Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-27-2013, 09:23 PM #22
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pope View Post
No it isn't. If you don't know what you are supposed to be finding, you can't "look" for it, ignore samples where it isn't present, or exaggerate it's presence. This happens more frequently than it should in scientific papers.
If we are assuming that the researchers are not above deceit, how does broad searching fix anything? They could simply fake that, could they not... At some point, you have to put trust that the researchers are providing reliable data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pope View Post
Doing content analysis of water isn't particularly difficult. Mass spectral analysis is done frequently in cases where a comparison is needed and there is no particular known difference to look for. They could reasonably complete the research without knowing anything about the fracking procedure.
Considering the amount of water that would need to be analysed for a comprehensive study, it would seem that this is a unreasonable solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rT159 View Post
CO2 emissions are hazardous to my heath and the pollution they bring could bring about catastrophe due to global warming implications. Lets all stop driving until this problem is fixed. That wouldn't happen, because you need your vehicle. Since it would be an inconvenience, you would let that one pass.
The possibility of poison in our water =/= our understanding of the dangers of co2 emissions.

poor analogy is poor. I have already provided what I believe to be a much better example considering the history and legal battle between profit and health: asbestos.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 10:11 PM #23
rT159
BlackOps
 
rT159's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Shadows of Darkness
 has been a member for 10 years
What if the dangers of co2 emissions turn the world into the day after tomorrow? Does it become important then? Who are you to define what is important now?
rT159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 08:47 PM #24
ripdisc
 
 
ripdisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colorado
ripdisc supports Cereal Killerz 2
ripdisc helped look for balloons
ripdisc is playing at Living Legends VII
ripdisc owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
love the response. I grew up in wyoming and miss it.
it's a very clear atmosphere there that they dont want any holier than thou people coming and preaching to them. it's a very sparsely populated state and everyone there enjoys it that way, so the "if you don't like it leave, we won't be changing to accomodate you" attitude is no suprise.

i think its sad there are people who feel everyone needs to cator to every whim of every worry of every idiot. they are having legal battles in colordo right now over a 6 year old boy who wants to be a girl and use the girls bathroom. amazing things to spend tax dollars on.

on topic there are places in wyoming with dangerous gas just around low spots in the landscape where it settles.
__________________
lamorte: "Hilltawk: puttin winders 7 in ma puter. addin lossa faster movin to it too and another movie drawr thangy. wanna git anothur pooter wif evin more faster movin stuff to it then this 1."

The Ripdisc Collection
ripdisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 10:38 PM #25
Umami
"That guy"
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Inside the Beltway
Umami supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by rT159 View Post
What if the dangers of co2 emissions turn the world into the day after tomorrow? Does it become important then? Who are you to define what is important now?
It is the job of scientists to describe the risk to the public, and the public's job to decide and take action on that risk.

Unfortunately, due to currents of anti-intellectualism as a result of monied interests disparaging science and encouraging "my common sense knows better than the experts" thinking, the public no longer seems to acknowledge the risks presented to them.

Which, for the record, have never been "the day after tomorrow" scenarios. But they are extremely costly.
__________________
Everything great in the world is done by neurotics; they alone founded our religions and created our masterpieces.

SOG
I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 08:03 AM #26
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
It is the job of scientists to describe the risk to the public, and the public's job to decide and take action on that risk.

Unfortunately, due to currents of anti-intellectualism as a result of monied interests disparaging science and encouraging "my common sense knows better than the experts" thinking, the public no longer seems to acknowledge the risks presented to them.

Which, for the record, have never been "the day after tomorrow" scenarios. But they are extremely costly.
It is? I thought the job of a scientist was to see if **** worked the way we thought it does, and if it doesn't figure THAT out until we figure out THAT is wrong too. I don't remember "explain **** to people" being anywhere in the job descriptions for scientist being passed around when I was a kid... that was for teachers, or better yet up it was left to the individual to RTFM.
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 09:40 AM #27
scienceguy
 
 
scienceguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pope View Post
No it isn't. If you don't know what you are supposed to be finding, you can't "look" for it, ignore samples where it isn't present, or exaggerate it's presence. This happens more frequently than it should in scientific papers.

Doing content analysis of water isn't particularly difficult. Mass spectral analysis is done frequently in cases where a comparison is needed and there is no particular known difference to look for. They could reasonably complete the research without knowing anything about the fracking procedure.
Yes scientists sometimes exaggerate for funding.

Edit: however I would trust an independent chem lab more than the company with a vested interest in obtaining a negative result.

Yes and no about finding unknowns. It's much easier to detect a compound in mass spectral analysis if you know what you're looking for. The generic methods you use may not always work for an unknown. If you don't see something, how do you know it's not there? The limit of quantitation is also much lower, and definable if you know the compound and can run standards. Why do you think athletes get away with doping for so many years? They get screened, but the analysts don't know what to look for because they are taking designer drugs with slightly different molecular weight. 5 years later they find it when they get caught in the act, and rescreen frozen samples.

I type this while waiting for sample results from an orbitrap MS.

Last edited by scienceguy : 03-01-2013 at 10:32 AM.
scienceguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 01:43 PM #28
Lazarusrat
 
 
Lazarusrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Lazarusrat owns a Planet Eclipse Lv1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
It is the job of scientists to describe the risk to the public, and the public's job to decide and take action on that risk.

Unfortunately, due to currents of anti-intellectualism as a result of monied interests disparaging science and encouraging "my common sense knows better than the experts" thinking, the public no longer seems to acknowledge the risks presented to them.

Which, for the record, have never been "the day after tomorrow" scenarios. But they are extremely costly.
May-be if the scientific community would stick to reporting unbaised, verifiable data, there wouldn't be such a backlash of "anti-intellectualism".

I mean look at the first article STA posted, They found higher methane lavels but didn't find any fracking fluid or deep formation salts to indicate contamination by fracking. Based on thier findings their recommendations? No. 1: Greater stewardship? WTF does that have to do with anything, "We couldn't find anything you guys where doing wrong but you fracking guys need to take better care of things." Is there any wonder why there would be a backlash when your first recommndation is for people to do better even though you don't know, and can not prove, that they are doing anything wrong in the first place? No. 2 More data is required. Well yeah I think we all agree on that one. No 3. More Government regulation- possibly- on an already regulated process. Hey we aren't sure you are doing anything wrong, we couldn't find anything to prove you are doing anything wrong, but we think that you should have more regulation to enforce rules to correct problems we are not even sure exist or are being caused by your activities. So these scientists who just admitted they couldn't find a link between fracking and higher methane levels in the water are seriousy suggesting the government should create and enforce expensive and restrictive rules that are based on nothing more than pure speculation. And then you wonder why there is a backlash.
__________________
"If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you'll be prepared for all hazards," CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters over the phone on Thursday.
Lazarusrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 02:54 PM #29
scienceguy
 
 
scienceguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
Sooo... Just to get this straight. What benefits do I get for letting the dump potentially toxic chemicals, (that they won't be honest about) into the ground?

To me, This has future superfund site written all over it, so that means we'll all have pay to clean it up while the execs that made the decision are watching their grandkids surf in Costa Rica.

I'm not sure slightly cheaper natural gas is worth letting them do whatever they want. I for one would like a little more risk assessment first. At least make them be honest about what they're injecting. I'll doubt it's distilled water.
scienceguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 02:55 PM #30
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Due to all the misunderstandings of the admittedly maybe too complicated article, please read this article on the study:

http://www.propublica.org/article/sc...er-to-fracking
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 03:32 PM #31
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
I Wang to say the peer reviewed paper was talked about in the documentary Fracknation.
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 03:45 PM #32
StellarKnight
Mind Erasure
 
StellarKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Lost...In a Lost World
StellarKnight is a Supporting Member
StellarKnight is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
StellarKnight has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Due to all the misunderstandings of the admittedly maybe too complicated article, please read this article on the study:

http://www.propublica.org/article/sc...er-to-fracking
Quote:
The researchers did not find evidence that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing had contaminated any of the wells they tested, allaying for the time being some of the greatest fears among environmentalists and drilling opponents.

But they were alarmed by what they described as a clear correlation between drilling activity and the seepage of gas contaminants underground, a danger in itself and evidence that pathways do exist for contaminants to migrate deep within the earth.
And again, I'll ask:

Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
Did the study look at fracked horizontal wells in previously unproduced fields, or were they looking in areas that have had a long history of steady production?

If there is no data indicating the levels of deep/coalbed methane in our aquifers prior to the mass influx of fracked horizontal wells, how can you claim that the present levels are the product of hydraulic fracturing? You can't even make a correlation argument without such information.

Fracking is just a single part of entire well-completion process
This study is not a smoking gun against the use of hydraulic fracturing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
I Wang to say the peer reviewed paper was talked about in the documentary Fracknation.
__________________
Evil presupposes a moral decision, intention, and some forethought. A moron doesn't stop to think or reason. He acts on instinct, like a stable animal, convinced he's doing good, that he's always right, and sanctimoniously proud to go around ****ing up . . .What the world needs is more thoroughly evil people and fewer idiot ****heads.
StellarKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 06:00 PM #33
Lazarusrat
 
 
Lazarusrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Lazarusrat owns a Planet Eclipse Lv1
Ok lets look at that article that STA posted about the Duke article he also posted.

Quote:
They noted that leaky well casings were the most likely cause of the contamination but couldn’t rule out long-range underground migration, which they said “might be possible due to both the extensive fracture systems reported for these formations and the many older, uncased wells drilled and abandoned.”
Just two paragraphs later

Quote:
In an interview, Jackson said that gas was more likely to migrate underground than liquid chemicals. Based on his findings, he doesn’t believe the toxic chemicals pumped into the ground during fracturing are likely to end up in water supplies the same way the methane did. “I’m not ready to use the word impossible,” he said, “but unlikely.”

In a white paper the group issued along with the journal article, Jackson and the others acknowledged the uncertainty and called for more research. “Contamination is often stated to be impossible due to the distance between the well and the drinking water,” they wrote. “Although this seems reasonable in most (and possibly all) cases, field and modeling studies should be undertaken to confirm this assumption. ... Understanding any cases where this assumption is incorrect will be important—when, where, and why they occur—to limit problems with hydraulic fracturing operations.”
So leaky well cases is the most likely source BUT contamination in most (and possibly all cases) is reasonably impossible because ofthe distances involved between the drilling wells and the drinking wells...

Finally migration of the fracking fluids to the surface or aquifers is "unlikely".
__________________
"If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you'll be prepared for all hazards," CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters over the phone on Thursday.
Lazarusrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 06:07 PM #34
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
And again, I'll ask:

This study is not a smoking gun against the use of hydraulic fracturing.
And again, I'll tell you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I agree. This is, however, one of many many studies that pieced together make a pretty compelling case against:

"As to your comments on fracking, I would point out that you’re basing your statement on “dangers” that have not been scientifically founded or proved as of yet."
Do you all really just enjoy misrepresenting what I am saying? Or am I really being unclear? This is a genuine question.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 09:16 PM #35
slateman
 
 
slateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
slateman is a Supporting Member
slateman is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Sounds like my kind of rep. Between this, the gun laws, and Jackson Hole skiing, I may have to look for a job in Wyoming.
__________________
In your haste to save the world, take care you don't destroy it.
slateman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 09:57 AM #36
Lazarusrat
 
 
Lazarusrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Lazarusrat owns a Planet Eclipse Lv1
Quote:
Originally Posted by slateman View Post
Sounds like my kind of rep. Between this, the gun laws, and Jackson Hole skiing, I may have to look for a job in Wyoming.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-10...71.html?page=2

Quote:
1. Wyoming

> Price/gallon: $3.27
> Population: 576,000 (the lowest)
> Gas taxes: 32.4 cents (2nd lowest)
> Cost to fill F-150: $85.07
> Operating refineries: 6 (tied for 4th highest)

Wyoming’s oil deposits and multiple oil refineries have consistently helped lower gas prices in the state enough that they have been the cheapest in the country for some time now. Although prices currently remain the lowest in the U.S., Wyoming previously held that distinction more firmly than it does now. Last month, gas prices were just $2.84 a gallon — 12 cents less than the next-lowest state. Total gas taxes in the state are just 32.4 cents a gallon, lower than any other state except Alaska.
__________________
"If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you'll be prepared for all hazards," CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters over the phone on Thursday.
Lazarusrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 12:31 PM #37
Volucris
asmuchtextastheywillallow
 
Volucris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashville
Wyoming also has most of Yellowstone and Thermopolis. Pretty awesome places. Not to mention excellent proportions of wild animals for hunting or watching. Sounds perty 'merica to me.
Volucris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 09:07 PM #38
slateman
 
 
slateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
slateman is a Supporting Member
slateman is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarusrat View Post
Cheaper gas than here too? Nice I think I'll start looking for something. When my state goes full retard blue, or I retire, I'll look to move.
__________________
In your haste to save the world, take care you don't destroy it.
slateman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump