If the area they are frakking is 10,000 feet "Below" the water table, then they probably have to go through the water table in order to reach it.
So there is at least one path for contamination.
No. There is no path with proper well casing.
Additionally, frakking is the process of breaking geological formations in order to allow for the collection and extraction of liquid petroleum and gasses, AND a direct correlation has been show between frakking and increased geological activity.
So, they are intentionally breaking the layers of rock separating pockets of gas and oil, and causing small earthquakes.
Extremely small earth quakes. It is misleading to give it that term because it implies to most lay people that you could feel it long distances away. You can't. Unlike the vast majority of posters I have been less than 100 feet away from the well bore in a trailer when a large frac was performed. I did not fall down, and other than a light amount of vibration, it was just a big bang. Also keep in mind, that any release of energy that high would require some impressive engineering on the well bore and drilling rig.
I would like to see studies that show a direct correlation between fraccing and increased geological activity. "Correlation does not imply causation". While I don't wish to seem like I am resistant to the truth, the science behind fraccing does not, at a glance, support sustained increases in geological activity.
Citation please.
Meanwhile you are arguing that "it is impossible for the technology to cause the problems", and that there is no way that during all of the intentional layer breaking they might cause something to change in the layers that are sitting on top of the work area
They can't cause any large scale or meaningful changes in layers sitting on top of the work area. I am assuming that you mean that a frac conducted at 15k feet deep can change layers between a thousand feet and the surface. That would not happen.
In order for it to be true, the energies required would be impressive to say the least. The frac would not be limited to the production zone, but would result in fractures at the surface. Such energies would result in an earth quake comparable to a nuclear blast. You would feel that in major cities hundreds of miles away.
You simply cannot affect changes through that many thousands of feet of rock without the requisite increase in energy levels. It's not like they are bringing out portable nuclear power on site. It's diesel man.
Additionally, and so many people here overlook this, for every fracture that is created you need to pump proppant into it. This means you can tell how well your frac performed, in part, by looking at how much proppant was pumped into it. To have large scale effects at the water table, thousands of feet above your target, would require many many times the amount of proppant you estimated was required. You would know.
I'm not sure that "impossible" is the right term to use. I'd have chosen "marginally unlikely", but that's just me.
Impossible might have been over doing it. However "marginal" is over doing it as well. Highly unlikely would be a better way to say it. You have better chances of winning the lottery.
Casing has nothing to do with fraccing. In a well that is never fracced, you still have casing.
The problem is not fraccing. It is quality control and proper engineering.
If you frac to close to the water table and use low quality cement for your casing, don't follow proper procedures, you have a lot of problems. Not just the water table either. You could lose the whole well.
Instead of a witty retort (it was rather witty) why don't you explain to me how I am wrong about the high energy part and that fractures really do reach thousands of feet above of them to the water table? I mean thousands of feet above the ceiling that was calculated?
Those of us who are skeptical of fracking need to know how it can be done responsibly and why it isn't.
I know the answers to both questions. Being done responsibly is easy. Just involve competent people and have the moral resolve to not frac the formation if there is more than a 1% chance it could affect the water table. The rest is quality control.
Why it isn't is very simple. Greed and quality control.
Hopefully this can end in oil for everyone AND bad engineers in jail.
That will be more effective than anything else by far. Send the fraccing engineers to jail along with the executives of the fraccing company if it is proved that any reasonable study would have shown it was dangerous.
Do that, and you don't need to worry about the executives pushing it. Those engineers will walk away.
That sound great, until you realise that by frac'ing and drilling into the rock, they've changed the permeability of the rock (ie: the point of frac'ing).
Drilling does not change the permeability of the surrounding rock. Keep in mind there is something called well casing which essentially protects the hole all the way to the surface.
If you drill a hole in concrete and fill it with water, did it make all of the concrete more permeable? Nope.
Many of the chemicals are water soluble and/or are lighter than the ground water, why wouldn't the ground water seep down in the now permeable rock and mix with the chemicals?
The ground water would not seep down because all of the rock formation did not have a uniform increase in permeability. It was like a bunch of cracks in a concrete wall that was further separated from the water table (we will just say a layer of dirt) by another layer of concrete that was unaffected by the frac.
Imagine this.
You have a mix of concrete in which you suspended bubbles of Coke. It is 100 feet thick. You then have a layer of normal concrete that is 1000 feet thick. On top of that you have a 100 foot layer of dirt that has a bunch of water in it.
The water table is only going to extend to the concrete itself, and not all the way to the bottom. That's the way they work, otherwise water could just fall all the way to the core of the Earth.
You then drill a hole through the whole thing. Before you frac, or do anything else after drilling the hole, you make a nice reinforced straw. That is called casing. All of the dirt does not directly interact with any fluid in the hole. It can't. The casing is there.
The water table is protected by the casing.
Now you perforate the casing all the way at the bottom with shaped explosives. This allows the Coke to flow into the hole under pressure and go to the surface. However, since the permeability is so low... you are not getting a lot. The Coke does not interact with the water table due to the casing.
That's where fraccing comes in. You create thousands of small fractures (hence the name) in the bottom layer with that nasty fluid everyone hates. Pump in proppant (which is like sand) and remove the fluid.
Now what you have is a bunch of fractures that allow the trapped Coke to travel to the hole faster. That's why it is done.
The fractures themselves extend out horizontally some distance, and vertically, but they they simply don't make it all the way through that 1000 foot thick layer of concrete to get to the water table above it.
That is why ground water does not seep into fractured formations thousands of feet below it. A path does not exist.
So now that you understand that, the only way the water table can be affected is with damaged casing (has nothing to do with fraccing) or a fraccing process that put the water table at risk because it was too close.
That's why the technology is perfectly fine in theory. Any dickhead that decides to do something like that too close to water table is the real problem.
It does not have to be suspended completely though. That is an over reaction.
Fraccing does not occur everywhere under the ground. It is in fact a highly targeted and precise operation when done correctly.
As long as all the engineers can show that the water table could not interact with the fracced formation to a very high confidence, it should be allowed to proceed.
I said some of these fracced formations were more than 10,000 feet below the water table. Believe me when I tell you that there are thousands upon thousands of feet of low permeability strata that have prevented anything from mixing with that water table for geological time periods (tens of thousands or millions of years).
The energies required are enormous. Those cracks they create below ground get filled in with proppant (which is a type of sand and chemically inert) and don't travel all the way back up to surface. We are not talking about something that create a visible crack on the surface or cause an earth quake. Fraccing is just not that high energy.
How can you be correct when you don't even know how fraccing works? How is the method inherently a scorched earth tactic?
Remember, what I am saying, is that low permeability strata (meaning water does not flow through it) is cracked apart and those chemicals are introduced as a medium to leave proppant behind. The fluids themselves are largely reclaimed. Not left down below.
Most often, especially in Texas, those wells are so deep that it is not possible for the water table to interact with those formations that are being fracced. That's why you are not correct and just have no idea what you are talking about.
Ask a geologist some time if it is possible for a water table to interact with a low permeability formation that is 10,000 feet below it. He will say it is not possible. Guess why? It it was possible, that would mean the water table was that deep to begin with.
The very definitions of the terms being used mean you are incorrect and have no understanding of the process.
None, none, of what I am saying is condoning shallow fraccing in other areas of the country where it could interact with a water table.
So.. on-site all of these engineers were engaged in a massive conspiracy to lie to me about how fraccing works?
The solution is to do fraccing only where appropriate. This means proper surveys and considering how it might impact the environment. Which is exactly what the study says. It was improper in the areas that have had water tables affected. In some cases, it should have never been done in the first place, and I am the first to agree with that.
I have no reason to believe they are lying to me, and certainly not years and years before this became a big deal. Most people just have no idea how it actually works. If you did, you would know how absolutely ludicrous it is for a formation 15,000 feet below ground, that is trapping hydrocarbons, in a low permeability strata, to have any affect on a water table 10,000 feet or more above it.
It is not possible for large scale effects in such a situation. At most, if the well casing is damaged near the surface you might have some leakage into the water table. However, that will happen with or without fraccing. You can detect and repair that, which is in the best interests of the operators, regardless of environmental concerns.
There are no alternatives to fraccing whatsoever. The whole idea is to crack the formations apart, pump in proppant (sand like material), and remove the fluids to increase permeability. You cannot increase permeability any other way, which is what allows you to get the hydrocarbons out the ground fast enough to make it economically viable to produce.
You would be better off finding alternatives to fossil fuels. However, the only reasonable alternative at the moment for large scale power production is nuclear, but we can't have that either.
I just find it a little ridiculous to be railing against the technology, when it is impossible for the technology to cause the problems, when properly used.
It's not the technology. It's the people. Fraccing does not damage water tables every single time in every single case, which is what people love to say.
Apple juice is *not* just flavored sugar water. Keep in mind I said natural apple juice. I know that natural apple juice has benefits, but I will just quote Wikipedia here.
Vitamin C is sometimes added by fortification, because content is variable,[2] and much of that is lost in processing.[citation needed] Other vitamin concentrations are low, but apple juice does contain various mineral nutrients, including boron, which may promote healthy bones.[3] Apple juice has a significant concentration of natural phenols of low molecular weight (including chlorogenic acid, flavan-3-ols, and flavonols) and procyanidins[4] that may protect from diseases associated with aging due to the antioxidant effects which help reduce the likelihood of developing cancer and Alzheimer's disease.[5] Research suggests that apple juice increases acetylcholine in the brain, possibly resulting in improved memory.
Now there can be a lot of sugar (which Wikipedia cautions as well), especially with low quality juice that has high fructose corn syrup added to it. However, natural apple juice, which you *can* get at a grocery store is sold in small servings and the sugars found it in are raw and not refined.
Comparing natural apple juice to soda is misleading. Vitamin Water is a poor comparison since its nutritional benefits are dubious at best.
Iced tea can contain a lot of caffeine, and children especially, seem to prefer the sweetened kind which can be more detrimental than the apple juice over time. Plain unsweetened green tea can be good but for developing children I would stay away from caffeine.
Diet sodas contain all sorts of artificial sweeteners and chemicals that have studies going back and forth about how healthy they are. Unless it is Stevia, I stay away from all sweeteners. Stevia has the added benefit of not raising your blood sugar. That is important because there are some studies which suggest high fructose corn syrup can be a factor in developing diabetes. Monitoring blood sugar levels and/or being careful about the types of sugars and carbs you ingest is a wise thing to do.
Remember, this is for children in small amounts. I have natural apple juice only occasionally, and that goes for any type of fruit drinks. Water and green tea are my mainstays.
In any case, you are completely off base about natural apple juice. Much of the alternatives you mentioned are comparable to the worst apple juices on market.
It *sounds* bad to be putting 3000 different chemicals into the ground until you actually start taking geology into account. Having been on-site and spoken with engineers, I am *EXTREMELY* dubious that when fraccing zones more than 10,000 feet underground that it can affect the water table thousands of feet above it.
Especially Texas where most of the wells I am aware of are deep wells.
Plus, fraccing is required when the permeability of your zone is low. That means, by definition, it would not be a water table or any other kind of zone in which those chemicals could be moving around. If it is that permeable already and connected to a water table you would be tasting the natural hydrocarbons already.
I have always brought this up when these types of articles appear that the very definition of the technology would seem to preclude these types of interactions with water tables.
This study only seems to confirm what I was already saying. Only wells that are improperly fracced have these kinds of results.
Now I can certainly see that horizontal shallow drilling accompanied by fraccing could possibly introduce the natural hydrocarbons (that were trapped in various formations) into water tables along with the fraccing fluid.
The mistake people make is thinking that the ground is the same the whole way down. Far from it. It's more complicated than that. If water tables are being affected it is because the engineers are idiots and not doing it right.
The study is entirely plausible. It says it works in theory (which it most certainly does) but in practice you can fuck up and contaminate the water tables. Doesn't tell me something I did not already know intuitively.
I dislike the drives because they are slow (even though some floppy drives were made for performance), take up space in the system, demand a power connector that is only used for them at this point, and require their own type of connector on a mother board.
Overall, a complete waste of space everywhere in the system. Literally only used to bios updates and operating system installs.
The newest Intel motherboard I picked up for a networking monitoring system did not even have PATA connections, much less a connection for a floppy drive. Damn thing would not even recognize a USB connected DVD-ROM for install. Had to make a USB disk.
I think you meant deprecated, and.com is not the only one.
It's always the US government because the US government is in complete control over the DNS for the entire planet. If that is what you mean by shut down.
As for blocking, not only the US government does that. It is immensely popular in a lot of countries to do so, and most notably, TPB is being blocked by BREIN recently.
If anything the current DNS system, along with the root servers, needs to be marked as deprecated and replaced with something else.
but then one guy ruined the whole thing by being a serial killer while hitchhiking.
I agree with most of your statement. However, hitchhiking still works perfectly for young girls in cutoff shorts and tank tops. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
Just like me taking my just detailed ($100) sports car into a parking lot to get a marginal car wash by a bunch of high school girls that need to raise money for whatever.
Nothing has had the life span of floppy drives though, at least commercially. Some computers still come with them, some servers still come with them, and IT people still need blank floppies for some installs.
Cannot go away fast enough.
I won a bet with somebody that refused to believe I had a legitimate need for a USB floppy drive and disk.
Wow. I guess I really must be the odd man out here.
I did not get why it was funny because I thought it was referring to a surveying instrument that is meant to be pushed. That's the first time I ever heard the word.
Airplanes seemed pretty useless when they first came out too: not very fast, could only fly in a straight line before crashing, couldn't turn, couldn't carry any weight, etc
I would not use flight as an analogy. It went from theoretical, prototype, production, improvement, mass use, all the way to mass fuck up and unbelievable difficulty to use.
There is no analogy for the TSA in computers.... Not even Microsoft or Apple's walled garden.
I'm sorry, it seems as if you are saying that her grandchildren getting a royalty cheque is a sign of sanity? I don't know if you are being facetious, but if you are serious.....
Sanity? Far from it. Direct ownership of ideas and their expressions is outright insanity. The Public Domain is really a term that expresses a fundamental truth in all advancing societies....
All people benefit from the hard work and innovation of their ancestors. All current innovation is not created in a vacuum, but relies upon every aspect of current society, from agriculture, exposure to prior art and innovation, health, etc. Every single artist owes a debt of gratitude to their ancestors for the luxury of being able to create new music..
Depending on your philosophy and idea of a working society you can favor no direct or indirect "ownership" of ideas and expressions at all, or a copyright system in which it temporarily rewards those contributing to the Public Domain by allowing them certain legal entitlements to profit for their works (indirect benefits of ownership).
Allowing Whitney Houston's grandchildren the benefit of enjoying legal entitlements is not in the best interests of society. No legal entitlement should last longer than 20 years, and certainly not through generations. It is an impediment to further creation and innovation.
I can still blame them. It's so completely tasteless it borders on disrespect for Whitney Houston by disrespecting her fans.
If Sony wanted to make some extra money out of this they could have taken some time and put together a compilation, some tributes by other artists, etc. Add some value with a new product, and maybe even add some class to it by saying that a certain percentage was going to be donated to Whitney Houston's favorite charities.
Raising the price on an existing product so soon after she died just lacks any sense of decency and decorum.
Not entirely. It will not be as profitable, but it could get a very large chunk of a specific market share.
Senior citizens and complete and total morons.
I *know* some of these people. Very smart people otherwise (except for the real morons), but totally hopeless with computers. Even the most basic of diagnostic tasks past "is the power cord plugged in" can fluster them and take 15 minutes to get past on the phone.
Having somebody they can always talk to by name to help them out will be valuable in their eyes. It will sell in that specific market.
P.S - Anybody that reads this that thinks you know me..... no I was not talking about you. At all. I swear.
Slashdot Mirror
If the area they are frakking is 10,000 feet "Below" the water table, then they probably have to go through the water table in order to reach it.
So there is at least one path for contamination.
No. There is no path with proper well casing.
Additionally, frakking is the process of breaking geological formations in order to allow for the collection and extraction of liquid petroleum and gasses, AND a direct correlation has been show between frakking and increased geological activity.
So, they are intentionally breaking the layers of rock separating pockets of gas and oil, and causing small earthquakes.
Extremely small earth quakes. It is misleading to give it that term because it implies to most lay people that you could feel it long distances away. You can't. Unlike the vast majority of posters I have been less than 100 feet away from the well bore in a trailer when a large frac was performed. I did not fall down, and other than a light amount of vibration, it was just a big bang. Also keep in mind, that any release of energy that high would require some impressive engineering on the well bore and drilling rig.
I would like to see studies that show a direct correlation between fraccing and increased geological activity. "Correlation does not imply causation". While I don't wish to seem like I am resistant to the truth, the science behind fraccing does not, at a glance, support sustained increases in geological activity.
Citation please.
Meanwhile you are arguing that "it is impossible for the technology to cause the problems", and that there is no way that during all of the intentional layer breaking they might cause something to change in the layers that are sitting on top of the work area
They can't cause any large scale or meaningful changes in layers sitting on top of the work area. I am assuming that you mean that a frac conducted at 15k feet deep can change layers between a thousand feet and the surface. That would not happen.
In order for it to be true, the energies required would be impressive to say the least. The frac would not be limited to the production zone, but would result in fractures at the surface. Such energies would result in an earth quake comparable to a nuclear blast. You would feel that in major cities hundreds of miles away.
You simply cannot affect changes through that many thousands of feet of rock without the requisite increase in energy levels. It's not like they are bringing out portable nuclear power on site. It's diesel man.
Additionally, and so many people here overlook this, for every fracture that is created you need to pump proppant into it. This means you can tell how well your frac performed, in part, by looking at how much proppant was pumped into it. To have large scale effects at the water table, thousands of feet above your target, would require many many times the amount of proppant you estimated was required. You would know.
I'm not sure that "impossible" is the right term to use. I'd have chosen "marginally unlikely", but that's just me.
Impossible might have been over doing it. However "marginal" is over doing it as well. Highly unlikely would be a better way to say it. You have better chances of winning the lottery.
Exactly.
Casing has nothing to do with fraccing. In a well that is never fracced, you still have casing.
The problem is not fraccing. It is quality control and proper engineering.
If you frac to close to the water table and use low quality cement for your casing, don't follow proper procedures, you have a lot of problems. Not just the water table either. You could lose the whole well.
That's neat. I see what you did there.
Instead of a witty retort (it was rather witty) why don't you explain to me how I am wrong about the high energy part and that fractures really do reach thousands of feet above of them to the water table? I mean thousands of feet above the ceiling that was calculated?
Those of us who are skeptical of fracking need to know how it can be done responsibly and why it isn't.
I know the answers to both questions. Being done responsibly is easy. Just involve competent people and have the moral resolve to not frac the formation if there is more than a 1% chance it could affect the water table. The rest is quality control.
Why it isn't is very simple. Greed and quality control.
Hopefully this can end in oil for everyone AND bad engineers in jail.
That will be more effective than anything else by far. Send the fraccing engineers to jail along with the executives of the fraccing company if it is proved that any reasonable study would have shown it was dangerous.
Do that, and you don't need to worry about the executives pushing it. Those engineers will walk away.
That sound great, until you realise that by frac'ing and drilling into the rock, they've changed the permeability of the rock (ie: the point of frac'ing).
Drilling does not change the permeability of the surrounding rock. Keep in mind there is something called well casing which essentially protects the hole all the way to the surface.
If you drill a hole in concrete and fill it with water, did it make all of the concrete more permeable? Nope.
Many of the chemicals are water soluble and/or are lighter than the ground water, why wouldn't the ground water seep down in the now permeable rock and mix with the chemicals?
The ground water would not seep down because all of the rock formation did not have a uniform increase in permeability. It was like a bunch of cracks in a concrete wall that was further separated from the water table (we will just say a layer of dirt) by another layer of concrete that was unaffected by the frac.
Imagine this.
You have a mix of concrete in which you suspended bubbles of Coke. It is 100 feet thick. You then have a layer of normal concrete that is 1000 feet thick. On top of that you have a 100 foot layer of dirt that has a bunch of water in it.
The water table is only going to extend to the concrete itself, and not all the way to the bottom. That's the way they work, otherwise water could just fall all the way to the core of the Earth.
You then drill a hole through the whole thing. Before you frac, or do anything else after drilling the hole, you make a nice reinforced straw. That is called casing. All of the dirt does not directly interact with any fluid in the hole. It can't. The casing is there.
The water table is protected by the casing.
Now you perforate the casing all the way at the bottom with shaped explosives. This allows the Coke to flow into the hole under pressure and go to the surface. However, since the permeability is so low... you are not getting a lot. The Coke does not interact with the water table due to the casing.
That's where fraccing comes in. You create thousands of small fractures (hence the name) in the bottom layer with that nasty fluid everyone hates. Pump in proppant (which is like sand) and remove the fluid.
Now what you have is a bunch of fractures that allow the trapped Coke to travel to the hole faster. That's why it is done.
The fractures themselves extend out horizontally some distance, and vertically, but they they simply don't make it all the way through that 1000 foot thick layer of concrete to get to the water table above it.
That is why ground water does not seep into fractured formations thousands of feet below it. A path does not exist.
So now that you understand that, the only way the water table can be affected is with damaged casing (has nothing to do with fraccing) or a fraccing process that put the water table at risk because it was too close.
That's why the technology is perfectly fine in theory. Any dickhead that decides to do something like that too close to water table is the real problem.
It does not have to be suspended completely though. That is an over reaction.
Fraccing does not occur everywhere under the ground. It is in fact a highly targeted and precise operation when done correctly.
As long as all the engineers can show that the water table could not interact with the fracced formation to a very high confidence, it should be allowed to proceed.
I said some of these fracced formations were more than 10,000 feet below the water table. Believe me when I tell you that there are thousands upon thousands of feet of low permeability strata that have prevented anything from mixing with that water table for geological time periods (tens of thousands or millions of years).
The energies required are enormous. Those cracks they create below ground get filled in with proppant (which is a type of sand and chemically inert) and don't travel all the way back up to surface. We are not talking about something that create a visible crack on the surface or cause an earth quake. Fraccing is just not that high energy.
How can you be correct when you don't even know how fraccing works? How is the method inherently a scorched earth tactic?
Remember, what I am saying, is that low permeability strata (meaning water does not flow through it) is cracked apart and those chemicals are introduced as a medium to leave proppant behind. The fluids themselves are largely reclaimed. Not left down below.
Most often, especially in Texas, those wells are so deep that it is not possible for the water table to interact with those formations that are being fracced. That's why you are not correct and just have no idea what you are talking about.
Ask a geologist some time if it is possible for a water table to interact with a low permeability formation that is 10,000 feet below it. He will say it is not possible. Guess why? It it was possible, that would mean the water table was that deep to begin with.
The very definitions of the terms being used mean you are incorrect and have no understanding of the process.
None, none, of what I am saying is condoning shallow fraccing in other areas of the country where it could interact with a water table.
It's not the fraccing, it is the people doing it.
So.. on-site all of these engineers were engaged in a massive conspiracy to lie to me about how fraccing works?
The solution is to do fraccing only where appropriate. This means proper surveys and considering how it might impact the environment. Which is exactly what the study says. It was improper in the areas that have had water tables affected. In some cases, it should have never been done in the first place, and I am the first to agree with that.
I have no reason to believe they are lying to me, and certainly not years and years before this became a big deal. Most people just have no idea how it actually works. If you did, you would know how absolutely ludicrous it is for a formation 15,000 feet below ground, that is trapping hydrocarbons, in a low permeability strata, to have any affect on a water table 10,000 feet or more above it.
It is not possible for large scale effects in such a situation. At most, if the well casing is damaged near the surface you might have some leakage into the water table. However, that will happen with or without fraccing. You can detect and repair that, which is in the best interests of the operators, regardless of environmental concerns.
There are no alternatives to fraccing whatsoever. The whole idea is to crack the formations apart, pump in proppant (sand like material), and remove the fluids to increase permeability. You cannot increase permeability any other way, which is what allows you to get the hydrocarbons out the ground fast enough to make it economically viable to produce.
You would be better off finding alternatives to fossil fuels. However, the only reasonable alternative at the moment for large scale power production is nuclear, but we can't have that either.
I just find it a little ridiculous to be railing against the technology, when it is impossible for the technology to cause the problems, when properly used.
It's not the technology. It's the people. Fraccing does not damage water tables every single time in every single case, which is what people love to say.
You can't be serious?
Apple juice is *not* just flavored sugar water. Keep in mind I said natural apple juice. I know that natural apple juice has benefits, but I will just quote Wikipedia here.
Vitamin C is sometimes added by fortification, because content is variable,[2] and much of that is lost in processing.[citation needed] Other vitamin concentrations are low, but apple juice does contain various mineral nutrients, including boron, which may promote healthy bones.[3] Apple juice has a significant concentration of natural phenols of low molecular weight (including chlorogenic acid, flavan-3-ols, and flavonols) and procyanidins[4] that may protect from diseases associated with aging due to the antioxidant effects which help reduce the likelihood of developing cancer and Alzheimer's disease.[5] Research suggests that apple juice increases acetylcholine in the brain, possibly resulting in improved memory.
Now there can be a lot of sugar (which Wikipedia cautions as well), especially with low quality juice that has high fructose corn syrup added to it. However, natural apple juice, which you *can* get at a grocery store is sold in small servings and the sugars found it in are raw and not refined.
Comparing natural apple juice to soda is misleading. Vitamin Water is a poor comparison since its nutritional benefits are dubious at best.
Iced tea can contain a lot of caffeine, and children especially, seem to prefer the sweetened kind which can be more detrimental than the apple juice over time. Plain unsweetened green tea can be good but for developing children I would stay away from caffeine.
Diet sodas contain all sorts of artificial sweeteners and chemicals that have studies going back and forth about how healthy they are. Unless it is Stevia, I stay away from all sweeteners. Stevia has the added benefit of not raising your blood sugar. That is important because there are some studies which suggest high fructose corn syrup can be a factor in developing diabetes. Monitoring blood sugar levels and/or being careful about the types of sugars and carbs you ingest is a wise thing to do.
Remember, this is for children in small amounts. I have natural apple juice only occasionally, and that goes for any type of fruit drinks. Water and green tea are my mainstays.
In any case, you are completely off base about natural apple juice. Much of the alternatives you mentioned are comparable to the worst apple juices on market.
Which is why I added the disclaimer, "but if you are serious".
Did you have trouble reading my post? :)
P.S - I still can't tell if you were being sarcastic when you said you would never be sarcastic. Was it?
As opposed too?
Milk? Lactose intolerant? High fructose laden shit that is everywhere? Vegetable juice blends? Water?
Since when is natural apple juice not healthy for a developing child in moderation?
I am on a different side of it.
It *sounds* bad to be putting 3000 different chemicals into the ground until you actually start taking geology into account. Having been on-site and spoken with engineers, I am *EXTREMELY* dubious that when fraccing zones more than 10,000 feet underground that it can affect the water table thousands of feet above it.
Especially Texas where most of the wells I am aware of are deep wells.
Plus, fraccing is required when the permeability of your zone is low. That means, by definition, it would not be a water table or any other kind of zone in which those chemicals could be moving around. If it is that permeable already and connected to a water table you would be tasting the natural hydrocarbons already.
I have always brought this up when these types of articles appear that the very definition of the technology would seem to preclude these types of interactions with water tables.
This study only seems to confirm what I was already saying. Only wells that are improperly fracced have these kinds of results.
Now I can certainly see that horizontal shallow drilling accompanied by fraccing could possibly introduce the natural hydrocarbons (that were trapped in various formations) into water tables along with the fraccing fluid.
The mistake people make is thinking that the ground is the same the whole way down. Far from it. It's more complicated than that. If water tables are being affected it is because the engineers are idiots and not doing it right.
The study is entirely plausible. It says it works in theory (which it most certainly does) but in practice you can fuck up and contaminate the water tables. Doesn't tell me something I did not already know intuitively.
I dislike the drives because they are slow (even though some floppy drives were made for performance), take up space in the system, demand a power connector that is only used for them at this point, and require their own type of connector on a mother board.
Overall, a complete waste of space everywhere in the system. Literally only used to bios updates and operating system installs.
The newest Intel motherboard I picked up for a networking monitoring system did not even have PATA connections, much less a connection for a floppy drive. Damn thing would not even recognize a USB connected DVD-ROM for install. Had to make a USB disk.
I think you meant deprecated, and .com is not the only one.
It's always the US government because the US government is in complete control over the DNS for the entire planet. If that is what you mean by shut down.
As for blocking, not only the US government does that. It is immensely popular in a lot of countries to do so, and most notably, TPB is being blocked by BREIN recently.
If anything the current DNS system, along with the root servers, needs to be marked as deprecated and replaced with something else.
but then one guy ruined the whole thing by being a serial killer while hitchhiking.
I agree with most of your statement. However, hitchhiking still works perfectly for young girls in cutoff shorts and tank tops. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
Just like me taking my just detailed ($100) sports car into a parking lot to get a marginal car wash by a bunch of high school girls that need to raise money for whatever.
Nothing has had the life span of floppy drives though, at least commercially. Some computers still come with them, some servers still come with them, and IT people still need blank floppies for some installs.
Cannot go away fast enough.
I won a bet with somebody that refused to believe I had a legitimate need for a USB floppy drive and disk.
Wow. I guess I really must be the odd man out here.
I did not get why it was funny because I thought it was referring to a surveying instrument that is meant to be pushed. That's the first time I ever heard the word.
Airplanes seemed pretty useless when they first came out too: not very fast, could only fly in a straight line before crashing, couldn't turn, couldn't carry any weight, etc
I would not use flight as an analogy. It went from theoretical, prototype, production, improvement, mass use, all the way to mass fuck up and unbelievable difficulty to use.
There is no analogy for the TSA in computers.... Not even Microsoft or Apple's walled garden.
Reminds me of the original The Princess Bride by S. Morgenstern. At least how that book is described :)
It's okay. I got the part about how he discovers magic and gets a harem.
That's all I need. I'll give the first book a shot :)
possibly her grandchildren down the road
Not if copyright laws had any sanity in them.
So they're going to get a royalty cheque then.
I'm sorry, it seems as if you are saying that her grandchildren getting a royalty cheque is a sign of sanity? I don't know if you are being facetious, but if you are serious.....
Sanity? Far from it. Direct ownership of ideas and their expressions is outright insanity. The Public Domain is really a term that expresses a fundamental truth in all advancing societies....
All people benefit from the hard work and innovation of their ancestors. All current innovation is not created in a vacuum, but relies upon every aspect of current society, from agriculture, exposure to prior art and innovation, health, etc. Every single artist owes a debt of gratitude to their ancestors for the luxury of being able to create new music..
Depending on your philosophy and idea of a working society you can favor no direct or indirect "ownership" of ideas and expressions at all, or a copyright system in which it temporarily rewards those contributing to the Public Domain by allowing them certain legal entitlements to profit for their works (indirect benefits of ownership).
Allowing Whitney Houston's grandchildren the benefit of enjoying legal entitlements is not in the best interests of society. No legal entitlement should last longer than 20 years, and certainly not through generations. It is an impediment to further creation and innovation.
I can still blame them. It's so completely tasteless it borders on disrespect for Whitney Houston by disrespecting her fans.
If Sony wanted to make some extra money out of this they could have taken some time and put together a compilation, some tributes by other artists, etc. Add some value with a new product, and maybe even add some class to it by saying that a certain percentage was going to be donated to Whitney Houston's favorite charities.
Raising the price on an existing product so soon after she died just lacks any sense of decency and decorum.
possibly her grandchildren down the road
Not if copyright laws had any sanity in them.
I guess I am the sociopath here. I save it for the elevator where there is no escape.
Mwuhahahahahahahhahahha
This strategy is DOA.
Not entirely. It will not be as profitable, but it could get a very large chunk of a specific market share.
Senior citizens and complete and total morons.
I *know* some of these people. Very smart people otherwise (except for the real morons), but totally hopeless with computers. Even the most basic of diagnostic tasks past "is the power cord plugged in" can fluster them and take 15 minutes to get past on the phone.
Having somebody they can always talk to by name to help them out will be valuable in their eyes. It will sell in that specific market.
P.S - Anybody that reads this that thinks you know me..... no I was not talking about you. At all. I swear.