On Feb 5, 9:51*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:19:03 -0800, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:30:29 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 07:59:47 -0800, wrote:
More than "a few problems." I'm happy to entertain the notion of
fixing the problems with fracking. Perhaps they can start by
disclosing the chemical mix they use.
The problems I have heard are mostly because they were fracking too
close to the surface and in residential areas.
You mean that left up to the companies, who by the way deny
everything, we shouldn't have any gov't oversight because there aren't
any problems..
Did I say that? This fracking is done under a federal permit from MMS.
Yes, and we all know how much oversight happened with that agency. I
hear Obama broke it up into different agencies..
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05...erior-unveils-...
Lets keep a good thought. Maybe he will fix the agency and put an end
to the revolving door that is the regulatory establishment in the US.
Do you know of anything that doesn't affect someone?
Sure. If my cat pees on a bush and I don't know about it, I suspect
nobody is affected. Is that an equivalency attempt you're trying to
make?
I am trying to say "energy" is never going to be free of costs or even
dangers.
I agree. How about nuclear? France seems to be doing it safely. Oh
wait, the French can't be trusted... lol
I am OK with nuclear but the waste is still a problem.
Yes, it's a problem, but there's got to be a trade-off.
It is interesting how cavalier you are with fission products that have
a huge potential for harm on a global scale for 10,000 years but you
wring your hands because a few hundred *people have had problems with
their wells.
Cavalier? It needs careful thought and regulation, but should be part
of the solution. You think otherwise?
It could be a valuable part of the 21st century energy picture. Now
just convince those people who guide their lives from what they see in
movies.
I agree nuclear is probably our best hope for long term energy
independence but the challenges are huge. I don't think we have a
plant here in the US that has paid for itself yet and they get
decommissioned, still in the red. These piles of high level waste are
also very attractive targets for terrorists.
Even a very modest dirty bomb in an urban center could make that place
unusable for 1000 years. It would make Love Canal look like a dog
knocking over your garbage can.
I doubt the latter part of what you're saying. It's pretty well
protected, esp. here in the US. In other countries.... well, the
Republicans wanted to block the treaty, so I guess they thought all
was cool.
"The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials.
There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause
a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very
modest low explosive bomb over a big city. *For that matter you could
just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthrax would be easier to spread, transport, and would make a city
much more unusable than a dirty bomb...