Fracking Babies (To Death)

[boedicca]

I drive a Toyota Prius. It's my second hybrid car.

We decided in 2001 to never buy another regular gas car again. And we haven't.

During the summer I get anywhere from 53 to 55 miles per gallon on that car. In the winter it decreases because of the different gas, I get around 48 to 51 miles to the gallon in the winter.

I've never had to get that car smog checked either which saves time, hassle and money. Many places I go have special parking in the front of the building just for hybrid and what we call E friendly vehicles.

There is no fracking in my state. Thank goodness. It will be interesting too see how infant mortality rates compare from states with frack and states that don't have it. I'm sure that infants and babies are a lot safer in states without tracking.

It's a pretty safe bet that far fewer infants will die from Fracking than at then hands of Taxpyer Funded Planned Parenthood Abortionists.

Ironic that you don't care how many infants will die from fracking but you get your panties in a wad over abortions.

The hypocrisy of the right-to-lifers is rampant.

How many infants die in underdeveloped country because the water is not potable? How many die because their is insufficient transportation to deliver relief food supplies?

It's incredibly creepy to see Plump Anonymous Progressives who live comfortable modern lives advocate to destroy that opportunity for poor people around the world. Because that is EXACTLY what your STATUS QUO PC Groupthink means.

at your flailing!

You are defending the death of innocent American infants by fracking.

In the process you have completely destroyed all of your credibility when it comes to whining about abortions.

But that is your problem. Have a nice day.

There is no proof in that article yet you're taking it as scientific fact. Unbelievable yet believable coming from the do good crowd.

He doesn't care about the validity of science - all he wants are the talking points to support his agenda.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I drive a Toyota Prius. It's my second hybrid car.

We decided in 2001 to never buy another regular gas car again. And we haven't.

During the summer I get anywhere from 53 to 55 miles per gallon on that car. In the winter it decreases because of the different gas, I get around 48 to 51 miles to the gallon in the winter.

I've never had to get that car smog checked either which saves time, hassle and money. Many places I go have special parking in the front of the building just for hybrid and what we call E friendly vehicles.

There is no fracking in my state. Thank goodness. It will be interesting too see how infant mortality rates compare from states with frack and states that don't have it. I'm sure that infants and babies are a lot safer in states without tracking.

It's a pretty safe bet that far fewer infants will die from Fracking than at then hands of Taxpyer Funded Planned Parenthood Abortionists.

Ironic that you don't care how many infants will die from fracking but you get your panties in a wad over abortions.

The hypocrisy of the right-to-lifers is rampant.

How many infants die in underdeveloped country because the water is not potable? How many die because their is insufficient transportation to deliver relief food supplies?

It's incredibly creepy to see Plump Anonymous Progressives who live comfortable modern lives advocate to destroy that opportunity for poor people around the world. Because that is EXACTLY what your STATUS QUO PC Groupthink means.

at your flailing!

You are defending the death of innocent American infants by fracking.

In the process you have completely destroyed all of your credibility when it comes to whining about abortions.

But that is your problem. Have a nice day.

There is no proof in that article yet you're taking it as scientific fact. Unbelievable yet believable coming from the do good crowd.

That there has been an increase in infant mortality is a fact.

It is only the cause that has yet to be determined. That they are incurring in fracking regions suggests a cause but it is not yet definitive.

Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.

 

[westwall]

Unfounded science warrants a hysterical response. Congrats

Hysterical kneejerk reaction to actual evidence that fossil fuels are bad for your health.

So, you'll be giving up your car, right?

I THINK they all should start with their COMPUTERS

And cell phones.....Strollers, game consoles, and anything else that has plastic in it.

The study quoted by the OP is agenda driven and not a reliable bit of science.

But it is a trend that needs to be studied in more detail in order to determine if there is an actual impact of any sort.

If it is harming pregnancies and infants then it will also be harming wildlife.

There is no harm in doing these studies and figuring out what is happening and causing this trend.

"IF"....... Is a mighty big word. Stop abortion and there is no if involved for the Babies that would be saved. All the rest of your claptrap is just that. Crap.

 

[Star]

Unfounded science warrants a hysterical response. Congrats

Hysterical kneejerk reaction to actual evidence that fossil fuels are bad for your health.

What model Flintstone Mobile do you drive?

Ford hybrid getting around 40 mpg in real world driving. Next vehicle will probably be a Tesla.

How does the Ford and soon Tesla lubricate the wheels?
How does the Tesla get the electricity used to charge the batteries?
Aren't the Tesla battery casings made from fracking oil?
Future Teslas' will be made from Polyacrylonitrile (PAN), a raw material used in the making of carbon fiber....again made from oil.
Please explain how if 87% of a barrel of oil will be replaced by "solar" powered battery Tesla-like vehicles, what will the cost be of the plastics used to produce the Tesla-like vehicles???
Better yet explain how with 38% of all electricity generated comes from coal how much will it cost to replace coal in, higher alternate fuels, in lost jobs, in tax support etc.?
Thought all that through Gramps???
Oil Consumption

Petroleum products and their relative share of total U.S. petroleum consumption in 2013:

• Gasoline 46%
• Heating Oil/Diesel Fuel 20%
• Jet Fuel (Kerosene) 8%
• Propane/Propylene 7%
• NGL & LRG1 6%
• Still Gas 4%
• Petrochemical Feedstocks 2%
• Petroleum Coke 2%
• Residual/Heavy Fuel Oil 2%
• Asphalt and Road Oil 2%
• Lubricants 1%
• Miscellaneous Products/Special Naphthas 0.4%
• Other Liquids 1%
• Aviation Gasoline 0.1%
• Waxes 0.04%
• Kerosene 0.02%

As the list shows, you're right a barrel of oil has multiple uses but-----but most of a barrel of oil is burned and therefore fouling the air. All fossil fuels pollute the planet - some more than others. But----but as the chart below shows, fossil fuel suckers prefer to have taxpayers (other peoples money) pay for their energy consumption.


U.S. government energy subsidies by type of electricity produced
by Dave Llorens



I made this chart this afternoon after being frustrated arguing with some coal wonks about how subsidies for renewables are a waste of taxpayer money.

These people are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. As you can see, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power receive multiple times the amount of government cheese as other renewables. These figures are straight from the U.S. Energy Information Association.


<snip>

I have to leave for the course and don't have time to look up a more current chart but I'm sure that before I get back, one of the board lefties will come up with a more current chart. The above chart is from 2007.
.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's a pretty safe bet that far fewer infants will die from Fracking than at then hands of Taxpyer Funded Planned Parenthood Abortionists.

Ironic that you don't care how many infants will die from fracking but you get your panties in a wad over abortions.

The hypocrisy of the right-to-lifers is rampant.

How many infants die in underdeveloped country because the water is not potable? How many die because their is insufficient transportation to deliver relief food supplies?

It's incredibly creepy to see Plump Anonymous Progressives who live comfortable modern lives advocate to destroy that opportunity for poor people around the world. Because that is EXACTLY what your STATUS QUO PC Groupthink means.

at your flailing!

You are defending the death of innocent American infants by fracking.

In the process you have completely destroyed all of your credibility when it comes to whining about abortions.

But that is your problem. Have a nice day.

There is no proof in that article yet you're taking it as scientific fact. Unbelievable yet believable coming from the do good crowd.

That there has been an increase in infant mortality is a fact.

It is only the cause that has yet to be determined. That they are incurring in fracking regions suggests a cause but it is not yet definitive.

Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.

Correlation causal effect is irrelevant and is not scientific without proof. I could easily say that the infant mortality rate is higher or lower in one geographic region and blame anything for that effect. It's not scientific.

 

[boedicca]

Ironic that you don't care how many infants will die from fracking but you get your panties in a wad over abortions.

The hypocrisy of the right-to-lifers is rampant.

How many infants die in underdeveloped country because the water is not potable? How many die because their is insufficient transportation to deliver relief food supplies?

It's incredibly creepy to see Plump Anonymous Progressives who live comfortable modern lives advocate to destroy that opportunity for poor people around the world. Because that is EXACTLY what your STATUS QUO PC Groupthink means.

at your flailing!

You are defending the death of innocent American infants by fracking.

In the process you have completely destroyed all of your credibility when it comes to whining about abortions.

But that is your problem. Have a nice day.

There is no proof in that article yet you're taking it as scientific fact. Unbelievable yet believable coming from the do good crowd.

That there has been an increase in infant mortality is a fact.

It is only the cause that has yet to be determined. That they are incurring in fracking regions suggests a cause but it is not yet definitive.

Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.

Correlation causal effect is irrelevant and is not scientific without proof. I could easily say that the infant mortality rate is higher or lower in one geographic region and blame anything for that effect. It's not scientific.

Indeed. Most of their "correlations" are Spurious (and likely just derived via the custom correlation generator):

Spurious Correlations

Spurious Correlations finds the hidden totally pointless connections between everything The Verge

 

[Stephanie]

do you think this would get all those over at Alteredworldnet up in arms as does Fracking?

SNIP:
Judge Blocks Ban on Dismemberment Abortion On Grounds It Creates An Obstacle for Women

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images
by Dr. Susan Berry27 Jun 2015707


A district judge in Kansas blocked the state’s ban on “dismemberment abortion” – the first ban of its kind in the United States – on the grounds that prohibiting the procedure would create an “obstacle” for women who want to terminate their pregnancies with brutal dismemberment.
Dismemberment is a late-term abortion procedure in which an unborn, living baby is torn to pieces and removed from the uterus. The new law would have prohibited abortionists from using forceps, clamps, scissors and other instruments to cut the unborn baby into pieces prior to removing its remains from the uterus. Lawmakers in Kansas said such a procedure on a live unborn baby is inhumane.

According to the Guardian, on Thursday, Shawnee County district court Judge Larry Hendricks ruled in the lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights that “the alternatives do not appear to be medically necessary or reasonable.”

Alternatives to dismemberment while alive include giving the unborn baby a lethal injection or severing its umbilical cord prior to removing it from the womb. The Center, however, argued that lethal injections could cause nausea and vomiting in the mothers of the babies.

The Center – which represents abortionists Dr. Herbert Hodes and his daughter Dr. Traci Nauser – argued the dismemberment ban would force women to either submit to riskier procedures– or terminate the pregnancy by giving birth.

ALL of it here:
Judge Blocks Ban on Dismemberment Abortion

 

[Darkwind]

Unfounded science warrants a hysterical response. Congrats

Hysterical kneejerk reaction to actual evidence that fossil fuels are bad for your health.

So, you'll be giving up your car, right?

I THINK they all should start with their COMPUTERS

And cell phones.....Strollers, game consoles, and anything else that has plastic in it.

The study quoted by the OP is agenda driven and not a reliable bit of science.

But it is a trend that needs to be studied in more detail in order to determine if there is an actual impact of any sort.

If it is harming pregnancies and infants then it will also be harming wildlife.

There is no harm in doing these studies and figuring out what is happening and causing this trend.

You are correct. There is no harm in doing the studies.

However, it must be recognized that agenda driven science is not science, but politics. For every agenda driven study against frakking, two for it can be found.

 

[Stephanie]

this thread would have been alright but it purpose by the op was to DUMP all over Republicans. so they took it off the debating right off the bat.

it's something the left has to need to do and try and portray Republican as Stupid of Science or something.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ironic that you don't care how many infants will die from fracking but you get your panties in a wad over abortions.

The hypocrisy of the right-to-lifers is rampant.

How many infants die in underdeveloped country because the water is not potable? How many die because their is insufficient transportation to deliver relief food supplies?

It's incredibly creepy to see Plump Anonymous Progressives who live comfortable modern lives advocate to destroy that opportunity for poor people around the world. Because that is EXACTLY what your STATUS QUO PC Groupthink means.

at your flailing!

You are defending the death of innocent American infants by fracking.

In the process you have completely destroyed all of your credibility when it comes to whining about abortions.

But that is your problem. Have a nice day.

There is no proof in that article yet you're taking it as scientific fact. Unbelievable yet believable coming from the do good crowd.

That there has been an increase in infant mortality is a fact.

It is only the cause that has yet to be determined. That they are incurring in fracking regions suggests a cause but it is not yet definitive.

Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.

Correlation causal effect is irrelevant and is not scientific without proof. I could easily say that the infant mortality rate is higher or lower in one geographic region and blame anything for that effect. It's not scientific.

That is what I just posted!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hysterical kneejerk reaction to actual evidence that fossil fuels are bad for your health.

So, you'll be giving up your car, right?

I THINK they all should start with their COMPUTERS

And cell phones.....Strollers, game consoles, and anything else that has plastic in it.

The study quoted by the OP is agenda driven and not a reliable bit of science.

But it is a trend that needs to be studied in more detail in order to determine if there is an actual impact of any sort.

If it is harming pregnancies and infants then it will also be harming wildlife.

There is no harm in doing these studies and figuring out what is happening and causing this trend.

You are correct. There is no harm in doing the studies.

However, it must be recognized that agenda driven science is not science, but politics. For every agenda driven study against frakking, two for it can be found.

Who is asking for an agenda driven study other than the kneejerk supporters of fracking in this thread?

 

[Darkwind]

So, you'll be giving up your car, right?

I THINK they all should start with their COMPUTERS

And cell phones.....Strollers, game consoles, and anything else that has plastic in it.

The study quoted by the OP is agenda driven and not a reliable bit of science.

But it is a trend that needs to be studied in more detail in order to determine if there is an actual impact of any sort.

If it is harming pregnancies and infants then it will also be harming wildlife.

There is no harm in doing these studies and figuring out what is happening and causing this trend.

You are correct. There is no harm in doing the studies.

However, it must be recognized that agenda driven science is not science, but politics. For every agenda driven study against frakking, two for it can be found.

Who is asking for an agenda driven study other than the kneejerk supporters of fracking in this thread?

The knee-jerk posters against a perfectly safe extraction process are.

Who do you think started this thread?

Posting studies by people who would find frakking dangerous in the face of overwhelming proof that it is not, are not studies worth the time to wipe ones ass with.

Now, if by some chance, you find a study that accidentally finds some danger in frakking....say as study on marigold pedal growth in low mountain climates.....you may have some science worth reading.....

Until then......

Have a good one.

 

[Derideo_Te]

a perfectly safe extraction process

Fracking Can Be Done Safely but Will It Be - Scientific American

Reality is that there are major problems with both the safety of existing wells with at least 3% of casings leaking and with long term disposal of the highly toxic waste water.

All fossil fuel extraction is hazardous to one degree or another. There is no "perfectly safe extraction process".

Let's at least try and stick with reality instead of absurd fantasies.

 

[Darkwind]

a perfectly safe extraction process

View attachment 43405

Fracking Can Be Done Safely but Will It Be - Scientific American

Reality is that there are major problems with both the safety of existing wells with at least 3% of casings leaking and with long term disposal of the highly toxic waste water.

All fossil fuel extraction is hazardous to one degree or another. There is no "perfectly safe extraction process".

Let's at least try and stick with reality instead of absurd fantasies.

You go first.

However, as I said...When you provide that study, or one like it I detailed, you get back to Me.

I support frakking, will vote for any politician who supports frakking, and will fight to benefit from the product of frakking in the form of lowering the costs of My energy needs.

Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

a perfectly safe extraction process

View attachment 43405

Fracking Can Be Done Safely but Will It Be - Scientific American

Reality is that there are major problems with both the safety of existing wells with at least 3% of casings leaking and with long term disposal of the highly toxic waste water.

All fossil fuel extraction is hazardous to one degree or another. There is no "perfectly safe extraction process".

Let's at least try and stick with reality instead of absurd fantasies.

You go first.

However, as I said...When you provide that study, or one like it I detailed, you get back to Me.

I support frakking, will vote for any politician who supports frakking, and will fight to benefit from the product of frakking in the form of lowering the costs of My energy needs.

Have a nice day.

In other words you intend to ignore the reality that fracking is NOT a "perfectly safe extraction process" because of your own selfish needs and you don't care how many infants have to die because of them.

Thanks for clarifying your position and have a nice day.

 

[Darkwind]

a perfectly safe extraction process

View attachment 43405

Fracking Can Be Done Safely but Will It Be - Scientific American

Reality is that there are major problems with both the safety of existing wells with at least 3% of casings leaking and with long term disposal of the highly toxic waste water.

All fossil fuel extraction is hazardous to one degree or another. There is no "perfectly safe extraction process".

Let's at least try and stick with reality instead of absurd fantasies.

I'm not ignoring anything. I simply do not find frakking to be boogerman to be feared to the detriment of the entire nation.

Do you have that study yet?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

a perfectly safe extraction process

View attachment 43405

Fracking Can Be Done Safely but Will It Be - Scientific American

Reality is that there are major problems with both the safety of existing wells with at least 3% of casings leaking and with long term disposal of the highly toxic waste water.

All fossil fuel extraction is hazardous to one degree or another. There is no "perfectly safe extraction process".

Let's at least try and stick with reality instead of absurd fantasies.

"All fossil fuel extraction is hazardous to one degree or another."


I'll not argue with that.

 

[initforme]

Its pretty simple that if there is fracking going on near your house you simply move. I think we need to tap into our resources but I also do not believe that wellwater near fracking is safe. Chemicals are going to get into the water and to say otherwise is a lie. Perhaps the companies should be buying out the people who live within close proximity and also help them relocate. Then freak away. Have the fracking heads drink wellwater located near fracking operations drink 7 glasses of that water for 5 years then do a study.

 

[hipeter924]

After a little searching, found at least where some of the basis for the claims of the article came from.

First, I am guessing from this study on EDC's: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/en.2013-1697#_i27
Estrogen and Androgen Receptor Activities of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals and Surface and Ground Water in a Drilling-Dense Region

Exposure to EDCs has been linked to a number of negative health outcomes in laboratory animals, wildlife, and humans (2, 12–17). Despite an understanding of adverse health outcomes associated with exposure to EDCs, research on the potential health implications of exposure to chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing is lacking. Bamberger and Oswald (26) analyzed the health consequences associated with exposure to chemicals used in natural gas operations and found respiratory, gastrointestinal, dermatologic, neurologic, immunologic, endocrine, reproductive, and other negative health outcomes in humans, pets, livestock, and wildlife species.[...]

This quotes research on the effects of EDC's, and then finds an association between fracking/gas drilling and higher levels of EDC's:

In conclusion, most water samples from sites with known drilling-related incidents in a drilling-dense region of Colorado exhibited more estrogenic, antiestrogenic, and/or antiandrogenic activities than the water samples collected from reference sites and 12 chemicals used in drilling operations exhibited similar activities. Taken together, the following support an association between natural gas drilling operations and EDC activity in surface and ground water: hormonal activities in Garfield County spill sites and the Colorado River are higher than those in reference sites in Garfield County and in Missouri, selected drilling chemicals displayed activities similar to those measured in water samples collected from a drilling-dense region, several of these chemicals and similar compounds were detected by other researchers at our sample collection sites, and known spills of natural gas fluids occurred at these spill sites. Taken together, this suggests that natural gas drilling operations may result in elevated EDC activity in ground and surface water.

Found a UN study on EDCs that discusses prenatal exposure: http://unep.org/pdf/9789241505031_eng.pdf
State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals - 2012

3.2.2.5 Prenatal exposure
It is well recognized that transfer of metals and xenobiotic chemicals, including EDCs, from mother to child occurs through the placenta during pregnancy (Tan, Meiller & Mahaffey, 2009; Winneke 2011; Barr, Bishop & Needham, 2007). Such in utero exposures have become an important public health concern because of the possible impact of EDCs on sensitive development and programming of organ function (Grandjean et al., 2008; see Chapter 2, all sections). Many current studies are focusing on the association between in utero exposures to a variety of environmental chemicals, in particular EDCs, and birth, developmental and neurocognitive outcomes (Herbstman et al., 2009; Suzuki et al., 2010; Tan, Meiller & Mahaffey, 2009; Chapter 2.6). The concept of “developmental origins of health and adult disease” hypothesizes that fetal and early life exposures can induce adverse effects in adulthood (Newbold et al., 2008; Fox et al., 2012).

 

[Wyatt earp]

Unfounded science warrants a hysterical response. Congrats

Hysterical kneejerk reaction to actual evidence that fossil fuels are bad for your health.

What model Flintstone Mobile do you drive?

Ford hybrid getting around 40 mpg in real world driving. Next vehicle will probably be a Tesla.

you know it is made out of oil hypocrite