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.

(Philly.com)   Don't ask Pennsylvania's health department any questions about fracking. Best not to mention cancer clusters either   (philly.com) divider line 67
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

2745 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Jul 2014 at 7:50 AM (7 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-07 12:12:51 AM
Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.
 
2014-07-07 12:25:33 AM
During these three years, the natural gas drilling boom in the Marcellus Shale has been met with citizens complaining of headaches, nausea, rashes, and of ailing pets and livestock because they live near fracking rigs.

"What does Marcellus Shale oil look like?"
"It's...it's black."
"Go on."
"It probably causes cancer."
"Does it look like a b*tch?"
"What?"
"I said, DOES IT LOOK LIKE A B*TCH?"
"No!"
Then why you try to frack it like a biatch?"
"I didn't..."
"Yes you did. Yes you did! You tried to frack it. And Marcellus Shale don't like to be fracked by anybody except big oil."
 
2014-07-07 12:41:43 AM
The people that defend this horrible business sound a lot like the cigarette pushers back in the 50's.
 
2014-07-07 12:45:47 AM

Lando Lincoln: The people that defend this horrible business sound a lot like the cigarette pushers back in the 50's.



Or the people that tried to convince us that lead in gasoline couldn't possibly be bad since lead was found in nature and therefore harmless.
 
2014-07-07 01:06:18 AM

SilentStrider: Lando Lincoln: The people that defend this horrible business sound a lot like the cigarette pushers back in the 50's.


Or the people that tried to convince us that lead in gasoline couldn't possibly be bad since lead was found in nature and therefore harmless.


Or the people who try to convince us that global warming is a hoax perpetuated by scientists who want to get rich from government grants.
 
2014-07-07 02:17:22 AM
This is ironic. I just read an article that stated the USA was now the biggest exporter of oil (mainly because several oil producing nations have political problems going on which hampers their output) and one of the primary reasons the US has attained this great, money making status, is Fracking.

Of course, the pump prices haven't gone down. Plus you can forget about anyone ever managing to clean up the fracking process itself, because far too much money is being made.

Oddly enough, I recall a 'Dirty Jobs' episode where Mike Rowe cleaned out tanks containing a special 'mud' designed for oil wells to help push the oil out and fill up any spaces left behind to prevent subsidence. (Sinkholes.) The mud was designed to be thick or thin and non-toxic not only for environmental reasons, but to not harm anyone who had to work with it.

So, the question is, why doesn't fracking use that type of 'liquid' instead of the noxious brew they use now?
SilentStrider

Or the people that tried to convince us that lead in gasoline couldn't possibly be bad since lead was found in nature and therefore harmless.

You might be pleased to know that the guy who developed leaded fuel wound up dying early -- from lead poisoning.
 
2014-07-07 02:46:57 AM

Rik01: Oddly enough, I recall a 'Dirty Jobs' episode where Mike Rowe cleaned out tanks containing a special 'mud' designed for oil wells to help push the oil out and fill up any spaces left behind to prevent subsidence. (Sinkholes.) The mud was designed to be thick or thin and non-toxic not only for environmental reasons, but to not harm anyone who had to work with it.

So, the question is, why doesn't fracking use that type of 'liquid' instead of the noxious brew they use now?


Mud is used in oil, Fracking is used in natural gas.  The differences in composition between oil and gas may make mud unsuitable for gas extraction.  I can't imagine petroleum companies spending money to develop some anonomous chemical brew when a product already available would do.
 
2014-07-07 06:47:53 AM
For the record, yes most Pennsylvanian voters know that the Corbett administration is among the most corrupt in recent history...but to republican voters, it's better to have a corrupt GOP governor than an honest democrat in charge. The GOP around here vote party before everything else.
 
2014-07-07 07:14:45 AM
Corbett has gone beyond "bows in fealty to his gas drilling master" and is veering into cartoon super villain territory
 
kab
2014-07-07 07:58:22 AM

Lando Lincoln: The people that defend this horrible business sound a lot like the cigarette pushers back in the 50's.


I'm surprised they haven't flocked to this thread already.
 
2014-07-07 08:01:27 AM

Lando Lincoln: The people that defend this horrible business sound a lot like the cigarette pushers back in the 50's.


Do you realize how much money is in that game?  Plenty enough to bribe whoever they need.
 
2014-07-07 08:17:13 AM

Rik01: This is ironic. I just read an article that stated the USA was now the biggest exporter of oil (mainly because several oil producing nations have political problems going on which hampers their output) and one of the primary reasons the US has attained this great, money making status, is Fracking.

Of course, the pump prices haven't gone down. Plus you can forget about anyone ever managing to clean up the fracking process itself, because far too much money is being made.

Oddly enough, I recall a 'Dirty Jobs' episode where Mike Rowe cleaned out tanks containing a special 'mud' designed for oil wells to help push the oil out and fill up any spaces left behind to prevent subsidence. (Sinkholes.) The mud was designed to be thick or thin and non-toxic not only for environmental reasons, but to not harm anyone who had to work with it.

So, the question is, why doesn't fracking use that type of 'liquid' instead of the noxious brew they use now?
SilentStrider

Or the people that tried to convince us that lead in gasoline couldn't possibly be bad since lead was found in nature and therefore harmless.

You might be pleased to know that the guy who developed leaded fuel wound up dying early -- from lead poisoning.


Actually, no he didn't.

In 1940, at the age of 51, Midgley contracted poliomyelitis, which left him severely disabled. This led him to devise an elaborate system of strings and pulleys to help others lift him from bed. This system was the eventual cause of his own death when he was entangled in the ropes of this device and died of strangulation at the age of 55.[14][15][16]
 
2014-07-07 08:32:08 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Corbett has gone beyond "bows in fealty to his gas drilling master" and is veering into cartoon super villain territory


img.fark.net
 
2014-07-07 08:35:14 AM
Lets pay people not to frack, in the same way we pay people not to farm (to prevent over-consumption of the land)
 
2014-07-07 08:37:03 AM
Pennsylvania politics = big business.
 
2014-07-07 08:40:26 AM
Corbett is a one termer, he's down 22 points to the democratic challenger and the frackers know it. Here's a good look at how the PA legislature sucks the dicks of the gas and oil companies They never consider the same bill on the same day and pass it, never. But that bill is now law after the gov signed the budget
 
2014-07-07 08:42:59 AM
 
2014-07-07 08:51:30 AM

Lost Thought 00: Lets pay people not to frack, in the same way we pay people not to farm (to prevent over-consumption of the land)


You know, I've always been on the fence about fracking.  For full disclosure sake, I have family that live in NE PA and are VERY vocal against fracking.  On the one hand, I think it is great that we are able to utilize a natural resource and provide jobs and revenue to an area which really has very little else beyond low-wage service jobs in retail and fast food.  And even though NG is still a fossil fuel, it's a n improvement over coal and oil.

But there are far too many unanswered questions about the short and long term risks to public health and the environment, not to mention that fracking is drawing money away from clean, renewable technology research in solar and wind.  There are extremists on both sides, but there's a middle ground that just wants an open discussion about the facts.  Not to stop fracking all together, but have a rational discussion about the benefits and risks.  The problem is the money is so powerful that state governments are just lining up to give these companies anything they want to expand operations.

Once again, it's not a government for the people, but for corporations.
 
2014-07-07 09:02:55 AM
Cancer Clusters sounds like a hit tomacco snack, I want to invest early.
 
2014-07-07 09:04:46 AM
Do they respond to questions about vaccines causing autism, 9/11 Truth, aliens, etc?
 
2014-07-07 09:11:47 AM

Weaver95: For the record, yes most Pennsylvanian voters know that the Corbett administration is among the most corrupt in recent history...but to republican voters, it's better to have a corrupt GOP governor than an honest democrat in charge. The GOP around here vote party before everything else.


I don't know.  He's managed to really piss off some of the hard core republicans I know with his crap.  Assuming the D's manage to put forward a seemingly honest candidate, they might manage an upset.

\ Former resident of Lancaster County.
\\ Grateful to have escaped.
 
2014-07-07 09:23:27 AM
My hardcore R parents will be voting his clown ass out. He's managed to lose a LOT of support...

he needs to be in prison with his buddy Sandusky.
 
2014-07-07 09:33:10 AM
Can I mention cluster fracking?
 
2014-07-07 09:51:26 AM
People in flyover red rural areas all have sex and interbreed with family members.

They are just spreading their inherent cancer genes.

Its not fracking.
 
2014-07-07 09:58:49 AM

Giltric: People in flyover red rural areas all have sex and interbreed with family members.

They are just spreading their inherent cancer genes.

Its not fracking.


It uses the same general methods. Send pressurized toxic residue down a shaft, inject it into the substrate and permanently corrupt the underlying formation, all while causing cancer.
 
2014-07-07 10:03:11 AM

Rik01: This is ironic. I just read an article that stated the USA was now the biggest exporter of oil (mainly because several oil producing nations have political problems going on which hampers their output) and one of the primary reasons the US has attained this great, money making status, is Fracking.

Of course, the pump prices haven't gone down. Plus you can forget about anyone ever managing to clean up the fracking process itself, because far too much money is being made.

Oddly enough, I recall a 'Dirty Jobs' episode where Mike Rowe cleaned out tanks containing a special 'mud' designed for oil wells to help push the oil out and fill up any spaces left behind to prevent subsidence. (Sinkholes.) The mud was designed to be thick or thin and non-toxic not only for environmental reasons, but to not harm anyone who had to work with it.

So, the question is, why doesn't fracking use that type of 'liquid' instead of the noxious brew they use now?


I'm no petroleum extraction expert, but I'd venture a guess and say it's the hydraulic properties of the mud in question.  If conventional non-toxic drilling mud stood up to 10,000PSI+ pressures, they might be using it.

Plus, what does the company care?  They're just trucking all the used fluid to the states that don't have any regulations on waste wells (I'm looking at you, PA), screwing a well in the ground as fast as they can and leaving the stuff in there forever.
 
2014-07-07 10:10:10 AM
During these three years, the natural gas drilling boom in the Marcellus Shale has been met with citizens complaining of headaches, nausea, rashes, and of ailing pets and livestock because they live near fracking rigs.That's either a really poorly written sentence, or they're just intent on begging the question. It reminds me of the ailments that people who live nearwind farms experience, even when they're not running. Why can't we just go back to nice, clean, efficient coal like they were used to?
 
2014-07-07 10:16:22 AM

Lost Thought 00: Lets pay people not to frack, in the same way we pay people not to farm (to prevent over-consumption of the land)


Except the dairy industry, where the government buys their surplus, then encourages the consumption of cheese, cheese and more cheese.
 
2014-07-07 10:31:20 AM
Maybe they're just following the BBC's lead and declining to give the fracking deniers a forum for their whacko viewpoints.
 
2014-07-07 10:46:18 AM

make me some tea: SilentStrider: Lando Lincoln: The people that defend this horrible business sound a lot like the cigarette pushers back in the 50's.


Or the people that tried to convince us that lead in gasoline couldn't possibly be bad since lead was found in nature and therefore harmless.

Or the people who try to convince us that global warming is a hoax perpetuated by scientists who want to get rich from government grants.


Or the people who try to convince us that vaccines cause autism.
 
2014-07-07 10:55:22 AM

Cataholic: Or the people who try to convince us that vaccines cause autism.


The people that are trying to convince us that vaccines cause autism are like the cigarette pushers of the 50's?

At least you tried.
 
2014-07-07 11:37:23 AM
It's 95% water.  Get over it.
 
2014-07-07 11:47:38 AM

whyRpeoplesostupid: Pa is one of the 10 most corrupt states


All that report reveals is the extent of open records laws and good reporting.  All levels of government, with increasing levels of corruption as you go up from the local level.
 
2014-07-07 11:49:55 AM

BLeap: Weaver95: For the record, yes most Pennsylvanian voters know that the Corbett administration is among the most corrupt in recent history...but to republican voters, it's better to have a corrupt GOP governor than an honest democrat in charge. The GOP around here vote party before everything else.

I don't know.  He's managed to really piss off some of the hard core republicans I know with his crap.  Assuming the D's manage to put forward a seemingly honest candidate, they might manage an upset.

\ Former resident of Lancaster County.
\\ Grateful to have escaped.


It's not only the chief executive that matters but the legislature, too.  We've seen this on the national level, and it's no different at any other level.
 
2014-07-07 11:51:12 AM
The New American Oil Boom has been great for corporations who are getting rich transferring our nation's natural wealth to themselves.
 
2014-07-07 11:52:16 AM

acohn: whyRpeoplesostupid: Pa is one of the 10 most corrupt states

All that report reveals is the extent of open records laws and good reporting.  All levels of government are corrupt, with increasing levels of corruption as you go up from the local level.


FTFM.
 
2014-07-07 11:53:59 AM

foo monkey: It's 95% water.  Get over it.


It's practically homeopathic.
 
2014-07-07 11:54:10 AM

foo monkey: It's 95% water.  Get over it.


Good. Do us all a favor, and chug a 95% water solution, in which the remaining 5% is, say, lead. Or arsenic. Or acetone. Or cyanide. Then, perhaps, you'll understand just how unutterably stupid that statement is to someone that understands why we measure water pollution in parts per million, not parts per ten.
 
2014-07-07 11:57:45 AM

whyRpeoplesostupid: Pa is one of the 10 most corrupt states


and the water is already some of the worst in the US

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2012/03/23/Region-s-rivers-ar e -some-of-nation-s-most-polluted/stories/201203230179
 
2014-07-07 12:01:29 PM
Next, they'll blame the cancer clusters on them being poor and smoking and generally not taking care of themselves.

There are some cancer clusters down the road a bit. EPA/Superfund investigated the site, company responded "It's cause they smoke, not cause of all the napthalene we just vent off into the atmosphere that then floats across the street into a residential neighborhood, EPA said "Do fence line monitoring", local regulatory authorities said "Nope".

Our EPA is only slightly better than having no EPA at all.

//Sounds like we need to deregulate more!
 
2014-07-07 12:03:12 PM

foo monkey: It's 95% water.  Get over it.


What leaked out of Fukushima a few summers back was also 95% water. Urine is 95+% water as well, but I wouldn't recommend hooking up a urinal to a water fountain to stay properly hydrated.
 
2014-07-07 12:17:20 PM

mainsail: Rik01: This is ironic. I just read an article that stated the USA was now the biggest exporter of oil (mainly because several oil producing nations have political problems going on which hampers their output) and one of the primary reasons the US has attained this great, money making status, is Fracking.

Of course, the pump prices haven't gone down. Plus you can forget about anyone ever managing to clean up the fracking process itself, because far too much money is being made.

Oddly enough, I recall a 'Dirty Jobs' episode where Mike Rowe cleaned out tanks containing a special 'mud' designed for oil wells to help push the oil out and fill up any spaces left behind to prevent subsidence. (Sinkholes.) The mud was designed to be thick or thin and non-toxic not only for environmental reasons, but to not harm anyone who had to work with it.

So, the question is, why doesn't fracking use that type of 'liquid' instead of the noxious brew they use now?
SilentStrider

Or the people that tried to convince us that lead in gasoline couldn't possibly be bad since lead was found in nature and therefore harmless.

You might be pleased to know that the guy who developed leaded fuel wound up dying early -- from lead poisoning.

Actually, no he didn't.

In 1940, at the age of 51, Midgley contracted poliomyelitis, which left him severely disabled. This led him to devise an elaborate system of strings and pulleys to help others lift him from bed. This system was the eventual cause of his own death when he was entangled in the ropes of this device and died of strangulation at the age of 55.[14][15][16]


Thank you.

Midgley also helpfully developed a great fluorocarbon refrigerant....

/I'm curious if, at the time, he really knew the lead would be a problem
//I'm fairly sure he had no idea about ozone depletion
 
2014-07-07 12:24:58 PM

Sasquach: mainsail: Rik01: This is ironic. I just read an article that stated the USA was now the biggest exporter of oil (mainly because several oil producing nations have political problems going on which hampers their output) and one of the primary reasons the US has attained this great, money making status, is Fracking.

Of course, the pump prices haven't gone down. Plus you can forget about anyone ever managing to clean up the fracking process itself, because far too much money is being made.

Oddly enough, I recall a 'Dirty Jobs' episode where Mike Rowe cleaned out tanks containing a special 'mud' designed for oil wells to help push the oil out and fill up any spaces left behind to prevent subsidence. (Sinkholes.) The mud was designed to be thick or thin and non-toxic not only for environmental reasons, but to not harm anyone who had to work with it.

So, the question is, why doesn't fracking use that type of 'liquid' instead of the noxious brew they use now?
SilentStrider

Or the people that tried to convince us that lead in gasoline couldn't possibly be bad since lead was found in nature and therefore harmless.

You might be pleased to know that the guy who developed leaded fuel wound up dying early -- from lead poisoning.

Actually, no he didn't.

In 1940, at the age of 51, Midgley contracted poliomyelitis, which left him severely disabled. This led him to devise an elaborate system of strings and pulleys to help others lift him from bed. This system was the eventual cause of his own death when he was entangled in the ropes of this device and died of strangulation at the age of 55.[14][15][16]

Thank you.

Midgley also helpfully developed a great fluorocarbon refrigerant....

/I'm curious if, at the time, he really knew the lead would be a problem
//I'm fairly sure he had no idea about ozone depletion


Not at first, perhaps, but certainly he spent a great deal of time defending himself.
 
2014-07-07 12:25:33 PM
Whoops-on the lead, that is.
 
2014-07-07 12:28:23 PM
The free market should take care of all this fracking nonsense.
 
2014-07-07 12:41:48 PM
Hmmm...

Sounds like a job for one of those TV ambulance chasing lawyers. You the ones that say call us if Death happens to you?

It could be a massive payday.
 
2014-07-07 12:49:13 PM

FormlessOne: Good. Do us all a favor, and chug a 95% water solution, in which the remaining 5% is, say, lead. Or arsenic. Or acetone. Or cyanide. Then, perhaps, you'll understand just how unutterably stupid that statement is to someone that understands why we measure water pollution in parts per million, not parts per ten.


Technically it would be parts per hundred in that case.

/I'm told decimals without an x>0 whole number is frowned upon in that field.
 
2014-07-07 01:14:18 PM

Another Government Employee: Hmmm...

Sounds like a job for one of those TV ambulance chasing lawyers. You the ones that say call us if Death happens to you?

It could be a massive payday.


PA has more injury/liability cases than any other state.
 
2014-07-07 01:22:53 PM

Close2TheEdge: Lost Thought 00: Lets pay people not to frack, in the same way we pay people not to farm (to prevent over-consumption of the land)

You know, I've always been on the fence about fracking.  For full disclosure sake, I have family that live in NE PA and are VERY vocal against fracking.  On the one hand, I think it is great that we are able to utilize a natural resource and provide jobs and revenue to an area which really has very little else beyond low-wage service jobs in retail and fast food.  And even though NG is still a fossil fuel, it's a n improvement over coal and oil.

But there are far too many unanswered questions about the short and long term risks to public health and the environment, not to mention that fracking is drawing money away from clean, renewable technology research in solar and wind.  There are extremists on both sides, but there's a middle ground that just wants an open discussion about the facts.  Not to stop fracking all together, but have a rational discussion about the benefits and risks.  The problem is the money is so powerful that state governments are just lining up to give these companies anything they want to expand operations.

Once again, it's not a government for the people, but for corporations.


I think fracking is one of those technologies like asbestos.  It is the miracle cure for all our woe's that will be remembered by history as one of our more major fark-ups.
 
2014-07-07 01:31:44 PM
barring doctors from publicly disclosing what they may have learned about a patient's exposure to fracking chemicals

has sided with the industry on every major issue.

State lawmakers -- in their oversight capacity -- have an obligation to investigate and, if necessary, hold hearings to learn the genesis of this unusual -- and seemingly counter-productive -- order, how it was implemented and what impact it may have had on Pennsylvanians who believed they, or a loved one, were sickened by fracking.


Gag order on Health officials and deliberately depriving the public of safety knowledge related to cancer causing matter?

One of these days someone is going to snap, tie them to boards and bath them fracking chemicals.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report