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.

(Scientific American)   Good news: only 10% of the chemicals in fracking fluids are toxic to mammals. Bad news: there's another third whose toxicity is completely unknown   (scientificamerican.com) divider line 81
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

677 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2014 at 3:02 PM (8 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-19 12:20:11 PM  
I have a glass of water here.  Only 0.^A% of the chemicals in it are toxic.  Would you drink it?  Google Botulinum toxin first because it could save your life.

When the CEO drinks a cup of it everyday, his company uses it, I will call it safe.
 
2014-08-19 12:22:43 PM  

mrshowrules: I have a glass of water here.  Only 0.^A% of the chemicals in it are toxic.  Would you drink it?  Google Botulinum toxin first because it could save your life.

When the CEO drinks a cup of it everyday, his company uses it, I will call it safe.


Filtered my tiny tiny percentage.  Anyways a microscopic amount of some toxins will kill you dead as a door nail.  Saying something has only 10% toxic material is pretty freaking scary.
 
2014-08-19 12:23:10 PM  
Pretty much everything is toxic at a certain dosage
 
2014-08-19 12:32:18 PM  
In before dihydrogen monoxide hysteria.

/oblig
 
2014-08-19 12:34:05 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Pretty much everything is toxic at a certain dosage


Some at lower dosages than others.
 
2014-08-19 12:34:47 PM  

enry: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Pretty much everything is toxic at a certain dosage

Some at lower dosages than others.


This is so
 
2014-08-19 12:35:23 PM  
Man, I feel sorry for the mammals.
 
2014-08-19 12:35:36 PM  
These include biocides, used to prevent bacterial growth, and corrosion inhibitors.

So we've got chlorine and zinc.  Big whoop

[Industry says] the chemicals used are the same as in the cosmetics and food industry

True, but humans aren't supposed to ingest those chemicals.
 
2014-08-19 01:19:35 PM  
Trade-offs suck. Wind and solar result in higher natural gas use.
 
2014-08-19 01:59:19 PM  
img2-2.timeinc.net

 I want the people to know that two out of three fracking chemicals are non-toxic, and that ain't bad.
 
2014-08-19 03:07:15 PM  
Meh.  People won't be motivated to do anything until their parents or children start dying from it, so frak away.
 
2014-08-19 03:08:13 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Pretty much everything is toxic at a certain dosage


And the way I read the article, no one has any idea what that "certain dosage" is for fully a third of the the things in fracking fluids.
 
2014-08-19 03:08:21 PM  
I'm sure the Free Market will take care of things, is this really is a problem.
 
2014-08-19 03:08:25 PM  

Cyrus the Mediocre: These include biocides, used to prevent bacterial growth, and corrosion inhibitors.

So we've got chlorine and zinc.  Big whoop

[Industry says] the chemicals used are the same as in the cosmetics and food industry

True, but humans aren't supposed to ingest those chemicals.


And we are supposed to ingest the waste water or the petrochems?
 
2014-08-19 03:13:27 PM  

rustypouch: I'm sure the Free Market will take care of things, is this really is a problem.


this.

if there's one thing everyone knows for certain it is that we can all put every ounce of trust into our Free Marketeers and their concern for our safety.
 
2014-08-19 03:13:30 PM  
Bad news for WHO? Fracking has reduced America's dependency on foreign oil to the point that we are now a net-exporter. This means more jobs, cheaper gas, and less dependence on OPEC for our energy needs.

This means that the cancer, earthquakes, and flammable water don't matter.
 
2014-08-19 03:14:47 PM  

illegal.tender: Bad news for WHO? Fracking has reduced America's dependency on foreign oil to the point that we are now a net-exporter. This means more jobs, cheaper gas, and less dependence on OPEC for our energy needs.

This means that the cancer, earthquakes, and flammable water don't matter.


*cough* hear hear! *wheeze*
 
2014-08-19 03:16:03 PM  

rustypouch: I'm sure the Free Market will take care of things, is this really is a problem.


It always does.

Since I switched to Luckys, my T-Zone is feeling better than ever.

Thanks free market!
 
2014-08-19 03:16:15 PM  

Cyrus the Mediocre: [Industry says] the chemicals used are the same as in the cosmetics and food industry

True, but humans aren't supposed to ingest those chemicals.


I hope we can ingest most of the chemicals used in the food industry.

/minus a few examples like NaOH washes for making pretzels, etc.
 
2014-08-19 03:20:26 PM  
It's a good thing I switched to eating seeds as a pastime activity.

/Disorder, disorder
 
2014-08-19 03:20:48 PM  
Doesn't matter here in NC what chemicals they use in fracking.  We're not allowed to know what they are, and divulging them is a criminal offense.
 
2014-08-19 03:37:08 PM  

mrshowrules: Saying something has only 10% toxic material is pretty freaking scary.


If you're mind-bogglingly ignorant of basic chemistry and biology, I imagine that something like nine in ten scientific statements are pretty freaking scary to you.

Just to be clear, the  article is essentially saying that if you're adding a chemical to a commons resource like mineral reserves then the full properties of what you're adding should be fully disclosed to the best extent of the company's knowledge and "proprietary" doesn't really apply.  This is correct, and I fully support it, and environmental protections and industrial disclosure in general.

It's your specific statement that I'm calling stupid.  Ten percent plus of most food animals is toxic, same with many plants (swallowed an apple seed lately?  Arsenic.).  10% toxic isn't 'scary', it's a statement of technical (in the sense of scientists and engineers) value that means nothing whatsoever idiomatically, positive or negative.  If there's an actual health risk, the statement will be something like "there is a significant health risk".

// Actually it sounds like the materials that are fully disclosed don't fall into the actual health risk category yet.
// Disclosure, again, is a legitimate problem here.  When people can postulate that your technology  causes earthquakes and it's somewhat believable, perhaps you should be publishing a bit more of your internal reviews and development documentation to at least other professionals and the academic community.
 
2014-08-19 03:41:06 PM  

serfdood: Doesn't matter here in NC what chemicals they use in fracking.  We're not allowed to know what they are, and divulging them is a criminal offense.


I was about to say this - DNRTFA, but do we know what's in that stuff to begin with?  Aren't different companies using different solutions?
 
2014-08-19 03:41:45 PM  

serfdood: Doesn't matter here in NC what chemicals they use in fracking.  We're not allowed to know what they are, and divulging them is a criminal offense.


Wait, criminal?

Trade secrets are usually protected under civil law (e.g. you'll get sued for intentionally disclosing them and in some cases automatically get fined); copyright and patent violation can be criminal in some cases but those actually require disclosure.

Is New York up to something even shiattier than usual lately?
 
2014-08-19 04:01:24 PM  
A couple hundred gallons of something then diluted by millions of gallons of water that is inside seamless ends of pipe encased in concrete far below any usable water table. Not concerned
 
2014-08-19 04:02:22 PM  
Got to keep that of Tobacco Industry Nostalgia somehow.

"We know. You don't. We're protected by Congressional Act from telling you. Trust us, it's not poison. It's not harmful. It doesn't cause cancer. In fact, it probably cures cancer."
 
2014-08-19 04:05:45 PM  

Jim_Callahan: serfdood: Doesn't matter here in NC what chemicals they use in fracking.  We're not allowed to know what they are, and divulging them is a criminal offense.

Wait, criminal?


Yes.  The legislature initially tried to make it a felony offense, but they reduced that down to a misdemeanor.  I think even Texas requires the companies to divulge the chemicals they use in fracking.  It just seems our lawmakers here in NC are bending over backwards way too far for the energy companies.  That tells me something about the liklihood there are any real gas or oil deposits to make the effort profitable.  I've read a few opinions from geologists that basically say the amount of natural gas or oil will be far too small for the larger companies to make it worthwhile.
 
2014-08-19 04:05:50 PM  
Gonna join in the chorus of "what does 10% even mean in this context?" 10% by ingredient count? By volume? How toxic, in the concentrations injected? In the concentrations as stored? I get that when you're talking to "science journalists" you have to dumb it down, but at least provide a link to an abstract, synopsis, or something published that includes actual information.
 
2014-08-19 04:07:00 PM  
Good news: companies that love destroying the environment have finally figured out that they should stop and fracking is no more.

See how the headline doesn't say this? Understand that you can twist this however you like, but fracking is dangerous and deadly, to you and to me and to the wilderness.

Wind. Water. Solar. Get on board, folks.
 
2014-08-19 04:09:30 PM  
100% of the components of sodium chloride are toxic to mammals.

Chemicals are so scary.
 
2014-08-19 04:11:34 PM  

Triple Oak: Good news: companies that love destroying the environment have finally figured out that they should stop and fracking is no more.

See how the headline doesn't say this? Understand that you can twist this however you like, but fracking is dangerous and deadly, to you and to me and to the wilderness.

Wind. Water. Solar. Get on board, folks.


Name one product on this planet that is untouched by the oil and gas industry.

I'm not trying to shill but it's going to take a massive culture shift and almost every nation on earth for that shift to occur.

Until then the world needs energy companies. Sad but true.
 
2014-08-19 04:11:50 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Pretty much everything is toxic at a certain dosage


Like Axe body spray
 
2014-08-19 04:12:53 PM  

Dougie AXP: A couple hundred gallons of something then diluted by millions of gallons of water that is inside seamless ends of pipe encased in concrete far below any usable water table. Not concerned


And not all of that water comes back up.

Congratulations, we've found a way to actually remove water from the water cycle.  That's hard to do.
 
2014-08-19 04:13:36 PM  

azazyel: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Pretty much everything is toxic at a certain dosage

Like Axe body spray



+eleventy

can't stop giggling at that one.
 
2014-08-19 04:17:46 PM  

Triple Oak: Wind. Water. Solar. Get on board, folks.


Wind- Drive train models are becoming more popular, but rare earth metal utilizing models are still incredibly prevalent. If you think Fracking destroys wilderness don't look up what rare earth mining does.

Water- completely farking destroys wilderness

Solar- CSP is probably your least destructive choice, but the mirrors still often use rare earth polishing compounds. And PV is all rare earth stuff. The pure carbon ones are still lab dreams at this point.

Long story short, energy is going to cost something.
 
2014-08-19 04:18:34 PM  
dihydrogen monoxide is toxic.

AND IT'S A CHEMICAL!
 
2014-08-19 04:22:14 PM  

Dougie AXP: Triple Oak: Good news: companies that love destroying the environment have finally figured out that they should stop and fracking is no more.

See how the headline doesn't say this? Understand that you can twist this however you like, but fracking is dangerous and deadly, to you and to me and to the wilderness.

Wind. Water. Solar. Get on board, folks.

Name one product on this planet that is untouched by the oil and gas industry.

I'm not trying to shill but it's going to take a massive culture shift and almost every nation on earth for that shift to occur.

Until then the world needs energy companies. Sad but true.


Oh I understand it's not an instant change. Money would never let it happen. But slowly, we can all make changes. We need to stop being run by the companies that caused the corruption and we need to start accepting change. Driving from where I live down to Milwaukee, I go past a wind farm. I don't know what it takes to get that started, but hey it's progress right in front of us.

The next time I need a new bag for my laptop, I'm going to save for one of the backpacks with solar panels and internal electronics chargers. It's the little things.
 
2014-08-19 04:22:39 PM  

azazyel: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Pretty much everything is toxic at a certain dosage

Like Axe body spray


That's toxic at ANY dosage
 
2014-08-19 04:24:40 PM  

Dafatone: Dougie AXP: A couple hundred gallons of something then diluted by millions of gallons of water that is inside seamless ends of pipe encased in concrete far below any usable water table. Not concerned

And not all of that water comes back up.

Congratulations, we've found a way to actually remove water from the water cycle.  That's hard to do.


Actually it does come back up.

It's taken to recycling facilities where the water can then be reused in fracturings in an effort to reduce the total amount of fresh water required to do these jobs

And a good portion of water moves up from lower formations into the water table. The formations act like a filter as the water moves up.

Please cite one contamination caused by the act of fracking and not from surface spills of chemicals being stored for fracking. (Dimmock PA)

Ill wait.
 
2014-08-19 04:26:32 PM  

Madewithrealbitsofpanther: Triple Oak: Wind. Water. Solar. Get on board, folks.

Wind- Drive train models are becoming more popular, but rare earth metal utilizing models are still incredibly prevalent. If you think Fracking destroys wilderness don't look up what rare earth mining does.

Water- completely farking destroys wilderness

Solar- CSP is probably your least destructive choice, but the mirrors still often use rare earth polishing compounds. And PV is all rare earth stuff. The pure carbon ones are still lab dreams at this point.

Long story short, energy is going to cost something.


Just because things aren't perfectly efficient, especially in the manufacturing stage, doesn't mean we should give up on finding a better solution. All of this is focused on the long term. Oil won't last forever (I might still be alive when it runs out, according to some guesses).

I agree with you on solar though, being least destructive now and being the best chance for a long-term goal. More development, more testing, more ways to utilize the free energy beaming at us from space.
 
2014-08-19 04:32:55 PM  

Dougie AXP: Dafatone: Dougie AXP: A couple hundred gallons of something then diluted by millions of gallons of water that is inside seamless ends of pipe encased in concrete far below any usable water table. Not concerned

And not all of that water comes back up.

Congratulations, we've found a way to actually remove water from the water cycle.  That's hard to do.

Actually it does come back up.

It's taken to recycling facilities where the water can then be reused in fracturings in an effort to reduce the total amount of fresh water required to do these jobs

And a good portion of water moves up from lower formations into the water table. The formations act like a filter as the water moves up.

Please cite one contamination caused by the act of fracking and not from surface spills of chemicals being stored for fracking. (Dimmock PA)

Ill wait.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states- co nfirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/

This article seems to say that there are several just from drilling. Of course, the worst thing is that the information isn't being given out or is actively being suppressed so it could be worse.
 
2014-08-19 04:34:46 PM  

Jim_Callahan: serfdood: Doesn't matter here in NC what chemicals they use in fracking.  We're not allowed to know what they are, and divulging them is a criminal offense.

Wait, criminal?

Trade secrets are usually protected under civil law (e.g. you'll get sued for intentionally disclosing them and in some cases automatically get fined); copyright and patent violation can be criminal in some cases but those actually require disclosure.

Is New York up to something even shiattier than usual lately?


Not New York, North Carolina.

But yes, they did criminalize disclosure of fracking chemicals to the public.  The laws says that the in an emergency, fire or health personnel can ask the state geologist what exact it is they're supposed to be putting out or treating for (assuming of course, that the geologist was given a full and complete list, and that the list wasn't just every chemical compound known to man with a sticky note on top saying "We're using some of these).  However, it's a misdemeanor for the information to be disclosed to anyone else.  Part V, Section 8.

Which could set up a nice little situation where you get sick from being exposed to something, your doctor can find out what he's trying to keep from giving you cancer, but if he tells you what it is, he could get arrested.
 
2014-08-19 04:36:55 PM  
So, at absolute worst, less than half of the chemicals are toxic?  So, it's GUARANTEED that the majority of the fluids are safe?
 
2014-08-19 04:40:11 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Pretty much everything is toxic at a certain dosage


Except marijuana. And that stuff will get you fracked up too!

/crap, out of cheese puffs, brb
 
2014-08-19 04:46:14 PM  

Dougie AXP: Dafatone: Dougie AXP: A couple hundred gallons of something then diluted by millions of gallons of water that is inside seamless ends of pipe encased in concrete far below any usable water table. Not concerned

And not all of that water comes back up.

Congratulations, we've found a way to actually remove water from the water cycle.  That's hard to do.

Actually it does come back up.

It's taken to recycling facilities where the water can then be reused in fracturings in an effort to reduce the total amount of fresh water required to do these jobs

And a good portion of water moves up from lower formations into the water table. The formations act like a filter as the water moves up.

Please cite one contamination caused by the act of fracking and not from surface spills of chemicals being stored for fracking. (Dimmock PA)

Ill wait.


Why are you asking for citations about contamination?  I didn't mention contamination.  Nothing I said has anything to do with contamination.

As to water loss, some water is recouped.  Some isn't.  Here's a link to a study saying that 90% of water used in the Marcellus shale is permanently lost.  Even if it's only 9%, that's still a ton of water permanently removed from the water cycle.  And like I said, there are very very very few processes that permanently remove water from the water cycle.
 
2014-08-19 04:47:33 PM  

Dougie AXP: A couple hundred gallons of something then diluted by millions of gallons of water that is inside seamless ends of pipe encased in concrete far below any usable water table. Not concerned


Where you gonna get the water, chum?




media.masslive.com
 
2014-08-19 04:48:33 PM  

Dougie AXP: Dafatone: Dougie AXP: A couple hundred gallons of something then diluted by millions of gallons of water that is inside seamless ends of pipe encased in concrete far below any usable water table. Not concerned

And not all of that water comes back up.

Congratulations, we've found a way to actually remove water from the water cycle.  That's hard to do.

Actually it does come back up.

It's taken to recycling facilities where the water can then be reused in fracturings in an effort to reduce the total amount of fresh water required to do these jobs

And a good portion of water moves up from lower formations into the water table. The formations act like a filter as the water moves up.

Please cite one contamination caused by the act of fracking and not from surface spills of chemicals being stored for fracking. (Dimmock PA)

Ill wait.


Actually, with current techniques, about 30% of frac water is recovered. The rest imbibes into the shale.
 
2014-08-19 04:49:01 PM  

mrshowrules: I have a glass of water here.  Only 0.^A% of the chemicals in it are toxic.  Would you drink it?  Google Botulinum toxin first because it could save your life.

When the CEO drinks a cup of it everyday, his company uses it, I will call it safe.


img.fark.net
 
2014-08-19 04:53:15 PM  
I blame the Cylons.
 
2014-08-19 04:59:48 PM  

Dafatone: Dougie AXP: Dafatone: Dougie AXP: A couple hundred gallons of something then diluted by millions of gallons of water that is inside seamless ends of pipe encased in concrete far below any usable water table. Not concerned

And not all of that water comes back up.

Congratulations, we've found a way to actually remove water from the water cycle.  That's hard to do.

Actually it does come back up.

It's taken to recycling facilities where the water can then be reused in fracturings in an effort to reduce the total amount of fresh water required to do these jobs

And a good portion of water moves up from lower formations into the water table. The formations act like a filter as the water moves up.

Please cite one contamination caused by the act of fracking and not from surface spills of chemicals being stored for fracking. (Dimmock PA)

Ill wait.

Why are you asking for citations about contamination?  I didn't mention contamination.  Nothing I said has anything to do with contamination.

As to water loss, some water is recouped.  Some isn't.  Here's a link to a study saying that 90% of water used in the Marcellus shale is permanently lost.  Even if it's only 9%, that's still a ton of water permanently removed from the water cycle.  And like I said, there are very very very few processes that permanently remove water from the water cycle.


You'd think, given that I said "here's a link to...", that I'd actually include a link.

Here it is
 
Displayed 50 of 81 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