Give us a fracking break!

[turbobloke]

Moonhawk said:

andymadmak said:

Martin4x4 said:

Get the real facts about Dihydrogen monoxide it really is insidious stuff.

Erm. Are you sure thats not a spoof site? Or am I now due a visit from whoooosh parrot ops?

Yep - although factually correct.

It's a great example of how presenting information in a different way can lead to a very different message.

I would love one of the tabloids to run a story on this as an experiment - just to see how the public would react. It would be one hell of an April fools day prank.

That's already happened in various shapes and forms, as confirmed by Snopes of all places. Read all about it!

http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp

Be careful about the title and initial judgement as it relates to DHMO being harmful and apart from drinking far too much or drowning (or scalding) etc it's not.

[Moonhawk]

turbobloke said:

Be careful about the title and initial judgement as it relates to DHMO being harmful and apart from drinking far too much or drowning (or scalding) etc it's not.

Solid DHMO can be pretty dangerous and can even be made into a rudimentary weapon

John McClain uses solid DMHO to kill somebody in Die Hard 2.

[turbobloke]

Moonhawk said:

turbobloke said:

Be careful about the title and initial judgement as it relates to DHMO being harmful and apart from drinking far too much or drowning (or scalding) etc it's not.

Solid DHMO can be pretty dangerous and can even be made into a rudimentary weapon

John McClain uses solid DMHO to kill somebody in Die Hard 2.

Fair point! Though that was included in 'etc' naturally

[Mr Whippy]

Moonhawk said:

John McClain uses solid DMHO to kill somebody in Die Hard 2

DHM shirley?

Yep it's pretty nasty stuff.

It even made the Titanic sink

[Martin4x4]

Andy Zarse said:

Martin4x4 said:

Get the real facts about Dihydrogen monoxide it really is insidious stuff.

Oh dear. Martin as soon as I saw your name next to the link I knew exactly what to expect; obsessive drivel from the mentally ill. I wasn't disappointed.

[shakotan]

pcvdriver said:

Biscuit dunker said:

Listen to the You and Yours phone in (link above) - apparently the water used in UK fracking will only have one additive (not the multiple additives used in the US) which reduces friction in the water to counter the effects of pumping water down to depths of over 3000ft. It's a chemical also used in the eye drops for contact lens users......

.....and I suppose guarantees have been given that this will be the case - forgive me for being sceptical, but I'd venture that it will be a case of "Oh now we need to use this chemical and this chemical and this..... due to the varying nature of the shale etc etc"......

That's not just a tinfoil hat you are wearing, it's a steel ingot, and I think its applying too much pressure to your brain.

[pcvdriver]

shakotan said:

pcvdriver said:

Biscuit dunker said:

Listen to the You and Yours phone in (link above) - apparently the water used in UK fracking will only have one additive (not the multiple additives used in the US) which reduces friction in the water to counter the effects of pumping water down to depths of over 3000ft. It's a chemical also used in the eye drops for contact lens users......

.....and I suppose guarantees have been given that this will be the case - forgive me for being sceptical, but I'd venture that it will be a case of "Oh now we need to use this chemical and this chemical and this..... due to the varying nature of the shale etc etc"......

That's not just a tinfoil hat you are wearing, it's a steel ingot, and I think its applying too much pressure to your brain.

Tinfoil hat not required, there are countless documented cases in history where the environment has been contaminated either by accident or unforeseen circumstance......let's say for example, the Bay of Mexico disaster.... I could go on and on, but it would be more than a little boring - but it was just to illustrate a point.

[McWigglebum4th]

pcvdriver said:

Tinfoil hat not required, there are countless documented cases in history where the environment has been contaminated either by accident or unforeseen circumstance......let's say for example, the Bay of Mexico disaster.... I could go on and on, but it would be more than a little boring - but it was just to illustrate a point.

So lets not do ANYTHING then

[shakotan]

pcvdriver said:

shakotan said:

pcvdriver said:

Biscuit dunker said:

Listen to the You and Yours phone in (link above) - apparently the water used in UK fracking will only have one additive (not the multiple additives used in the US) which reduces friction in the water to counter the effects of pumping water down to depths of over 3000ft. It's a chemical also used in the eye drops for contact lens users......

.....and I suppose guarantees have been given that this will be the case - forgive me for being sceptical, but I'd venture that it will be a case of "Oh now we need to use this chemical and this chemical and this..... due to the varying nature of the shale etc etc"......

That's not just a tinfoil hat you are wearing, it's a steel ingot, and I think its applying too much pressure to your brain.

Tinfoil hat not required, there are countless documented cases in history where the environment has been contaminated either by accident or unforeseen circumstance......let's say for example, the Bay of Mexico disaster.... I could go on and on, but it would be more than a little boring - but it was just to illustrate a point.

But your post had nothing to do with accidents or unforeseen circumstances, your post made supposition that fracking companies would start to add dangerous chemicals over and above the current documented formula.

[motco]

Olf said:

I have to admit to being in the energy industry so not altogether unbiased. I also think the industry could do a lot more to help dispel some of the myths and show good science. I also can't see shale happening in the UK on even a fraction of the same scale that it has in Texas and Louisiana for example. It's not pretty and it's barely economical on that scale so I struggle to see how it's going to work here. But with all that said...

I see shale gas extraction as broadly similar to farming. Broadly speaking it's about harvesting a product from the ground (gas) and it requires some chemicals to extract it (proppants, etc). But wait - farmers have been cultivating and yes, polluting the soil and water courses on an industrial scale now for years - say about 50 years. They do it for good reason - to feed hungry populations. The Nitrogen and Potassium based fertilisers they use have a whole host of side effects for the environment that we happily turn a blind eye to because it probably suits us.

But now, unusually, when it's not in plain sight but hidden thousands of metres under the ground, people are suddenly up in arms about fraccing for gas extraction. Why is that? Because it might affect the water courses, ground water and aquifers? Well most of those are already nicely topped up with Nitrates. So what gives? Is it just that the big ugly oil man is going to make some money from it? Well the big ugly oil man pays a good portion of most people's pensions, fuels most peoples cars and keeps most houses warm. And strangely enough, the manufacture of the vast proportion of fertilisers needs significant amounts of guess what? Yep, natural gas. So it's all a bit tricky really.

I'm not sure there's a wrong or a right in this - I'm just sick of the hypocrites.

This is a perfect summary of how fear of pollution from one industry is perfectly acceptable in another if it suits your purpose.

[pcvdriver]

shakotan said:

But your post had nothing to do with accidents or unforeseen circumstances, your post made supposition that fracking companies would start to add dangerous chemicals over and above the current documented formula.

That would include unforeseen circumstances about adding extra proprietary ingredients to the mixture. Or even failure to properly cap a well after use.

[pcvdriver]

motco said:

This is a perfect summary of how fear of pollution from one industry is perfectly acceptable in another if it suits your purpose.

It all depends om the levels of/amounts/toxicity of the pollutants involved doesn't it? Let's not pretend it's all nicey, nicey, wouldn't harm a cuddly seal pup type of stuff now.

[jshell]

pcvdriver said:

That would include unforeseen circumstances about adding extra proprietary ingredients to the mixture. Or even failure to properly cap a well after use.

Both of which are regulated massively and require specific, horrendous procedures and permits. Companies don't just 'fail to cap a well properly'. And they can't just shove anything they want down a well.

[jurbie]

I'm constantly amazed at how ignorant people appear to be of the massive amount of environmental legislation in this country and the fact that large corporations do not have some free pass to do whatever they want. I work for a large corporation and our environmental manager tried to stop the bloke who comes and washes everyone's car once a week because in the words of the environmental manager, "we don't know what he's flushing down our drains."

This is how seriously this stuff is taken and the idea that any company could drill a hole in the ground and happily fill it full of apparently everything from live puppies to bad Aids is frankly laughable.

[richtea78]

jurbie said:

I'm constantly amazed at how ignorant people appear to be of the massive amount of environmental legislation in this country and the fact that large corporations do not have some free pass to do whatever they want. I work for a large corporation and our environmental manager tried to stop the bloke who comes and washes everyone's car once a week because in the words of the environmental manager, "we don't know what he's flushing down our drains."

This is how seriously this stuff is taken and the idea that any company could drill a hole in the ground and happily fill it full of apparently everything from live puppies to bad Aids is frankly laughable.

Wouldn't happen under Labour

[mondeoman]

richtea78 said:

jurbie said:

I'm constantly amazed at how ignorant people appear to be of the massive amount of environmental legislation in this country and the fact that large corporations do not have some free pass to do whatever they want. I work for a large corporation and our environmental manager tried to stop the bloke who comes and washes everyone's car once a week because in the words of the environmental manager, "we don't know what he's flushing down our drains."

This is how seriously this stuff is taken and the idea that any company could drill a hole in the ground and happily fill it full of apparently everything from live puppies to bad Aids is frankly laughable.

Wouldn't happen under Labour

NO, they'd allow only good Aids.

[HD Adam]

pcvdriver said:

It all depends om the levels of/amounts/toxicity of the pollutants involved doesn't it? Let's not pretend it's all nicey, nicey, wouldn't harm a cuddly seal pup type of stuff now.

You know, the oil & gas that would be extracted is pretty poisonous and polluting in it's own right.
Guess where it is? Correct, it's in the ground already.
Using your logic, shouldn't we extract it forthwith before it causes any more harm?

[hidetheelephants]

HD Adam said:

pcvdriver said:

It all depends om the levels of/amounts/toxicity of the pollutants involved doesn't it? Let's not pretend it's all nicey, nicey, wouldn't harm a cuddly seal pup type of stuff now.

You know, the oil & gas that would be extracted is pretty poisonous and polluting in it's own right.
Guess where it is? Correct, it's in the ground already.
Using your logic, shouldn't we extract it forthwith before it causes any more harm?

Oh noes! You shouldn't do that! We need to wrap an impermeable membrane around the earth to stop all the radon leaking out and mutating everyone.

[turbobloke]

hidetheelephants said:

HD Adam said:

pcvdriver said:

It all depends om the levels of/amounts/toxicity of the pollutants involved doesn't it? Let's not pretend it's all nicey, nicey, wouldn't harm a cuddly seal pup type of stuff now.

You know, the oil & gas that would be extracted is pretty poisonous and polluting in it's own right.
Guess where it is? Correct, it's in the ground already.
Using your logic, shouldn't we extract it forthwith before it causes any more harm?

Oh noes! You shouldn't do that! We need to wrap an impermeable membrane around the earth to stop all the radon leaking out and mutating everyone.

Yet this chap might agree:

* David Smythe accused of being less than totally honest over his credentials as shale gas expert
* Retired geologist has been prominent in highlighting dangers of fracking
* Professor at his old university accuses him of 'pseudo-scientific scaremongering'
* Geological Society demands he stops claiming to be chartered geologist
* Mr Smythe insists he has done extensive research into unconventional energy extraction

Article said:

The retired geologist and former punk rock guitarist has been prominent in highlighting the dangers of fracking and last week helped to persuade a county council to reject an application to drill an exploratory shale well.

But a professor at his old university now accuses him of ‘pseudo-scientific scaremongering’.

The Geological Society has also written to Mr Smythe – who has the title ‘Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, University of Glasgow’ – demanding that he stops claiming to be a chartered geologist.

Glasgow University, where he last worked in 1998, has told him he must not suggest that its academics share his views.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713509/Scientist-claims-fracking-dangerous-argues-against-drilling-applications-fraud-lied-credentials.html

[Gogoplata]

I hope you've all signed this!

http://action.sumofus.org/a/national-parks-frackin...