Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: It's fracking dangerous!

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Oh thank you, and I thought of couple more . . . if a neighboring home owner wanted to frack his yard, the contentious neighbors might go to court where they d
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 5, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Oh thank you, and I thought of couple more . . . if a neighboring home owner wanted to frack his yard, the contentious neighbors might go to court where they'd be treated as equal entities before the law. And,..if we'd start fielding and electing political candidates who represent actual human beings instead of faceless corporations, and so on...

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > I've been on Facebook too long. I was looking for a "like" function.
      >
      > Wil
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
      > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Mon, Dec 5, 2011 10:05 am
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: It's fracking dangerous!
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Some rambling thoughts...
      >
      > We know very well that there are 'facts' which support both pro and con on such issues.
      >
      > Cuadrilla admitted the tremors were probably caused in part by their fracking in Britain. (Telegraph)
      >
      > The typical plausible deniability card was played in the case of a woman who claimed fracking caused her cancer (NY Times), but the energy company was forced to settle. Though it's always nice to be reminded common household cleaners can give us cancer as well!
      >
      > Fracturing anything intentionally doesn't sound like a good idea. Drilling is already risky enough and produces the same problems as fracking.
      >
      > I don't know if renewable energy initiatives are necessarily anti-capitalist, but getting off the grid enhances independence. Of course the Solyndra scandal is an example of a quasi-socialist gesture which ended badly. If the employees themselves had owned the company, it might have fare better.
      >
      > I'm generally opposed to coal tar and petrochemical derivatives in food, cleaning products, cosmetics,candy, toys, etc. Oil should be reserved only for essential services and its derivatives only for life saving products and services. If we keep drilling and fracking the earth for profit, the only people who will survive will be those who don't require air or water to live.
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Bill,
      > >
      > > I think the way out of the energy crisis is to develop clean technologies like wind turbines and solar panels. These are the true anti-capitalist energy solutions, as if each house has its own solar panels, each home occupier can be independent of the big energy corporations.
      > >
      > > Fracking has been shown to produce toxic by-products, which no doubt don't bother the corporations who do the fracking and make the profits, but affect the people who live near the fracking operations.
      > >
      > > Of course the fracking companies will demand "proof" that the fracking is a health hazard, just as the tobacco companies demanded proof that smoking causes cancer.
      > >
      > > As you know science is not about proof, but about probabilities.
      > >
      > > Jim
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • William
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 5, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
        >
        > Oh thank you, and I thought of couple more . . . if a neighboring home owner wanted to frack his yard, the contentious neighbors might go to court where they'd be treated as equal entities before the law. And,..if we'd start fielding and electing political candidates who represent actual human beings instead of faceless corporations, and so on...
        >
        > Mary
        > Mary, your thoughts are logical and I am sure you could find some number of people to agree with you. Stretching it a bit Jim could probably find a group to join his side. These multi facateded perspective arguments are not solved but discussed to death. Many years ago I resolved that energy was a necessary part of human economy and I stand on that decision. I have skin in the game and that could be seen as good or bad. It is easy to blather on about the idealisms of non polluting,renueable energy until you are presented with the bills for very high expense, low utility energy sources. The infrastructure is in place and functioning for oil and some natural gas. For the alternative sources the industry for them must be created and paid for before even comparison costs can be estimated. Because of that oil and natural gas will be here a long time. That it offends the environmental agenda of some ,so be it. Bill
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
        > >
        > > I've been on Facebook too long. I was looking for a "like" function.
        > >
        > > Wil
        > >
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Mary <josephson45r@>
        > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Mon, Dec 5, 2011 10:05 am
        > > Subject: [existlist] Re: It's fracking dangerous!
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Some rambling thoughts...
        > >
        > > We know very well that there are 'facts' which support both pro and con on such issues.
        > >
        > > Cuadrilla admitted the tremors were probably caused in part by their fracking in Britain. (Telegraph)
        > >
        > > The typical plausible deniability card was played in the case of a woman who claimed fracking caused her cancer (NY Times), but the energy company was forced to settle. Though it's always nice to be reminded common household cleaners can give us cancer as well!
        > >
        > > Fracturing anything intentionally doesn't sound like a good idea. Drilling is already risky enough and produces the same problems as fracking.
        > >
        > > I don't know if renewable energy initiatives are necessarily anti-capitalist, but getting off the grid enhances independence. Of course the Solyndra scandal is an example of a quasi-socialist gesture which ended badly. If the employees themselves had owned the company, it might have fare better.
        > >
        > > I'm generally opposed to coal tar and petrochemical derivatives in food, cleaning products, cosmetics,candy, toys, etc. Oil should be reserved only for essential services and its derivatives only for life saving products and services. If we keep drilling and fracking the earth for profit, the only people who will survive will be those who don't require air or water to live.
        > >
        > > Mary
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Bill,
        > > >
        > > > I think the way out of the energy crisis is to develop clean technologies like wind turbines and solar panels. These are the true anti-capitalist energy solutions, as if each house has its own solar panels, each home occupier can be independent of the big energy corporations.
        > > >
        > > > Fracking has been shown to produce toxic by-products, which no doubt don't bother the corporations who do the fracking and make the profits, but affect the people who live near the fracking operations.
        > > >
        > > > Of course the fracking companies will demand "proof" that the fracking is a health hazard, just as the tobacco companies demanded proof that smoking causes cancer.
        > > >
        > > > As you know science is not about proof, but about probabilities.
        > > >
        > > > Jim
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
      • William
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 5, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Oh thank you, and I thought of couple more . . . if a neighboring home owner wanted to frack his yard, the contentious neighbors might go to court where they'd be treated as equal entities before the law. And,..if we'd start fielding and electing political candidates who represent actual human beings instead of faceless corporations, and so on...
          > > Mary, What is freeking dangerous is a bloodless religio like Romney can get away with saying that corporations are people. That statement is twisted in many subtle ways. A corporation is a business entity designed to limit liability and avoid taxation. To say it is a person shows the little worth Romney puts in real people. Real people are here to be tricked by business entitys. As a member of one of the biggest cult/cartell in the usa Romney displays his antiphy for fair trading . Only trade with Mormons, ask the bishop before you spend, only trust those in the faith as others are less human than your cult brothers. Hell, corporations are more equil than non cult members. This is a serious mistake in humanism and Mitt admits it. Bill
          > > Mary
          > > Mary, your thoughts are logical and I am sure you could find some number of people to agree with you. Stretching it a bit Jim could probably find a group to join his side. These multi facateded perspective arguments are not solved but discussed to death. Many years ago I resolved that energy was a necessary part of human economy and I stand on that decision. I have skin in the game and that could be seen as good or bad. It is easy to blather on about the idealisms of non polluting,renueable energy until you are presented with the bills for very high expense, low utility energy sources. The infrastructure is in place and functioning for oil and some natural gas. For the alternative sources the industry for them must be created and paid for before even comparison costs can be estimated. Because of that oil and natural gas will be here a long time. That it offends the environmental agenda of some ,so be it. Bill
          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
          > > >
          > > > I've been on Facebook too long. I was looking for a "like" function.
          > > >
          > > > Wil
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > -----Original Message-----
          > > > From: Mary <josephson45r@>
          > > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          > > > Sent: Mon, Dec 5, 2011 10:05 am
          > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: It's fracking dangerous!
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Some rambling thoughts...
          > > >
          > > > We know very well that there are 'facts' which support both pro and con on such issues.
          > > >
          > > > Cuadrilla admitted the tremors were probably caused in part by their fracking in Britain. (Telegraph)
          > > >
          > > > The typical plausible deniability card was played in the case of a woman who claimed fracking caused her cancer (NY Times), but the energy company was forced to settle. Though it's always nice to be reminded common household cleaners can give us cancer as well!
          > > >
          > > > Fracturing anything intentionally doesn't sound like a good idea. Drilling is already risky enough and produces the same problems as fracking.
          > > >
          > > > I don't know if renewable energy initiatives are necessarily anti-capitalist, but getting off the grid enhances independence. Of course the Solyndra scandal is an example of a quasi-socialist gesture which ended badly. If the employees themselves had owned the company, it might have fare better.
          > > >
          > > > I'm generally opposed to coal tar and petrochemical derivatives in food, cleaning products, cosmetics,candy, toys, etc. Oil should be reserved only for essential services and its derivatives only for life saving products and services. If we keep drilling and fracking the earth for profit, the only people who will survive will be those who don't require air or water to live.
          > > >
          > > > Mary
          > > >
          > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > Bill,
          > > > >
          > > > > I think the way out of the energy crisis is to develop clean technologies like wind turbines and solar panels. These are the true anti-capitalist energy solutions, as if each house has its own solar panels, each home occupier can be independent of the big energy corporations.
          > > > >
          > > > > Fracking has been shown to produce toxic by-products, which no doubt don't bother the corporations who do the fracking and make the profits, but affect the people who live near the fracking operations.
          > > > >
          > > > > Of course the fracking companies will demand "proof" that the fracking is a health hazard, just as the tobacco companies demanded proof that smoking causes cancer.
          > > > >
          > > > > As you know science is not about proof, but about probabilities.
          > > > >
          > > > > Jim
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • Mary
          Romney is just stating the law as established by several U.S. Supreme Court interpretations. Mary ... What is freeking dangerous is a bloodless religio like
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 6, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Romney is just stating the law as established by several U.S. Supreme Court interpretations.

            Mary

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:

            What is freeking dangerous is a bloodless religio like Romney can get away with saying that corporations are people. That statement is twisted in many subtle ways. A corporation is a business entity designed to limit liability and avoid taxation. To say it is a person shows the little worth Romney puts in real people. Real people are here to be tricked by business entitys.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.