Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
when talking about the weather
Dear fellows
everyone should read the following article But here on the front lines of the battle over fracking, which has become an increasingly popular technique to extract previously unobtainable reserves of oil and gas, no conclusion is yet definitive. After an outcry from Wyoming’s governor, Matt Mead, and the energy industry that the federal report was premature and inconclusive, more testing was conducted by the United States Geological Survey and is being processed. The E.P.A. is also in the midst of collecting additional water samples for study. “Until there is a peer-reviewed study and a good scientific basis that indicates that the issues related to water are related to our operations, that is not something we are ready to address,” said Doug Hock, an Encana spokesman. “I’d like to have the industry held accountable for once,” said Jeff Locker, a hay and barley farmer who said that his well water had gone bad around the mid-’90s and that the contaminants had contributed to his wife’s neuropathy. “We’ve got scientific proof. And they’re still turning their back on us. They expect us to pay between $100 and $200 for something we didn’t cause. It gets under my skin.” For the last few years, a small group of farmers and landowners scattered across this rural Wyoming basin have complained that their water wells have been contaminated with chemicals from a controversial drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Encana has maintained that water in the area is naturally poor and that its operations did not cause the problems — fracking had also occurred before the company purchased the gas field. Moreover, the energy industry has steadfastly pointed out that there has never been any conclusive link between fracking and water contamination. After an outcry from Wyoming’s governor, Matt Mead, and the energy industry that the federal report was premature and inconclusive, more testing was conducted by the United States Geological Survey and is being processed. The E.P.A. is also in the midst of collecting additional water samples for study. A draft report by the Environmental Protection Agency, issued in December, appeared to confirm their concerns, linking chemicals in local groundwater to gas drilling. For the last few years, a small group of farmers and landowners scattered across this rural Wyoming basin have complained that their water wells have been contaminated with chemicals from a controversial drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Encana has maintained that water in the area is naturally poor and that its operations did not cause the problems — fracking had also occurred before the company purchased the gas field. Moreover, the energy industry has steadfastly pointed out that there has never been any conclusive link between fracking and water contamination. ; Therefore this article may be used But here on the front lines of the battle over fracking, which has become an increasingly popular technique to extract previously unobtainable reserves of oil and gas, no conclusion is yet definitive. In the meantime, the state has offered to provide cisterns for local residents, using $750,000 allocated by the Wyoming Legislature this year. Under the plan, people here would still have to pay a fee to have their water hauled from the nearby community of Pavillion, at a cost that could run more than $150 per month. “Until there is a peer-reviewed study and a good scientific basis that indicates that the issues related to water are related to our operations, that is not something we are ready to address,” said Doug Hock, an Encana spokesman. After an outcry from Wyoming’s governor, Matt Mead, and the energy industry that the federal report was premature and inconclusive, more testing was conducted by the United States Geological Survey and is being processed. The E.P.A. is also in the midst of collecting additional water samples for study. But here on the front lines of the battle over fracking, which has become an increasingly popular technique to extract previously unobtainable reserves of oil and gas, no conclusion is yet definitive. But some locals say the draft report’s analysis of water samples, which identified synthetic chemicals consistent with natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing fluids, is proof of what they suspected for years. In the meantime, the state has offered to provide cisterns for local residents, using $750,000 allocated by the Wyoming Legislature this year. Under the plan, people here would still have to pay a fee to have their water hauled from the nearby community of Pavillion, at a cost that could run more than $150 per month. A draft report by the Environmental Protection Agency, issued in December, appeared to confirm their concerns, linking chemicals in local groundwater to gas drilling. Encana has maintained that water in the area is naturally poor and that its operations did not cause the problems — fracking had also occurred before the company purchased the gas field. Moreover, the energy industry has steadfastly pointed out that there has never been any conclusive link between fracking and water contamination. ; how did you achieve the water monitoring and the connection with the weather supervision? When studying the water , this site seems appropriate http://www.swrcb.ca.gov Best regards |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
when talking about the weather
Peer reveiwing is like they guy who wrote it critiques it. How many
"scientists" buck the system? They all need grants and jobs!!!! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
when talking about the weather
SG1 wrote:
Peer reveiwing is like they guy who wrote it critiques it. How many "scientists" buck the system? They all need grants and jobs!!!! For the purpose of general education I will assume that you are serious and not trolling. The above statements show little idea of the scientific method or understanding of the motives of scientists. The peer review process specifically excludes the author and his/her associates and is conducted anonymously. Assuming a global conspiracy of scientists to lie in order to keep funding is a favourite tactic of deniers. A moment of thought would show how impossible it is. First, there is no evidence for it and it assumes that tens of thousands of people who have little social cohesion (and who are often in competition) could and would keep the secret. Second, the most famous scientists are those who bucked the system. The scientist who could overthrow some important commonly accepted view (anthropogenic climate change, evolution as the explanation of life as we see it, the health consequences of smoking tobacco, etc) with evidence would be immortalised as a modern Einstein. Every young scientist dreams that he/she will be the one who brings on the next paradigm shift. There are fabulous rewards waiting for the supposed scientific conspirator who is the first to breaks ranks - but it doesn't happen. On the other hand there are also rewards outside the scientific community for the shills of vested interest to lie and to conduct disinformation campaigns in the general media, but crucially NOT in the peer reviewed journals, and many step forward to take the money and notoriety. Scientists are merely human and have human weaknesses. They do make errors, they do deceive themselves and sometimes they commit fraud. The point is that the methodology is there to catch and to expose those errors. In the long run it works and works to explain the way the universe operates much better than saying 'I don't like the consequences of this idea therefore it must be wrong and scientists who say so are liars'. David |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Gail was just talking about Major Japanese brewer Suntory unveiled | Roses | |||
Gail was just talking about Major Japanese brewer Suntory unveiled | Roses | |||
Pea Soup and I'm not talking about food. | Ponds | |||
as long as we're talking about blueberries... | North Carolina | |||
as long as we're talking about blueberries... | North Carolina |