Fracking may increase health risks, scientists warn
Study of water pollution at sites in the US finds hormone-disrupting chemicals in the environment
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/17/fracking-increase-health-risks-hormone
"Fracking may increase health risks from hormone-disrupting chemicals released into the environment, say researchers.
Scientists sounded the warning after studying water pollution at sites in the US where the controversial natural gas drilling technique is used.
The team looked at 12 suspected or known "endocrine disrupting chemicals" (EDCs) used in fracking operations and measured their ability to mimic or block the effects of reproductive hormones.
Water samples from drilling sites with a record of spillages had levels of the chemicals high enough to interfere with the body's responses to male hormones, as well as oestrogen".
Topic: Your view on shale gas exploration ? - page 6. (Read 18654 times)
You guys should also consider there are varieties of bacteria that produce the needed components for fuel ( ethanol etc. ) by themselves or through some scientific trickery, there's also algae out there too and I have always been an advocate of Hydrogen Fuel Cells because they only produce water as a byproduct so everybody is happy that way.
Maybe getting fuel from algae on a massive scale will have less impact than sugar cane/corn? But some may think having to use genetically modified bacteria for a better production output could unleash another type of disaster.
That's the thing there are so many ideas out there that are actually realistic, it's just a matter of applying them in the right way.
100 years from now they will look back at us with our oil/shale gas/mid air bird frying massive solar panels solution and think "Wow I can't believe we were that primitive" while sipping a green goo, enjoying the view on Earth from their space villa bought in bitcoins...
You guys should also consider there are varieties of bacteria that produce the needed components for fuel ( ethanol etc. ) by themselves or through some scientific trickery, there's also algae out there too and I have always been an advocate of Hydrogen Fuel Cells because they only produce water as a byproduct so everybody is happy that way.
Maybe getting fuel from algae on a massive scale will have less impact than sugar cane/corn? But some may think having to use genetically modified bacteria for a better production output could unleash another type of disaster.
That's the thing there are so many ideas out there that are actually realistic, it's just a matter of applying them in the right way.
You guys should also consider there are varieties of bacteria that produce the needed components for fuel ( ethanol etc. ) by themselves or through some scientific trickery, there's also algae out there too and I have always been an advocate of Hydrogen Fuel Cells because they only produce water as a byproduct so everybody is happy that way.
Maybe getting fuel from algae on a massive scale will have less impact than sugar cane/corn? But some may think having to use genetically modified bacteria for a better production output could unleash another type of disaster.
If you want to spout simplistic bullshit about conspiracies, I suggest you try wikipedia instead.
I was one of the most active editors in Wikipedia until 2011. I know very well how the propagandist organizations are using it right now.. I will not use it even for basic information.
.....I also find it amusing you can talk about 'our leaders being under the control of petroleum lobby'.
Industry and political figures form a give and take relationship. It's a complex, symbiotic relationship where much of it is a balancing act of influence, finances, and political advancement coupled with economic domination assisted by such acts which ultimately work to secure national interests. It's not so simple as squealing 'they are all under the REAL control of ***** lobby!!!!11!!!!!1!!'.
If you want to spout simplistic bullshit about conspiracies, I suggest you try wikipedia instead.
Industry and political figures form a give and take relationship. It's a complex, symbiotic relationship where much of it is a balancing act of influence, finances, and political advancement coupled with economic domination assisted by such acts which ultimately work to secure national interests. It's not so simple as squealing 'they are all under the REAL control of ***** lobby!!!!11!!!!!1!!'.
If you want to spout simplistic bullshit about conspiracies, I suggest you try wikipedia instead.
Yeah, biodiesel is not cheap or easy to produce in quantity. What's easy to produce is methane from natural gas, that can be delivered to the pump for less than 2USD/gallon. Process is simply passing high temperature steam over the methane to strip some H+, let the carbon pick up OH, then concentrate the methanol that falls out. One or two more steps and you have dimethyl ether, which runs in diesel engines.
Interesting problem is people with a preference for 'bio' this and 'green that' don't like alcohol produced from natural gas...but it's half the price.
It is a more or less tacitly understood fact that OPEC nations are lying out of their asses about how much oil they have left. .....only sticking point here is that we should make sure other nations use up their resources while we keep ours close at hand. It was a good move to get the first hand into the game, but we must make sure we come out on top.....
....what it means for us to come out on top. We need a positive balance of payments based on energy exports, since the fracking revolution is what will pull us out of the current depression. And it's the only thing that will. Yes that means we would not have to do the bidding of Saudi kings, but they do have some problems over there that merit some kinds of support.
It is a more or less tacitly understood fact that OPEC nations are lying out of their asses about how much oil they have left.
Why blame the OPEC when your own leaders are under the control of the petroleum lobby.
How many people know that bio-diesel is much cheaper (at current) rates when compared to crude oil?
Still, most of the nations levy unrealistic taxes on bio-diesel and discourages the production.
I don't recall 'blaming' anyone, but I suppose your filter gave you that idea. Fuck OPEC, sure. I also find it amusing you can talk about 'our leaders being under the control of petroleum lobby'.
Industry and political figures form a give and take relationship. It's a complex, symbiotic relationship where much of it is a balancing act of influence, finances, and political advancement coupled with economic domination assisted by such acts which ultimately work to secure national interests. It's not so simple as squealing 'they are all under the REAL control of ***** lobby!!!!11!!!!!1!!'.
If you want to spout simplistic bullshit about conspiracies, I suggest you try wikipedia instead.
It is a more or less tacitly understood fact that OPEC nations are lying out of their asses about how much oil they have left.
Why blame the OPEC when your own leaders are under the control of the petroleum lobby.
How many people know that bio-diesel is much cheaper (at current) rates when compared to crude oil?
Still, most of the nations levy unrealistic taxes on bio-diesel and discourages the production.
It is a more or less tacitly understood fact that OPEC nations are lying out of their asses about how much oil they have left.
It is also more of less understood that the most economically viable and outright physical presence of shale oil deposit in the world, about 70% of them, are situated in US, which is enough to power US domestically for at least 80 years down the road including increased oil usage over time.
Shale GAS is another issue, but gas isn't as profitable or as easily used as oil. US and its allies control the majority of physical shale gas reserves estimated so far, but china has about 50% surplus above US in terms of what is, presently, technically recoverable in their own respective territories.
The only sticking point here is that we should make sure other nations use up their resources while we keep ours close at hand. It was a good move to get the first hand into the game, but we must make sure we come out on top. I am sure other nations won't complain to being given market prices for their natural resources - they only have themselves to blame if their government is too corrupt to spread that around.
It is also more of less understood that the most economically viable and outright physical presence of shale oil deposit in the world, about 70% of them, are situated in US, which is enough to power US domestically for at least 80 years down the road including increased oil usage over time.
Shale GAS is another issue, but gas isn't as profitable or as easily used as oil. US and its allies control the majority of physical shale gas reserves estimated so far, but china has about 50% surplus above US in terms of what is, presently, technically recoverable in their own respective territories.
The only sticking point here is that we should make sure other nations use up their resources while we keep ours close at hand. It was a good move to get the first hand into the game, but we must make sure we come out on top. I am sure other nations won't complain to being given market prices for their natural resources - they only have themselves to blame if their government is too corrupt to spread that around.
Shale gas isn't financially profitable without government subsidies. Plus it creates great environmental risks.
In other words, you have to pay a premium for it (compared to import rate) and you put your children/yourself at risk.
Seems like a horrible idea that could only flourish in a society funded by corruption.
In other words, you have to pay a premium for it (compared to import rate) and you put your children/yourself at risk.
Seems like a horrible idea that could only flourish in a society funded by corruption.
I would disagree that importing gas is smarter than producing it. Importing gas requires pipelines and/or tankers.
The phrase "gas" means here natural gas. Less easy to move around than crude oil or gasoline products.
You guys should also consider there are varieties of bacteria that produce the needed components for fuel ( ethanol etc. ) by themselves or through some scientific trickery, there's also algae out there too and I have always been an advocate of Hydrogen Fuel Cells because they only produce water as a byproduct so everybody is happy that way.
Ethanol is great for the environment? Have ever heard of a country called Uruguay? It is in Latin America. A country as big as Germany. Only 6 millions souls. Even less trees left. Forests cut down on a major scale to make room for the production of ethanol (green energy). Uruguay is pretty much flat, so perfect for large scale farming.
I am saying this again and again. Producing Ethanol doesn't mean that we have to cut down trees. We have billions of acres of fallow land all over the world. This can be used for growing cane plantations.
And regarding Uruguay. Only 8.6% of Uruguay's area is forest. Why this needs to be cut down, when more than half of the remaining 90%+ is remaining fallow / barren.
Yes you are saying it again and again but reality is not a projection of one's desire:
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/8434/study-exposes-sugarcane-ethanols-environmental-flaw
Brazilian sugarcane ethanol has been promoted for years as the world’s most environmentally friendly biofuel. Policies have been created worldwide which give sugarcane ethanol preference over corn ethanol due its perceived lack of environmental impacts. In the U.S., this has led to a situation whereby domestically produced corn ethanol is being exported to Brazil while at the same time Brazil is exporting its sugarcane-based product to the U.S. to meet low-carbon blending requirements. But now, a study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Merced and recently published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change offers a differing view of the true environmental impacts of Brazilian sugarcane production.
“There is a big strategic decision our country and others are making, in whether to develop a domestic biofuels industry or import relatively inexpensive biofuels from developing countries,” UC Merced professor Elliott Campbell said. “Our study shows that importing biofuels could result in human health and environmental problems in the regions where they are cultivated.”
Corn based ethanol created havoc on the price of food all over the world:
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/07/ethanol-mandate-leads-to-social-unrest/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/13231-ethanol-mandates-plague-developing-countries-with-rising-food-prices
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/201210993632838545.html
http://www.wdtv.com/wdtv.cfm?func=view§ion=5-News&item=Corn-Based-Ethanol-Badly-Hurting-the-Environment12812
How could shale gas be worse than ethanol or the Saudi's oil?
Ethanol is great for the environment? Have ever heard of a country called Uruguay? It is in Latin America. A country as big as Germany. Only 6 millions souls. Even less trees left. Forests cut down on a major scale to make room for the production of ethanol (green energy). Uruguay is pretty much flat, so perfect for large scale farming.
I am saying this again and again. Producing Ethanol doesn't mean that we have to cut down trees. We have billions of acres of fallow land all over the world. This can be used for growing cane plantations.
And regarding Uruguay. Only 8.6% of Uruguay's area is forest. Why this needs to be cut down, when more than half of the remaining 90%+ is remaining fallow / barren.
Even if the fracking method is technically sound and doesn't contaminate surroundings. I'm not so sure about storage of the fluids above the surface.
The truth is we don't have any really good solutions. Everything has risks and costs attached to it. I am for one for nuclear. Renewables are good if they do fair competition that is pay for their load balancing...
I would wait on fracking for decade or two. It's not like the gas is going anywhere...
Most of the drillhead sites in an area like under DFW do not have any fluids on the surface. A couple storage tanks and bottles, a gravel yard, a fence around it. The truth is we don't have any really good solutions. Everything has risks and costs attached to it. I am for one for nuclear. Renewables are good if they do fair competition that is pay for their load balancing...
I would wait on fracking for decade or two. It's not like the gas is going anywhere...
Matt Damon makes anti-fracking propaganda film funded by United Arab Emirates. Trying to keep USA dependent on OPEC? blog.heritage.org/2012/09/28/mat…
While it is true that the OPEC pours billions of $$$ every year to the anti-exploration lobby, the damage it can cause to the environment is difficult to ignore.
Rather than doing anti-environmental practices such as fracking, the focus should be shifted to green energy. I know that there are a lot of arguments against green energy, but most of them are funded by the same people who want the OPEC dominance to continue.
I am still a strong supporter of cane-ethanol.
Matt Damon makes anti-fracking propaganda film funded by United Arab Emirates. Trying to keep USA dependent on OPEC? blog.heritage.org/2012/09/28/mat…
While it is true that the OPEC pours billions of $$$ every year to the anti-exploration lobby, the damage it can cause to the environment is difficult to ignore.
Rather than doing anti-environmental practices such as fracking, the focus should be shifted to green energy. I know that there are a lot of arguments against green energy, but most of them are funded by the same people who want the OPEC dominance to continue.
I am still a strong supporter of cane-ethanol.
That is why humans invented the concept of Politic: the mirror reflection of Faith. No matter the facts.
We can love the planet and try to have as little impact as possible on a personal level every day. I am not sure why buying fuel from across the globe using bigger and bigger tankers that need fuel to push their cargo (exxon valdez?) to you is worse than getting energy from your own hole from your own background. Why can't I recharge my Made in China iPad from it instead of oil from the Saudis?
Ethanol is great for the environment? Have ever heard of a country called Uruguay? It is in Latin America. A country as big as Germany. Only 6 millions souls. Even less trees left. Forests cut down on a major scale to make room for the production of ethanol (green energy). Uruguay is pretty much flat, so perfect for large scale farming.
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=uy&product=ethanol&graph=production
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Spains-Abengoa-Corp.-To-Construct-Bio-Ethanol-Plant-In-Uruguay.html
I could be a strong supporter of ethanol myself. If I had money invested in it. Not because I would be for "saving the planet, being green"
Matt Damon makes anti-fracking propaganda film funded by United Arab Emirates. Trying to keep USA dependent on OPEC? blog.heritage.org/2012/09/28/mat…
While it is true that the OPEC pours billions of $$$ every year to the anti-exploration lobby, the damage it can cause to the environment is difficult to ignore.
Rather than doing anti-environmental practices such as fracking, the focus should be shifted to green energy. I know that there are a lot of arguments against green energy, but most of them are funded by the same people who want the OPEC dominance to continue.
I am still a strong supporter of cane-ethanol.
The videos you've posted are pseudo-science at best, kind of like the propaganda the cigarette industry used to promote back in the day. I've never actually watched all of Gasland so I can't really comment or verify whether it's 100% factual. @Spendulus To say fracking has no environmental impact is ridiculous, extracting any toxic substance from the ground is going to cause environmental damage, especially when you consider the US has very lax regulations due to the powerful coal/gas/oil lobbyists. They couldn't give a fuck as long as they make their profit margin.
I'm very left-wing, but I'm not some long haired, tree-hugging vegan. The way I see it, our climate is fucked, we're on the brink of a climate catastrophe (please don't quote me some oil corporation sponsored Alex Jones bullshit) something need to be done with reduce our carbon emissions. All the US government has to do is release all of Tesla's research and I'm pretty sure some boffin can find the solution. The Sahara desert alone receives enough solar energy to power the entire planet (with todays solar technology) but the rich coal/gas/oil elite will never give up their money or power without a fight.
Fusion energy would be great when it's feasible, but our current nuclear power technology/supplies will only last about another 50 years, then we've got a shitload of toxic waste to worry about. I don't know what the answer is but poisoning our planet even more can't be good for our future.
I am very libertarian/right wing or whatever label people are using now = not a fan of ideologies in love with powerful centralized solutions for the rest of us.
I believe to pollute without consequences is atrocious for the planet. That is why we should never repeat what happen to the Aral Sea and the Soviet central planning socialist abomination:
http://youtu.be/dp_mlKJiwxg
Even if the fracking method is technically sound and doesn't contaminate surroundings. I'm not so sure about storage of the fluids above the surface.
The truth is we don't have any really good solutions. Everything has risks and costs attached to it. I am for one for nuclear. Renewables are good if they do fair competition that is pay for their load balancing...
I would wait on fracking for decade or two. It's not like the gas is going anywhere...
The truth is we don't have any really good solutions. Everything has risks and costs attached to it. I am for one for nuclear. Renewables are good if they do fair competition that is pay for their load balancing...
I would wait on fracking for decade or two. It's not like the gas is going anywhere...
.....
@Spendulus To say fracking has no environmental impact is ridiculous, extracting any toxic substance from the ground is going to cause environmental damage, especially when you consider the US has very lax regulations due to the powerful coal/gas/oil lobbyists. They couldn't give a fuck as long as they make their profit margin......
@Spendulus To say fracking has no environmental impact is ridiculous, extracting any toxic substance from the ground is going to cause environmental damage, especially when you consider the US has very lax regulations due to the powerful coal/gas/oil lobbyists. They couldn't give a fuck as long as they make their profit margin......
Look, don't read any more into my comment than what I said, please. I've been around some very dirty places, but fracking fields are not them. Period. Not sure how to say it more simply than that. The grass is green, the cows are grazing, everything is neat and tidy....
Make sense?
I'm not sure that is left or right wing, I am just reporting what I have seen. Because if you read what some people say, and you haven't seen these places, you get the impression they are going to look like the surface of the Moon or something.
Jump to: