Conquer Club

Dukasaur wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:Besides, American foreign policy has been wrong, since 20021925 in the Middle East

Fixed.

Bernie Sanders wrote:Barking like beaten dog...

Easy there DOG easy... you gonna kill your self, or the BIG BEAR will teach you a lesson

Bernie Sanders wrote:Once Bernie Sanders gets elected, we'll let the Russians and Iranians shed their blood and treasures in the Middle East.

America will be self-sufficient in oil by 2020 and we are drowning in natural gas.

Good bye quagmire! We''ll see how Russia handles it.

riskllama wrote:as a veteran of 10+ years in the oil patch, I have seen the damage firsthand what it does to our environment.

riskllama wrote:do you have any fucking clue how bad frac fluid is for your the water table?

tzor wrote:

riskllama wrote:as a veteran of 10+ years in the oil patch, I have seen the damage firsthand what it does to our environment.

Argument from non scientific observation. You're a real "player" ... pardon the pun.

riskllama wrote:do you have any fucking clue how bad frac fluid is for your the water table?

YES I DO. In fact our not so libertarian government agency the EPA studied it in depth and found NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

riskllama wrote:tzor, my friend....
as a veteran of 10+ years in the oil patch, I have seen the damage firsthand what it does to our environment. do you have any fucking clue how bad frac fluid is for your the water table? basically what I'm getting at is that what all the naysayers are saying about it is true, dude. it's simply not worth it, man. fracking 100% does pollute the water we drink, no question. I knew a guy, a derrickhand, who got testicular cancer from that shit because he'd rest the pipe on his crotch waiting for the elevators. I even told him, "dude, rubber up - that shit is soo bad for you...".
just think about how much they pump into the ground during a frac, tzor...1 000's of litres. and guess what, roughly 1/2 to 2/3's flows back(I am being generous here). I'll let you surmise where the rest of it ends up...

waauw wrote:

riskllama wrote:tzor, my friend....
as a veteran of 10+ years in the oil patch, I have seen the damage firsthand what it does to our environment. do you have any fucking clue how bad frac fluid is for your the water table? basically what I'm getting at is that what all the naysayers are saying about it is true, dude. it's simply not worth it, man. fracking 100% does pollute the water we drink, no question. I knew a guy, a derrickhand, who got testicular cancer from that shit because he'd rest the pipe on his crotch waiting for the elevators. I even told him, "dude, rubber up - that shit is soo bad for you...".
just think about how much they pump into the ground during a frac, tzor...1 000's of litres. and guess what, roughly 1/2 to 2/3's flows back(I am being generous here). I'll let you surmise where the rest of it ends up...

I think this is the first time I've actually seen you putting on a serious tone on a serious topic.

The report found that fracking for shale oil and gas has not led to "widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States," but said fracking could contaminate drinking water under certain conditions, such as when fluids used in the process leaked into the water table, and found isolated cases of water contamination.

2dimes wrote:This is not as simple as making a burrito. The epa is run by highly educated scientists. If they say oil and frac fluids in the water have not been found to cause harm..

Drink up!

nietzsche wrote:lol, americans trust EPA. you surely trust the FDA too.

they are not at all compromised.

The report found that fracking for shale oil and gas has not led to "widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States," but said fracking could contaminate drinking water under certain conditions, such as when fluids used in the process leaked into the water table, and found isolated cases of water contamination.

some times people lack the capacity of independent thought.

this report doesn't mean fracking is safe.

it means that the EPA wrote a report, on a study, based on certain data.

EPA could be directly influenced, by big oil, or by the US trying to keep up with energy production for a number of things, like political control by low oil prices, or whatever. to blindly trust EPA in a matter that means more money that you can ever imagine it's possible to move, is just idiotic.

EPA could be indirectly influenced, by certain data that is not made available for the study, or simply modified. it's not like DATA is an unfalsifiable thing. The criteria, methods of analisys could be also worked out so that certain things appear to mean something, to carefully arrive at certain desired conclusions.

The report could be written in such a way that it leads to stupid people(or not caring enough) to believe it means one thing when that's not the only meaning you can infer from it.

The news about the report only come out as one or two paragraphs people from EPA state in their news conference, and reporters and anchors are in a rush to upload the note and come back home or are simply not prepared to make an analysis.


Just think about a situation in your life, that you know very well, and someone came and asked you to do a study and make a report on it. Except you don't want to let people know certain shameful aspects of your life, like the fact that you have a sex doll. So you lead the "study" in such a way that the sex doll doesn't appear in the report. Can you do it? Of course you can, I do it every day, and nobody has ever found my sex doll.

This doesn't mean EPA is lying. Even if EPA is being 100% truthful and nobody is trying to influence the report by hiding or modifying data, this report does not conclude that fracking will be safe for the US population for ever. The conclusion has a scope, and the words chosen are carefully chosen and such scope is bit by bit made smaller and smaller with each adjective.




I had like 10 points of those in mind when I started to type this post, i really don't care much about the topic, it just gets under my skin people posting "studies", on "journals" by ALL MIGHTY researcher as if it meant "it's the ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND NOW SHUT UP".

2dimes wrote:The epa is run by highly educated scientists.

The report found that fracking for shale oil and gas has not led to "widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States," but said fracking could contaminate drinking water under certain conditions, such as when fluids used in the process leaked into the water table, and found isolated cases of water contamination.

Kevi wrote:

The report found that fracking for shale oil and gas has not led to "widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States," but said fracking could contaminate drinking water under certain conditions, such as when fluids used in the process leaked into the water table, and found isolated cases of water contamination.

How can anybody read this and think that it is safe?

Systemic means that it is totally throughout the system - and although not widespread they HAVE FOUND isolated cases. How much of isolated do you need to to drink? Note that the word cases is a plural - and many did they find?