Community Message: We're currently in the middle of our donation drive. For those willing to send a donation, we ask that you use the feature in the sidebar to send a donation. For those who send a donation, a donation badge will be featured in your profile next to every message you post. members can dismiss this message by clicking on the 'x' in the upper-right corner. Donations are used for hosting fees, license renewal for the forum software and domain name renewal.

Jump to content
Goddess Relief Office
Keiichi Morisato

Scientists Discover New Horror, Fracking Creates Manmade Earthquakes

Recommended Posts

DeLtA    8
DeLtA

Yeah, conspiracy theories are difficult because they require hard evidence to be converted into a valid fact. We all have to be careful to not put stock into those theories until there is adequate proof. And I totally get that there are many things that simply aren't available to laypeople because they're inaccessible behind a paywall or they're classified.

Agenda 21 is interesting. It doesn't seem to me that it is an attempt at population control. It just sounds like an agreement that isn't binding that sets a goal for sustainable development. I'm curious what people are saying that reinterprets it as population control... like, what exactly could the document give the gov't the right to do in order to enact a legal sort of population control.

As for earthquakes, I don't think they could be used for population control. If you look at the most recent most devastating earthquakes: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll#Deadliest_earthquakes then click on date to look at most recent), there are very few in modern times that are catastrophic, and almost none in the United States that have significant death tolls. Trying to produce earthquakes by fracking would likely be small, so the death tolls from earthquakes caused by fracking would be nil, but there would be infrastructure damage. It doesn't make sense for the gov't to use that method, especially when it's far cheaper and easier for other methods.

But anyway, I think the biggest issue is that there isn't trust between the public and scientists. I will agree that some scientists are bad apples who will do shady stuff such as developing weapons from their research, but the majority of scientists will denounce those assholes. There is also distrust between the gov't and the public. And because there are so many things that need regulation and so many things that need protection, the question becomes whether there is too much power in the hands of the few. I don't think there's an easy solution to that, at least, until a majority of citizens become unhappy with their quality of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keiichi Morisato    416
Keiichi Morisato

Now that I recall, most of the natural disasters that have happened have been inflicted upon other countries. There were quite a number of natural disasters mostly including earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions that impacted Japan, Haiti, Iceland, China, Fiji, Russia, Canada, and many other nations and countries. Some of the most destructive natural disasters to ever hit the United States as a whole has been the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the early 1980's, Hurricane Katrina and more recently, Hurricane Irma (which is about to ready to hit Florida and other parts of the southeastern United States and Hurricane Harvey, which struck Texas.

But, I don't think it's scientists that are to be blamed for fracking but rather the major oil companies who don't take responsibility or do their best to ensure there is no impact in the communities who are likely to be affected by their company's interests. There's very little company's do to minimize the risk and end up walking away from it without paying for the cleanup or compensating those communities who are also impacted by the practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sugoi    46
Sugoi
2 hours ago, Keiichi Morisato said:

But, I don't think it's scientists that are to be blamed for fracking but rather the major oil companies who don't take responsibility or do their best to ensure there is no impact in the communities who are likely to be affected by their company's interests. There's very little company's do to minimize the risk and end up walking away from it without paying for the cleanup or compensating those communities who are also impacted by the practice.

It's greed. Greed for wealth, power and perhaps fame. I think it' major cause for misery and destruction in this world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keiichi Morisato    416
Keiichi Morisato

That is something that everyone can agree with, @Sugoi. It's all about corporate greed and the bottom line when it comes to profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeLtA    8
DeLtA
19 hours ago, Keiichi Morisato said:

There's very little company's do to minimize the risk and end up walking away from it without paying for the cleanup or compensating those communities who are also impacted by the practice.

One of the things I do want is more regulation of companies, and it has to be the government that enacts these policies. While it's true that it might cause companies to spend more, and therefore hire less people, it helps prevent mess-ups that really destroy our environment or our personal lives. It would hold the companies accountable for what they've been negligent about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keiichi Morisato    416
Keiichi Morisato

@DeLtA, not to mention increasing the fines for those companies. It used to be around $25,000 for companies who pollute our waters, from the EPA. But, the fines levied out to companies who pollute are not enough to dissuade companies from engaging in this practice. Matter of fact, most consider this to be a normal operating expense and that they consider it the cost of doing business since their profits far exceed the fines. Perhaps if they fined the companies per volume or a considerable percentage of their income, it might be enough to discourage them from operating in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeLtA    8
DeLtA

You're absolutely right; they do factor that cost into their operations. I like the idea of fining them per volume, but it does take time to determine how much damage was actually done. Maybe if they pointed the fines and penalties (jail time) to all of the leadership of companies, the companies themselves would try much harder not to mess up the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gdata1954    14
gdata1954
50 minutes ago, Keiichi Morisato said:

@DeLtA, not to mention increasing the fines for those companies. It used to be around $25,000 for companies who pollute our waters, from the EPA. But, the fines levied out to companies who pollute are not enough to dissuade companies from engaging in this practice. Matter of fact, most consider this to be a normal operating expense and that they consider it the cost of doing business since their profits far exceed the fines. Perhaps if they fined the companies per volume or a considerable percentage of their income, it might be enough to discourage them from operating in this way.

$25000 that nothing to the big polluters to them it like a $25 fine and fact i think fines don't work in case like this it should their leases should be torn up and never to be use again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keiichi Morisato    416
Keiichi Morisato

Tell me about. Fines against corporations are worthless unless the fine is large enough to cause them to rethink what they're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Board Life Status


Board startup date: December 12, 2004 13:15:32
×