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.

(Think Progress)   "Fracking is perfectly safe. Just trust us. You don't need to study it. Trust us, it's fine"   (thinkprogress.org ) divider line
    More: Obvious, fracking, flatulence, long-term experiment, Frank McNulty  
•       •       •

3745 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 May 2014 at 6:20 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-04 03:28:09 PM  
I mean we don't study the health effects of wind turbines, oh wait we do? Well, we should those things are dangerous.
 
2014-05-04 04:14:13 PM  
I thought replicating studies to analyze the methodology and findings of previous studies was one of those big science-y things.
 
2014-05-04 04:18:31 PM  

Dictatorial_Flair: I thought replicating studies to analyze the methodology and findings of previous studies was one of those big science-y things.


step 1 - ban non scientists from running for office

these people are ridiculous
 
2014-05-04 04:59:00 PM  
I don't want to set the world on fire, but,,,
 
2014-05-04 05:32:32 PM  
no, no it's not.
 
2014-05-04 05:46:51 PM  
Opponents of the study claimed that it was politically motivated and would be biased

Ah yes, the same rationale they use to prevent the CDC from studying gun violence.

STUDY ALL NONE OF THE THINGS!
 
2014-05-04 05:48:51 PM  
Profit über alles
 
2014-05-04 06:01:24 PM  
This is a feature, not a bug.

img.fark.net
 
2014-05-04 06:23:34 PM  
Chemicals injected at high pressure into the ground and and only removing 20-30% of them afterword? Nope this won't bite us in the ass in the future.
 
2014-05-04 06:23:49 PM  
 A ProPublica assessment of the state of research on fracking's health effects shows that though there isn't a lot of research, it's tended to show some negative impacts from living near hydraulic fracturing sites.

As opposed to the negative impacts of living near a coal mine? Or a closed coal mine?

As opposed to the negative impacts of living in perpetually depressed east bumfark, unable to touch trillions of dollars' worth of energy because a bunch of neoluddite celebrities and gentry leftists who spent their entire lives looking down their noses at middle America decided they needed to branch out a bit from their anti-nuclear scaremongering? If Yoko Ono thinks fracking is a bad idea, chances are it's an EXCELLENT idea.

As opposed to the negative impacts of us sending hundreds of billions a year to the House of Saud, maybe?

Casually outsourcing good-paying jobs to the Middle East and China is okay now?
 
2014-05-04 06:30:04 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-04 06:30:32 PM  

Gulper Eel: As opposed to the negative impacts of living near a coal mine? Or a closed coal mine?


You know, I've been at regulatory meetings where parents have argued for the construction of coal mines that they admit will dump mercury and lead into the environment that will harm their kids because they think the economic advantages for their children of having the coal plant outweigh the environmental and public health costs.

And you know, that's their cost/benefit analysis, and I disagree with it, but we have the data and can debate it in a public forum.

When they oppose research though that would let us make an informed decision, that just crosses a huge line. Then, we can't even make that cost/benefit analysis because we don't know the real costs. Let's study it, figure out what the risks are, and then we can decide if those risks are worth it.
 
2014-05-04 06:31:38 PM  

Gulper Eel: If Yoko Ono thinks fracking is a bad idea, chances are it's an EXCELLENT idea.


Well, I'm convinced.
 
2014-05-04 06:33:51 PM  

EvilEgg: I mean we don't study the health effects of wind turbines, oh wait we do? Well, we should those things are dangerous.


Well, they're certainly causing massive losses of bats in eastern Washington, leading to a cascade effect throughout the ecosystem which is beginning to create problems including, but not limited to, potential reductions in agricultural production. And lest you think that's not your problem, remember that eastern Washington produces over half of America's total harvest of hops.

That said, human beings need energy and energy tends to be messy and dangerous. When my fellow tree-huggers start going on about the evils of fracking, I want to ask them if they would rather we simply burn more coal. We need to look carefully at how we can address the real problems raised by various methods of energy production and consumption, but unless one is ready to talk realistically about viable alternatives, one is not actually helping.
 
2014-05-04 06:34:18 PM  
Yeah rather than invest wisely in renewable energy technologies, let's just keep raping the Earth for fossil fuels.

Great idea. Plus it'll make us all some money, too. Well, 1% of us, anyway. That's still a lot of people.
 
2014-05-04 06:38:26 PM  

BMulligan: When my fellow tree-huggers start going on about the evils of fracking, I want to ask them if they would rather we simply burn more coal.


Fracking is a sloppy stop-gap measure that ignores the real problems: excessive consumption and inefficiency.

It's the same "argument' people use to tout nuclear. It's the wrong direction, so no, your question is not as intimidating as you think.

It's a challenge that we should be willing to meet.
 
2014-05-04 06:38:39 PM  
I'm torn with fracking. On one hand, it is making my father a rather rich man, which means my son will end up inheriting a decent fortune (he's the only grandchild).  As he's autistic and will need 24/7/365 live-in support when I'm gone, this is a very good thing.

Environmentally, not so much :(
 
2014-05-04 06:39:14 PM  
Capitalism only works efficiently if there's free flow of information.  That said, the energy industry has no desire to operate under the rules of a capitalist society.
 
2014-05-04 06:40:14 PM  

Dictatorial_Flair: I thought replicating studies to analyze the methodology and findings of previous studies was one of those big science-y things.


Yeah but science says climate change is real and it's bad, so it doesn't count.
 
2014-05-04 06:41:36 PM  
No such thing as perfectly safe... You must learn to recognize the risks, and to properly assess them. But considering they're selling the polymeric filled sand used in fracking as a childrens toy, I'd guess it's not too terribly dangerous.
 
2014-05-04 06:42:08 PM  
It duplicates the (oil company paid for) existing studies. No need, no need.
 
2014-05-04 06:42:49 PM  

Gulper Eel: A ProPublica assessment of the state of research on fracking's health effects shows that though there isn't a lot of research, it's tended to show some negative impacts from living near hydraulic fracturing sites.

As opposed to the negative impacts of living near a coal mine? Or a closed coal mine?

As opposed to the negative impacts of living in perpetually depressed east bumfark, unable to touch trillions of dollars' worth of energy because a bunch of neoluddite celebrities and gentry leftists who spent their entire lives looking down their noses at middle America decided they needed to branch out a bit from their anti-nuclear scaremongering? If Yoko Ono thinks fracking is a bad idea, chances are it's an EXCELLENT idea.

As opposed to the negative impacts of us sending hundreds of billions a year to the House of Saud, maybe?

Casually outsourcing good-paying jobs to the Middle East and China is okay now?


Well, if nothing else we need to suspend fracking of Gulper's butthole. He sounds like he's about to burst a blood vessel!
 
2014-05-04 06:43:07 PM  

suebhoney: I'm torn with fracking. On one hand, it is making my father a rather rich man, which means my son will end up inheriting a decent fortune (he's the only grandchild).  As he's autistic and will need 24/7/365 live-in support when I'm gone, this is a very good thing.

Environmentally, not so much :(


If this were troll bait, I'd give you a 10/10.  But golly, you may be on the up and up.
 
2014-05-04 06:43:15 PM  

suebhoney: I'm torn with fracking. On one hand, it is making my father a rather rich man, which means my son will end up inheriting a decent fortune (he's the only grandchild).  As he's autistic and will need 24/7/365 live-in support when I'm gone, this is a very good thing.

Environmentally, not so much :(


Me too, I'm fine with the actual practice, I just don't trust the people handling it.

And the fact that they get so damn secretive about their practices anytime anyone tries to question it is another turn off as well.
 
2014-05-04 06:47:30 PM  
Everything is ok as long as someone is making money
 
2014-05-04 06:51:21 PM  

Yakk: Chemicals injected at high pressure into the ground and and only removing 20-30% of them afterword? Nope this won't bite us in the ass in the future.


*chuckle* Now see here... Y'all liberals don't have to be like that.  Now don't go and glare at me like that.  I could have called y'all something like "environazi" or "tree hugger" but I didn't.  So y'all've had y'all's say, and I've been polite so now I'm gonna have my say, and I'd appreciate it if y'all were polite, just like I was.  *clears throat*

Now, I'm not a big ol' science guy here, but last I checked, water is a chemical, so y'all are right there.  But are y'all saying that oil is NOT a chemical?  Because those folks at the oil interests are pumping good ol' water, and some sand (which as far as I know is pretty natural), and a little bitty dollop of other what y'all call "chemicals" (just like y'all called water a chemical), into the ground.  And what they're getting out is a whole lot of oil.

Now I don't want to put any words in y'all's mouth, but I figure that if somebody - I don't know who would be doing this, mind you - if somebody were to pump a whole lot of OIL into the ground in order to get some water and sand and a little dollop of "chemicals" out, y'all would be furious.

Somebody does the opposite and y'all are STILL furious.

*shakes head, grimaces*  Well, well, well... I just don't know what to make of y'all.  But them frackin' boys is creating jobs up there in North Dakota and other parts.  So if y'all are going to be angry no matter what, we might as well do what's going to create jobs and help the economy, and get America energy independent.  AIN'T THAT RIGHT, BOYS?
 
2014-05-04 06:51:39 PM  
It says loads about American society that 'Should companies be made to disclose what chemicals they're pumping into the ground at high pressure' is a controversial question.
 
2014-05-04 07:02:40 PM  

LordJiro: It says loads about American society that 'Should companies be made to disclose what chemicals they're pumping into the ground at high pressure' is a controversial question.


If you think the chemicals they are pumping into the ground are scary, you should see the ones they are pumping out of it.
 
2014-05-04 07:03:07 PM  

Gulper Eel:  A ProPublica assessment of the state of research on fracking's health effects shows that though there isn't a lot of research, it's tended to show some negative impacts from living near hydraulic fracturing sites.

As opposed to the negative impacts of living near a coal mine? Or a closed coal mine?

As opposed to the negative impacts of living in perpetually depressed east bumfark, unable to touch trillions of dollars' worth of energy because a bunch of neoluddite celebrities and gentry leftists who spent their entire lives looking down their noses at middle America decided they needed to branch out a bit from their anti-nuclear scaremongering? If Yoko Ono thinks fracking is a bad idea, chances are it's an EXCELLENT idea.

As opposed to the negative impacts of us sending hundreds of billions a year to the House of Saud, maybe?

Casually outsourcing good-paying jobs to the Middle East and China is okay now?


You do know we export most of the natural gas harvested by fracking? It isn't being used to displace Saudi oil or help Americans.
 
2014-05-04 07:03:12 PM  
I regard fracking as a necessary evil that needs heavy regulation and close monitoring.
 
2014-05-04 07:05:06 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Gulper Eel: If Yoko Ono thinks fracking is a bad idea, chances are it's an EXCELLENT idea.

Well, I'm convinced.


A reverse appeal to celebrity.  Don't see that every day!
 
2014-05-04 07:05:25 PM  

PapaChester: You do know we export most of the natural gas harvested by fracking? It isn't being used to displace Saudi oil or help Americans.


Very true. The Oil and Natural Gas Industry did a great job in conning Americans with that whopper of a lie.
 
2014-05-04 07:05:37 PM  

Psychohazard: suebhoney: I'm torn with fracking. On one hand, it is making my father a rather rich man, which means my son will end up inheriting a decent fortune (he's the only grandchild).  As he's autistic and will need 24/7/365 live-in support when I'm gone, this is a very good thing.

Environmentally, not so much :(

If this were troll bait, I'd give you a 10/10.  But golly, you may be on the up and up.


Not troll bait. Have a family cabin in upstate PA.  No pad on our property, but the pipeline carrying the gas will go through it.  Lease rental in perpetuity, along with a percentage of all the gas that goes through the line.  My dad was also a hold out, so his monthly stipend for the lease of the top corner of the property is being paid at the higher approx. $5000 an acre price.  A lot of people took $1000-1500 an acre, way back when.

There is also a stipulation that the fracking company will have to put in and maintain a road, plus pay a per truck fee for every trip up/down that road.  We're not talking chicken feed here.

I asked my brothers what the percentage portion (for the gas running through the pipeline) means, and I was told to "think of how often everyone in the USA turns on/off a light switch".  Even though the percentage is low (something like .0000001%), when you think of it in the light switch analogy, we're talking big freaking bucks.

This is why I'm so torn.  I know that this will make it so my son has the money he will need to be taken care of the rest of his natural life, after I'm gone, but I know how bad this is environmentally.

Environmental reasons are why my dad was a hold out, and then my brother explained to him, if he doesn't make a deal with the fracking companies, they're going to do it anyway to get at the gas and that he may as well profit from it, instead of them doing it and he gets nothing.  That convinced him and he negotiated the pipeline deal.
 
2014-05-04 07:06:16 PM  
Why WOULDN'T we trust energy mega-corps?  They're just regular people, like us.  They want to make the world a better place and create better lives for the general public, not to simply make profit at the expense of everyone else.  Just look at BP.  Have you already forgotten all the times they've given gifts of completely free oil to needy citizens on the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska's North Slope, Lake Michigan, and elsewhere!

Is that the action of a greedy corporation ignoring dangers to the public in the name of profit?  I think not.
 
2014-05-04 07:06:53 PM  

JonBuck: I regard fracking as a necessary evil that needs heavy regulation and close monitoring.


Same here. Unfortunately the fracking companies don't want to be heaviliy regulated and closely monitored and are trying to buy state and local governments to make sure it stays that way.

Hence my opposition to fracking.
 
2014-05-04 07:11:59 PM  

whidbey: BMulligan: When my fellow tree-huggers start going on about the evils of fracking, I want to ask them if they would rather we simply burn more coal.

Fracking is a sloppy stop-gap measure that ignores the real problems: excessive consumption and inefficiency.

It's the same "argument' people use to tout nuclear. It's the wrong direction, so no, your question is not as intimidating as you think.

It's a challenge that we should be willing to meet.


I certainly didn't intend to intimidate anyone. And you are absolutely correct that conservation must be an important part of our overall approach to energy going forward, as it has been for the past three decades. But the fact remains that the world's population is growing and all of those people need energy. It does no good to look at one part of the energy cocktail in isolation and say "That's dirty and dangerous!" It's all dirty and dangerous. That's all the more reason why we should be engaged in careful, rational cost/benefit analysis, to minimize the adverse effects of energy production and consumption.

Psychohazard: Capitalism only works efficiently if there's free flow of information.


You're confusing capitalism with a market-oriented approach to economics. Efficient markets require free flow of information, but efficient markets are like Kryptonite to capitalism. Capitalism works best when consumers and workers are kept in the dark.
 
2014-05-04 07:12:08 PM  

suebhoney: This is why I'm so torn.  I know that this will make it so my son has the money he will need to be taken care of the rest of his natural life, after I'm gone, but I know how bad this is environmentally.


Understandeable extenuating circumstances. Of course, you'd probably have to recuse yourself from any activism.
 
2014-05-04 07:14:54 PM  

Mrtraveler01: PapaChester: You do know we export most of the natural gas harvested by fracking? It isn't being used to displace Saudi oil or help Americans.

Very true. The Oil and Natural Gas Industry did a great job in conning Americans with that whopper of a lie.


We still produce far more than we export. Exports we do have go to Canada and Mexico with negligible amounts elsewhere. To ship overseas, you need to make LNG. NG isn't like oil that you can just fill oil tankers with it. You need special LNG tankers and facilities to make it/unmake it.  We don't have the facilities for that, although there are several proposed.
 
2014-05-04 07:16:28 PM  

JonBuck: do have go to Canada and Mexico with negligible amounts elsewhere. To ship overseas, you need to make LNG. NG isn't like oil that you can just fill oil tankers with it. You need special LNG tankers and facilities to make it/unmake it.  We don't have the facilities for that, although there are several proposed.


I'm sure there are.
 
2014-05-04 07:18:55 PM  

PapaChester: Gulper Eel:  A ProPublica assessment of the state of research on fracking's health effects shows that though there isn't a lot of research, it's tended to show some negative impacts from living near hydraulic fracturing sites.

As opposed to the negative impacts of living near a coal mine? Or a closed coal mine?

As opposed to the negative impacts of living in perpetually depressed east bumfark, unable to touch trillions of dollars' worth of energy because a bunch of neoluddite celebrities and gentry leftists who spent their entire lives looking down their noses at middle America decided they needed to branch out a bit from their anti-nuclear scaremongering? If Yoko Ono thinks fracking is a bad idea, chances are it's an EXCELLENT idea.

As opposed to the negative impacts of us sending hundreds of billions a year to the House of Saud, maybe?

Casually outsourcing good-paying jobs to the Middle East and China is okay now?

You do know we export most of the natural gas harvested by fracking? It isn't being used to displace Saudi oil or help Americans.


The US exports very little natural gas.  Most of what we export goes to Canada, and that amount is about half of what we import from Canada.
 
2014-05-04 07:19:51 PM  

Cataholic: LordJiro: It says loads about American society that 'Should companies be made to disclose what chemicals they're pumping into the ground at high pressure' is a controversial question.

If you think the chemicals they are pumping into the ground are scary, you should see the ones they are pumping out of it.


It is possible to see the ones they are pumping out of it.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-04 07:21:45 PM  
It probably could be safe if we studied it and regulated the companies so that they had to do it safely.

It's just a matter of developing the technology, but no for profit corporation will do it voluntarily because there is no profit in it.
 
2014-05-04 07:22:11 PM  

Gulper Eel: If Yoko Ono thinks fracking is a bad idea, chances are it's an EXCELLENT idea.


To be fair, she is an expert on breaking up Rock Groups.
 
2014-05-04 07:23:56 PM  
Don't need to study it.

But, study it out!
 
2014-05-04 07:25:15 PM  
 
2014-05-04 07:26:27 PM  

Mrtraveler01: suebhoney: I'm torn with fracking. On one hand, it is making my father a rather rich man, which means my son will end up inheriting a decent fortune (he's the only grandchild).  As he's autistic and will need 24/7/365 live-in support when I'm gone, this is a very good thing.

Environmentally, not so much :(

Me too, I'm fine with the actual practice, I just don't trust the people handling it.

And the fact that they get so damn secretive about their practices anytime anyone tries to question it is another turn off as well.


Yeah, when someone deflects questions about safety by pointing out how unsafe OTHER things are, it's not exactly reassuring...
 
2014-05-04 07:27:52 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Gulper Eel: As opposed to the negative impacts of living near a coal mine? Or a closed coal mine?

You know, I've been at regulatory meetings where parents have argued for the construction of coal mines that they admit will dump mercury and lead into the environment that will harm their kids because they think the economic advantages for their children of having the coal plant outweigh the environmental and public health costs.

And you know, that's their cost/benefit analysis, and I disagree with it, but we have the data and can debate it in a public forum.

When they oppose research though that would let us make an informed decision, that just crosses a huge line. Then, we can't even make that cost/benefit analysis because we don't know the real costs. Let's study it, figure out what the risks are, and then we can decide if those risks are worth it.


If I had a low-risk operation with high energy benefits, I would certainly like studies to prove it.  On the other hand, if I thought the operation was not so low-risk, I'd act exactly like the companies are doing now.
 
2014-05-04 07:28:40 PM  

PapaChester: Gulper Eel:  A ProPublica assessment of the state of research on fracking's health effects shows that though there isn't a lot of research, it's tended to show some negative impacts from living near hydraulic fracturing sites.

As opposed to the negative impacts of living near a coal mine? Or a closed coal mine?

As opposed to the negative impacts of living in perpetually depressed east bumfark, unable to touch trillions of dollars' worth of energy because a bunch of neoluddite celebrities and gentry leftists who spent their entire lives looking down their noses at middle America decided they needed to branch out a bit from their anti-nuclear scaremongering? If Yoko Ono thinks fracking is a bad idea, chances are it's an EXCELLENT idea.

As opposed to the negative impacts of us sending hundreds of billions a year to the House of Saud, maybe?

Casually outsourcing good-paying jobs to the Middle East and China is okay now?

You do know we export most of the natural gas harvested by fracking? It isn't being used to displace Saudi oil or help Americans.


There ya go, more of your liberal "facts" getting in the way of some top-rate outrage!
 
2014-05-04 07:28:54 PM  
With reasonable safeguards, fracking is very safe.
 
2014-05-04 07:29:59 PM  

The_Forensicator: With reasonable safeguards, fracking is very safe.


I'm sure you think so.
 
Displayed 50 of 243 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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