Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Anti-drilling advocates claim that fracking will lead to syphilis, because when oil workers frack, they don't wear protection   (nydailynews.com) divider line 70
    More: Stupid, water pollutions, environmental protection  
•       •       •

3583 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Sep 2012 at 1:54 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-24 01:39:06 AM  
i.qkme.me
Next thing you know, they'll blame the cylons.
 
2012-09-24 01:43:19 AM  
They also contend that a boom would trigger a housing crunch, adding to homelessness

Isn't there somewhere in Montana that had an oil boom and it created just this problem?

Of course the other stuff is just silly bullshiat. Fracking is one of the subjects where liberals seem to lose their minds (nuclear power also). And of course liberal scientists laugh them out of the room, as it should be.
 
2012-09-24 02:01:24 AM  
Spewing massive amounts of undisclosed chemicals into the ground, contaminating aquifers is a good thing. Drill, baby drill.
 
2012-09-24 02:05:43 AM  
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm really looking forward to the day when I can light my tap water on fire!
 
2012-09-24 02:06:30 AM  
I'm concerned about fracking, but not for any of the reasons cited in the article. The claims about mining workers' sexual practices smacks of disgraceful class discrimination on the part of those making the claims. And I'd have also thought that some parts of the US would really appreciate some stimulation of their housing markets (but not so much stimulation that this also leads to syphillis - ba doom boom).
 
2012-09-24 02:11:25 AM  
Anyone who finds the idea of a correlation between increases in oilfield activity, road fatalities, and STIs to be "laugh-out-loud-funny...most hilarious" should take a few minutes to do a little research on Fort McMurray, Alberta, before saying things that make them sound like they have their head up their ass.
 
2012-09-24 02:12:17 AM  

foo monkey: Spewing massive amounts of undisclosed chemicals into the ground, contaminating aquifers is a good thing. Drill, baby drill.


so few places have clean water it's only fair to wipe out what remains.
 
2012-09-24 02:14:56 AM  
"They" sure are a prominent figure in this story. There's lots of "them."

Worse yet, I hear they're in allegiance with "those guys," who are simply infamous.
 
2012-09-24 02:18:46 AM  
The article is scapegoating classism at its finest. What's worse is that many oil and gas technicians/drillers earn more than the townfolk that are casting the stones in the first place.

Why drill under the ground though? We can raise more beef/Dairy cattle, and other livestock and capture their methane emissions in the process. If we did this, we could have our beef/milk/cheese/glue etc, and our electricity too, while not threatening water supplies/aquifers, scenery, etc.
 
2012-09-24 02:20:50 AM  
this article is desperate misinfo attempt to gain support for fracking. thankfully, fracking for oil and gas was never profitable. until recently, sadly enough for our children.

unrelated, my tap water has a pH of 7-8.4 and smells vaguely of feces.


mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
2012-09-24 02:22:53 AM  
Yay, bring in a bunch of people who will work for bottom dollar, rape the land, send the money back to Mexico, and then leave. That's what it's like in Pennsylvania. Frack them all, Frack them right in the gashole.
 
2012-09-24 02:23:05 AM  

apoptotic: Anyone who finds the idea of a correlation between increases in oilfield activity, road fatalities, and STIs to be "laugh-out-loud-funny...most hilarious" should take a few minutes to do a little research on Fort McMurray, Alberta, before saying things that make them sound like they have their head up their ass.


That goes for anything that draws people to any location. During WWII, draftees at induction centers brought diseases with them, too. People died in accidents on the way there. Ships and aircraft spread some of the deadliest diseases all across the world.

Ban them all?
 
2012-09-24 02:26:10 AM  
extreme green agenda: "Shut....down....everything." Not surprising as 'don't do anything and go back to living in the caves' has always been their true passion.

Go to Midland, TX, center of oil R&D. There is no unemployment; everyone who wants a job and can hold a job has one. Yes, real estate is expensive, but wages are commensurately high due to demand.

I was there in June and got to explore a good amount and talk to various people about the boom situation there. there's no real downside other than a housing shortage, which is rapidly being mitigated with new construction. At some point the boom will end and there will be a lot of surplus property available for cheap, but does not look to be anywhere near as ridiculous as Vegas' overbuilding became, as the broader real estate boom is long gone. There is a lot less speculative building going on and more building to spec as people actually move in, and sub-prime loans on a mass scale are now history as well.
 
2012-09-24 02:26:38 AM  
Do people do research before protesting? Are there any cited instances of fracking polluting ground water? My SO is an oil and gas attorney. When I first discussed fracking with her, my first instinct was to denounce the practice. However, I researched the process and found it to be pretty sound. Now, I do believe it needs to be monitored, as does any practice involving the environment, but please, research before making signs.
 
2012-09-24 02:29:05 AM  
Of course, conservatives and GOP types will rape the earth at all cost and make every excuse under the sun in order to justify it.
 
2012-09-24 02:30:10 AM  
No protection?

What do they do when oil hits the anus?
 
2012-09-24 02:30:38 AM  

JerkyMeat: Of course, conservatives and GOP types will rape the earth at all cost and make every excuse under the sun in order to justify it.


But at least they're telling everyone not to have sex. That's responsibility!
 
2012-09-24 02:32:59 AM  
grinnel
Do people do research before protesting? Are there any cited instances of fracking polluting ground water?

The EPA isn't being allowed to investigate.
 
2012-09-24 02:35:52 AM  
Earthquakes in Ohio 4.4+ not near any known faultlines
http://www.usatoday.com/money/story/2012-03-09/fracking-gas-drilling- e arthquakes/53435232/1

Western Pennsylvania water becoming flamable, away from coal operations/mines
http://staugustine.com/opinions/2012-09-23/goodman-fracking-draws-opp o sition
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0815/Pa.-drilling - town-agrees-to-settlement-in-fracking-federal-lawsuit
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/14/149631363/when-fracking-comes-to-town-i t -s-water-water-everywhere
 
2012-09-24 02:37:13 AM  

RanDomino: grinnel
Do people do research before protesting? Are there any cited instances of fracking polluting ground water?

The EPA isn't being allowed to investigate.


Yeah, but only because they'd probably get syphilis if they did.
 
2012-09-24 02:39:03 AM  

RanDomino: The EPA isn't being allowed to investigate.



4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-24 02:40:23 AM  

RanDomino: grinnel
Do people do research before protesting? Are there any cited instances of fracking polluting ground water?

The EPA isn't being allowed to investigate.


If gas companies can't tell us what's in fracking solution, we shouldn't let them pump it into the ground.

Now, groundwater contamination is somewhat unlikely, because the fracking's going on WAY deeper than the water is, in most cases. But. That's most cases. And until we know what's in fracking solution, how the fark can we be sure it's safe?

Another major issue is the use of water itself. Not all of the water can be reclaimed. In dryer areas (Colorado, for one), there's a legitimate debate over whether or not widespread fracking will use up enough water to cause problems. Short answer is it will, since the state's water supplies are already being used at a faster rate than they refill.
 
2012-09-24 02:40:51 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: apoptotic: Anyone who finds the idea of a correlation between increases in oilfield activity, road fatalities, and STIs to be "laugh-out-loud-funny...most hilarious" should take a few minutes to do a little research on Fort McMurray, Alberta, before saying things that make them sound like they have their head up their ass.

That goes for anything that draws people to any location. During WWII, draftees at induction centers brought diseases with them, too. People died in accidents on the way there. Ships and aircraft spread some of the deadliest diseases all across the world.

Ban them all?


Nah, that's not at all where I was going. I'm just saying that IMO instead of bolstering his argument in any way, mocking people for mentioning correlations that are demonstrably true just makes the author of TFA look like a petty, immature, and uninformed dipshiat.
 
2012-09-24 02:41:43 AM  

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: I don't know about the rest of you but I'm really looking forward to the day when I can light my tap water on fire!


Okay now the syphilis makes sense.
 
2012-09-24 02:42:14 AM  

fusillade762: They also contend that a boom would trigger a housing crunch, adding to homelessness

Isn't there somewhere in Montana that had an oil boom and it created just this problem?

Of course the other stuff is just silly bullshiat. Fracking is one of the subjects where liberals seem to lose their minds (nuclear power also). And of course liberal scientists laugh them out of the room, as it should be.


Christ, can you come up with a larger label than "liberals?" Way to ascribe an opinion to like 30-40% of the country. We appreciate it.

/They're called "wackjob uninformed NIMBY/environmentalists."
//Liberal.
///Fracking needs to be looked into more closely. Nuclear power is great.
 
2012-09-24 02:45:38 AM  

RanDomino: The EPA isn't being allowed to investigate.


Why punish job creators with EPA investigations?
 
2012-09-24 02:50:22 AM  

apoptotic: Lenny_da_Hog: apoptotic: Anyone who finds the idea of a correlation between increases in oilfield activity, road fatalities, and STIs to be "laugh-out-loud-funny...most hilarious" should take a few minutes to do a little research on Fort McMurray, Alberta, before saying things that make them sound like they have their head up their ass.

That goes for anything that draws people to any location. During WWII, draftees at induction centers brought diseases with them, too. People died in accidents on the way there. Ships and aircraft spread some of the deadliest diseases all across the world.

Ban them all?

Nah, that's not at all where I was going. I'm just saying that IMO instead of bolstering his argument in any way, mocking people for mentioning correlations that are demonstrably true just makes the author of TFA look like a petty, immature, and uninformed dipshiat.


Ah. Gotcha.

I kind of got the "uninformed dipshiat" from the lack of any names or citations throughout the article. It doesn't mention any documentation, the number of complaints, or names of organizations. It seems geared to saying that anyone who's against it is "them," "they," and "those guys."

It's a bucket of paint, ready for a broad brush to paint everyone.
 
2012-09-24 03:00:53 AM  

fusillade762: Fracking is one of the subjects where liberals seem to lose their minds


Not loosing my mind, but farking with our aquefers seems a bad idea, especially as they're doing fracking in rural areas where everyone relies on well water.

And I haven't seen any "liberal scientists" (whatever they are) laughing about it, either.
 
2012-09-24 03:07:48 AM  
There are plenty of reasons to worry about fracking.

This is not one of them
 
2012-09-24 03:10:19 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: fusillade762: Fracking is one of the subjects where liberals seem to lose their minds

Not loosing my mind, but farking with our aquefers seems a bad idea, especially as they're doing fracking in rural areas where everyone relies on well water.

And I haven't seen any "liberal scientists" (whatever they are) laughing about it, either.


They are to busy spreading GW hysteria
 
2012-09-24 03:10:29 AM  
Environmentalists with the "stop everything" slogans really need to be educated about what we can actually do.
The energy industry really needs to get on board with the future tech though and stop doing things that were cheap and easy 100 years ago.

Here is a 12 year plan to make our energy more dependable than the internet:

America's hourly electrical output could be provided by 67,500 7.5 MW wind turbines, turning 30 million liters of water (47 Olympic size swimming pools) into Hydrogen and burning the Hydrogen turning the turbines that currently use Natural gas/coal/oil.

Support Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic technology - 50% lighter than steel 5x as strong, 30% lighter than aluminum too and 3x as strong - .BMW is planning their 2014 model year cars to have it as the new cockpit/rollbar structure, and the Carbon fiber tows (strands) are made in Washington state (USA, USA)

Thermal depolymerization of animal solid waste, human and livestock could produce 90% of the fuel we need today.
Bioalgal fuel could produce the remainder and then if we really amped up production, the US could be a crude oil exporter within 10 years.

Methane capture at livestock yards, could power farms, and anything else nearby.

Water recycling could reduce water usage from the environment by up to 90%

Almost all of these could be implemented through municipal water treatment facilities at a town or city level, so we would only need to build the facilities at locations of 250K or greater in population (about 500 facilitiies throughout the country).

We don't need to stop everything, we just have to use what we've spent the last 25 years piecing together.
We won't need fracking, or coal, or oil in the conventional 250 year way of burning it to make steam based power.
For example we could use coal to make graphene, and carbon fiber, industrial diamonds, buckyball lubricants, or a thousand other more advanced products.

We can be carbon positive in 12 years, then start exporting those technologies out to the rest of the world, and have export led growth, like Germany, SIngapore and the BRICS and collect carbon credit offsets from other countries because we didn't cut down the great Western forests, etc.

America can be great, a leader in everything, if we just started doing things a little more intelligently, rather than have all this sexism, religiousity, political infighting and general stupidity get in the way.
 
2012-09-24 03:14:43 AM  

Acravius: Environmentalists with the "stop everything" slogans really need to be educated about what we can actually do.
The energy industry really needs to get on board with the future tech though and stop doing things that were cheap and easy 100 years ago.

Here is a 12 year plan to make our energy more dependable than the internet:

America's hourly electrical output could be provided by 67,500 7.5 MW wind turbines, turning 30 million liters of water (47 Olympic size swimming pools) into Hydrogen and burning the Hydrogen turning the turbines that currently use Natural gas/coal/oil.

Support Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic technology - 50% lighter than steel 5x as strong, 30% lighter than aluminum too and 3x as strong - .BMW is planning their 2014 model year cars to have it as the new cockpit/rollbar structure, and the Carbon fiber tows (strands) are made in Washington state (USA, USA)

Thermal depolymerization of animal solid waste, human and livestock could produce 90% of the fuel we need today.
Bioalgal fuel could produce the remainder and then if we really amped up production, the US could be a crude oil exporter within 10 years.

Methane capture at livestock yards, could power farms, and anything else nearby.

Water recycling could reduce water usage from the environment by up to 90%

Almost all of these could be implemented through municipal water treatment facilities at a town or city level, so we would only need to build the facilities at locations of 250K or greater in population (about 500 facilitiies throughout the country).

We don't need to stop everything, we just have to use what we've spent the last 25 years piecing together.
We won't need fracking, or coal, or oil in the conventional 250 year way of burning it to make steam based power.
For example we could use coal to make graphene, and carbon fiber, industrial diamonds, buckyball lubricants, or a thousand other more advanced products.

We can be carbon positive in 12 years, then start exporting those tec ...


Yeah, but that would take time, require compromise and mean actually talking to the opposing side. And we don't do that anymore.

Why do you hate America?
 
2012-09-24 03:20:54 AM  

Acravius: America's hourly electrical output could be provided by 67,500 7.5 MW wind turbines, turning 30 million liters of water (47 Olympic size swimming pools) into Hydrogen and burning the Hydrogen turning the turbines that currently use Natural gas/coal/oil.


Last I heard, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen was not yet feasible because it cost more energy to do than it produced. Has that changed in the last few years (I haven't kept up with the technology)?
 
2012-09-24 03:25:12 AM  

Snapper Carr: No protection?

What do they do when oil hits the anus?


They get another number 1 pick at the NHL draft.
 
2012-09-24 03:26:19 AM  

BoxOfBees: Yay, bring in a bunch of people who will work for bottom dollar, rape the land, send the money back to Mexico, and then leave. That's what it's like in Pennsylvania. Frack them all, Frack them right in the gashole.


Not sure if serious
They aren't from Mexico. They're from Oklahoma, Texas, Montana. They make large amounts of money and are in great need for housing. Local rents have gone up so much because these guys got cash filled pockets, that the locals can't afford their rents and move away from drilling regions.
The only locals that are making money are hotels, gas stations, guys that haul water and WalMart. The gas guys aren't buying local or keeping their money here. The go to WalMart once a week, fill their trucks with supplies and head back to their rooms. They all have homes and families from where they came from so they are sending their checks home.
Roads are getting bad, traffic and accidents are up.
The state and local munis don't see a dime in fees from all their vehicles that goes towards fixing transportation infrastrucure. All their vehicles, even POV's are registered out of state.
When ever methane starts bubbling up some where its never happened before, a gas well is nearby. The gas companies claim its not because of them, its natural, you just didn't know you could light a fire on the river before.
And its natural to have acres of foilage die off down stream from a spill of chemicals at a well. It wasn't them.
Oh, and according to Corbett, the gas companies wouldn't want to make billions in profits if the state made laws that make the gas companies pay to do business in the state. Heaven forbid they put up money to pay for damages they cause.
It only took about $40 million in campaign contributions for Corbett to come to those conclusions.
 
2012-09-24 03:37:43 AM  
OgreMagi
I think you are thinking of Fusion with hydrogen becoming helium, and even that on a single shot basis has become energy positive, its just we can't sustain it because the 5,000 degree plasma ball can't be sustained and the lasers that provide the fusion force overheat as well.

With electrolysis of water, you put in 3.73 kilowatts you convert 1 KG of water to 1/9 a mole of H2 and 1/9 a mole of O2, and when you burn it, you get 1,340 KJ of heat energy released, and 1 KG of water back. That can be a closed system, and we can just add more wind turbines and build another swimming pool size resevoir or in 2014 44% efficient solar panels to make up the difference in growth in demand for energy.

We need to upgrade America, as we do with our TV's, lighting, heating etc in our own homes. The more we upgrade, the less power we will actually need. I mean a 50 inch tv today takes 14 KW/Hper year to power, where the old 27 inch TV's from 10 years ago took 40-70 KW/H per year. That is 5 times the surface area with a reduction of 50-70% in power needs or a 350% increase in efficiency for about the same price.

Well that is available now if we just would set the course and agenda.
 
2012-09-24 03:48:32 AM  
First thing I think of when Fracking is mentioned.
www.esquire.com
 
2012-09-24 03:49:08 AM  
Oh, and about the chemicals.
Sure they using the chemicals deep in the ground. But they are mixed above ground with local water trucked in from local rivers and streams. Were talking about about hundreds of thousands of gallons per well. That's over 500 and more trucks in and out of a single well site. There are hundreds of sites.
The chemicals and water are mixed together at high presure and pumped down the well to get to the actual point of fracking.
They don't always drill a perfect well. They don't always drill a good well.
As they drill down, they place casings, then seal the casing with more chemicals and cement, they call it mud. This is done to get a continous pipe down to the gas. All those chemicals pass thru the water table where we get our drinking water from. All the gas comes back up, thru the water table.
When those wells aren't made right, stuff leaks out of them. Right into the soil and water table.
Remember BP and the gulf. That happened because it cost more to do it right and safely. Cutting corners saves money = higher profit per well.
 
2012-09-24 04:31:17 AM  

DownDaRiver: Oh, and about the chemicals.
Sure they using the chemicals deep in the ground. But they are mixed above ground with local water trucked in from local rivers and streams. Were talking about about hundreds of thousands of gallons per well. That's over 500 and more trucks in and out of a single well site. There are hundreds of sites.
The chemicals and water are mixed together at high presure and pumped down the well to get to the actual point of fracking.
They don't always drill a perfect well. They don't always drill a good well.
As they drill down, they place casings, then seal the casing with more chemicals and cement, they call it mud. This is done to get a continous pipe down to the gas. All those chemicals pass thru the water table where we get our drinking water from. All the gas comes back up, thru the water table.
When those wells aren't made right, stuff leaks out of them. Right into the soil and water table.
Remember BP and the gulf. That happened because it cost more to do it right and safely. Cutting corners saves money = higher profit per well.


Wait till I tell you what happens after you do a poopie!
 
2012-09-24 04:33:38 AM  
If progressives had their way we would all be riding horses, and they would be rebuilding their grandparents organic plantations.
 
2012-09-24 04:45:34 AM  

david_gaithersburg: If progressives had their way we would all be riding horses, and they would be rebuilding their grandparents organic plantations.


Most so-called progressives are really hyper-reactionaries. They feel that technology, science and capitalism have enrighed others, and that they are losing out. They think they would have more "locked-in" status in a feudal/aristocratic society, and that is the direction in which all their machinations are headed.

Hence we see:
- growth of goverrnment (establishes new aristocracy; cripples capitalism)
- arbitrary rules such as political correctness (erosion of individual freedom)
- post-normal science ie climatology (birth of new religion to stupify the masses)
 
2012-09-24 05:07:46 AM  

grinnel: RanDomino: The EPA isn't being allowed to investigate.


[4.bp.blogspot.com image 250x224]


They didn't say the magic word.
 
2012-09-24 06:08:03 AM  
As usual david_gaithersburg and The Great Name come to say nay to their definition of "progressives"

Let's put it this way, the polarized Left is really having a non-productive position, but saying that PC is the same as erosion of personal freedom (it doesn't change the fact that your rights extend only to the tip of my nose, and vice versa.) Being considered vulgar or offensive has been everybody's right for all of time, as long as you don't endanger those who you are reviled by.

Again the polarized Left, with their silly talk of Gaia, and embracing climate change in the way that they do, is childish/utopian, but also again, it is their right to believe, and the past several decades now suggest something is changing faster than normal, and affecting global heat patterns. Whether that continues in the 2020's I don't know, but I'd rather do what we can, rather than what we might have no choice but to do in the future, when it is a crisis.

Growth of government - 1% of the population, including military, police, fire, and other services, hardly constitutes big goverment by any reasonable standard, and a stable government is the best thing for capitalism, as once rules are in place, and uncertainty goes down, so does rent seeking and corruption (unless those are the rules, then they are normalized) and business can be in their happy place, of stable predictable outcomes.

Unfortunately you really seem to projecting the opposing sides viewpoint on to the liberal/progressives.
Conservatives are the ones most impressed by status/power/money. Really, what is driving the entire Republican Agenda? Regaining control of what the felt they are losing.
They aren't opposed to government growth (TSA, Homeland Security, expanded FBI, CIA, NSA etc) they just want it to look like Plato's Republic. Where the "Special class" is the guard class, the military, the Powerbroker, etc.
Arbitrary rules - (Demonstration zones for free speech, special options to wiretap civiillians against the Constitution and most Federal and State laws, tax breaks for "Special" people, organizations or corporations, etc. etc.)
New religions: the right have so many from the last 200 years it's absurd: Flat Earth Society, Scientology, Mormonism, Creationism, Prosperity Gospel. All of these are anti-intellectual movements meant to stupify the masses into ceding power and authority to some "Special" individual that can explain it all to you so you don't have to understand it yourself.

Plus the goal of all this is to produce a locked in society, so that you can judge a book by its cover. If you were black/brown before the 1950's you were 3/5ths of a person, and could be treated a certain way with few repurcussions in white society, especially in the South, but it could happen anywhere in the country. Sundown laws in Oregon, weren't abolished until 1977 for crying out loud. The conservatives are terrified that their paradigm is changing and that they might be treated like they treated everybody else for so long, and that would be bad.

If it weren't for those evil progressives trying to balance the society out, such a future would most likely be the fate of the whites in this country, as the times they are a changing. So I wouldn't be against PC, as in 20 years, the cultural whitewash might just save some white conservative person's life.
 
2012-09-24 06:31:03 AM  

Acravius: As usual david_gaithersburg and The Great Name come to say nay to their definition of "progressives"

Let's put it this way, the polarized Left is really having a non-productive position, but saying that PC is the same as erosion of personal freedom (it doesn't change the fact that your rights extend only to the tip of my nose, and vice versa.)


It doesn't just break the tip-of-nose rule, it utterly tramples all over it.

In the remainder of your comment, you keep lurching drunkenly between a proper ethical appraisal of freedom on the one hand, and a bunch of politically-motivated rationales for chipping away at that freedom on the other. It seems like you know you should respect freedom, but can't quite manage it because your emotions are pushing you into power-grabbing political positions. The sheer length of your comment indicates you're rationalising heavily.
 
2012-09-24 06:40:45 AM  
Its unfortunate that you don't live in Somalia or the 12th century so you can truly experience your childish idea of what freedom should be.
 
2012-09-24 07:04:12 AM  

Acravius: Environmentalists with the "stop everything" slogans really need to be educated about what we can actually do.
The energy industry really needs to get on board with the future tech though and stop doing things that were cheap and easy 100 years ago.

Here is a 12 year plan to make our energy more dependable than the internet:

America's hourly electrical output could be provided by 67,500 7.5 MW wind turbines, turning 30 million liters of water (47 Olympic size swimming pools) into Hydrogen and burning the Hydrogen turning the turbines that currently use Natural gas/coal/oil.

Support Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic technology - 50% lighter than steel 5x as strong, 30% lighter than aluminum too and 3x as strong - .BMW is planning their 2014 model year cars to have it as the new cockpit/rollbar structure, and the Carbon fiber tows (strands) are made in Washington state (USA, USA)

Thermal depolymerization of animal solid waste, human and livestock could produce 90% of the fuel we need today.
Bioalgal fuel could produce the remainder and then if we really amped up production, the US could be a crude oil exporter within 10 years.

Methane capture at livestock yards, could power farms, and anything else nearby.

Water recycling could reduce water usage from the environment by up to 90%

Almost all of these could be implemented through municipal water treatment facilities at a town or city level, so we would only need to build the facilities at locations of 250K or greater in population (about 500 facilitiies throughout the country).

We don't need to stop everything, we just have to use what we've spent the last 25 years piecing together.
We won't need fracking, or coal, or oil in the conventional 250 year way of burning it to make steam based power.
For example we could use coal to make graphene, and carbon fiber, industrial diamonds, buckyball lubricants, or a thousand other more advanced products.

We can be carbon positive in 12 years, then start exporting those technologies out to the rest of the world, and have export led growth, like Germany, SIngapore and the BRICS and collect carbon credit offsets from other countries because we didn't cut down the great Western forests, etc.

America can be great, a leader in everything, if we just started doing things a little more intelligently, rather than have all this sexism, religiousity, political infighting and general stupidity get in the way.


Burn the witch!
 
2012-09-24 07:43:04 AM  
Lovely piece of propaganda. I guess the fracking people paid their dues to the Daily News.
 
2012-09-24 08:30:16 AM  

grinnel: Are there any cited instances of fracking polluting ground water?


Too lazy to look up cited incidences, but this type of thing has been reported in areas around fracking operations around the nation and is not an isolated incident:

Link
 
2012-09-24 08:48:06 AM  
i'm in favor of fracking, as it is part of a way that the US can decrease its trade deficit and replace existing gas wells.

also, I would like the US get a benefit for the $10 billion in subsidies given so far to the industry.

but with one caveat: I don't think fracking should be exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act (which it is).
 
2012-09-24 09:51:09 AM  
What good is the growth when you're creating superfund sites? Any money rewarded is negated after the aquifer(s) are polluted, you've f'ed up the drinking water for a large swath of people, and overall created a nasty problem that won't go away for a very, very long time.

Vermont's outright banned it. We're hoping Cuomo will pull his head out his ass and ban it too.

Short term gain for long term pain. People seriously need to start thinking farther than OMG TEH MONIES.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report