By Elizabeth Royte
Food & Environment Reporting Network
http://tinyurl.com/c5helbd

In the midst of the domestic energy boom, livestock on farms near oil-
and gas-drilling operations nationwide have been quietly falling sick
and dying. While scientists have yet to isolate cause and effect, many
suspect chemicals used in drilling and hydrofracking (or “fracking”)
operations are poisoning animals through the air, water or soil.

Earlier this year, Michelle Bamberger, an Ithaca, N.Y., veterinarian,
and Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell’s
College of Veterinary Medicine, published the first and only
peer-reviewed report to suggest a link between fracking and illness in
food animals.

The authors compiled 24 case studies of farmers in six shale-gas
states whose livestock experienced neurological, reproductive and
acute gastrointestinal problems after being exposed — either
accidentally or incidentally — to fracking chemicals in the water or
air. The article, published in “New Solutions: A Journal of
Environmental and Occupational Health,” describes how scores of
animals died over the course of several years. Fracking industry
proponents challenged the study, since the authors neither identified
the farmers nor ran controlled experiments to determine how specific
fracking compounds might affect livestock.

The death toll is insignificant when measured against the nation’s
livestock population (some 97 million beef cattle go to market each
year), but environmental advocates believe these animals constitute an
early warning.

Exposed livestock “are making their way into the food system, and it’s
very worrisome to us,” Bamberger said. “They live in areas that have
tested positive for air, water and soil contamination. Some of these
chemicals could appear in milk and meat products made from these
animals.”

In Louisiana, 17 cows died after an hour’s exposure to spilled
fracking fluid, which is injected miles underground to crack open and
release pockets of natural gas. The most likely cause of death:
respiratory failure.

In New Mexico, hair testing of sick cattle that grazed near well pads
found petroleum residues in 54 of 56 animals.

In northern central Pennsylvania, 140 cattle were exposed to fracking
wastewater when an impoundment was breached. Approximately 70 cows
died, and the remainder produced only 11 calves, of which three
survived.

In western Pennsylvania, an overflowing wastewater pit sent fracking
chemicals into a pond and a pasture where pregnant cows grazed: Half
their calves were born dead. Dairy operators in shale-gas areas of
Colorado, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Texas have also reported
the death of goats exposed to fracking chemicals.

Drilling and fracking a single well requires up to 7 million gallons
of water, plus an additional 400,000 gallons of additives, including
lubricants, biocides, scale- and rust-inhibitors, solvents, foaming
and defoaming agents, emulsifiers and de-emulsifiers, stabilizers and
breakers. At almost every stage of developing and operating an oil or
gas well, chemicals and compounds can be introduced into the
environment.

After drilling began just over the property line of Jacki Schilke’s
ranch in the northwestern corner of North Dakota in 2009, in the heart
of the state’s booming Bakken Shale, cattle began limping, with
swollen legs and infections. Cows quit producing milk for their
calves, they lost from 60 to 80 pounds in a week and their tails
mysteriously dropped off. Eventually, five animals died, according to
Schilke.

Ambient air testing by a certified environmental consultant detected
elevated levels of benzene, methane, chloroform, butane, propane,
toluene and xylene -- and well testing revealed high levels of
sulfates, chromium, chloride and strontium. Schilke says she moved her
herd upwind and upstream from the nearest drill pad.

Although her steers currently look healthy, she said, “I won’t sell
them because I don’t know if they’re OK.”

Nor does anyone else. Energy companies are exempt from key provisions
of environmental laws, which makes it difficult for scientists and
citizens to learn precisely what is in drilling and fracking fluids or
airborne emissions. And without information on the interactions
between these chemicals and pre-existing environmental chemicals,
veterinarians can’t hope to pinpoint an animal’s cause of death.

The risks to food safety may be even more difficult to parse, since
different plants and animals take up different chemicals through
different pathways.

“There are a variety of organic compounds, metals and radioactive
material (released in the fracking process) that are of human health
concern when livestock meat or milk is ingested,” said Motoko Mukai, a
veterinary toxicologist at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine.
These “compounds accumulate in the fat and are excreted into milk.
Some compounds are persistent and do not get metabolized easily.”

Veterinarians don’t know how long chemicals may remain in animals,
farmers aren’t required to prove their livestock are free of
contamination before middlemen purchase them and the Food Safety
Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture isn’t looking
for these compounds in carcasses at slaughterhouses.

Documenting the scope of the problem is difficult: Scientists lack
funding to study the matter, and rural vets remain silent for fear of
retaliation. Farmers who receive royalty checks from energy companies
are reluctant to complain, and those who have settled with gas
companies following a spill or other accident are forbidden to
disclose information to investigators. Some food producers would
rather not know what’s going on, say ranchers and veterinarians.

“It takes a long time to build up a herd’s reputation,” said rancher
Dennis Bauste of Trenton Lake, N.D. “I’m gonna sell my calves and I
don’t want them to be labeled as tainted. Besides, I wouldn’t know
what to test for. Until there’s a big wipeout, a major problem, we’re
not gonna hear much about this.”

Fracking proponents criticize Bamberger and Oswald’s paper as a
political, not a scientific, document. “They used anonymous sources,
so no one can verify what they said,” said Steve Everley, of the
industry lobby group Energy In Depth. The authors didn’t provide a
scientific assessment of impacts -- testing what specific chemicals
might do to cows that ingest them, for example -- so treating their
findings as scientific, he continues, “is laughable at best, and
dangerous for public debate at worst.” Bamberger and Oswald
acknowledge this lack of scientific assessment and blame it on the
dearth of funding for fracking research and on the industry’s use of
nondisclosure agreements.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the main lobbying group for
ranchers, takes no position on fracking, but some ranchers are
beginning to speak out. “These are industry-supporting conservatives,
not radicals,” said Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the
environmental group, Natural Resources Defense Council. “They are the
experts in their animals’ health, and they are very concerned.”

Last March, Christopher Portier, director of the National Center for
Environmental Health at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, called for studies of oil and gas production’s impact on
food plants and animals. None is currently planned by the federal
government.

As local food booms, consumers wary
But consumers intensely interested in where and how their food is
grown aren’t waiting for hard data to tell them their meat or milk is
safe. For them, the perception of pollution is just as bad as the real
thing.

“My beef sells itself. My farm is pristine. But a restaurant doesn’t
want to visit and see a drill pad on the horizon,” said Ken Jaffe, who
raises grass-fed cattle in upstate New York.

Only recently has the local foods movement, in regions across the
country, reached a critical mass. But the movement’s lofty ideals
could turn out to be, in shale gas areas, a double-edged sword.

Should the moratorium on hydrofracking in New York State be lifted,
the 16,200-member Park Slope Food Co-op, in Brooklyn, will no longer
buy food from farms anywhere near drilling operations -- a $4 million
loss for upstate producers. The livelihood of organic goat farmer
Steven Cleghorn, who’s surrounded by active wells in Pennsylvania, is
already in jeopardy.

“People at the farmers market are starting to ask exactly where this
food comes from,” he said.

Janet US

On 2012-11-30, Janet Bostwick > wrote:

> and dying. While scientists have yet to isolate cause and
> effect.....

And by gawd they'll take jes as long to do so as the oil companies
pay 'em to!

> suspect chemicals used in drilling and hydrofracking (or “fracking”)
> operations are poisoning animals through the air, water or soil.

Gee, there's a shocker!!

As the Worlds oil reserves, which have already peaked, deplete
further, we'll begin draining even yer grandmother's coochie for
anything resembling a lubricating source. Our present administration
claims it is going to put the US on the map as the leading exporter of
oil. To do this, every inch of shale from the Mississippi River to
Reno is gonna fall under the shovel and every river in between will be
drained and polluted beyond use that half-assed process. Gotta feed
them Lincoln Towncars in DC!

Mankind as a species has jumped the shark.

nb

Janet Bostwick wrote:
>

<propaganda drivel deleted>

Wow, yet another propaganda piece, not backed by any scientifically
valid data or test results, and not published in any credible scientific
journals. I suppose the "peer reviewed" claim is valid only be virtue of
their peers being similarly non-scientific, non-credentialed luddites
with a political agenda.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:44:49 -0600, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>
>
><propaganda drivel deleted>
>
>Wow, yet another propaganda piece, not backed by any scientifically
>valid data or test results, and not published in any credible scientific
>journals. I suppose the "peer reviewed" claim is valid only be virtue of
>their peers being similarly non-scientific, non-credentialed luddites
>with a political agenda.

It is always worth being informed. Many people have no idea what
fracking is. However, in the last several years, fracking appears to
be the cause of earth tremors in the eastern portion of the U.S. and
there have been increased reports of illnesses in people in these
regions. When I find an article that applies to the food we eat, I
always print the full article here so that you may read it and form
your own opinion.
Janet US

Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:44:49 -0600, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Janet Bostwick wrote:
> >>
> >
> ><propaganda drivel deleted>
> >
> >Wow, yet another propaganda piece, not backed by any scientifically
> >valid data or test results, and not published in any credible scientific
> >journals. I suppose the "peer reviewed" claim is valid only be virtue of
> >their peers being similarly non-scientific, non-credentialed luddites
> >with a political agenda.
>
> It is always worth being informed. Many people have no idea what
> fracking is. However, in the last several years, fracking appears to
> be the cause of earth tremors in the eastern portion of the U.S. and
> there have been increased reports of illnesses in people in these
> regions. When I find an article that applies to the food we eat, I
> always print the full article here so that you may read it and form
> your own opinion.
> Janet US

The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant to
comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this has
been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses are
the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite antis,
not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any statistically
significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.

On 11/30/2012 10:01 AM, Pete C. wrote:

> The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant to
> comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
> educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this has
> been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses are
> the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite antis,
> not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any statistically
> significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
> would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
>



Have you ever met a hypochondriac cow? I'm sure it was an interesting
meeting.

Who is going to authorize the theoretical investigation, the oil
companies or the congressmen they are bankrolling?

How can you think injecting all these lethal chemicals into the ground
won't come back to bite us?

gloria p

On 2012-11-30, gloria p > wrote:

> Have you ever met a hypochondriac cow? I'm sure it was an interesting
> meeting.

No doubt the cow had more of interest to say.

nb

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>
>
> <propaganda drivel deleted>
>
> Wow, yet another propaganda piece, not backed by any scientifically
> valid data or test results, and not published in any credible scientific
> journals. I suppose the "peer reviewed" claim is valid only be virtue of
> their peers being similarly non-scientific, non-credentialed luddites
> with a political agenda.

Yeah who would think that something as benign as strontium (the most lethal
toxin on earth) would possibly cause any harm. Ditto for industrial
solvents like benzine and tuoluine. Hey have a nice big glass of paint
thinner - it's harmless. All those dead animals are just hypochondriacs.
Your slavish devotion to the oil and gas industry is admirable. But you
have to ask yourself one thing: if fracking is so benign, why does it
require an exemption from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?

Huh?

gloria p wrote:
>
> On 11/30/2012 10:01 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant to
> > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
> > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this has
> > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses are
> > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite antis,
> > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any statistically
> > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
> > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
> >
>
> Have you ever met a hypochondriac cow? I'm sure it was an interesting
> meeting.

Cows aren't reporting the alleged increased incidents or trying to tie
them to propaganda. Hell, even that propaganda piece noted the
statistical insignificance of their claims.

>
> Who is going to authorize the theoretical investigation, the oil
> companies or the congressmen they are bankrolling?

How about the CDC, the USDA or the other agencies that routinely
investigate this sort of thing when there is some amount of supporting
evidence to justify an investigation?

>
> How can you think injecting all these lethal chemicals into the ground
> won't come back to bite us?

Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground that
have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> gloria p wrote:
>>
>> On 11/30/2012 10:01 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant to
>> > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
>> > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this has
>> > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses are
>> > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite antis,
>> > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any
>> > statistically
>> > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
>> > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
>> >
>>
>> Have you ever met a hypochondriac cow? I'm sure it was an interesting
>> meeting.
>
> Cows aren't reporting the alleged increased incidents or trying to tie
> them to propaganda. Hell, even that propaganda piece noted the
> statistical insignificance of their claims.

Yeah really - next thing they'll want you to believe is the earth is round.
Damn those greedy scientists.

>> Who is going to authorize the theoretical investigation, the oil
>> companies or the congressmen they are bankrolling?
>
> How about the CDC, the USDA or the other agencies that routinely
> investigate this sort of thing when there is some amount of supporting
> evidence to justify an investigation?

The USDA does nothing of the kind. The CDC does not either - only when it
affects humans. Which it will soon enough.

>> How can you think injecting all these lethal chemicals into the ground
>> won't come back to bite us?
>
> Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground that
> have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?

You are one ignorant and dumb MOFO. Strontium is one of those sequestered
"chemicals" which do nobody harm in the earth but wreak havoc when exposed
to the surface. Radon is the same thing - harmless in the earth, deadly in
your house.

Paul

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2012-11-30, gloria p > wrote:
>
>> Have you ever met a hypochondriac cow? I'm sure it was an interesting
>> meeting.
>
> No doubt the cow had more of interest to say.

But both produce copious amounts of BS.

On 2012-11-30, Pete C. > wrote:

> Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground that
> have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?

In Pete's fantasy world, toxic waste is a figment of the imagination.

nb

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant to
> comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
> educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this has
> been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses are
> the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite antis,
> not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any statistically
> significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
> would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.

How do you know that fracking fluids aren't
interacting with cellular telephone radiation
to dissolve mercury amalgam tooth fillings?
If you can't PROVE that's not happening,
it probably is!

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > gloria p wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/30/2012 10:01 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >> > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant to
> >> > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
> >> > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this has
> >> > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses are
> >> > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite antis,
> >> > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any
> >> > statistically
> >> > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
> >> > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Have you ever met a hypochondriac cow? I'm sure it was an interesting
> >> meeting.
> >
> > Cows aren't reporting the alleged increased incidents or trying to tie
> > them to propaganda. Hell, even that propaganda piece noted the
> > statistical insignificance of their claims.
>
> Yeah really - next thing they'll want you to believe is the earth is round.
> Damn those greedy scientists.
>
> >> Who is going to authorize the theoretical investigation, the oil
> >> companies or the congressmen they are bankrolling?
> >
> > How about the CDC, the USDA or the other agencies that routinely
> > investigate this sort of thing when there is some amount of supporting
> > evidence to justify an investigation?
>
> The USDA does nothing of the kind. The CDC does not either - only when it
> affects humans. Which it will soon enough.
>
> >> How can you think injecting all these lethal chemicals into the ground
> >> won't come back to bite us?
> >
> > Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground that
> > have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
>
> You are one ignorant and dumb MOFO. Strontium is one of those sequestered
> "chemicals" which do nobody harm in the earth but wreak havoc when exposed
> to the surface. Radon is the same thing - harmless in the earth, deadly in
> your house.
>
> Paul

Feel free to live in your paranoid delusional world, but keep your "big
business is going to kill us all" fantasies to yourself.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Janet Bostwick wrote:
> >>
> >
> > <propaganda drivel deleted>
> >
> > Wow, yet another propaganda piece, not backed by any scientifically
> > valid data or test results, and not published in any credible scientific
> > journals. I suppose the "peer reviewed" claim is valid only be virtue of
> > their peers being similarly non-scientific, non-credentialed luddites
> > with a political agenda.
>
> Yeah who would think that something as benign as strontium (the most lethal
> toxin on earth) would possibly cause any harm. Ditto for industrial
> solvents like benzine and tuoluine. Hey have a nice big glass of paint
> thinner - it's harmless. All those dead animals are just hypochondriacs.
> Your slavish devotion to the oil and gas industry is admirable. But you
> have to ask yourself one thing: if fracking is so benign, why does it
> require an exemption from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?
>
> Huh?

All those dead animals that are not out of the ordinary statistically.
All those chemicals that the propagandists claim are related to that
evil fracking without evidence to back their claims. I have a slavish
devotion to science and the real world, not any eco-propagandists nor
religious loons.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2012-11-30, Pete C. > wrote:
>
>> Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground that
>> have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
>
> In Pete's fantasy world, toxic waste is a figment of the imagination.

I am sure he's one of those guys who said during the Gulf crisis that we
were worried about nothing because oil is a perfactly natural substance.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Janet Bostwick wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> > <propaganda drivel deleted>
>> >
>> > Wow, yet another propaganda piece, not backed by any scientifically
>> > valid data or test results, and not published in any credible
>> > scientific
>> > journals. I suppose the "peer reviewed" claim is valid only be virtue
>> > of
>> > their peers being similarly non-scientific, non-credentialed luddites
>> > with a political agenda.
>>
>> Yeah who would think that something as benign as strontium (the most
>> lethal
>> toxin on earth) would possibly cause any harm. Ditto for industrial
>> solvents like benzine and tuoluine. Hey have a nice big glass of paint
>> thinner - it's harmless. All those dead animals are just hypochondriacs.
>> Your slavish devotion to the oil and gas industry is admirable. But you
>> have to ask yourself one thing: if fracking is so benign, why does it
>> require an exemption from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?
>>
>> Huh?
>
> All those dead animals that are not out of the ordinary statistically.
> All those chemicals that the propagandists claim are related to that
> evil fracking without evidence to back their claims. I have a slavish
> devotion to science and the real world, not any eco-propagandists nor
> religious loons.

You are no scientist. You don't even know how fracking works and how much
of those millions of gallons of toxins are pumpmed back out or ejected
during the well blow off phase. You never even heard of strontium 90 - the
very mention of which should have been a gifgantic red-flag to you. Some
scientist. More like a head in the sand dumb-ass who would deny gravity if
he could.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > gloria p wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 11/30/2012 10:01 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant
>> >> > to
>> >> > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
>> >> > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this
>> >> > has
>> >> > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses
>> >> > are
>> >> > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite
>> >> > antis,
>> >> > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any
>> >> > statistically
>> >> > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
>> >> > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Have you ever met a hypochondriac cow? I'm sure it was an interesting
>> >> meeting.
>> >
>> > Cows aren't reporting the alleged increased incidents or trying to tie
>> > them to propaganda. Hell, even that propaganda piece noted the
>> > statistical insignificance of their claims.
>>
>> Yeah really - next thing they'll want you to believe is the earth is
>> round.
>> Damn those greedy scientists.
>>
>> >> Who is going to authorize the theoretical investigation, the oil
>> >> companies or the congressmen they are bankrolling?
>> >
>> > How about the CDC, the USDA or the other agencies that routinely
>> > investigate this sort of thing when there is some amount of supporting
>> > evidence to justify an investigation?
>>
>> The USDA does nothing of the kind. The CDC does not either - only when
>> it
>> affects humans. Which it will soon enough.
>>
>> >> How can you think injecting all these lethal chemicals into the ground
>> >> won't come back to bite us?
>> >
>> > Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground that
>> > have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
>>
>> You are one ignorant and dumb MOFO. Strontium is one of those
>> sequestered
>> "chemicals" which do nobody harm in the earth but wreak havoc when
>> exposed
>> to the surface. Radon is the same thing - harmless in the earth, deadly
>> in
>> your house.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Feel free to live in your paranoid delusional world, but keep your "big
> business is going to kill us all" fantasies to yourself.


How would we know what "big business" is doing here when they have succeeded
in keeping their operations a secret. You don't know that their fluid
recipes are closely guarded trade secrets do you? So we don't even really
know what they are pumping at all. And of course all those wells that are
now polluted with methane never happened because the companies claimed it
never could happen. But hey, you must be right because companies like this
have absolutely never violated any law or done anything unethical or
dangerous. It's just irrational to assume they ever would. Barf.

See the trouble with being like an ostrich is it leaves your ass exposed.
You're an idiot who claims to respect science while rejecting the very
science presented. ANd you clearly know not what a peer review is.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant to
> > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
> > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this has
> > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses are
> > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite antis,
> > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any statistically
> > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
> > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
>
> How do you know that fracking fluids aren't
> interacting with cellular telephone radiation
> to dissolve mercury amalgam tooth fillings?
> If you can't PROVE that's not happening,
> it probably is!

oh dear lord.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > gloria p wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 11/30/2012 10:01 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
> >> >> > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this
> >> >> > has
> >> >> > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite
> >> >> > antis,
> >> >> > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any
> >> >> > statistically
> >> >> > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
> >> >> > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Have you ever met a hypochondriac cow? I'm sure it was an interesting
> >> >> meeting.
> >> >
> >> > Cows aren't reporting the alleged increased incidents or trying to tie
> >> > them to propaganda. Hell, even that propaganda piece noted the
> >> > statistical insignificance of their claims.
> >>
> >> Yeah really - next thing they'll want you to believe is the earth is
> >> round.
> >> Damn those greedy scientists.
> >>
> >> >> Who is going to authorize the theoretical investigation, the oil
> >> >> companies or the congressmen they are bankrolling?
> >> >
> >> > How about the CDC, the USDA or the other agencies that routinely
> >> > investigate this sort of thing when there is some amount of supporting
> >> > evidence to justify an investigation?
> >>
> >> The USDA does nothing of the kind. The CDC does not either - only when
> >> it
> >> affects humans. Which it will soon enough.
> >>
> >> >> How can you think injecting all these lethal chemicals into the ground
> >> >> won't come back to bite us?
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground that
> >> > have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
> >>
> >> You are one ignorant and dumb MOFO. Strontium is one of those
> >> sequestered
> >> "chemicals" which do nobody harm in the earth but wreak havoc when
> >> exposed
> >> to the surface. Radon is the same thing - harmless in the earth, deadly
> >> in
> >> your house.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >
> > Feel free to live in your paranoid delusional world, but keep your "big
> > business is going to kill us all" fantasies to yourself.
>
> How would we know what "big business" is doing here when they have succeeded
> in keeping their operations a secret. You don't know that their fluid
> recipes are closely guarded trade secrets do you? So we don't even really
> know what they are pumping at all. And of course all those wells that are
> now polluted with methane never happened because the companies claimed it
> never could happen. But hey, you must be right because companies like this
> have absolutely never violated any law or done anything unethical or
> dangerous. It's just irrational to assume they ever would. Barf.

I'd love to have methane in my well, I'd build a gas separator, run a
generator from the free gas and RO filter the water. No f'n problem, git
'er done.

>
> See the trouble with being like an ostrich is it leaves your ass exposed.
> You're an idiot who claims to respect science while rejecting the very
> science presented. ANd you clearly know not what a peer review is.

I know what peer review is, and I also know that it doesn't apply in the
case of that propaganda piece. The "report" from the propagandists
"research" was reviewed by other propagandists and published in a
propagandist publication. Nowhere were actual credentialed scientists,
actual scientifically valid testing or anything similar involved.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 2012-11-30, Pete C. > wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground that
> >> have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
> >
> > In Pete's fantasy world, toxic waste is a figment of the imagination.
>
> I am sure he's one of those guys who said during the Gulf crisis that we
> were worried about nothing because oil is a perfactly natural substance.

Nope, but the actual credentialed scientists from Woods Hole spent some
time in the gulf after the event and found that the reality didn't live
up to the doomsday hype by a wide margin.

Gary wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > "Pete C." wrote:
> > >
> > > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant to
> > > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
> > > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this has
> > > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses are
> > > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite antis,
> > > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any statistically
> > > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
> > > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
> >
> > How do you know that fracking fluids aren't
> > interacting with cellular telephone radiation
> > to dissolve mercury amalgam tooth fillings?
> > If you can't PROVE that's not happening,
> > it probably is!
>
> oh dear lord.

Indeed. Sadly "environmentalism" has become yet another religion where
the proponents will grab a few facts and spin an entire fairy tale
around them to match their beliefs. No rational thought, no critical
analysis, just the I want to believe this so it must be true mindset.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "notbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 2012-11-30, Pete C. > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground
>> >> that
>> >> have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
>> >
>> > In Pete's fantasy world, toxic waste is a figment of the imagination.
>>
>> I am sure he's one of those guys who said during the Gulf crisis that we
>> were worried about nothing because oil is a perfactly natural substance.
>
> Nope, but the actual credentialed scientists from Woods Hole spent some
> time in the gulf after the event and found that the reality didn't live
> up to the doomsday hype by a wide margin.

Bullshit. Things are not at all well in the Gulf. But you'll never see any
of that on Fox News.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Janet Bostwick wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > <propaganda drivel deleted>
> >> >
> >> > Wow, yet another propaganda piece, not backed by any scientifically
> >> > valid data or test results, and not published in any credible
> >> > scientific
> >> > journals. I suppose the "peer reviewed" claim is valid only be virtue
> >> > of
> >> > their peers being similarly non-scientific, non-credentialed luddites
> >> > with a political agenda.
> >>
> >> Yeah who would think that something as benign as strontium (the most
> >> lethal
> >> toxin on earth) would possibly cause any harm. Ditto for industrial
> >> solvents like benzine and tuoluine. Hey have a nice big glass of paint
> >> thinner - it's harmless. All those dead animals are just hypochondriacs.
> >> Your slavish devotion to the oil and gas industry is admirable. But you
> >> have to ask yourself one thing: if fracking is so benign, why does it
> >> require an exemption from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >
> > All those dead animals that are not out of the ordinary statistically.
> > All those chemicals that the propagandists claim are related to that
> > evil fracking without evidence to back their claims. I have a slavish
> > devotion to science and the real world, not any eco-propagandists nor
> > religious loons.
>
> You are no scientist. You don't even know how fracking works and how much
> of those millions of gallons of toxins are pumpmed back out or ejected
> during the well blow off phase. You never even heard of strontium 90 - the
> very mention of which should have been a gifgantic red-flag to you. Some
> scientist. More like a head in the sand dumb-ass who would deny gravity if
> he could.

I know far more about it than you do, that much is clear. The fracking
fluid that is pumped back out is subsequently pumped back into very deep
disposal wells, oddly enough the ones that are triggering the tiny
earthquakes. Your mindless "strontium 90" name dropping is no different
than the anti-nuke folks and "nuclear", their extraordinary ignorance is
why the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging is known only as an MRI.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> Gary wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>> >
>> > "Pete C." wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant
>> > > to
>> > > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
>> > > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this has
>> > > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses are
>> > > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite
>> > > antis,
>> > > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any
>> > > statistically
>> > > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
>> > > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
>> >
>> > How do you know that fracking fluids aren't
>> > interacting with cellular telephone radiation
>> > to dissolve mercury amalgam tooth fillings?
>> > If you can't PROVE that's not happening,
>> > it probably is!
>>
>> oh dear lord.
>
> Indeed. Sadly "environmentalism" has become yet another religion where
> the proponents will grab a few facts and spin an entire fairy tale
> around them to match their beliefs. No rational thought, no critical
> analysis, just the I want to believe this so it must be true mindset.

Oh the irony. You have nothing but an opinion which you claim is
scientifically based yet the findings of scientists you reject out of hand.

Irony.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > gloria p wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 11/30/2012 10:01 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too
>> >> >> > ignorant
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this
>> >> >> > has
>> >> >> > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite
>> >> >> > antis,
>> >> >> > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any
>> >> >> > statistically
>> >> >> > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Have you ever met a hypochondriac cow? I'm sure it was an
>> >> >> interesting
>> >> >> meeting.
>> >> >
>> >> > Cows aren't reporting the alleged increased incidents or trying to
>> >> > tie
>> >> > them to propaganda. Hell, even that propaganda piece noted the
>> >> > statistical insignificance of their claims.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah really - next thing they'll want you to believe is the earth is
>> >> round.
>> >> Damn those greedy scientists.
>> >>
>> >> >> Who is going to authorize the theoretical investigation, the oil
>> >> >> companies or the congressmen they are bankrolling?
>> >> >
>> >> > How about the CDC, the USDA or the other agencies that routinely
>> >> > investigate this sort of thing when there is some amount of
>> >> > supporting
>> >> > evidence to justify an investigation?
>> >>
>> >> The USDA does nothing of the kind. The CDC does not either - only
>> >> when
>> >> it
>> >> affects humans. Which it will soon enough.
>> >>
>> >> >> How can you think injecting all these lethal chemicals into the
>> >> >> ground
>> >> >> won't come back to bite us?
>> >> >
>> >> > Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground
>> >> > that
>> >> > have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
>> >>
>> >> You are one ignorant and dumb MOFO. Strontium is one of those
>> >> sequestered
>> >> "chemicals" which do nobody harm in the earth but wreak havoc when
>> >> exposed
>> >> to the surface. Radon is the same thing - harmless in the earth,
>> >> deadly
>> >> in
>> >> your house.
>> >>
>> >> Paul
>> >
>> > Feel free to live in your paranoid delusional world, but keep your "big
>> > business is going to kill us all" fantasies to yourself.
>>
>> How would we know what "big business" is doing here when they have
>> succeeded
>> in keeping their operations a secret. You don't know that their fluid
>> recipes are closely guarded trade secrets do you? So we don't even
>> really
>> know what they are pumping at all. And of course all those wells that
>> are
>> now polluted with methane never happened because the companies claimed it
>> never could happen. But hey, you must be right because companies like
>> this
>> have absolutely never violated any law or done anything unethical or
>> dangerous. It's just irrational to assume they ever would. Barf.
>
> I'd love to have methane in my well, I'd build a gas separator, run a
> generator from the free gas and RO filter the water. No f'n problem, git
> 'er done.
>

I am sure you'd love DDT on your cereal so you never have to worry about
insects in your food.

>>
>> See the trouble with being like an ostrich is it leaves your ass exposed.
>> You're an idiot who claims to respect science while rejecting the very
>> science presented. ANd you clearly know not what a peer review is.
>
> I know what peer review is, and I also know that it doesn't apply in the
> case of that propaganda piece. The "report" from the propagandists
> "research" was reviewed by other propagandists and published in a
> propagandist publication. Nowhere were actual credentialed scientists,
> actual scientifically valid testing or anything similar involved.

Yeah, Cornell is just such a podunk institution.

I said it before, you're a fool. An opinonated, pig ignorant, stupid fool.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > gloria p wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On 11/30/2012 10:01 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too
> >> >> >> > ignorant
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this
> >> >> >> > has
> >> >> >> > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses
> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite
> >> >> >> > antis,
> >> >> >> > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any
> >> >> >> > statistically
> >> >> >> > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses
> >> >> >> > they
> >> >> >> > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Have you ever met a hypochondriac cow? I'm sure it was an
> >> >> >> interesting
> >> >> >> meeting.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cows aren't reporting the alleged increased incidents or trying to
> >> >> > tie
> >> >> > them to propaganda. Hell, even that propaganda piece noted the
> >> >> > statistical insignificance of their claims.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah really - next thing they'll want you to believe is the earth is
> >> >> round.
> >> >> Damn those greedy scientists.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Who is going to authorize the theoretical investigation, the oil
> >> >> >> companies or the congressmen they are bankrolling?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How about the CDC, the USDA or the other agencies that routinely
> >> >> > investigate this sort of thing when there is some amount of
> >> >> > supporting
> >> >> > evidence to justify an investigation?
> >> >>
> >> >> The USDA does nothing of the kind. The CDC does not either - only
> >> >> when
> >> >> it
> >> >> affects humans. Which it will soon enough.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> How can you think injecting all these lethal chemicals into the
> >> >> >> ground
> >> >> >> won't come back to bite us?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
> >> >>
> >> >> You are one ignorant and dumb MOFO. Strontium is one of those
> >> >> sequestered
> >> >> "chemicals" which do nobody harm in the earth but wreak havoc when
> >> >> exposed
> >> >> to the surface. Radon is the same thing - harmless in the earth,
> >> >> deadly
> >> >> in
> >> >> your house.
> >> >>
> >> >> Paul
> >> >
> >> > Feel free to live in your paranoid delusional world, but keep your "big
> >> > business is going to kill us all" fantasies to yourself.
> >>
> >> How would we know what "big business" is doing here when they have
> >> succeeded
> >> in keeping their operations a secret. You don't know that their fluid
> >> recipes are closely guarded trade secrets do you? So we don't even
> >> really
> >> know what they are pumping at all. And of course all those wells that
> >> are
> >> now polluted with methane never happened because the companies claimed it
> >> never could happen. But hey, you must be right because companies like
> >> this
> >> have absolutely never violated any law or done anything unethical or
> >> dangerous. It's just irrational to assume they ever would. Barf.
> >
> > I'd love to have methane in my well, I'd build a gas separator, run a
> > generator from the free gas and RO filter the water. No f'n problem, git
> > 'er done.
> >
>
> I am sure you'd love DDT on your cereal so you never have to worry about
> insects in your food.

All the folks who have died of malaria due to the poorly thought out
banning of DDT certainly would have preferred that. Oddly enough some
subsequent rational thought was applied and they are now using DDT to
fight malaria carrying mosquitos again.

>
> >>
> >> See the trouble with being like an ostrich is it leaves your ass exposed.
> >> You're an idiot who claims to respect science while rejecting the very
> >> science presented. ANd you clearly know not what a peer review is.
> >
> > I know what peer review is, and I also know that it doesn't apply in the
> > case of that propaganda piece. The "report" from the propagandists
> > "research" was reviewed by other propagandists and published in a
> > propagandist publication. Nowhere were actual credentialed scientists,
> > actual scientifically valid testing or anything similar involved.
>
> Yeah, Cornell is just such a podunk institution.
>
> I said it before, you're a fool. An opinonated, pig ignorant, stupid fool.

I'm certainly opinionated, but my opinions are based on hard facts, not
"feelings" like the propagandist loons.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> >>
> >> "notbob" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On 2012-11-30, Pete C. > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground
> >> >> that
> >> >> have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
> >> >
> >> > In Pete's fantasy world, toxic waste is a figment of the imagination.
> >>
> >> I am sure he's one of those guys who said during the Gulf crisis that we
> >> were worried about nothing because oil is a perfactly natural substance.
> >
> > Nope, but the actual credentialed scientists from Woods Hole spent some
> > time in the gulf after the event and found that the reality didn't live
> > up to the doomsday hype by a wide margin.
>
> Bullshit. Things are not at all well in the Gulf. But you'll never see any
> of that on Fox News.

It was NPR that had the actual scientists from Woods Hole reporting
their findings, but I guess NPR is right wing media to you.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Gary wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Pete C." wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant
> >> > > to
> >> > > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
> >> > > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this has
> >> > > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses are
> >> > > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite
> >> > > antis,
> >> > > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any
> >> > > statistically
> >> > > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
> >> > > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
> >> >
> >> > How do you know that fracking fluids aren't
> >> > interacting with cellular telephone radiation
> >> > to dissolve mercury amalgam tooth fillings?
> >> > If you can't PROVE that's not happening,
> >> > it probably is!
> >>
> >> oh dear lord.
> >
> > Indeed. Sadly "environmentalism" has become yet another religion where
> > the proponents will grab a few facts and spin an entire fairy tale
> > around them to match their beliefs. No rational thought, no critical
> > analysis, just the I want to believe this so it must be true mindset.
>
> Oh the irony. You have nothing but an opinion which you claim is
> scientifically based yet the findings of scientists you reject out of hand.

Where exactly were the citations to credentialed scientists you seem to
think support the propaganda?

On Friday, November 30, 2012 6:49:45 PM UTC-5, Pete C. wrote:
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> >
>
> > "Pete C." > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > >
>
> > > Gary wrote:
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > >> >
>
> > >> > "Pete C." wrote:
>
> > >> > >
>
> > >> > > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too ignorant
>
> > >> > > to
>
> > >> > > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do nothing to
>
> > >> > > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors - this has
>
> > >> > > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of illnesses are
>
> > >> > > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the luddite
>
> > >> > > antis,
>
> > >> > > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any
>
> > >> > > statistically
>
> > >> > > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses they
>
> > >> > > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
>
> > >> >
>
> > >> > How do you know that fracking fluids aren't
>
> > >> > interacting with cellular telephone radiation
>
> > >> > to dissolve mercury amalgam tooth fillings?
>
> > >> > If you can't PROVE that's not happening,
>
> > >> > it probably is!
>
> > >>
>
> > >> oh dear lord.
>
> > >
>
> > > Indeed. Sadly "environmentalism" has become yet another religion where
>
> > > the proponents will grab a few facts and spin an entire fairy tale
>
> > > around them to match their beliefs. No rational thought, no critical
>
> > > analysis, just the I want to believe this so it must be true mindset.
>
> >
>
> > Oh the irony. You have nothing but an opinion which you claim is
>
> > scientifically based yet the findings of scientists you reject out of hand.
>
>
>
> Where exactly were the citations to credentialed scientists you seem to
>
> think support the propaganda?

In case you're not familiar with Pauly Cookie, he's almost always wrong. Once you begin to get it through his thick skull, he'll start acting like it was all a big joke on you, and he didn't really mean anything he said. He's just, like, IRONIC. MAAAAAAAAN! Then he'll disappear for a while. He's a true halfwit.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:30:56 -0800, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>
>"notbob" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2012-11-30, Pete C. > wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground that
>>> have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
>>
>> In Pete's fantasy world, toxic waste is a figment of the imagination.
>
>I am sure he's one of those guys who said during the Gulf crisis that we
>were worried about nothing because oil is a perfectly natural substance.

Poison ivy is a perfectly natural substance, as is coral snake venom,
and Amanita muscaria. Oil is a perfectly natural substance so long as
it's deep in the ground or properly harvested, but nat at all safe
when dispersed where it doesn't belong.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > gloria p wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On 11/30/2012 10:01 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > The people who do not know what fracking is by now are too
>> >> >> >> > ignorant
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > comprehend it anyway. Non-scientific propaganda pieces do
>> >> >> >> > nothing
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > educate anyone. Yep, fracking has triggered *tiny* tremors -
>> >> >> >> > this
>> >> >> >> > has
>> >> >> >> > been scientifically validated. The increased reports of
>> >> >> >> > illnesses
>> >> >> >> > are
>> >> >> >> > the hypochondriac effect created by propaganda from the
>> >> >> >> > luddite
>> >> >> >> > antis,
>> >> >> >> > not from any actual increased illnesses. If there were any
>> >> >> >> > statistically
>> >> >> >> > significant increases of actual medically documented illnesses
>> >> >> >> > they
>> >> >> >> > would be investigated just as other "clusters" are.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Have you ever met a hypochondriac cow? I'm sure it was an
>> >> >> >> interesting
>> >> >> >> meeting.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Cows aren't reporting the alleged increased incidents or trying
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > tie
>> >> >> > them to propaganda. Hell, even that propaganda piece noted the
>> >> >> > statistical insignificance of their claims.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah really - next thing they'll want you to believe is the earth
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> round.
>> >> >> Damn those greedy scientists.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Who is going to authorize the theoretical investigation, the oil
>> >> >> >> companies or the congressmen they are bankrolling?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > How about the CDC, the USDA or the other agencies that routinely
>> >> >> > investigate this sort of thing when there is some amount of
>> >> >> > supporting
>> >> >> > evidence to justify an investigation?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The USDA does nothing of the kind. The CDC does not either - only
>> >> >> when
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> affects humans. Which it will soon enough.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> How can you think injecting all these lethal chemicals into the
>> >> >> >> ground
>> >> >> >> won't come back to bite us?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the
>> >> >> > ground
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are one ignorant and dumb MOFO. Strontium is one of those
>> >> >> sequestered
>> >> >> "chemicals" which do nobody harm in the earth but wreak havoc when
>> >> >> exposed
>> >> >> to the surface. Radon is the same thing - harmless in the earth,
>> >> >> deadly
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> your house.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Paul
>> >> >
>> >> > Feel free to live in your paranoid delusional world, but keep your
>> >> > "big
>> >> > business is going to kill us all" fantasies to yourself.
>> >>
>> >> How would we know what "big business" is doing here when they have
>> >> succeeded
>> >> in keeping their operations a secret. You don't know that their fluid
>> >> recipes are closely guarded trade secrets do you? So we don't even
>> >> really
>> >> know what they are pumping at all. And of course all those wells that
>> >> are
>> >> now polluted with methane never happened because the companies claimed
>> >> it
>> >> never could happen. But hey, you must be right because companies like
>> >> this
>> >> have absolutely never violated any law or done anything unethical or
>> >> dangerous. It's just irrational to assume they ever would. Barf.
>> >
>> > I'd love to have methane in my well, I'd build a gas separator, run a
>> > generator from the free gas and RO filter the water. No f'n problem,
>> > git
>> > 'er done.
>> >
>>
>> I am sure you'd love DDT on your cereal so you never have to worry about
>> insects in your food.
>
> All the folks who have died of malaria due to the poorly thought out
> banning of DDT certainly would have preferred that. Oddly enough some
> subsequent rational thought was applied and they are now using DDT to
> fight malaria carrying mosquitos again.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> See the trouble with being like an ostrich is it leaves your ass
>> >> exposed.
>> >> You're an idiot who claims to respect science while rejecting the very
>> >> science presented. ANd you clearly know not what a peer review is.
>> >
>> > I know what peer review is, and I also know that it doesn't apply in
>> > the
>> > case of that propaganda piece. The "report" from the propagandists
>> > "research" was reviewed by other propagandists and published in a
>> > propagandist publication. Nowhere were actual credentialed scientists,
>> > actual scientifically valid testing or anything similar involved.
>>
>> Yeah, Cornell is just such a podunk institution.
>>
>> I said it before, you're a fool. An opinonated, pig ignorant, stupid
>> fool.
>
> I'm certainly opinionated, but my opinions are based on hard facts, not
> "feelings" like the propagandist loons.

Only a moron would write this:

> I'd love to have methane in my well, I'd build a gas separator, run a
> generator from the free gas and RO filter the water. No f'n problem, git
> 'er done.

The only hard fact involved here is your skull.

Paul

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:30:56 -0800, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"notbob" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 2012-11-30, Pete C. > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground that
>>>> have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
>>>
>>> In Pete's fantasy world, toxic waste is a figment of the imagination.
>>
>>I am sure he's one of those guys who said during the Gulf crisis that we
>>were worried about nothing because oil is a perfectly natural substance.
>
> Poison ivy is a perfectly natural substance, as is coral snake venom,
> and Amanita muscaria. Oil is a perfectly natural substance so long as
> it's deep in the ground or properly harvested, but nat at all safe
> when dispersed where it doesn't belong.

Cyanide is a perfectly natural substance, too. I sure would't want a tanker
full of it spilling in my neighborhood. And I don't need a peer reviewed
study to know it will hurt a lot of people.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "notbob" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > On 2012-11-30, Pete C. > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
>> >> >
>> >> > In Pete's fantasy world, toxic waste is a figment of the
>> >> > imagination.
>> >>
>> >> I am sure he's one of those guys who said during the Gulf crisis that
>> >> we
>> >> were worried about nothing because oil is a perfactly natural
>> >> substance.
>> >
>> > Nope, but the actual credentialed scientists from Woods Hole spent some
>> > time in the gulf after the event and found that the reality didn't live
>> > up to the doomsday hype by a wide margin.
>>
>> Bullshit. Things are not at all well in the Gulf. But you'll never see
>> any
>> of that on Fox News.
>
> It was NPR that had the actual scientists from Woods Hole reporting
> their findings, but I guess NPR is right wing media to you.

The scientific literature is very depressing. The benthic organisms have
been badly damaged, there are massive numbers of severe mutations in all
kinds of crustaceans and mullsosks, sea mammals are aborting their fetuses
at an alarming rate, masive numbers of sea life washes up dead every day and
in vast stretches of the gulf oil is still just below the surface of the sea
grass beds. Bird colonies are not rebounding. Plus there is still a matt
of oil measuring thousands of squae miles and several feet deep on the sea
floor. Just because the very worst of our fears MAY not have been realized
does not this a environmental catastrophe make with long reaching
implications.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Janet Bostwick wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > <propaganda drivel deleted>
>> >> >
>> >> > Wow, yet another propaganda piece, not backed by any scientifically
>> >> > valid data or test results, and not published in any credible
>> >> > scientific
>> >> > journals. I suppose the "peer reviewed" claim is valid only be
>> >> > virtue
>> >> > of
>> >> > their peers being similarly non-scientific, non-credentialed
>> >> > luddites
>> >> > with a political agenda.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah who would think that something as benign as strontium (the most
>> >> lethal
>> >> toxin on earth) would possibly cause any harm. Ditto for industrial
>> >> solvents like benzine and tuoluine. Hey have a nice big glass of
>> >> paint
>> >> thinner - it's harmless. All those dead animals are just
>> >> hypochondriacs.
>> >> Your slavish devotion to the oil and gas industry is admirable. But
>> >> you
>> >> have to ask yourself one thing: if fracking is so benign, why does it
>> >> require an exemption from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?
>> >>
>> >> Huh?
>> >
>> > All those dead animals that are not out of the ordinary statistically.
>> > All those chemicals that the propagandists claim are related to that
>> > evil fracking without evidence to back their claims. I have a slavish
>> > devotion to science and the real world, not any eco-propagandists nor
>> > religious loons.
>>
>> You are no scientist. You don't even know how fracking works and how
>> much
>> of those millions of gallons of toxins are pumpmed back out or ejected
>> during the well blow off phase. You never even heard of strontium 90 -
>> the
>> very mention of which should have been a gifgantic red-flag to you. Some
>> scientist. More like a head in the sand dumb-ass who would deny gravity
>> if
>> he could.
>
> I know far more about it than you do, that much is clear. The fracking
> fluid that is pumped back out is subsequently pumped back into very deep
> disposal wells, oddly enough the ones that are triggering the tiny
> earthquakes. Your mindless "strontium 90" name dropping is no different
> than the anti-nuke folks and "nuclear", their extraordinary ignorance is
> why the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging is known only as an MRI.

Like I said - moron. Lord man you are ignorant. Have a nice tall glas of
DDT. It's just an organo-phosphate. Harmless.

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "notbob" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > On 2012-11-30, Pete C. > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the ground
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In Pete's fantasy world, toxic waste is a figment of the
> >> >> > imagination.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am sure he's one of those guys who said during the Gulf crisis that
> >> >> we
> >> >> were worried about nothing because oil is a perfactly natural
> >> >> substance.
> >> >
> >> > Nope, but the actual credentialed scientists from Woods Hole spent some
> >> > time in the gulf after the event and found that the reality didn't live
> >> > up to the doomsday hype by a wide margin.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. Things are not at all well in the Gulf. But you'll never see
> >> any
> >> of that on Fox News.
> >
> > It was NPR that had the actual scientists from Woods Hole reporting
> > their findings, but I guess NPR is right wing media to you.
>
> The scientific literature is very depressing. The benthic organisms have
> been badly damaged, there are massive numbers of severe mutations in all
> kinds of crustaceans and mullsosks, sea mammals are aborting their fetuses
> at an alarming rate, masive numbers of sea life washes up dead every day and
> in vast stretches of the gulf oil is still just below the surface of the sea
> grass beds. Bird colonies are not rebounding. Plus there is still a matt
> of oil measuring thousands of squae miles and several feet deep on the sea
> floor. Just because the very worst of our fears MAY not have been realized
> does not this a environmental catastrophe make with long reaching
> implications.

Wow, and to think that the Woods Hole folks reported on NPR that little
of the oil remained in the gulf, with most of it having been consumed by
natural oil eating bacteria that bloomed with the increase in their food
supply. I guess those Woods Hole folks must be in BP's pocket and only
the eco-loon propagandists you listen to have the real story. Facts from
credentialed scientific sources be damned, you're only going to believe
what you want to believe.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Janet Bostwick wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <propaganda drivel deleted>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wow, yet another propaganda piece, not backed by any scientifically
> >> >> > valid data or test results, and not published in any credible
> >> >> > scientific
> >> >> > journals. I suppose the "peer reviewed" claim is valid only be
> >> >> > virtue
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > their peers being similarly non-scientific, non-credentialed
> >> >> > luddites
> >> >> > with a political agenda.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah who would think that something as benign as strontium (the most
> >> >> lethal
> >> >> toxin on earth) would possibly cause any harm. Ditto for industrial
> >> >> solvents like benzine and tuoluine. Hey have a nice big glass of
> >> >> paint
> >> >> thinner - it's harmless. All those dead animals are just
> >> >> hypochondriacs.
> >> >> Your slavish devotion to the oil and gas industry is admirable. But
> >> >> you
> >> >> have to ask yourself one thing: if fracking is so benign, why does it
> >> >> require an exemption from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh?
> >> >
> >> > All those dead animals that are not out of the ordinary statistically.
> >> > All those chemicals that the propagandists claim are related to that
> >> > evil fracking without evidence to back their claims. I have a slavish
> >> > devotion to science and the real world, not any eco-propagandists nor
> >> > religious loons.
> >>
> >> You are no scientist. You don't even know how fracking works and how
> >> much
> >> of those millions of gallons of toxins are pumpmed back out or ejected
> >> during the well blow off phase. You never even heard of strontium 90 -
> >> the
> >> very mention of which should have been a gifgantic red-flag to you. Some
> >> scientist. More like a head in the sand dumb-ass who would deny gravity
> >> if
> >> he could.
> >
> > I know far more about it than you do, that much is clear. The fracking
> > fluid that is pumped back out is subsequently pumped back into very deep
> > disposal wells, oddly enough the ones that are triggering the tiny
> > earthquakes. Your mindless "strontium 90" name dropping is no different
> > than the anti-nuke folks and "nuclear", their extraordinary ignorance is
> > why the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging is known only as an MRI.
>
> Like I said - moron. Lord man you are ignorant. Have a nice tall glas of
> DDT. It's just an organo-phosphate. Harmless.
>
> Paul

Go on spewing your idiotic nonsense, soon enough you will be so consumed
with your hatred of anything you do not understand that you will simply
self destruct in a blaze of ignorance.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Janet Bostwick wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > <propaganda drivel deleted>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Wow, yet another propaganda piece, not backed by any
>> >> >> > scientifically
>> >> >> > valid data or test results, and not published in any credible
>> >> >> > scientific
>> >> >> > journals. I suppose the "peer reviewed" claim is valid only be
>> >> >> > virtue
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > their peers being similarly non-scientific, non-credentialed
>> >> >> > luddites
>> >> >> > with a political agenda.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah who would think that something as benign as strontium (the
>> >> >> most
>> >> >> lethal
>> >> >> toxin on earth) would possibly cause any harm. Ditto for
>> >> >> industrial
>> >> >> solvents like benzine and tuoluine. Hey have a nice big glass of
>> >> >> paint
>> >> >> thinner - it's harmless. All those dead animals are just
>> >> >> hypochondriacs.
>> >> >> Your slavish devotion to the oil and gas industry is admirable.
>> >> >> But
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> have to ask yourself one thing: if fracking is so benign, why does
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> require an exemption from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Huh?
>> >> >
>> >> > All those dead animals that are not out of the ordinary
>> >> > statistically.
>> >> > All those chemicals that the propagandists claim are related to that
>> >> > evil fracking without evidence to back their claims. I have a
>> >> > slavish
>> >> > devotion to science and the real world, not any eco-propagandists
>> >> > nor
>> >> > religious loons.
>> >>
>> >> You are no scientist. You don't even know how fracking works and how
>> >> much
>> >> of those millions of gallons of toxins are pumpmed back out or ejected
>> >> during the well blow off phase. You never even heard of strontium
>> >> 90 -
>> >> the
>> >> very mention of which should have been a gifgantic red-flag to you.
>> >> Some
>> >> scientist. More like a head in the sand dumb-ass who would deny
>> >> gravity
>> >> if
>> >> he could.
>> >
>> > I know far more about it than you do, that much is clear. The fracking
>> > fluid that is pumped back out is subsequently pumped back into very
>> > deep
>> > disposal wells, oddly enough the ones that are triggering the tiny
>> > earthquakes. Your mindless "strontium 90" name dropping is no different
>> > than the anti-nuke folks and "nuclear", their extraordinary ignorance
>> > is
>> > why the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging is known only as an MRI.
>>
>> Like I said - moron. Lord man you are ignorant. Have a nice tall glas
>> of
>> DDT. It's just an organo-phosphate. Harmless.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Go on spewing your idiotic nonsense, soon enough you will be so consumed
> with your hatred of anything you do not understand that you will simply
> self destruct in a blaze of ignorance.

OK, how about some H2SO4? It's mostly water and a little sulfur and some
spare oxygen molecules. A harmless and natural chemical.

You'd be doing really well if ignorance was your only problem.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "notbob" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > On 2012-11-30, Pete C. > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Perhaps since we routinely pull lethal chemicals out of the
>> >> >> >> ground
>> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> have been there millions of years yet have not harmed us?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In Pete's fantasy world, toxic waste is a figment of the
>> >> >> > imagination.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am sure he's one of those guys who said during the Gulf crisis
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> we
>> >> >> were worried about nothing because oil is a perfactly natural
>> >> >> substance.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope, but the actual credentialed scientists from Woods Hole spent
>> >> > some
>> >> > time in the gulf after the event and found that the reality didn't
>> >> > live
>> >> > up to the doomsday hype by a wide margin.
>> >>
>> >> Bullshit. Things are not at all well in the Gulf. But you'll never
>> >> see
>> >> any
>> >> of that on Fox News.
>> >
>> > It was NPR that had the actual scientists from Woods Hole reporting
>> > their findings, but I guess NPR is right wing media to you.
>>
>> The scientific literature is very depressing. The benthic organisms have
>> been badly damaged, there are massive numbers of severe mutations in all
>> kinds of crustaceans and mullsosks, sea mammals are aborting their
>> fetuses
>> at an alarming rate, masive numbers of sea life washes up dead every day
>> and
>> in vast stretches of the gulf oil is still just below the surface of the
>> sea
>> grass beds. Bird colonies are not rebounding. Plus there is still a
>> matt
>> of oil measuring thousands of squae miles and several feet deep on the
>> sea
>> floor. Just because the very worst of our fears MAY not have been
>> realized
>> does not this a environmental catastrophe make with long reaching
>> implications.
>
> Wow, and to think that the Woods Hole folks reported on NPR that little
> of the oil remained in the gulf, with most of it having been consumed by
> natural oil eating bacteria that bloomed with the increase in their food
> supply. I guess those Woods Hole folks must be in BP's pocket and only
> the eco-loon propagandists you listen to have the real story. Facts from
> credentialed scientific sources be damned, you're only going to believe
> what you want to believe.

So where is the transcript? Pardon me for doubting you, you being so
reliable and all. BTW, those same credentialed scientists also are
proponents of global climate change. And we know where you stand on that.

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:34:23 -0700, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> > Exposed livestock “are making their way into the food system, and it’s
> > very worrisome to us,” Bamberger said. “They live in areas that have
> > tested positive for air, water and soil contamination. Some of these
> > chemicals could appear in milk and meat products made from these
> > animals.”
>
> And vegetables.

And any robots manufactured in the vicinity.

Oh, the poor robots!