fracking

[thebish]

The main reasons to be against it are
1. Nobody knows if it causes earthquakes or not, but there are reasons to believe it does
2. The chemicals used can, and do, leach into the water table.
3. A vast amount of water is required to provide the fracking pressure, this is usually taken from the surrounding site - wells, rivers etc and is highly detrimental to wildlife, the water table, springs, drinking water, and trees.
4. Due to 3 the local weather is affected with mini deserts capable of being created
5. Some of the chemicals in some of the procedures are highly toxic, and require transport by road, which can, and have caused serious incidents in accidents.
6. Some of those chemicals in 5 are quite stable and nobody has a clue where and when they'll emerge back into the world again.
7. A few 'wells' in America have run amok with explosions and uncontrolled gas escapes. Not funny if you live near one, and every site in this country, believe me, somebody'll be living near one.

cheers... are there credible UK scientists who confirm this list?

I found this today - which suggests that several of those points are at least contested...

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/th ... 81%29.aspx

How on earth, if read correctly, can those points be contested?
Point 1 - I said nobody knows, who contests that?
Point 2 - the chemicals used can and do leach into the water table. That is incontestable. Anybody who contests it is either paid to, or a know nothing knob.Etc et fecking cetera

ok - calm down!!!

[Bruce Rioja]

5. Some of the chemicals in some of the procedures are highly toxic, and require transport by road, which can, and have caused serious incidents in accidents.

Because, of course, other than for fracking purposes highly toxic chemicals aren't otherwise transported by road, are they?!

Can you be a little more precise than 'highly toxic chemicals' please?

[Montreal Wanderer]

All I know about fracking is that it was the one question I got wrong in a brainbusting science quiz posted on here. If only the discussion had taken place earlier I could have been a genius.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

5. Some of the chemicals in some of the procedures are highly toxic, and require transport by road, which can, and have caused serious incidents in accidents.

Because, of course, other than for fracking purposes highly toxic chemicals aren't otherwise transported by road, are they?!

Can you be a little more precise than 'highly toxic chemicals' please?

No, I won't . Thebish has rolled his eyes at me and ordered me to calm down, so I'm lying in a darkened room contemplating everything but fracking.

[Bruce Rioja]

5. Some of the chemicals in some of the procedures are highly toxic, and require transport by road, which can, and have caused serious incidents in accidents.

Because, of course, other than for fracking purposes highly toxic chemicals aren't otherwise transported by road, are they?!

Can you be a little more precise than 'highly toxic chemicals' please?

No, I won't . Thebish has rolled his eyes at me and ordered me to calm down, so I'm lying in a darkened room contemplating everything but fracking.

Bugger you then.

I've found this on Wiki. I'd really be far more concerned about most of this stuff polluting the water table (as you've mentioned) than I would be about driving past a tanker full.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ad ... fracturing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seem to be a lot of cleaning agents, salts and vinegars in there.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

5. Some of the chemicals in some of the procedures are highly toxic, and require transport by road, which can, and have caused serious incidents in accidents.

Because, of course, other than for fracking purposes highly toxic chemicals aren't otherwise transported by road, are they?!

Can you be a little more precise than 'highly toxic chemicals' please?

No, I won't . Thebish has rolled his eyes at me and ordered me to calm down, so I'm lying in a darkened room contemplating everything but fracking.

Bugger you then.

I've found this on Wiki. I'd really be far more concerned about most of this stuff polluting the water table (as you've mentioned) than I would be about driving past a tanker full.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ad ... fracturing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seem to be a lot of cleaning agents, salts and vinegars in there.

I'll add that Arsenic and methylmercury are both components of some fracking mixtures. Arsenic being a chemical element will not break down and methylmercury is highly stable even under the pressures used in the fracking process. You can get more highly toxic than that, but you'd have to try bloody hard.
(Now see what you've done, I'll have thebish on my case again soon. )

[jaffka]

5. Some of the chemicals in some of the procedures are highly toxic, and require transport by road, which can, and have caused serious incidents in accidents.

Because, of course, other than for fracking purposes highly toxic chemicals aren't otherwise transported by road, are they?!

Can you be a little more precise than 'highly toxic chemicals' please?

No, I won't . Thebish has rolled his eyes at me and ordered me to calm down, so I'm lying in a darkened room contemplating everything but fracking.

Bugger you then.

I've found this on Wiki. I'd really be far more concerned about most of this stuff polluting the water table (as you've mentioned) than I would be about driving past a tanker full.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ad ... fracturing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seem to be a lot of cleaning agents, salts and vinegars in there.

I'll add that Arsenic and methylmercury are both components of some fracking mixtures. Arsenic being a chemical element will not break down and methylmercury is highly stable even under the pressures used in the fracking process. You can get more highly toxic than that, but you'd have to try bloody hard.
(Now see what you've done, I'll have thebish on my case again soon. )

Stable or unstable?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Stable. You might think mercury is bad for you. It ain't a patch on what methylmercury will do to your insides. (don't try this at home kids!)

[jaffka]

Does that trick of putting some mercury in someone's drink and making them instantly need the toilet work?

[BWFC_Insane]

I once at a work dinner sat next to an "energy scientist". This bloke was an adviser for the then "Blair government", but was in his words "totally ignored".

He was adamant that the ONLY viable solution to the energy problem was nuclear power. I've also seen a documentary some years ago with the same argument, with a very convincing set of numbers to back up the argument.

[jaffka]

I agree with nuclear power but it's up against political will and the need to safely store the bye product deep underground, which can be done but lasts for ages.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I reckon if all the hot air produced by kinesiologists, pyramidologists, astrologists, crystal healers and homeopaths were combined it'd be enough to run the National Grid turbines for decades to come.

[Prufrock]

Just burn old people. Energy crisis and pensions crisis solved (I may have stolen this idea from Aldous Huxley).

[Montreal Wanderer]

I agree with nuclear power but it's up against political will and the need to safely store the bye product deep underground, which can be done but lasts for ages.

Ages indeed. Some of the stuff Britain was pouring into the Irish Sea from Windscale had a half life of 40,000 years. America still has problems in finding a safe place to store nuclear waste, so how much greater is the UK's problem? Canada is lucky in that nuclear waste can be stored in old salt mines - dry and over a mile deep. Much of our power comes from hydro power, only 15% being from nuclear generators almost all in Ontario. There is only one reactor outside of Ontario in New Brunswick (and New Brunswick hopes to have viable tidal power in the next few years - the Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world). I'm not sold on nuclear power being the answer - I don't even like driving past the nuclear power stations on the way to Toronto!

[Worthy4England]

I agree with nuclear power but it's up against political will and the need to safely store the bye product deep underground, which can be done but lasts for ages.

America still has problems in finding a safe place to store nuclear waste, so how much greater is the UK's problem?

Probably rather more dangerous, as we used to do re-processing for other countries as well...

I don't even like driving past the nuclear power stations on the way to Toronto!

Me neither, it means my satnav's fooked!

[seanworth]

I agree with nuclear power but it's up against political will and the need to safely store the bye product deep underground, which can be done but lasts for ages.

Ages indeed. Some of the stuff Britain was pouring into the Irish Sea from Windscale had a half life of 40,000 years. America still has problems in finding a safe place to store nuclear waste, so how much greater is the UK's problem? Canada is lucky in that nuclear waste can be stored in old salt mines - dry and over a mile deep. Much of our power comes from hydro power, only 15% being from nuclear generators almost all in Ontario. There is only one reactor outside of Ontario in New Brunswick (and New Brunswick hopes to have viable tidal power in the next few years - the Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world). I'm not sold on nuclear power being the answer - I don't even like driving past the nuclear power stations on the way to Toronto!

Do you feel any better once you have passed the nuclear power stations?

[Montreal Wanderer]

I agree with nuclear power but it's up against political will and the need to safely store the bye product deep underground, which can be done but lasts for ages.

Ages indeed. Some of the stuff Britain was pouring into the Irish Sea from Windscale had a half life of 40,000 years. America still has problems in finding a safe place to store nuclear waste, so how much greater is the UK's problem? Canada is lucky in that nuclear waste can be stored in old salt mines - dry and over a mile deep. Much of our power comes from hydro power, only 15% being from nuclear generators almost all in Ontario. There is only one reactor outside of Ontario in New Brunswick (and New Brunswick hopes to have viable tidal power in the next few years - the Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world). I'm not sold on nuclear power being the answer - I don't even like driving past the nuclear power stations on the way to Toronto!

Do you feel any better once you have passed the nuclear power stations?

Good thing I was using a preposition not a verb

[seanworth]

I agree with nuclear power but it's up against political will and the need to safely store the bye product deep underground, which can be done but lasts for ages.

Ages indeed. Some of the stuff Britain was pouring into the Irish Sea from Windscale had a half life of 40,000 years. America still has problems in finding a safe place to store nuclear waste, so how much greater is the UK's problem? Canada is lucky in that nuclear waste can be stored in old salt mines - dry and over a mile deep. Much of our power comes from hydro power, only 15% being from nuclear generators almost all in Ontario. There is only one reactor outside of Ontario in New Brunswick (and New Brunswick hopes to have viable tidal power in the next few years - the Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world). I'm not sold on nuclear power being the answer - I don't even like driving past the nuclear power stations on the way to Toronto!

Do you feel any better once you have passed the nuclear power stations?

Good thing I was using a preposition not a verb

You still haven't addressed Toronto.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I agree with nuclear power but it's up against political will and the need to safely store the bye product deep underground, which can be done but lasts for ages.

Ages indeed. Some of the stuff Britain was pouring into the Irish Sea from Windscale had a half life of 40,000 years. America still has problems in finding a safe place to store nuclear waste, so how much greater is the UK's problem? Canada is lucky in that nuclear waste can be stored in old salt mines - dry and over a mile deep. Much of our power comes from hydro power, only 15% being from nuclear generators almost all in Ontario. There is only one reactor outside of Ontario in New Brunswick (and New Brunswick hopes to have viable tidal power in the next few years - the Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world). I'm not sold on nuclear power being the answer - I don't even like driving past the nuclear power stations on the way to Toronto!

Do you feel any better once you have passed the nuclear power stations?

Good thing I was using a preposition not a verb

You still haven't addressed Toronto.

True - no one doesn't feel that much better....