You do realize it's not about natural or man made, it's about the likelihood of dieing?!. Since 1947 when fracking has been introduced, there has been no human deaths linked to it. It would be a very good thing if people stopped looking at FUD and started looking at reason.
Actually Thorium is very abundant.
Expert from Wikipedia;
Thorium is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils; it is three times more abundant than tin in the Earth's crust and is about as common as lead. Soil commonly contains an average of around 12 parts per million (ppm) of thorium. Thorium occurs in several minerals including thorite (ThSiO4), thorianite (ThO2 + UO2) and monazite. Thorianite is a rare mineral and may contain up to about 12% thorium oxide. Monzonite contains 2.5% thorium, allanite has 0.1 to 2% thorium and zircon can have up to 0.4% thorium. Thorium-containing minerals occur on all continents. Thorium is several times more abundant in Earth's crust than all isotopes of uranium combined and thorium-232 is several hundred times more abundant than uranium-235.
We're worrying about it now because the way it is being used has changed, and it has become FAR more widespread.
As a result - contamination is happening left and right.
Please tell us where it's happening??
Here's a quote from Wikipedia;
A 2011 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that "The environmental impacts of shale development are challenging but manageable.". The study addressed groundwater contamination, noting "There has been concern that these fractures can also penetrate shallow freshwater zones and contaminate them with fracturing uid, but there is no evidence that this is occurring". This study blames known instances of methane contamination on a small number of sub-standard operations, and encourages the use of industry best practices to prevent such events from recurring.
I believe it (fracking) can be done safely, with regulations to guide companies. We don't need FUD, that doesn't help anyone or anything.
Wait, what? So we need to have a nice high tally before we can stop being stupid?
How about any tally? or is it OK to be so risk adverse to anything?
Around 150 people die a year from Coconuts, more than shark attacks, should we ban those?
1) The light-your-water-on-fire incidents were in Colorado and PA. In both cases they were proven to be connected to drilling. In the case of Colorado, the state-level EPA (which has multiple high-level employees with financial ties to the gas industry) ruled that it was biogenic. The federal-level EPA reviewed this and concluded that the methane was NOT biogenic and matched shale gas in isotopic content.
2) They reached out to a member of the gas industry and he said he had "no recollection" - it's just more gas industry "sweep it under the rug" tactics.
Actually that was the state office, not a oil & gas company.
No, it wasn’t naturally occurring. People who lived by fracked wells had FINE water. Post fracking, animals lost hair and died, the local EPA told them to stop drinking water and their water LIGHTS ON FIRE!!. SO SOMEHOW the “component chemicals’ of Haliburtons frack mixture shows up in water sources???
You have a agenda to fool the public. Truth tells the opposite of what you write.
YOu're just another energy lobbyist.
I wish I was an energy lobbyist, could use the money, just a mild mannered physicist. You don't have to take what I said, look here;
From GASLAND;
“In 2004, the EPA was investigating a water contamination incident due to hydraulic fracturing in Alabama. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazard materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.”
* No record of the investigation described by Fox exists, so EID reached out to Dr. Dave Bolin, deputy director of Alabama’s State Oil & Gas Board and the man who heads up oversight of hydraulic fracturing in that state. In an email, he said he had “no recollection” of such an investigation taking place.
* That said, it’s possible that Fox is referring to EPA’s study of the McMillian well in Alabama, which spanned several years in the early- to mid-1990s. In 1989, Alabama regulators conducted four separate water quality tests on the McMillian well. The results indicated no water quality problems existed. In 1990, EPA conducted its own water quality tests, and found nothing.
* In a letter sent in 1995, then-EPA administrator Carol Browner (currently, President Obama’s top energy and environmental policy advisor) characterized EPA’s involvement with the McMillian case in the following way: “Repeated testing, conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of the drinking water well which was the subject of this petition [McMillian] failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the presence of fracturing fluids. The well was also sampled for drinking water quality, and no constituents exceeding drinking water standards were detected.”
* For information on what actually did happen in Alabama during this time, and how it’s relevant to the current conversation about the Safe Drinking Water Act, please download the fact sheet produced last year by the Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama.
There's more to it, methane and water do not mix, yes methane can flow into underground water wells, they often do naturally. If one wanted to, some entrepreneurial person could easily come up with something to separate the water and methane out of ground. Then people who own this device gets methane to heat/power/cook with for free.
Another major factor about "fracking" it has been around for decades since 1947 for gas and oil, the first official use is dated to 1903, Why worry about it now? Sounds like media scare tactics.
GASLAND?? You mean the one where they showed that the methane gas in the water wasn't from fracking but naturally occurring seepage into the water reservoir, and the fact that it wasn't even in the same place or state the film was supposed to be filmed in?? That Gasland? ya right....
Personally I would go with Cisco, I've found them to be more reliable and easier to get the info you need troubleshooting wise. Juniper is Ok, but depending on the equipment, not as reliable as Cisco. Course wise there are plenty from tech colleges to dedicated courses from VARs, all though they tend to be somewhat more costly.You haven't explained what kind of network, ie. is this a flat topography? typically all vlans, layer 3 routing going on? it's sounds like a rather small network. If it's pretty flat then focus on the switching mostly for learning, routing is another level and could cause you a lot of headaches, both in design and troubleshooting. Then you have to throw in network security, firewalls,IPS/IDS, no matter how small a network, you will need these. It's a lot for someone to learn right off the bat, but should be doable after a few years.
China doesn't, yet, right now things are so dicey with heir economy, as they are trying to slow it due to inflation. My bet still on Musk, it's not only about the U.S Government to do it.
This is good for China, but whats much, much more impressive is a private company has started making plans on putting a man on Mars within 10-20 years (SpaceX). Its one thing for a government to commit to space travel, but its amazing for a private company to do that! SpaceX is already do amazing things with their launch capabilities.
Throw in this that a lot of people have wireless routers, it would be impossible to tell, even if you track down the IP address to the physical address, that it was being used by you or your family.
One could always say "I had an open wi-fi connection", and it would impossible to say who was behind that IP address.
I agree with you in most of what you say, I am fiscal conservative and don't like the way government spends our tax dollars, but I have to say $20 billion a year for NASA isn't that big a part of the rampant spending going on, and actually has more to offer in return than any Government Agency. IMHO there things that need development that can only happen if we spend some money to do it. Although I hold out hope for a market driven space program it isn't quit there yet and it definitely wasn't there yet 20-30 years ago. In this case there would be no private industry that could put men in orbit or beyond without Government program before it.
Some of these may sound "white elephants" but there are no companies willing to take the risk, only way it can be done is by a non-market driven entity, ie. Government, that has less risk if something does not work. Also private companies sadly don't look beyond the 10 year horizon, limiting the technology leap.
I would prefer it being market driven, its usually costs less and is technically better. I just don't see that happening.
Now if we could convince private companies that there is a large exploitable market out there, ie. mining rare earth metals, who knows, it may open up a door.
Yes true, but I was answering the post by MozeeToby;
Chemical rockets are a dead end. They will never be able to put large amounts of supplies into orbit and will never be fast enough of interplanetary distances to be practical as anything more than an interesting diversion. The failure I am referring to is the failure to recognize this and invest money, time, and effort into alternatives. NASA successfully test fired a nuclear powered rocket that as a drop in replacement for on the Saturn V would have improved it's payload by 4x, using technology from the '60s. And then the funding dried up for anything experimental or paradigm shifting and we've been stuck on chemical rockets which have no hope of actually accomplishing any of the long term goals of the manned space program.
What you really are arguing is the way its being done (methodology), yes we have had a lot of promises that haven't come true, but they are not technical promises. Yes we could use mass productions ( although I don't think this would lower he cost drastically for launch costs, as Atlas rockets are already mass produced and don't add to substantial cost reductions, all though it is better than the shuttle cost-wise)
The type of improvement I was talking about was technical, I do not see how, even with what you sited (they are still chemical rockets), that a chemical rocket can be made vastly safer, cheaper. and more reliable due to the tonnage of explosive chemicals needed. In this regard, a chemical rocket will always be large controlled (most of the time) bomb, that could could go off at any time. As compared to a electromagnetic launcher that relies on electrical power, this prevents the need to carry a lot of fuel (still need some but it will increase the safety factor) And being based on an electrical source it can be redundant and reliable.
These are all inherent in the technology itself and doesn't discuss about bureaucratic falseness that most of the issues you mention, stem from.
Your pointing out issues with methodology the technologies failed or can be successful. Sure I agree with you, their can be improvements on the methodology ie. manufacturing and how a rocket is used, but not improving the technology itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I beg to differ, but to each his own.
You do realize it's not about natural or man made, it's about the likelihood of dieing?!. Since 1947 when fracking has been introduced, there has been no human deaths linked to it. It would be a very good thing if people stopped looking at FUD and started looking at reason.
From the article:
A 250 MW unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says.
250 megawatts? Somebody is just making up numbers. Takeoff power for a 747 is about 100MW.
Ya that's what I was wondering, just think of the waist heat that baby gives off.
Thorium is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils; it is three times more abundant than tin in the Earth's crust and is about as common as lead. Soil commonly contains an average of around 12 parts per million (ppm) of thorium. Thorium occurs in several minerals including thorite (ThSiO4), thorianite (ThO2 + UO2) and monazite. Thorianite is a rare mineral and may contain up to about 12% thorium oxide. Monzonite contains 2.5% thorium, allanite has 0.1 to 2% thorium and zircon can have up to 0.4% thorium. Thorium-containing minerals occur on all continents. Thorium is several times more abundant in Earth's crust than all isotopes of uranium combined and thorium-232 is several hundred times more abundant than uranium-235.
That's pretty smart, and supports my point, innovate and find solutions don't run away from it in fear that it could do some harm.
We're worrying about it now because the way it is being used has changed, and it has become FAR more widespread.
As a result - contamination is happening left and right.
Please tell us where it's happening??
Here's a quote from Wikipedia;
A 2011 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that "The environmental impacts of shale development are challenging but manageable.". The study addressed groundwater contamination, noting "There has been concern that these fractures can also penetrate shallow freshwater zones and contaminate them with fracturing uid, but there is no evidence that this is occurring". This study blames known instances of methane contamination on a small number of sub-standard operations, and encourages the use of industry best practices to prevent such events from recurring.
I believe it (fracking) can be done safely, with regulations to guide companies. We don't need FUD, that doesn't help anyone or anything.
Not really, got a good Job with big blue. Thanks though.
Wait, what? So we need to have a nice high tally before we can stop being stupid?
How about any tally? or is it OK to be so risk adverse to anything? Around 150 people die a year from Coconuts, more than shark attacks, should we ban those?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2405/are-150-people-killed-each-year-by-falling-coconuts
Stupid seems to be the word of the day.
1) The light-your-water-on-fire incidents were in Colorado and PA. In both cases they were proven to be connected to drilling. In the case of Colorado, the state-level EPA (which has multiple high-level employees with financial ties to the gas industry) ruled that it was biogenic. The federal-level EPA reviewed this and concluded that the methane was NOT biogenic and matched shale gas in isotopic content.
2) They reached out to a member of the gas industry and he said he had "no recollection" - it's just more gas industry "sweep it under the rug" tactics.
Actually that was the state office, not a oil & gas company.
So by that logic, can you point out how many death's have occurred due to 'fracking'?
No, it wasn’t naturally occurring. People who lived by fracked wells had FINE water. Post fracking, animals lost hair and died, the local EPA told them to stop drinking water and their water LIGHTS ON FIRE!!. SO SOMEHOW the “component chemicals’ of Haliburtons frack mixture shows up in water sources??? You have a agenda to fool the public. Truth tells the opposite of what you write. YOu're just another energy lobbyist.
I wish I was an energy lobbyist, could use the money, just a mild mannered physicist. You don't have to take what I said, look here;
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/
quoted passage;
From GASLAND; “In 2004, the EPA was investigating a water contamination incident due to hydraulic fracturing in Alabama. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazard materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.”
* No record of the investigation described by Fox exists, so EID reached out to Dr. Dave Bolin, deputy director of Alabama’s State Oil & Gas Board and the man who heads up oversight of hydraulic fracturing in that state. In an email, he said he had “no recollection” of such an investigation taking place.
* That said, it’s possible that Fox is referring to EPA’s study of the McMillian well in Alabama, which spanned several years in the early- to mid-1990s. In 1989, Alabama regulators conducted four separate water quality tests on the McMillian well. The results indicated no water quality problems existed. In 1990, EPA conducted its own water quality tests, and found nothing.
* In a letter sent in 1995, then-EPA administrator Carol Browner (currently, President Obama’s top energy and environmental policy advisor) characterized EPA’s involvement with the McMillian case in the following way: “Repeated testing, conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of the drinking water well which was the subject of this petition [McMillian] failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the presence of fracturing fluids. The well was also sampled for drinking water quality, and no constituents exceeding drinking water standards were detected.”
* For information on what actually did happen in Alabama during this time, and how it’s relevant to the current conversation about the Safe Drinking Water Act, please download the fact sheet produced last year by the Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama.
There's more to it, methane and water do not mix, yes methane can flow into underground water wells, they often do naturally. If one wanted to, some entrepreneurial person could easily come up with something to separate the water and methane out of ground. Then people who own this device gets methane to heat/power/cook with for free. Another major factor about "fracking" it has been around for decades since 1947 for gas and oil, the first official use is dated to 1903, Why worry about it now? Sounds like media scare tactics.
GASLAND?? You mean the one where they showed that the methane gas in the water wasn't from fracking but naturally occurring seepage into the water reservoir, and the fact that it wasn't even in the same place or state the film was supposed to be filmed in?? That Gasland? ya right....
Excuses, excuses.
Don't put in curse words! Just what we don't want to listen to, how we "f**king humans" f**ked up their waters ... blah,blah,blah.
Personally I would go with Cisco, I've found them to be more reliable and easier to get the info you need troubleshooting wise. Juniper is Ok, but depending on the equipment, not as reliable as Cisco. Course wise there are plenty from tech colleges to dedicated courses from VARs, all though they tend to be somewhat more costly.You haven't explained what kind of network, ie. is this a flat topography? typically all vlans, layer 3 routing going on? it's sounds like a rather small network. If it's pretty flat then focus on the switching mostly for learning, routing is another level and could cause you a lot of headaches, both in design and troubleshooting. Then you have to throw in network security, firewalls,IPS/IDS, no matter how small a network, you will need these. It's a lot for someone to learn right off the bat, but should be doable after a few years.
I'm basing on their track record so far, which is impressive. I believe they can do it, it's not about words this time.
China doesn't, yet, right now things are so dicey with heir economy, as they are trying to slow it due to inflation. My bet still on Musk, it's not only about the U.S Government to do it.
This is good for China, but whats much, much more impressive is a private company has started making plans on putting a man on Mars within 10-20 years (SpaceX). Its one thing for a government to commit to space travel, but its amazing for a private company to do that! SpaceX is already do amazing things with their launch capabilities.
Or kill their own people for speaking out against them, Noooo....
Throw in this that a lot of people have wireless routers, it would be impossible to tell, even if you track down the IP address to the physical address, that it was being used by you or your family. One could always say "I had an open wi-fi connection", and it would impossible to say who was behind that IP address.
Some of these may sound "white elephants" but there are no companies willing to take the risk, only way it can be done is by a non-market driven entity, ie. Government, that has less risk if something does not work. Also private companies sadly don't look beyond the 10 year horizon, limiting the technology leap.
I would prefer it being market driven, its usually costs less and is technically better. I just don't see that happening. Now if we could convince private companies that there is a large exploitable market out there, ie. mining rare earth metals, who knows, it may open up a door.
If funding had continued just a few years longer we might have seen simple thermal nuclear rockets like NERVA fly.
And since there was no real long term "Orion" nuclear bomb experimentation, just one experiment was done, I had to assume NERVA.
Chemical rockets are a dead end. They will never be able to put large amounts of supplies into orbit and will never be fast enough of interplanetary distances to be practical as anything more than an interesting diversion. The failure I am referring to is the failure to recognize this and invest money, time, and effort into alternatives. NASA successfully test fired a nuclear powered rocket that as a drop in replacement for on the Saturn V would have improved it's payload by 4x, using technology from the '60s. And then the funding dried up for anything experimental or paradigm shifting and we've been stuck on chemical rockets which have no hope of actually accomplishing any of the long term goals of the manned space program.
These are all inherent in the technology itself and doesn't discuss about bureaucratic falseness that most of the issues you mention, stem from. Your pointing out issues with methodology the technologies failed or can be successful. Sure I agree with you, their can be improvements on the methodology ie. manufacturing and how a rocket is used, but not improving the technology itself.