Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Daily life
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 28.01.2015, 18:25
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zürich
Posts: 7,521
Groaned at 164 Times in 139 Posts
Thanked 8,544 Times in 4,681 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen (aka worldwide nuclear disasters - don't ask)

Quote:
View Post
So because only a tiny portion of water wells are poisoned for years this is acceptable?

Why the heck even start in the first place? We don't need this Oil, we can do extremely well without this. In fact the best side effect of the current low Oil price is that it kills fracking companies one by one
You do not think it would be more productive to stop the things that are major water well pollutants?

Don't you think writing "poisoned for years"is somewhat "overexcited"?
Mostly the pollution is Methane gas which alone is not toxic and does not cause health problems in drinking water. Also it is relatively easy to remove.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #122  
Old 28.01.2015, 18:31
429's Avatar
429 429 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: near Frauenfeld
Posts: 111
Groaned at 10 Times in 6 Posts
Thanked 69 Times in 38 Posts
429 has no particular reputation at present
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen (aka worldwide nuclear disasters - don't ask)

Some may be from Methane, which would be almost a non-issue if it would not blow up houses. The other is from the toxic mixture which can contain any number of the 650 carcinogenic substances currently used in fracking. And no, that kind of poisoning does not go away fast.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...zero-shale-gas
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank 429 for this useful post:
  #123  
Old 28.01.2015, 18:43
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zürich
Posts: 7,521
Groaned at 164 Times in 139 Posts
Thanked 8,544 Times in 4,681 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen (aka worldwide nuclear disasters - don't ask)

Quote:
View Post
Some may be from Methane, which would be almost a non-issue if it would not blow up houses. The other is from the toxic mixture which can contain any number of the 650 carcinogenic substances currently used in fracking. And no, that kind of poisoning does not go away fast.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...zero-shale-gas

The report quoted by the Guardian article says "Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens" I do not know how the number changed from 29 to 650?

Amusing the report quotes "The BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – are SDWA contaminants and hazardous air pollutants. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen." When Benzene is exactly the substance used to replace lead in "unleaded" petrol and nobody seems to care about that
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 28.01.2015, 18:44
Ace1's Avatar
A singular modality
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Engelberg & near Basel
Posts: 5,859
Groaned at 169 Times in 121 Posts
Thanked 8,902 Times in 3,984 Posts
Ace1 has a reputation beyond reputeAce1 has a reputation beyond reputeAce1 has a reputation beyond reputeAce1 has a reputation beyond reputeAce1 has a reputation beyond reputeAce1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen (aka worldwide nuclear disasters - don't ask)

Quote:
View Post
So because only a tiny portion of water wells are poisoned for years this is acceptable?
Is there anything in your quoted article, apart from the headline, to indicate that even this very small proportion of contamination is linked with fracking? Cos the way I read it, it's just talking about oil and gas drilling in general, most of which is still done by more conventional methods.

In other words, the previous statement, from two years ago, that you're arguing with still appears to be true, in that nothing here indicates a link with water contamination and fracking per se.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Ace1 for this useful post:
  #125  
Old 28.01.2015, 22:27
429's Avatar
429 429 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: near Frauenfeld
Posts: 111
Groaned at 10 Times in 6 Posts
Thanked 69 Times in 38 Posts
429 has no particular reputation at present
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen (aka worldwide nuclear disasters - don't ask)

Quote:
View Post
The report quoted by the Guardian article says "Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens" I do not know how the number changed from 29 to 650?

Amusing the report quotes "The BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – are SDWA contaminants and hazardous air pollutants. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen." When Benzene is exactly the substance used to replace lead in "unleaded" petrol and nobody seems to care about that
Well one carcinogen in a water well would suffice, don't you think?

As for the Benzene: I guess no one is drinking that one and my guess is that burnt its no longer a carcinogene?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank 429 for this useful post:
  #126  
Old 28.01.2015, 22:43
429's Avatar
429 429 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: near Frauenfeld
Posts: 111
Groaned at 10 Times in 6 Posts
Thanked 69 Times in 38 Posts
429 has no particular reputation at present
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen (aka worldwide nuclear disasters - don't ask)

Quote:
View Post
Is there anything in your quoted article, apart from the headline, to indicate that even this very small proportion of contamination is linked with fracking? Cos the way I read it, it's just talking about oil and gas drilling in general, most of which is still done by more conventional methods.

In other words, the previous statement, from two years ago, that you're arguing with still appears to be true, in that nothing here indicates a link with water contamination and fracking per se.
Did you read both articles? How could you not capture in the "Pennsylvania: the 'ground zero' of the US shale gas drilling boom" the second paragraph? Which clearly states well pollution and fracking? Have you read about the town with gas meters because of Houses blowing up?

And while we're talking about amusing stuff: have you read the article about the shale gas industry gagging a 9 and 10 year old for life?

Now before we even go further: What exactly is your two guys motivation to riddle the risks? Why are you so desperately trying to downplay this? What is in it for you?

Any yet another question that no one so far has been able to answer me: Why would we take the risk of poisoning the whole underground just for some bucks when there really is no need for it besides some greedy people filling their pockets? Everyone that says that whats pumped down will never come up is clearly fooling people. We all know that Geology (at least my friend with a PHD on the topic) is very much guesswork and always a snapshot, everything can change. So how can one be so incredible stupid to think what is pumped down will stay down?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank 429 for this useful post:
This user groans at 429 for this post:
  #127  
Old 28.01.2015, 23:06
baboon's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rheintal
Posts: 2,468
Groaned at 73 Times in 64 Posts
Thanked 2,939 Times in 1,467 Posts
baboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen (aka worldwide nuclear disasters - don't ask)

Quote:
View Post
Is there anything in your quoted article, apart from the headline, to indicate that even this very small proportion of contamination is linked with fracking? Cos the way I read it, it's just talking about oil and gas drilling in general, most of which is still done by more conventional methods.

In other words, the previous statement, from two years ago, that you're arguing with still appears to be true, in that nothing here indicates a link with water contamination and fracking per se.
Doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article but these days practically the only new gas source in Pennsylvania comes from fracking. So yes, probably 100% of those reports are fracking related
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 28.01.2015, 23:10
baboon's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rheintal
Posts: 2,468
Groaned at 73 Times in 64 Posts
Thanked 2,939 Times in 1,467 Posts
baboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond reputebaboon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen (aka worldwide nuclear disasters - don't ask)

Quote:
View Post
What exactly is your two guys motivation to riddle the risks? Why are you so desperately trying to downplay this? What is in it for you?
Well marton does it out of some sort of principal or quite possibly religious belief. Ace1 is usually more reasonable though.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank baboon for this useful post:
  #129  
Old 28.01.2015, 23:41
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zürich
Posts: 7,521
Groaned at 164 Times in 139 Posts
Thanked 8,544 Times in 4,681 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen (aka worldwide nuclear disasters - don't ask)

Quote:
View Post
Well one carcinogen in a water well would suffice, don't you think?

As for the Benzene: I guess no one is drinking that one and my guess is that burnt its no longer a carcinogene?
Well so far you did not post any evidence that the tiny number of water wells where pollution was verified was caused by fracking nor did you show this pollution contains any carcinogen and nor did you provide any detail that the level of pollution was at an unsafe level.
Also you did not post any evidence that polluted wells continue to be used?

As for benzene; so long as you wear your Hazmat suit at the filling station you will have no worries.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #130  
Old 28.01.2015, 23:54
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zürich
Posts: 7,521
Groaned at 164 Times in 139 Posts
Thanked 8,544 Times in 4,681 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen (aka worldwide nuclear disasters - don't ask)

Quote:
View Post
Did you read both articles? How could you not capture in the "Pennsylvania: the 'ground zero' of the US shale gas drilling boom" the second paragraph? Which clearly states well pollution and fracking? Have you read about the town with gas meters because of Houses blowing up?

And while we're talking about amusing stuff: have you read the article about the shale gas industry gagging a 9 and 10 year old for life?

Now before we even go further: What exactly is your two guys motivation to riddle the risks? Why are you so desperately trying to downplay this? What is in it for you?

Any yet another question that no one so far has been able to answer me: Why would we take the risk of poisoning the whole underground just for some bucks when there really is no need for it besides some greedy people filling their pockets? Everyone that says that whats pumped down will never come up is clearly fooling people. We all know that Geology (at least my friend with a PHD on the topic) is very much guesswork and always a snapshot, everything can change. So how can one be so incredible stupid to think what is pumped down will stay down?
about "Have you read about the town with gas meters because of Houses blowing up?"
Did you read "Sitting atop a vast deposit of natural gas, Pennsylvania ....."
Methane has been a problem in Pennsylvanian water wells since they started drilling for water many years ago.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
Reply

Tags
earthquake, fracking




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ICN trains-route St Gallen/Geneva/St Gallen not running btw Morges & Gland 03.07 MusicChick Transportation/driving 2 03.07.2012 09:41
Ask for rental information near University of St. Gallen ninikitty Housing in general 2 24.07.2009 08:49
St. Patrick's Day in St. Gallen?? SwissP Entertainment & dining 3 15.03.2008 20:37
How to get this darned tuner working... (aka i don't understand swiss tv) xaphod TV/internet/telephone 6 16.12.2007 20:27
"I don't believe it" aka the Victor Meldrew thread [bitterness and resentment] Lob General off-topic 11 14.09.2006 20:14


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:57.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0