Slashdot Mirror


The Arrival of Man-Made Earthquakes

An anonymous reader writes: The New Yorker has a long investigative report on a recent geological phenomenon: man-made earthquakes. The article describes how scientists painstakingly gathered data on the quakes, and then tried to find ways to communicate the results — which are quite definitive — to politicians who often have financial reasons to disbelieve them. Quoting: "Until 2008, Oklahoma experienced an average of one to two earthquakes of 3.0 magnitude or greater each year. (Magnitude-3.0 earthquakes tend to be felt, while smaller earthquakes may be noticed only by scientific equipment or by people close to the epicenter.) In 2009, there were twenty. The next year, there were forty-two. In 2014, there were five hundred and eighty-five, nearly triple the rate of California.

In state government, oil money is both invisible and pervasive. In 2013, Mary Fallin, the governor, combined the positions of Secretary of Energy and Secretary of the Environment. Michael Teague, whom she appointed to the position, when asked by the local NPR reporter Joe Wertz whether he believed in climate change, responded that he believed that the climate changed every day. Of the earthquakes, Teague has said that we need to learn more. Fallin's first substantive response came in 2014, when she encouraged Oklahomans to buy earthquake insurance. (However, many earthquake-insurance policies in the state exclude coverage for induced earthquakes.)"

40 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. I've had enough! by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dadburnit liberals and their commie "Global Shaking" scam.

    Get off my perfectly-stable lawn!
         

    1. Re:I've had enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Why would we want poor people to die? Who is going to clean my house?

  2. It is difficult... by Ichijo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article describes how scientists painstakingly gathered data on the quakes, and then tried to find ways to communicate the results--which are quite definitive--to politicians who often have financial reasons to disbelieve them.

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" --Upton Sinclair

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:It is difficult... by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" --Upton Sinclair

      The irony is that we've accidentally stumbled onto probably our best chance at mitigating disastrous earthquakes. But one side is desperate to prove we aren't causing earthquakes, and the other side is desperate to prove this is an evil thing which must be stopped.

      In avalanche-prone regions, we don't wait for the snow to build up until it comes down in a humungous avalanche. We deliberately cause smaller avalanches before the snow builds up to levels which could cause a devastating avalanche. Either by firing cannon shells or dropping dynamite from helicopters into the snowpack. With fracking, we've stumbled upon the exact same technique. We could intentionally trigger smaller earthquakes before seismic stresses build up enough to cause a devastating earthquake. But one side insists there's no connection, while the other side is desperate to portray it as an activity from which no good can come.

  3. The ultimate "man made earthquake" by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Russian analyst urges nuclear attack on Yellowstone National Park and San Andreas fault line

    A Russian geopolitical analyst says the best way to attack the United States is to detonate nuclear weapons to trigger a supervolcano at Yellowstone National Park or along the San Andreas fault line on California's coast.

    The president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems based in Moscow, Konstantin Sivkov said in an article for a Russian trade newspaper on Wednesday, VPK News, that Russia needed to increase its military weapons and strategies against the "West" which was "moving to the borders or Russia".

    He has a conspiracy theory that NATO - a political and military alliance which counts the US, UK, Canada and many countries in western Europe as members - was amassing strength against Russia and the only way to combat that problem was to attack America's vulnerabilities to ensure a "complete destruction of the enemy".

    "Geologists believe that the Yellowstone supervolcano could explode at any moment. There are signs of growing activity there. Therefore it suffices to push the relatively small, for example the impact of the munition megaton class to initiate an eruption. The consequences will be catastrophic for the United States - a country just disappears," he said.

    "Another vulnerable area of the United States from the geophysical point of view, is the San Andreas fault - 1300 kilometers between the Pacific and North American plates ... a detonation of a nuclear weapon there can trigger catastrophic events like a coast-scale tsunami which can completely destroy the infrastructure of the United States."

    Full story

    1. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by ChrisKnight · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wasn't this the plot of the first Superman movie with Christopher Reeves?

      --
      -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
    2. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Geologists believe that the Yellowstone supervolcano could explode at any moment. ...

      For a geologist "any moment" is sometime in the next million years.

    3. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In this case I believe it's closer to the next 30 million years. I also believe that a surface level explosion of a nuke on it would be quite unlikely to have any significant effect (on the volcano).

      OTOH, our ability to predict just when a volcano will explode is extremely poor. IIRC Mt. St. Helens took everyone totally by surprise.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:The ultimate "man made earthquake" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, there were obvious precursors for weeks before the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980. The size and nature of the eruption was a surprise (few expected a sector collapse -- when the whole side of the mountain failed), but the eruption itself was predicted.

  4. But do we know? by spauldo · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are fault lines in Oklahoma. There's a fairly large one that runs down from Nebraska into the eastern part of the state. It's usually pretty quiet, but every now and again you get a shift.

    And the article said that they're updating fault maps - they don't have enough data.

    So... are we sure these are caused by fracking? 'Cause even if you are, you'll never get Oklahomans (especially the government) to believe it.

    After all, we're the state that gave you Sen. Inhofe, who still denies that climate change is happening at all (sorry about that, I didn't vote for him). We've got a lot of people employed in the Oil industry. Going against Oil here is political suicide.

    Hopefully we can provide scientists enough data to prove what's going on (if it is indeed manmade) so they can use the data elsewhere. They'll make no traction here.

    --
    Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    1. Re:But do we know? by Rei · · Score: 2

      Everyone automatically talks about "fracking" in relation to the quakes. Fracking is just a brief pulse. Wastewater injection in disposal wells is a far more likely culprit if these are human-induced.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    2. Re:But do we know? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hopefully we can provide scientists enough data to prove what's going on (if it is indeed manmade) so they can use the data elsewhere.

      Well, as TFA says:

      The official position of the O.G.S. [Oklahoma Geological Survey] is that the Prague earthquakes were likely a natural event and that there is insufficient evidence to say that most earthquakes in Oklahoma are the result of disposal wells. That position, however, has no published research to support it, and there are at least twenty-three peer-reviewed, published papers that conclude otherwise.

      There's a lot of research and science on this already. The only people who seem to be confused are Oklahoma politicians, corporate executives, and some Oklahoma geologists who are employed or influenced by politicians.

      This is a state that went from 1-2 earthquakes over 3.0 per year to OVER 1500 such quakes in 2009-2014. So, something significant has changed (an increase of over two orders in magnitude is generally not just average variation), and it seems to have changed right around the time that people have started pumping a lot of stuff deep into the ground.

      If these are NOT manmade, it's one heck of a coincidence....

    3. Re:But do we know? by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

      are we sure these are caused by fracking?

      Actually, we are sure that they are not caused by fracking (which tends to cause only very small quakes of magnitude < 3.0). Rather, larger 3.0 - 6.0 magnitude quakes in Oklahoma are being caused by disposal wells via which extremely large quantities of water are being injected into the ground. TFA states that > 25 peer-reviewed studies have concluded the disposal wells are responsible, while 0 studies have produced an alternative result.

      Cause even if you are, you'll never get Oklahomans (especially the government) to believe it.

      The USGS has already concluded that the quakes are caused by disposal wells. The director of the OGS (interviewed in the article) essentially states that OGS is being politically prevented from agreeing with that conclusion openly. So it's only the regulatory side of Oklahoma government which has issues with empiricism.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    4. Re:But do we know? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      The lead pipes were mostly fine (and they may be some still in use near you) it's using a lead compound as a sweetener that got a lot of it into the Roman's bodies.

    5. Re:But do we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fracking in California? Never happen! They don't have enough water to do any fracking!

    6. Re:But do we know? by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      It gets better:

      Recently the legislature introduced a bill that would block the oil/gas industry from liability for spills and earthquakes.
      There's another that calls for an investigation into the scientists investigating the earthquakes (sound familiar to another topic??).

      And they recently gave the oil/gas industry yet another tax break....while the state has a massive 600million dollar shortfall in its budget (Kansas gets most of the press for doubling down failed red state budgetary policies, but OK is right there with them). Further, they want to continue to cut the income tax again, and eventually eliminate it entirely. These two items of course not being negotiable, even in the face of the massive budgetary shortfall.

      And the legislature passed a bill last week (which will be signed soon by the idiot Fallin if it hasn't already) that would ban local municipalities from interfering with, restricting, or banning oil/gas operations within their jurisdictions. That's right: the state government has told local government they cannot govern themselves in this area. Oil and gas by state law must (essentially) be given free reign to drill and operate where they want in the state.

      Just like last year the state legislature banned local municipalities from setting their own minimum wages. By state law now, no city in Oklahoma may set a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage, which of course is only as high as the federal. This was done in response to the mere idea being floated in OKC of setting a city minimum wage higher than the fed/state minimums.

      Blech.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  5. Obviously A Devine Warning by hax4bux · · Score: 5, Funny

    Repent sinners! God is angry at Oklahoma.

  6. Re:Keep digging you own hole by serbanp · · Score: 4, Informative

    since the scale is logarithmic, you would need more than 3 million 2.0 earthquakes to dissipate the same energy as a single 8.5. So no, all these 2.0 or 3.0s don't make a dent in the probability of a giant 8.5

  7. Crossed lines by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (However, many earthquake-insurance policies in the state exclude coverage for induced earthquakes.)

    So, if the insurance company can prove the quakes were man-made, they don't have to pay out. But if they can prove it, that goes against claims by many in the state and oil industry. The oil industry would likely try to hound/silence/sue the insurance company.

    If they deny a claim with loose evidence that it's man-made, the claimant could (theoretically) prove it was a natural occurrence. Because proving such is to the benefit of the oil industry, they would jump at the chance to "help", and perhaps have the state "investigate" the insurance company for fraud or questionable practices or something.

    It seems to me that, despite whatever exclusions the insurance company has, they will likely pay out for any and all earthquake claims with the oil industry helping them cover that pay out behind the scenes in order to keep any proof or claims of "induced" earthquakes out of the public eye.

    1. Re:Crossed lines by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I gotta admit, that caught my eye, too.

      But if they can prove it, that goes against claims by many in the state and oil industry. The oil industry would likely try to hound/silence/sue the insurance company.

      Not necessarily. Industries and governments are famous for two-faced policies.

      If the insurance company says that they were manmade, the government can say, "No, they weren't, but this is a civil matter and we can't interfere." And nothing will happen. Worst case, it will be tied up in courts for the next 20 years. By then, those people currently in charge will have made a ton of money and be retired somewhere outside the US.

      It's kind of like the music industry claiming that a 30-second ringtone is enough the song that consumers must pay royalties while, at the same time, claiming that they weren't so they didn't have to pay the artists royalties.

    2. Re:Crossed lines by theCoder · · Score: 2

      IANAGeologist, but I don't think earthquakes work like that. If anything, a large quake is more likely due to the lack of a buildup of small quakes since a large quake is caused by a large slippage on the fault. Lots of small slippage causing lots of small quakes would prevent a larger slippage and a larger quake.

      Of course, this is based on the normal earthquake cause of plate slippage. Quakes caused by fracking might be caused by something else. Maybe underground caverns that used to have oil in them collapsing? But without knowing the cause, we cannot really know if more 3.0 level quakes would mean more devastating quakes or if there is some limit to the power of a fracking caused quake.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
  8. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Without this information, it is difficult to understand whether this is just scaremongering by anti-fracking environmentalists.

    You asked the right questions, but you came to the wrong conclusion. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have this information, i.e. there are no peer reviewed studies predicting or discounting any of your three possibilities with a reasonable degree of certainty. Thus, it is entirely prudent to take precautions that would prevent a possible scenario where areas could be destabilized making a large quake more likely. If that sounds like anti-fracking scaremongering, it's because it is. It just so happens that it's a completely rational fear that has absolutely nothing to do with environmentalism as it relates to groundwater contamination.

  9. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I look at it like being on a mountain and whacking at rocks with a big mallet. Little ones, you'll almost certainly send rolling down the slope. Ones that are several dozen kilograms, it'll be hit or miss whether you'll make enough of an impact to send them down the mountainside. But giant multi-tonne boulders? You're irrelevant to them, even if they're already precariously balanced.

    On the other hand, there's always the possibility that you might hit a smaller rock, sending it cascading into a bigger rock, etc, and ultimately trigger a chain reaction that was already sitting there on a knife's edge. But the odds of this, just hitting rocks at random (let alone deliberately trying to avoid precariously balanced rocks), is very low.

    The amount of energy people are putting into the ground compared to the scale of the forces involved in major faults is pretty much irrelevant. Even if the fault is "ready to go", you're still hardly affecting it. There's always the chance you might start a cascade of slips... but that's unlikely, even if you weren't deliberately trying to avoid working near major faults - and drillers do try to avoid working near major faults.

    Possible - but very unlikely.

    --
    Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
  10. Re:Off topic, but not particularly funny. by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, it's a ridiculous claim, which is why it got so much incredulous coverage. The Yellowstone Caldera is not undergoing any unusual activity, just its normal random fluctuations, and nor is it something that even a hundred Tsar Bombas could readily destabilize.

    --
    Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
  11. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

    Oh, definitely an 8.5 or better. After all, if I can't dump California west of the San Andreas into the sea, who's going to be interested in my new beachfont development properties of Luthorville, Luthortown, Port Luthor, Otisberg, or... wait, Otisberg?

    OTIS!

  12. Re:poor reporting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The subtitle of this article does not specify that this is the arrival of the "first" manmade earthquakes as you've mistakenly interpreted. The article itself clarifies this "arrival" in the following statement (emphasis mine):

    "Few noticed that Keranen and her team had gathered likely the best data we have on a new phenomenon in Oklahoma: man-made earthquakes."

    In other words, STFU and RTFA, slew. I can't believe you actually wasted time googling up citations of other man-made earthquakes in support of your asinine complaint.

  13. Free gas and barely noticeable tremors by Terry95 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So if I understand this, the price of Natural gas is down, what, 80%? And now places where mostly no one lives have hundreds of itty bitty tinny tiny tremors so small that the people, that don't live there anyway, can barely detect them without specially calibrated scientific instruments. Also figure into the equation that the nearly free natural gas has allowed us to decommission coal burning plants left and right and is even threatening the economic viability of nuclear fission.

    Notwithstanding the absolute fact that relying solely on a single source of power is dangerous and stupid, this seems like a pretty freaking wonderful tradeoff! Granted the media panders exclusively to the eco-terrorist agenda and anything other than a rare earth exhausting solar panel, or a bird extincting windmill is unmitigatedly evil in their narrative. But for those of us that rather like living in the first world, with reliable power at record low prices, this seems like a glass half full sort of story.

  14. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seismic activity in Oklahoma is not caused by fracking, but by disposal wells via which truly vast quantities of water are injected into basement rock. Fracking tends to cause only very small earthquakes, while poorly placed disposal wells can lead to quakes of magnitude 3.0 - 6.0 (based on examples in TFA).

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  15. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

    he simple fact of the matter is that we don't have this information, i.e. there are no peer reviewed studies predicting or discounting any of your three possibilities with a reasonable degree of certainty.

    This simply isn't true (can you say astroturf?). Fracking is a complete non sequitor here; disposal wells in Oklahoma have been shown to be the primary cause of increased seismic activity there by multiple tens of peer-reviewed studies, while zero papers have reached an alternative conclusion.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  16. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are some good reasons to oppose hydraulic fracturing, but "earthquakes" isn't one of them.

    Guess you skipped the article, which isn't about fracking. Instead, it's about disposal wells, which unlike fracking (which as you say is linked only to very small earthquakes) have been conclusively linked to larger quakes of magnitude 3.0 - 6.0. According to TFA, there were 585 such earthquakes in Oklahoma in 2013, while there were just a few annually prior to 2008.

    This is as silly as opposing windmills because an occasional bird gets wacked.

    None of the scientists or Oklahoma residents quoted by TFA are "opposed" to disposal wells. They want 1) the empirical link between disposal wells which contact basement rock and seismic activity to be recognized; 2) firms to be required to investigate if their wells contact basement rock; and 3) to move wells which do in fact contact basement rock.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  17. Re: Fracking by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    If he's let you practice humor as badly as you do, he should be disbarred.

    If lawyers got to decide whats funny nobody would ever laugh.

  18. Sounds like a Bond Villian by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

    At first, I caused the quakes to see if I could. Next I caused the quakes to extort the government for money. But anymore, I just cause the quakes to make time with The Baroness more interesting.

  19. Re:Anti-fracking agenda by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

    TFA has nothing to do with fracking. It is about disposal wells. Indeed, TFA states that fracking is linked only to very small earthquakes, unlike disposal wells which have now been conclusively linked to earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 - 6.0. Further, all of the article's scientific statements are quotes from geologists who live and work in Oklahoma, or simply relate to the amount of research which has so far linked seismic activity to disposal wells.

    They should take time to learn about the geology of flyover country.

    You should take the time to learn something about petroleum extraction in Oklahoma.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  20. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The energy is the internal energy of billions upon billions of gallons of water.

    1) Gallons are not a unit of energy.
    2) A billion gallons of water is about the mass of a cube of rock 77 meters per side. The sort of fault that can unleash a major earthquake is hundreds of kilometers long and extends a good way through the crust.

    It is the boulder. You're hitting at it with a mallet. It doesn't care.

    In fact, it is significant with respect to fault forces - as demonstrated by the clear empirical link between disposal wells drilled into basement rock and seismic activity.

    Link with minor quakes They are the little rocks and occasional moderate sized rock that you can actually budge with your mallet.

    --
    Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
  21. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

    > The amount of energy people are putting into the ground compared to the scale of the forces

    The "amount of energy" is already present, it's not the addition of energy. The problem is that the water being pumped in is acting as a lubricant, in ways that oil embedded shale is not so good a lubricant. The earthquakes are due to _release_ of energy, not addition of energy.

  22. ...communicate the results to politicians... by tlambert · · Score: 2

    "The article describes how scientists painstakingly gathered data on the quakes, and then tried to find ways to communicate the results — which are quite definitive — to politicians who often have financial reasons to disbelieve them."

    Might I suggest ... a man made earthquake where they live?

    Come, Mr. Bigglesworth .... our work is done here...

  23. Re:Keep digging you own hole by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The fault in Prague isn't even near an injection well. There's no way it was directly caused by wastewater injection. Now, the smaller quake that led up to it was near a wastewater injection well, and there are some who think that was the trigger, while others disagree. But that's just an example of what I mentioned in my first post, the possibility of starting a cascade. But that's not as likely even if one wasn't trying to avoid triggering sizeable faults, something that the fact that there have been so even few moderate quakes in areas with injection wells despite the vast, vast amounts of wells that have been doing this for many years.

    And lets not pretend like these are the only human activities that cause earthquakes. Draining aquifers causes earthquakes. Building and filling large dams causes earthquakes. Even fluctuating reservoir levels cause earthquakes. Building very large skyscrapers causes earthquakes. Large mining projects cause earthquakes. Everything we do that adds or substracts weight from an area can trigger earthquakes. So why the focus on this particular cause? Do you mistakenly believe that this is somehow unusually severe? You talk about the merely cascaded 5,6 Prague quake that caused some damage. The 6,3 1967 Koynanagar Earthquake caused by Konya Dam killed 180 people and took out power to Bombay. Vajont Dam in Italy caused earthquakes, eventually destabilizing the slopes and sending a landslide into the filling reservoir and killing 2000 people. The 8,0 2008 Sichuan earthquake which killed 68.000 people, injured 376k people, left 5-11 million homeless was probably caused by Zipingpu Dam. Where's your outrage over this? Why all this outrage over these tiny quakes and the occasional moderate quake possibly triggered by a tiny quake, when there's far bigger induced seismicity causes out there?

    Simple: it's your political view coloring your analysis of the situation.

    --
    Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
  24. Re:New Yorker? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

    BLAH BLAH "CALIFORNIA" WHATEVER. You do realize that there are these "building codes" in CA, thus why these quakes don't bother you. I work in one of the few "earthquake" proof buildings in the state, the old SABRE building at the Tulsa airport. At my apartment, on the second floor, we've watched glasses of water shake like on Jurassic Park...and we're about 100 miles from where these injection wells are. There is building damage in Pryor and other towns...a Google image search for "oklahoma earthquake damage" will show MANY houses that are damaged.

  25. Parturiunt Montes, Nascetur Ridiculus Mus by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 3, Funny

    GEOLOGIST: Injection of wastewater in Oklahoma is triggering earthquakes.
    POPULAR PRESS: Injection of wastewater is causing earthquakes.
    ACTIVIST: Fracking causes earthquakes.
    GEOLOGIST: Many small quakes relieve pressure, bigger ones inevitable but smaller, less often.
    ACTIVIST GEOLOGIST: Many quakes means movement! Big one inevitable! It's our fault! Soon!
    POPULAR PRESS: Mankind fucking with Earth again
    GAIA: I just want to be left alone. Naasty peepl.
    ARCHIMEDES: Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.
    WASTEWATER INJECTION CREW: All we're doing is lubricating the lever. We did not create it.
    VIRTUALLY EVERY OKLAHOMAN: No big deal.

    Meanwhile,

    GEOLOGIST: Depletion of groundwater creating uplift along San Adreas Fault
    DESERT PERSON WITH LUSH LAWN: San Adreas is not my fault.
    AGITATED FRACKING ACTIVIST: Who let that guy in anyway? We're talking about Big Oil.
    MULLHOLLAND: We shall deflate the West to bring water to California.

    Meanwhile,

    SCIENTIST: By use of amazing technology, traces with unique Cesium-134 fingerprint of Fukushima have been detected in ocean off Vancouver.
    SCIENTIST: if a person swam for six hours each day in water with Cesium levels twice as high as those found in Ucluelet, they'd receive a radiation dose that is more than 1,000 times less than that of a single dental X-ray.
    INTERNET DOOMPORN STAR WITH PERFECT TEETH: This is an extinction level event! Look, a fish died in the Pacific! Salmon are misshapen! The cans are dented!
    POPULAR PRESS: Mankind fucking with Earth again
    GAIA: Stop the world, I want to get off!

    Parturiunt Montes, Nascetur Ridiculus Mus
    The mountains are in labor; an absurd mouse is the result.
    ~~Horace

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  26. Re:Keep digging you own hole by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

    the scientists on the 'environmental' side

    This is a generic false equivalence which contradicts the positions of the actual Oklahoman scientists who provided the majority of the material in TFA.

    In fact, these scientists all support the Oklahoma oil industry and continued injection via disposal wells. They want 1) the government to recognize the scientific evidence on the matter, 2) firms and government to investigate which wells contact basement rock and 3) firms to move wells which do in fact contact basement rock.

    'harvest' the 'scientific results'

    No harvesting or picking of results is possible in this particular case, because while there are ~25 studies supporting induced seismicity in Oklahoma, there are zero studies with alternate conclusions.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.