What is fracking and why is it controversial?

[headband 707]

Bentom187 sent me this and I thought it was interesting

Bentom187 sent me this and I thought it was interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghhgUmGBjX8

 

[HempKat]

Okay Hempkat you really can't be serious about what your saying lol.. Bra there is not one thing in the nuclear industry that is good NOT ONE THING!!!!! If getting the power you are talking about will bring the total destruction of the earth what the fuck is good about that? They can't store the waste anywhere, what is safe about that? Fukushima is a wake up call to all who believe this shit will work when it will NOT!!!! The only ppl keeping the nuclear industry alive right now are the ones saying we need this for cancer when nothing could be further from the TRUTH. You sir have been really played if for even one second you think this is the way we need to go. lol. Trust me when I tell you that this is in the hands of some of the most criminal minds of our time. If you can just tell me one thing you believe this is good for besides the power you get to run your gadgets I would like to hear it. Otherwise in this particular argument you lose.. stay frosty headband 707

You just keep missing my point because you've got this whole "ooooo nuclear is bad" thing going on. I'm not saying nuclear is the way to go. I'm saying that's the direction energy will go. Not because it's safer, not because it's cleaner but because it's already in place and ultimately because of that it'll be cheaper then the alternatives. Also because as it is now, without further development, society need do nothing for it to be able to meet demand.

Personally I'd love to see all energy come from a combination of solar, wind, hydro and geo-thermal those I do consider to be truly safe. The problem is that as they stand now they're not up to the task of meeting current or future demand. Not without a fundamental shift in how society consumes energy. I don't see that happening though because we can't get people to change even for their own personal safety and so it's very unlikely they'll change for the health of the planet. We've been knowing of promoting the dangers of our current course for more then half a decade and yet if anything we've gotten worse not better. Even though the technology has existed for a long time to take advantage of clean energy we've only just recently begun making serious efforts at trying to take advantage of it and only because due to supply and demand it's gotten expensive enough to make investing in new sources worthwhile. If gas had never gotten above $2 per gallon in the US do you really think people like T. Boone Pickens would have started building wind farms if gas were still cheap and plentiful? Also even though he did rather then everyone else getting on board with that the public cry in the US was "drill baby, drill" in other words stick with what we are used to even if it means putting areas we've tried to protect environmentally at risk.

While nuclear has seriously dangerous potentials as proven by
Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island those are all dangers that could have been avoided had people planned and designed better. People tried to warn the powers that be about the dangers a Tsunami might pose to Fukushima but it was dismissed as unrealistic and yet a short time later it became reality. I'm sure that ultimately it was greed that allowed that risk to be ignored. The only real danger to disposal of nuclear waste is that we don't really trust the people able to build the proper facilities to do it right. There are options we could explore but don't mostly because we don't want to spend the money.

Nuclear energy in an of itself is not a bad option for the environment, it only becomes bad when people try to cut corners or ignore risks. Same is true of extracting oil, coal or natural gases and yet we still do it because it's relatively cheap to do. So when you look at it that way nuclear is a better option and that's what I meant when I said that. Not because it's totally safe and environment friendly but because it's generally better and safer for the environment then extracting and burning fossil fuels.

 

[headband 707]

LOL well I can't make you see my point if you keep saying things like it's clean and it's safe lol .. You are going to have to break that info down about clean and safe lol.. I will say again just incase ..There is not one thing,, good , clean or safe about the nuclear industry and the more you find out about how really bad this is the more you will see that humans are fucking fools no two ways about it and the more we listen to these criminals the worse our world will be. How it all got this far is so beyond me I have no words... If history has taught us anything it is that we need to rethink our consumption ..headband 707

You just keep missing my point because you've got this whole "ooooo nuclear is bad" thing going on. I'm not saying nuclear is the way to go. I'm saying that's the direction energy will go. Not because it's safer, not because it's cleaner but because it's already in place and ultimately because of that it'll be cheaper then the alternatives. Also because as it is now, without further development, society need do nothing for it to be able to meet demand.

Personally I'd love to see all energy come from a combination of solar, wind, hydro and geo-thermal those I do consider to be truly safe. The problem is that as they stand now they're not up to the task of meeting current or future demand. Not without a fundamental shift in how society consumes energy. I don't see that happening though because we can't get people to change even for their own personal safety and so it's very unlikely they'll change for the health of the planet. We've been knowing of promoting the dangers of our current course for more then half a decade and yet if anything we've gotten worse not better. Even though the technology has existed for a long time to take advantage of clean energy we've only just recently begun making serious efforts at trying to take advantage of it and only because due to supply and demand it's gotten expensive enough to make investing in new sources worthwhile. If gas had never gotten above $2 per gallon in the US do you really think people like T. Boone Pickens would have started building wind farms if gas were still cheap and plentiful? Also even though he did rather then everyone else getting on board with that the public cry in the US was "drill baby, drill" in other words stick with what we are used to even if it means putting areas we've tried to protect environmentally at risk.

While nuclear has seriously dangerous potentials as proven by
Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island those are all dangers that could have been avoided had people planned and designed better. People tried to warn the powers that be about the dangers a Tsunami might pose to Fukushima but it was dismissed as unrealistic and yet a short time later it became reality. I'm sure that ultimately it was greed that allowed that risk to be ignored. The only real danger to disposal of nuclear waste is that we don't really trust the people able to build the proper facilities to do it right. There are options we could explore but don't mostly because we don't want to spend the money.

Nuclear energy in an of itself is not a bad option for the environment, it only becomes bad when people try to cut corners or ignore risks. Same is true of extracting oil, coal or natural gases and yet we still do it because it's relatively cheap to do. So when you look at it that way nuclear is a better option and that's what I meant when I said that. Not because it's totally safe and environment friendly but because it's generally better and safer for the environment then extracting and burning fossil fuels.

 

[HempKat]

LOL well I can't make you see my point if you keep saying things like it's clean and it's safe lol .. You are going to have to break that info down about clean and safe lol.. I will say again just incase ..There is not one thing,, good , clean or safe about the nuclear industry and the more you find out about how really bad this is the more you will see that humans are fucking fools no two ways about it and the more we listen to these criminals the worse our world will be. How it all got this far is so beyond me I have no words... If history has taught us anything it is that we need to rethink our consumption ..headband 707

Okay continue to be willfully ignorant of what is being said just so you can keep arguing a point that is not being debated. I didn't say nuclear was safe, I didn't say it was clean, I said it is safe and clean in comparison to our current pursuits of fossil fuel based energy. I also said safety and cleanliness have nothing to do with why nuclear energy will be the energy of choice in the future when fossil fuels run out or the world chooses to stop using them for energy.

Yes we do need to rethink our consumption that is a point I've been trying to make all along but there is no reason to believe that we will. In fact given the direction society has gone in the past 50+ years there is every reason to believe we will continue to increase our consumption with no real thought to the long term consequences.

 

[headband 707]

Willful ignorance is it lol.. okay then...
I don't think this is the subject at hand but it falls under our idiot consumption of this world..
Lets go with your last statement then: " but because it's already in place and ultimately because of that it'll be cheaper then the alternatives. Also because as it is now, without further development, society need do nothing for it to be able to meet demand. " is what I believe you said.. Bra if this is really your reasoning for keeping nuclear energy then let me just say for the record the Sun is actually free it's the corp that would make you pay for it's delivery. I think you need to do a bit of research on this particular subject and then you might understand where I am coming from because I will be honest here I really don't understand your reasoning on this .. Stay frosty headband 707

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnlcedAynkc

Okay continue to be willfully ignorant of what is being said just so you can keep arguing a point that is not being debated. I didn't say nuclear was safe, I didn't say it was clean, I said it is safe and clean in comparison to our current pursuits of fossil fuel based energy. I also said safety and cleanliness have nothing to do with why nuclear energy will be the energy of choice in the future when fossil fuels run out or the world chooses to stop using them for energy.

Yes we do need to rethink our consumption that is a point I've been trying to make all along but there is no reason to believe that we will. In fact given the direction society has gone in the past 50+ years there is every reason to believe we will continue to increase our consumption with no real thought to the long term consequences.

 

[foomar]

Tesla wanted to give AC power free but Edison wouldn't hear of it and it was Edison that started to charge for electricity

the Sun is actually free it's the corp that would make you pay for it's delivery.

Electrical grid energy could never be free , even solar has distribution and maintenance costs and a high initial outlay , add in profits to shareholders , wages and taxes and its far from free.


Anyone remember the Ploughshare projects back in the 60,s , ?

Think one involved using nukes to fracture gas fields , which sounds a bit mad by todays standards.

 

[HempKat]

Willful ignorance is it lol.. okay then...
I don't think this is the subject at hand but it falls under our idiot consumption of this world..
Lets go with your last statement then: " but because it's already in place and ultimately because of that it'll be cheaper then the alternatives. Also because as it is now, without further development, society need do nothing for it to be able to meet demand. " is what I believe you said.. Bra if this is really your reasoning for keeping nuclear energy then let me just say for the record the Sun is actually free it's the corp that would make you pay for it's delivery. I think you need to do a bit of research on this particular subject and then you might understand where I am coming from because I will be honest here I really don't understand your reasoning on this .. Stay frosty headband 707

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnlcedAynkc

Well it's no surprise you don't understand my reasoning because you don't even understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying we need to or should keep nuclear energy. It's not a choice that is going to be given to us. I'm saying the people that control our current sources of energy will dictate what will be available and their choice will be nuclear because they can spin it as clean and safe for the environment and because it will meet demand and because it'll be easier for them to ramp up since it's already in use. Hydrogen fuel cells for example aren't going anywhere because their is no infrastructure to support it and not enough big money willing to change that. The infrastructure for nuclear energy is there, the regulator agencies are there, the ability to easily tie it into the power grid is there, it's already in use. All big money need do is make more.

I understand totally where you are coming from and for the most part agree but you're talking apples to my oranges.

 

[BigSteve]

Hempcat : A + B = C

Headband: HOW YOU GOIN' SAY C IS GOOD MANG???!?

This is how I see the Hempcat-Headband discussion. And I like!

 

[headband 707]

Well it's no surprise you don't understand my reasoning because you don't even understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying we need to or should keep nuclear energy. It's not a choice that is going to be given to us. I'm saying the people that control our current sources of energy will dictate what will be available and their choice will be nuclear because they can spin it as clean and safe for the environment and because it will meet demand and because it'll be easier for them to ramp up since it's already in use. Hydrogen fuel cells for example aren't going anywhere because their is no infrastructure to support it and not enough big money willing to change that. The infrastructure for nuclear energy is there, the regulator agencies are there, the ability to easily tie it into the power grid is there, it's already in use. All big money need do is make more.

I understand totally where you are coming from and for the most part agree but you're talking apples to my oranges.

This is really part of the PROBLEM that we allow this corrupt Multi National Corp get to do this to the earth and it's all about cash and not what is actually happening to the earth. This is really a big part of what is wrong with this whole fucked up system. The bigger question is who exactly is doing all this shit? Who allows this cluster fuck to happen without intervention? Fukushima may indeed be the end of us all and when you look back on that ,was it really worth this? I think not! We are incredibly stupid bunch of people the way we keep this alive.We are also very stupid not trying to fix Japan's HUGE problem which now belongs to the whole world. Stay frosty headband 707

 

[HempKat]

This is really part of the PROBLEM that we allow this corrupt Multi National Corp get to do this to the earth and it's all about cash and not what is actually happening to the earth. This is really a big part of what is wrong with this whole fucked up system. The bigger question is who exactly is doing all this shit? Who allows this cluster fuck to happen without intervention? Fukushima may indeed be the end of us all and when you look back on that ,was it really worth this? I think not! We are incredibly stupid bunch of people the way we keep this alive.We are also very stupid not trying to fix Japan's HUGE problem which now belongs to the whole world. Stay frosty headband 707

Well I don't think you can point at specific people for all of it but you can point to a specific group or class of people, that being the ultra rich, aka the top 2%, aka the powers that be. They're the ones that have the money and influence to buy the media so that the right message gets out to get the public to cooperate and they are the ones with the money and influence to hire the lobbyists and pay off the politicians to get regulations favorable to them. They are also the ones with the money, power and influence to build things on the scale needed to service a whole country. I mean say we decide to go with wind power, who is going to build a wind farm of windmills costing hundreds of thousands each? The average Joe Citizen who is struggling to get by and feels the government should be able to cover it from all the tax money they already take or someone like T. Boone Pickens who has billions of dollars to work with?

With Fukushima there were agencies that warned of the very thing that ended up happening but then the particular people behind Fukushima managed to persuade the necessary people that the likelihood of it happening was too small to stop construction of that reactor. The reality though is if you have something that if it goes wrong can put entire nations or even the entire world at risk of death then there is no possibility that is too small to worry about. If a nuclear reactor could potential poison the world then you need to even plan for things as remote as a meteor strike. The problem though is to do so would make it virtually impossible to profit from it and the bottomline is nobody creating these things is doing so just out of the kindness of their hearts. This is true even of less ominous but still serious problems like the efficiency of motor vehicles. I'm sure the technology exists to mass produce vehicles that can get much better mileage that what vehicles currently get or even better then the minimum level the government is trying to enforce. Yet when the government changed the standards the manufacturers bitched and moaned about how expensive it would be to do it quickly and managed to get the government to postpone the date of when this standard must be met by a number of years. One would like to think that these companies would say, "Well gee I don't want to be seen as the cause of our energy problems, I'll fix things right away with the profits I've already made." Unfortunately they don't see it that way, all that matters to them is how much profit they'll make. If raising the efficiencies of cars meant that everyone with a license would gladly go out and buy new cars regardless of the cost, the companies would have the efficiency standards met in a matter of weeks or months rather then years.

Another example of this is the oil companies even though they make record breaking profits year after year they still get very generous tax breaks that were set up back when they weren't making record breaking profits. The purpose of these breaks was to help offset the costs of doing business safely. BP who owns a majority of the Alaskan pipeline gets millions of dollars in tax credits to offset the cost of running the checks on the pipeline to detect and repair faults. So they should be able to keep that pipeline safe and leak free right? It doesn't even cost them to do so. Well the spill in 2011 was because they didn't do that. They pocketed the tax credits instead. It was the same kind of thinking both on BP's part and Halliburton's part that led to the Deepwater Horizon spill in the gulf.

There seems like there should be an answer, a way that we can stop companies from doing these things. Yet we end up being more concerned about Miley Cyrus and her twerking during the VMA.

 

[headband 707]

Well I think you can definitely can find out who is making big cash off of all the ppl and I would really try to investigate that. If they can fake 9/11 then they can do just about anything. I would say it's the Bilderberg Group and the people pushing "Agenda 21" (Mason's)Follow the money and it always has an end. They are stepping all over law to get what they want so this alone should tell you that something is very wrong here. Or we can just follow them like sheep to the grave lol stay frosty headband 707

Well I don't think you can point at specific people for all of it but you can point to a specific group or class of people, that being the ultra rich, aka the top 2%, aka the powers that be. They're the ones that have the money and influence to buy the media so that the right message gets out to get the public to cooperate and they are the ones with the money and influence to hire the lobbyists and pay off the politicians to get regulations favorable to them. They are also the ones with the money, power and influence to build things on the scale needed to service a whole country. I mean say we decide to go with wind power, who is going to build a wind farm of windmills costing hundreds of thousands each? The average Joe Citizen who is struggling to get by and feels the government should be able to cover it from all the tax money they already take or someone like T. Boone Pickens who has billions of dollars to work with?

With Fukushima there were agencies that warned of the very thing that ended up happening but then the particular people behind Fukushima managed to persuade the necessary people that the likelihood of it happening was too small to stop construction of that reactor. The reality though is if you have something that if it goes wrong can put entire nations or even the entire world at risk of death then there is no possibility that is too small to worry about. If a nuclear reactor could potential poison the world then you need to even plan for things as remote as a meteor strike. The problem though is to do so would make it virtually impossible to profit from it and the bottomline is nobody creating these things is doing so just out of the kindness of their hearts. This is true even of less ominous but still serious problems like the efficiency of motor vehicles. I'm sure the technology exists to mass produce vehicles that can get much better mileage that what vehicles currently get or even better then the minimum level the government is trying to enforce. Yet when the government changed the standards the manufacturers bitched and moaned about how expensive it would be to do it quickly and managed to get the government to postpone the date of when this standard must be met by a number of years. One would like to think that these companies would say, "Well gee I don't want to be seen as the cause of our energy problems, I'll fix things right away with the profits I've already made." Unfortunately they don't see it that way, all that matters to them is how much profit they'll make. If raising the efficiencies of cars meant that everyone with a license would gladly go out and buy new cars regardless of the cost, the companies would have the efficiency standards met in a matter of weeks or months rather then years.

Another example of this is the oil companies even though they make record breaking profits year after year they still get very generous tax breaks that were set up back when they weren't making record breaking profits. The purpose of these breaks was to help offset the costs of doing business safely. BP who owns a majority of the Alaskan pipeline gets millions of dollars in tax credits to offset the cost of running the checks on the pipeline to detect and repair faults. So they should be able to keep that pipeline safe and leak free right? It doesn't even cost them to do so. Well the spill in 2011 was because they didn't do that. They pocketed the tax credits instead. It was the same kind of thinking both on BP's part and Halliburton's part that led to the Deepwater Horizon spill in the gulf.

There seems like there should be an answer, a way that we can stop companies from doing these things. Yet we end up being more concerned about Miley Cyrus and her twerking during the VMA.

 

[Jbomber79]

Japan should be sued for the waste they are still dumping into the Ocean, you think the shit floating up on the Oregon coast isn't toxic? Just think about the salmon I ate yesterday from the cost of Alaska think that shit isn't full of radiation..?
Let's build a nuclear reactor next to the ocean on a fault line... Fuck Carbon Tax what about we just fucked your food source tax?

 

[headband 707]

Yeah I guess we could blame Japan but I would rather blame the ASSHOLES that set it up like this and that would be "GE" ffs... Where are they now when it's all gone south? Fucking idiots!!!! every single one of them.. headband 707

There has been over 1000 "Broken Arrows" that they have reported to date how many have they not reported? "Broken Arrow definition means nuclear accidents..
Oh yeah did you know that Canada and the USA has turned off their radioactive geiger counters !!!!

Japan should be sued for the waste they are still dumping into the Ocean, you think the shit floating up on the Oregon coast isn't toxic? Just think about the salmon I ate yesterday from the cost of Alaska think that shit isn't full of radiation..?
Let's build a nuclear reactor next to the ocean on a fault line... Fuck Carbon Tax what about we just fucked your food source tax?

 

[HempKat]

Well I think you can definitely can find out who is making big cash off of all the ppl and I would really try to investigate that. If they can fake 9/11 then they can do just about anything. I would say it's the Bilderberg Group and the people pushing "Agenda 21" (Mason's)Follow the money and it always has an end. They are stepping all over law to get what they want so this alone should tell you that something is very wrong here. Or we can just follow them like sheep to the grave lol stay frosty headband 707

Oh...you believe they faked 9/11 .....ooookay well that explains a lot.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

holy frak what the frak is fracking going on with all this fracking fracking! Frack man.......