ibx

Actually I was two semesters away from a bachelor in Geology. I then got offered a well paying IT job because that was my hobby since I was wee lad, had the connections for the offer and the personal reasons to accept. Since you claim that is third grade knowledge(i agree) you conveniently ignore it to make your point. The argument I'm trying to make is the following: The long term effects of fracking are not well understood since it is new technology. esp. considering geological time spans. There is evidence (posted by me) that fracking can lead to an increase in earthquakes which affect the current population. There are definitely consequences that can not be understood today and these consequences could be very dire. I'm not against fracking per se, I'm against taking incalculable chances for short term economic gain. Thats why potentially dangerous endeavors should be proven to be safe before one starts. And the not other way around. If fracking turns out to be safe, I'm all for it.

Judging by your comments in this thread.... There seems to be a great deal of fundamental geology that you seem to be blissfully unaware of. So what does fracking fluid contain ?

It's not only common sense, it's scientific fact. The only thing that is debatable is the time scale and the dilution factor. There is no magic involved. So tell me again how millions of tons of unknown chemicals will magically stay there forever... http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle.html

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/11/fracking-water-injection-major-earthquakes The potential for major earth quakes is ok for your freedom I guess...

no offence taken.

It's still my decision to go onto a road and esp. to skydive. Why not ask people in 200 or 1000 years if they are ok with millions of Gallons of whatever in their groundwater? So you choose to ignore valid arguments because "wacko's"? A textbook example of ad hominem if I've ever seen one.

How do you figure that? Even if fracking alone sustains the entire US economy for 100 years it's still very short term and in 100 years another form of Energy will have to be found. But it can not be ruled out and polluting the ground water for hundreds or thousands of years is a risk worth taking in your opinion? I think that is a blatant misconception because the fed has an enormous amount to gain from fracking. 40 years is ridiculously short amount of time when thinking of geological processes. There is great example in Germany, where a Nuclear Waste site was deemed totally safe in the 60s. This is a salt mine btw. So science told the geologists that no water had been there for thousands of years. Today water is leaking in to the mine and all the Nuclear waste has to be moved at a cost of Billions of Euros. How reliable do you think are 40 years of experience in geological matters? And is it worth endangering future generations for short term economical gain ?

OHCHUTE: How yo you think an endeavor like fracking should be approached? On the one hand there is a lot of potential for cheep energy, though it is relatively short term. On the other hand millions of tons of unidentified chemicals are pumped in to the ground with unforeseeable consequences. The consequences are definitely unforeseeable since fracking has not been around long enough to rule out severe damage to the environment and the population in the long run. So what do you personally think is the best approach in such a scenario? What does your common sense tell you ?

http://www.uta.edu/news/releases/2013/07/Schug-water-well-contaminants-study.php

http://www.livescience.com/1884-arctic-meltdown-opens-fabled-northwest-passage.html

He can kayak to the north pole now...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2013/07/north-pole-turned-into-lake-from-global-warming-3.html

Without evidence... She's just another dumb twoofer...

Well said Lawrocket !

Since you have already answered all my questions for me I will leave it at that and only comment on the first one... The rest of your post is childish drivel. The whole American voting system is broken and should be completely revised making laws like the above unnecessary. The US is the only "democratic" country where the guy with less votes can legally win.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with my reply to rushmc... He claimed to US is not a democracy... The definition of democracy includes a respresentative republic... WOW (you said democratic republic, please stay with one word so everybody knows what you are talking about.)

I'm glad racism, voter disenfranchising, and redistricting to fit an agenda are a thing of the past... Bravo Sierra, you see reality like no one else.

Your comments here would be funny it not for the fact that they indicated a sad lack of understanding of the ruling And we are not a Democracy. The founders made sure of that We are a respresentative republic So you disagree with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy and everybody else on earth as to what a democracy is... That's fine though, you can redefine any word you want to fit your agenda.

Democracy is being steadily eroded by the conservative right... http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-25/voting-rights-act-provision-struck-down-by-u-dot-s-dot-supreme-court

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/23/us-usa-security-flight-idUSBRE95M02H20130623 I'm looking forward to the ensuing drama...

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/26/california-governor-without-republicans-to-obstruct-him-creates-budget-surplus/#ixzz2UTVQlaXx

I know that that was/is the purpose of the Second Amendment. I just think people are forgetting that this was 200 years ago where armies and local militias fought with essentially the same weapons, muzzle loaded muskets with bayonets. In this day and age that whole line of thinking is ridiculous, today the government has an air force, drones, tanks and an almost completely militarized police making this form of "freedom" purely imaginary. The self defense issue is debatable. If the police brutality in the US shows one thing, it's that the government does not think twice before using it's superior firepower. They will even shoot much quicker because they are rightly afraid that every body is armed. The US has also whole bunch of anti-terrorism laws that violate the basic principles of a constitutional democracy and will use these mercilessly against it's own citizens as soon as they show smallest sign of dissent. Nobody has picked up a gun to defend any rights so far and it won't happen since most people already consider the US to be the greatest and freesest country on earth, what is there to rebel against?

Maybe the Poster should use an argument instead of screaming "MORE GUNS" in any given situation. The value of the second Amendment is imaginary freedom, the effect is 30.000 gun deaths a year.. What that has to do with any of the above is beyond me...

Please explain how a gun would have in any imaginable way led to better outcome in these incidents.

That is a very sane thing to say in thread about something else entirely. Welcome Back Ron. You are the most entertaining.