every year. Control will inevitably be laxer and as companies try to cut as many corners as possible, we will inevitably see a major fuck up happen. In comparison, there are 100 nuclear reactor operating in the US right now. They have to pass through a number of checks to ensure that they're safe and sound, plus each reactor has a whole bunch of failsafe system to ensure that something like Chernobyl doesn't happen.
I know it sounds easy to compare the two, but I think it's wrong to do that. Nuclear might go wrong, fracking will.
[QUOTE=Stopper;46811944]Fracking being a commonplace method means that you'll have thousands of sites every year. Control will inevitably be laxer and as companies try to cut as many corners as possible, we will inevitably see a major fuck up happen. In comparison, there are 100 nuclear reactor operating in the US right now. They have to pass through a number of checks to ensure that they're safe and sound, plus each reactor has a whole bunch of failsafe system to ensure that something like Chernobyl doesn't happen.
I know it sounds easy to compare the two, but I think it's wrong to do that. Nuclear might go wrong, fracking will.[/QUOTE]
This still falls through a number of fallacies.
Why would control be laxer? North Dakota is riddled with these rigs and the place isn't a desolated and poisoned wasteland.
Saying that "nuclear might go wrong, fracking will" is fallacious too. Nuclear has already gone wrong in the past (such as when a nuclear reactor underwent partial meltdown in 3 mile island).
You have to evaluate the risk and benefit. Fracking and nuclear can both cause severe environmental damage if done incorrectly and mismanaged badly. When used correctly, they will have a minimal impact on the environment and are safe sources of energy.
You also fail to mention that fracking has been practiced for decades. Why the sudden hubbub about it now? It's not like it got any more dangerous or unsafe, and people weren't protesting about fracking until very recently. The process was already in widespread use by the 1990s.
I would argue that nuclear and fracking aren't comparable by nature of one being man made entirely, the other being a man made process of messing with geological formations that we may not fully understand.
I don't know if we should ban fracking but it is worth watching fracking with a very close eye.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46812312]I would argue that nuclear and fracking aren't comparable by nature of one being man made entirely, the other being a man made process of messing with geological formations that we may not fully understand.[/QUOTE]
This comparison would be valid, if not for the fact that we know just as much about geology (if not much more) than we do about nuclear physics.
People have been doing hydraulic fracturing (in some form) long before we built nuclear reactors, and today the technology currently in use is very well understood.
Sure the technology is but that wasn't my point.
My point is even if we understand the technology, we may not have the X-ray vision required to fully understand the geological formations and their links to the immediate area, water tables, seismic faults, etc. unless you're aware of something that gives us a full understanding of these geological areas, then we should tread very carefully, no?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46812657]Sure the technology is but that wasn't my point.
My point is even if we understand the technology, we may not have the X-ray vision required to fully understand the geological formations and their links to the immediate area, water tables, seismic faults, etc. unless you're aware of something that gives us a full understanding of these geological areas, then we should tread very carefully, no?[/QUOTE]
Well that's why regulation and geological surveys exist.
the low gas prices are screwing me right now, I just moved back to Texas, and none of the frack companies are hiring. and I am out of money :/
If you are anti-fracking I highly recommend you watch the kickstarter funded documentary FrackNation". For example, when the host Phelim interviews the guy who was able to light his faucet on fire, Phelim finds that the guy is mysteriously not able to produce the results again.
Please don't hop on the anti-fracking bandwagon before at least checking into the documentary
[QUOTE=RocketSnail;46813576]If you are anti-fracking I highly recommend you watch the kickstarter funded documentary FrackNation". For example, when the host Phelim interviews the guy who was able to light his faucet on fire, Phelim finds that the guy is mysteriously not able to produce the results again.
Please don't hop on the anti-fracking bandwagon before at least checking into the documentary[/QUOTE]
or maybe don't get all your information from material written specifically to appeal to one side of the argument
your opinion should not be based off of a documentary called "FrackNation" or a website called "frackingisbad"
I mean it's great if those things inspire you to read further into the subject, but your opinion should be based on independently verifiable and academic sources. Purpose made movies, books, websites etc. . . are always going to skew the information in some way.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46813615]or maybe don't get all your information from material written specifically to appeal to one side of the argument
your opinion should not be based off of a documentary called "FrackNation" or a website called "frackingisbad"
I mean it's great if those things inspire you to read further into the subject, but your opinion should be based on independently verifiable and academic sources. Purpose made movies, books, websites etc. . . are always going to skew the information in some way.[/QUOTE]
Yes. But it seems like there are so many groups opposing fracking when a very few support it (backed by corporations). As soon as I hop into this thread I saw posts saying all the bad stuff about fracking (like the burning faucet thing) and I chuckled when I remembered watching the FrackNation documentary where the host shows the guy wasn't able to produce the burning water again.
It seems like the host in FrackNation, Phelim, takes a more humble approach to finding evidence supporting fracking whereas the anti-fracking person we hear, Josh Fox, leads a more radical platform where Phelim has found multiple holes in his evidence.
Phelim gives me more of an honest guy feeling when Josh Fox gives me a more outlandish antagonist feeling. More people would agree with my thoughts if they saw how humbly Phelim asked Josh Fox for an interview and saw the way Fox flat-out rejected even conversing with Phelim.
One of the other oddities about the anti-fracking movement is that it pretty much came out of nowhere.
Fracking was being introduced commercially twenty years ago, but the movement against it didn't really appear until relatively a few years ago.
Another oddity, is that Romania, Bulgaria, and Lithuania were all going to build rigs and adopt fracking technologies that would give them energy independence from Russia. However, in these countries (which didn't have much environmental awareness beforehand), the anti-fracking movement somehow suddenly sprang out of nowhere, and shut them down. Then shortly afterwards, Gazprom started drilling for oil and all of the protesters were gone.
It seems strange that something already common and in regular practice only receives a torrent of criticism when it threatens to infringe on a certain countries gas and oil monopoly.
May we also be reminded that East Ukraine is full of shale reserves, and strangely the rebels in East Ukraine are highly opposed to any kind of fracking (yet remain silent on other environmental issues).
[QUOTE=Stopper;46811252]Or maybe it's a genuine risk that has been greatly understated by the pro-smoking lobby?[/QUOTE]
Do you believe that the anti-smoking lobby actually cares about facts and science, rather than their agenda?
[QUOTE=da space core;46810853]
by the way, more people have died in the last year of chinas air pollution than in all of nuclear reactors combined ever (and the only thing to even put a dent in the number of deaths/injurys caused by nuclear energy was Chernobyl. The accident of Chernobyl wasn't a random "nuclear accident," it was good old Soviet stupidity)
[/QUOTE]
Wasn't Chernobyl something along the lines of "Hey, what would happen if we were to turn the reactor to max power and take the control rods ALL the way out?"
[QUOTE=Saigon;46814381]Do you believe that the anti-smoking lobby actually cares about facts and science, rather than their agenda?[/QUOTE]
Wait you think the pro smoking lobby does...?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46814476]Wait you think the pro smoking lobby does...?[/QUOTE]
I think they both attempt to mislead the public to further their own agenda.
[QUOTE=Saigon;46814479]I think they both attempt to mislead the public to further their own agenda.[/QUOTE]
What agenda does the anti-smoking lobby have?
[QUOTE=Saigon;46814479]I think they both attempt to mislead the public to further their own agenda.[/QUOTE]
What would the "anti smoking" lobby be misleading people to think exactly? Who exactly, and if you really believe in an "anti smoking" lobby you should be able to answer these basic, simple questions, does the anti smoking lobby contain? Who or what organizations are donating money, and what does that money get them? What profit is gained by them lying about smoking?
I'm a smoker and I'm saying this.
[QUOTE=Stopper;46814548]What agenda does the anti-smoking lobby have?[/QUOTE]
They want to ban and publicly demonize smokers and smoking. They want to control what law abiding adults can and cannot put into their body.
[QUOTE=Saigon;46814560]They want to ban and publicly demonize smokers and smoking. They want to control what law abiding adults can and cannot put into their body.[/QUOTE]
no, the anti smoking lobby hasn't tried to do that at all.
they've made it so that cigarette companies and makers can't lie about the effects of their products. They aren't trying to ban cigarettes as a whole and AFAIK, never have. They've always been about consumer protection and advocacy something that if you cared at all about the freedom to imbibe whatever you want, is something you should be happy to have.
But no, here you are lambasting them as liars and frauds over nothing but your own imagined failures.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.