Ohio admits earthquakes indirect result of fracking

[Rat in the Hat]

And still not one of these scientists will say that they are 100% certain. That is all I am saying. No one will come out and flat out say it. Every single person other than one local politician, who I haven't voted for in any of the 10 positions or so he has held. And of course the protestors who are all against not just the injection well but fraking in general. It's crazy around here. The latest controversy is whether they should be permitted to drill (Fracking) 9000 ft under a cemetery......

Why not?

They don't want to wake the voters too early?

 

[Dante]

And still not one of these scientists will say that they are 100% certain. That is all I am saying. No one will come out and flat out say it. Every single person other than one local politician, who I haven't voted for in any of the 10 positions or so he has held.

And of course the protestors who are all against not just the injection well but fraking in general. It's crazy around here. The latest controversy is whether they should be permitted to drill (Fracking) 9000 ft under a cemetery......

Why not?

Of course environmental issues get crazy. But if someone needs 100% proof for things in life .. man-o-man, are they screwed. Life is often illogical and things can seem counter intuitive.

Where life and the environment are concerned, I err on the side of caution, and not the side of short term gain or monetary profit. People argue about leaving debt to future generations, yet leave the issue of wtf to do with nuclear waste for the future. Profit and short term(relative) gain do funny things to people's minds and thinking

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fracking has been in use since 1947. I am pretty sure that, if it actually caused earthquakes, someone would have figured it out by now.

On the other hand, tell a bunch of idiots that fracking causes earthquakes, then tell them that there is fracking going on, and they suddenly start noticing it when the chandelier rattles a bit.

It is kinda like the link between autism and vaccinations, it only exists in idiots heads, but everyone believed it because no one had disproved it. Welcome to junk science and idiocy, any moment know you will start believing the Mayan calendar and astrology.

Isn't it amazing how "progressives" are always the ones who want to move us BACK to riding bicycles, living in mud huts and eating twigs?

Most likely possible cause .. and they explain the reasoning - the hypothesis - they do not add that the quakes are most likely natural events

Ohio Earthquake Likely Caused by Fracking Wastewater: Sci entific American

Scientists have quickly determined that the likely cause was fracking—although not from drilling into deep shale or cracking it with pressured water and chemicals to retrieve natural gas. Rather, they suspect the disposal of wastewater from those operations, done by pumping it back down into equally deep sandstone.


It's backed by investigation of cause(s) -- get IT - investigation leads to the most likely cause

Scientific American is not, repeat not, a peer reviewed publication.

Do you understand the difference between likely and most likely? If they were saying most likely, which they aren't, they would have a list of multiple possible causes and point out the one they think is more likely than others to have caused it. Likely just means they think it is reasonable to assume something. That is why they use words like likely, suspect, implicated, and even unlikely, all of which were used in the article you linked to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And still not one of these scientists will say that they are 100% certain. That is all I am saying. No one will come out and flat out say it. Every single person other than one local politician, who I haven't voted for in any of the 10 positions or so he has held. And of course the protestors who are all against not just the injection well but fraking in general. It's crazy around here. The latest controversy is whether they should be permitted to drill (Fracking) 9000 ft under a cemetery......

Why not?

Scientist understand language, which is why they use words the way they do. If they actually thought fracking was responsible they still wouldn't say they were certain, they would say all but certain.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And still not one of these scientists will say that they are 100% certain. That is all I am saying. No one will come out and flat out say it. Every single person other than one local politician, who I haven't voted for in any of the 10 positions or so he has held.

And of course the protestors who are all against not just the injection well but fraking in general. It's crazy around here. The latest controversy is whether they should be permitted to drill (Fracking) 9000 ft under a cemetery......

Why not?

Of course environmental issues get crazy. But if someone needs 100% proof for things in life .. man-o-man, are they screwed. Life is often illogical and things can seem counter intuitive.

Where life and the environment are concerned, I err on the side of caution, and not the side of short term gain or monetary profit. People argue about leaving debt to future generations, yet leave the issue of wtf to do with nuclear waste for the future. Profit and short term(relative) gain do funny things to people's minds and thinking

Personally, I would settle for something a bit lower than 100% but still higher than 50%

 

[Dante]

Isn't it amazing how "progressives" are always the ones who want to move us BACK to riding bicycles, living in mud huts and eating twigs?

Most likely possible cause .. and they explain the reasoning - the hypothesis - they do not add that the quakes are most likely natural events

Ohio Earthquake Likely Caused by Fracking Wastewater: Sci entific American

Scientists have quickly determined that the likely cause was fracking—although not from drilling into deep shale or cracking it with pressured water and chemicals to retrieve natural gas. Rather, they suspect the disposal of wastewater from those operations, done by pumping it back down into equally deep sandstone.


It's backed by investigation of cause(s) -- get IT - investigation leads to the most likely cause

Scientific American is not, repeat not, a peer reviewed publication.

Do you understand the difference between likely and most likely? If they were saying most likely, which they aren't, they would have a list of multiple possible causes and point out the one they think is more likely than others to have caused it. Likely just means they think it is reasonable to assume something. That is why they use words like likely, suspect, implicated, and even unlikely, all of which were used in the article you linked to.

Oh...you NEED a peer reviewed article to see the light? Concrete proof is not needed to see all things clearly. It helps to convince others, but possibilities are not probabilities, and some things are just likely because they make sense. Some thing are counter intuitive, but demanding everything be proven by peer review before it is assumed to be, would make the world a worse place than it is.

and then there is:
We shot a man in space before it was proven we could do it.

We also developed nuclear energy and weaponized it without proving we could keep it safe.

 

[Dante]

some scientists are saying it is possible fracking is responsible. the anecdotal evidence is mounting along with preliminary science. All the earthquakes in areas where fracking has been done cannot be blamed on fracking according to scientific evidence, but people were sometimes wrong over how fracking may have caused a quake, not that it didn't cause a quake. that is what all the articles are saying.

the media distort because of time, space, and other factors. there is no conspiracy. but science is starting to show fracking is not as safe as the industry claims. imagine that?


and one of the articles I linked to has the science saying fracking most likely cause the quakes, but not for the reasons some people originally proposed. I'm not going back because you didn't bother to read everything.

evidence is mounting and to wait until it is conclusive before taking safety steps would be irresponsible. profits over safety concerns is never good public policy

And still not one of these scientists will say that they are 100% certain. That is all I am saying. No one will come out and flat out say it. Every single person other than one local politician, who I haven't voted for in any of the 10 positions or so he has held. And of course the protestors who are all against not just the injection well but fraking in general. It's crazy around here. The latest controversy is whether they should be permitted to drill (Fracking) 9000 ft under a cemetery......

Why not?

Scientist understand language, which is why they use words the way they do. If they actually thought fracking was responsible they still wouldn't say they were certain, they would say all but certain.

 

[Dante]

And still not one of these scientists will say that they are 100% certain. That is all I am saying. No one will come out and flat out say it. Every single person other than one local politician, who I haven't voted for in any of the 10 positions or so he has held.

And of course the protestors who are all against not just the injection well but fraking in general. It's crazy around here. The latest controversy is whether they should be permitted to drill (Fracking) 9000 ft under a cemetery......

Why not?

Of course environmental issues get crazy. But if someone needs 100% proof for things in life .. man-o-man, are they screwed. Life is often illogical and things can seem counter intuitive.

Where life and the environment are concerned, I err on the side of caution, and not the side of short term gain or monetary profit. People argue about leaving debt to future generations, yet leave the issue of wtf to do with nuclear waste for the future. Profit and short term(relative) gain do funny things to people's minds and thinking

Personally, I would settle for something a bit lower than 100% but still higher than 50%

With many things in life it is wiser to err on the side of caution. especially if the possible alternative(s) have a high price.

No percentage is needed here. Just common sense, good judgement, and a perceptive mind.

 

[Peach]

Of course environmental issues get crazy. But if someone needs 100% proof for things in life .. man-o-man, are they screwed. Life is often illogical and things can seem counter intuitive.

Where life and the environment are concerned, I err on the side of caution, and not the side of short term gain or monetary profit. People argue about leaving debt to future generations, yet leave the issue of wtf to do with nuclear waste for the future. Profit and short term(relative) gain do funny things to people's minds and thinking

Personally, I would settle for something a bit lower than 100% but still higher than 50%

With many things in life it is wiser to err on the side of caution. especially if the possible alternative(s) have a high price.

No percentage is needed here. Just common sense, good judgement, and a perceptive mind.

Magnitude 4.0; Ohio has 4.5 before fracking. Fracking could increase the number, and perhaps magnitude, but the argument against fracking should not be exclude the other damage caused by fracking, as some may call these "tremors".

 

[Dante]

Personally, I would settle for something a bit lower than 100% but still higher than 50%

With many things in life it is wiser to err on the side of caution. especially if the possible alternative(s) have a high price.

No percentage is needed here. Just common sense, good judgement, and a perceptive mind.

Magnitude 4.0; Ohio has 4.5 before fracking. Fracking could increase the number, and perhaps magnitude, but the argument against fracking should not be exclude the other damage caused by fracking, as some may call these "tremors".

Whether Ohio has had earthquakes before is not an issue. The quakes in areas where fracking has been done is the issue. The science will catch up to the new technology, but civil authorities ignoring mounting anecdotal evidence will become criminal.

personally I wouldn't live in an area where fracking occurs. I used to get creeped out just visiting areas within a certain radius of Nuke Power Plants.

anyone who says things are safe should be forced to put their families in the safe zone. that would change things

companies and governments lie during crisis for a myriad of reasons.

 

[Peach]

With many things in life it is wiser to err on the side of caution. especially if the possible alternative(s) have a high price.

No percentage is needed here. Just common sense, good judgement, and a perceptive mind.

Magnitude 4.0; Ohio has 4.5 before fracking. Fracking could increase the number, and perhaps magnitude, but the argument against fracking should not be exclude the other damage caused by fracking, as some may call these "tremors".

Whether Ohio has had earthquakes before is not an issue. The quakes in areas where fracking has been done is the issue. The science will catch up to the new technology, but civil authorities ignoring mounting anecdotal evidence will become criminal.

personally I wouldn't live in an area where fracking occurs. I used to get creeped out just visiting areas within a certain radius of Nuke Power Plants.

anyone who says things are safe should be forced to put their families in the safe zone. that would change things

companies and governments lie during crisis for a myriad of reasons.

The quakes in areas where fracking has been done is the issue. The science will catch up to the new technology, but civil authorities ignoring mounting anecdotal evidence..........
************************************************
Fracking also contributes to water and land contamination. As for earthquakes, I believe you posted "possible". I agree, why exacerbate an existing phenomena until there is great damage?
************************************************

 

[Dante]

Magnitude 4.0; Ohio has 4.5 before fracking. Fracking could increase the number, and perhaps magnitude, but the argument against fracking should not be exclude the other damage caused by fracking, as some may call these "tremors".

Whether Ohio has had earthquakes before is not an issue. The quakes in areas where fracking has been done is the issue. The science will catch up to the new technology, but civil authorities ignoring mounting anecdotal evidence will become criminal.

personally I wouldn't live in an area where fracking occurs. I used to get creeped out just visiting areas within a certain radius of Nuke Power Plants.

anyone who says things are safe should be forced to put their families in the safe zone. that would change things

companies and governments lie during crisis for a myriad of reasons.

The quakes in areas where fracking has been done is the issue. The science will catch up to the new technology, but civil authorities ignoring mounting anecdotal evidence..........
************************************************
Fracking also contributes to water and land contamination. As for earthquakes, I believe you posted "possible". I agree, why exacerbate an existing phenomena until there is great damage?
************************************************

I understand the monetary issues facing people who sell land rights to companies for fracking...but it splits families, communities, and kills off towns. Profit for it's own sake. Progress always has it's victims. It is the main reason I can never be a progressive.

 

[Peach]

Whether Ohio has had earthquakes before is not an issue. The quakes in areas where fracking has been done is the issue. The science will catch up to the new technology, but civil authorities ignoring mounting anecdotal evidence will become criminal.

personally I wouldn't live in an area where fracking occurs. I used to get creeped out just visiting areas within a certain radius of Nuke Power Plants.

anyone who says things are safe should be forced to put their families in the safe zone. that would change things

companies and governments lie during crisis for a myriad of reasons.

The quakes in areas where fracking has been done is the issue. The science will catch up to the new technology, but civil authorities ignoring mounting anecdotal evidence..........
************************************************
Fracking also contributes to water and land contamination. As for earthquakes, I believe you posted "possible". I agree, why exacerbate an existing phenomena until there is great damage?
************************************************

I understand the monetary issues facing people who sell land rights to companies for fracking...but it splits families, communities, and kills off towns. Profit for it's own sake. Progress always has it's victims. It is the main reason I can never be a progressive.

Fracking has long term consequences that cannot be ignored. Water contamination doesn't just "stay down underground" as I have heard some state. UNDERGROUND in my state is the Floridian aquifer. I prefer it UNDISTURBED by unnatural contamination.

 

[Peach]

The quakes in areas where fracking has been done is the issue. The science will catch up to the new technology, but civil authorities ignoring mounting anecdotal evidence..........
************************************************
Fracking also contributes to water and land contamination. As for earthquakes, I believe you posted "possible". I agree, why exacerbate an existing phenomena until there is great damage?
************************************************

I understand the monetary issues facing people who sell land rights to companies for fracking...but it splits families, communities, and kills off towns. Profit for it's own sake. Progress always has it's victims. It is the main reason I can never be a progressive.

Fracking has long term consequences that cannot be ignored. Water contamination doesn't just "stay down underground" as I have heard some state. UNDERGROUND in my state is the Floridian aquifer. I prefer it UNDISTURBED by unnatural contamination.

My initial post contained this, you may have missed it:
********************************************
the argument against fracking should not be exclude the other damage caused by fracking, as some may call these "tremors".
********************************************
It wasn't until sea water was under parts of the Miami area that many admitted excess use of fresh water pumped out of the ground MIGHT cause some unexpected problems. Jeb!ro Bush wanted to drain more of the Everglades.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The quakes in areas where fracking has been done is the issue. The science will catch up to the new technology, but civil authorities ignoring mounting anecdotal evidence..........
************************************************
Fracking also contributes to water and land contamination. As for earthquakes, I believe you posted "possible". I agree, why exacerbate an existing phenomena until there is great damage?
************************************************

I understand the monetary issues facing people who sell land rights to companies for fracking...but it splits families, communities, and kills off towns. Profit for it's own sake. Progress always has it's victims. It is the main reason I can never be a progressive.

Fracking has long term consequences that cannot be ignored. Water contamination doesn't just "stay down underground" as I have heard some state. UNDERGROUND in my state is the Floridian aquifer. I prefer it UNDISTURBED by unnatural contamination.

Fracking is not what is at issue here, the injection well at one place is what is at issue, one well out of 177 that are in the state of Ohio. And the injection of this waste water is much much deeper than any aquifer.

 

[kwc57]

With many things in life it is wiser to err on the side of caution. especially if the possible alternative(s) have a high price.

No percentage is needed here. Just common sense, good judgement, and a perceptive mind.

Magnitude 4.0; Ohio has 4.5 before fracking. Fracking could increase the number, and perhaps magnitude, but the argument against fracking should not be exclude the other damage caused by fracking, as some may call these "tremors".

Whether Ohio has had earthquakes before is not an issue. The quakes in areas where fracking has been done is the issue. The science will catch up to the new technology, but civil authorities ignoring mounting anecdotal evidence will become criminal.

personally I wouldn't live in an area where fracking occurs. I used to get creeped out just visiting areas within a certain radius of Nuke Power Plants.

anyone who says things are safe should be forced to put their families in the safe zone. that would change things

companies and governments lie during crisis for a myriad of reasons.

Oh my, do your hands get chapped from all that pearl clutching and hand wringing?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course environmental issues get crazy. But if someone needs 100% proof for things in life .. man-o-man, are they screwed. Life is often illogical and things can seem counter intuitive.

Where life and the environment are concerned, I err on the side of caution, and not the side of short term gain or monetary profit. People argue about leaving debt to future generations, yet leave the issue of wtf to do with nuclear waste for the future. Profit and short term(relative) gain do funny things to people's minds and thinking

Personally, I would settle for something a bit lower than 100% but still higher than 50%

With many things in life it is wiser to err on the side of caution. especially if the possible alternative(s) have a high price.

No percentage is needed here. Just common sense, good judgement, and a perceptive mind.

Let me try to explain this again.

If injecting water into fault lines makes it easier for them to slip, that is a good thing because it would actually make the inevitable earthquake less severe. I guarantee you that if you asked the people of San Francisco if they would rather have 100 4.0 earthquakes or one 6.0 one they would take the 100 smaller ones every single time. If you don't believe me ask Syrenn.

By the way, I used to live closer to a nuclear plant than most people even dream about, I was in the Navy and stationed aboard a nuclear powered vessel. Not only did I survive, there was no damage to any of my genetic material. It is perfectly safe, safer than driving your car to McDonald's. I bet you let your family get in your car all the time.

 

[TShepstone]

Injection of fracturing wastes is not fracturing. What's so darned hard to understand about that?

 

[UpAndAbout]

Ohio admits earthquakes indirect result of fracking

in the news Breaking News: Daily News from the Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A dozen earthquakes in northeastern Ohio were almost certainly induced by injection of gas-drilling wastewater into the earth, state regulators said Friday as they announced a series of tough new rules for drillers.


After quakes, Ohio plans tough gas-drilling rules *| ajc.com

Does anyone know what caused earthquakes before idiots started blaming them on fracking?

No kidding. We've had earthquakes here in Washington and we've never "fracked." Japan isn't fracking either. Earthquakes are movement of the techtonic plates. How in the hell can fracking cause that? It is like vibration that is felt, but I doubt that it could cause movement of the techtonic plates. Is there a fault beneath the earth there in Ohio?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yes there is a small fault line and there is one injection well nearly on top of that fault. I still have a hard time believing that the injection well caused anything though.....