One year on from Blackpool and Fukushima....

**An_Inspector_Calls** · 10-12-12, 20:30

FF, TS: all well and good, so parade your genuine environmental concerns.

Of course Marcellus Driling News is not neutral on the issue - any fool can see that; but neither is Greenpeace and the Green Party. If there are genuine environmental concerns, they should stand examination. What are they, and where is the evidence that underpins those concerns?

But don't start pleading bias, or hinting at vested interests as a method of debarring counter-argument from those proponents of fracking. It is equally plausible that those arguing for fracking are doing so because of genuine concerns about the well-being of people and the environment - that would certainly be my position.

**teamsaint** · 10-12-12, 20:42

Originally posted by An_Inspector_Calls View Post

FF, TS: all well and good, so parade your genuine environmental concerns.

Of course Marcellus Driling News is not neutral on the issue - any fool can see that; but neither is Greenpeace and the Green Party. If there are genuine environmental concerns, they should stand examination. What are they, and where is the evidence that underpins those concerns?

But don't start pleading bias, or hinting at vested interests as a method of debarring counter-argument from those proponents of fracking. It is equally plausible that those arguing for fracking are doing so because of genuine concerns about the well-being of people and the environment - that would certainly be my position.

As I quite clearly stated above, like most people I really am not in a position to fight a deep technical battle on this. Somebody with a decent technical knowledge could tear me apart, even if I eventually turn out to be right .

If the potential dangers were slight, and there are some advantages to plentiful and relatively less polluting shale gas, then perhaps we should go for it.
But the dangers are earth tremors (recorded) and ground water pollution, which seems certain to have happened, even if it is just in "accidents", and accidents as we know DO happen.

As far as I can see, those arguing for fracking are in the industry, and in their pay. Same as it ever was. I think the balance of proof here lies with them, not the objectors.

Seems to me that the advantages of fracking that we are told about should have us clamouring for it...but somehow we aren't. Hmmmmm.....

**Resurrection Man** · 10-12-12, 21:23

Originally posted by MrGongGong View Post

Saucer of milk for the inspector

Oh wonderful.

Rule 2 applies...when boxed into a corner, come out with some trite comment such as this.

Just dipped in to see if you'd improved. Clearly not.

**Resurrection Man** · 10-12-12, 21:26

Originally posted by teamsaint View Post

Unless you have a lot of time on your hands, and a good deal of expertise, real certainty on these matters is quite hard to achieve. Most of us, most of the time, are going to come to our judgements on partial information.
Its really important that these matters aren't just left in the hands of professionals (usually on one side or the other).
So we then surely need to make some judgement calls about the risk and benefits.
Fot instance, if we want to keep using the current nuclear technology, its now clear that this will end in another major meltdown somewhere , sometime. 3 already in the last 30 years says so. There may be benefits to nuclear, but the benefits seem largely to be in the minds of those involved in the industry.

Now, I am not in a position to make close technical judgements. But I do know a couple of things. I really don't want fracking going on, while if the risk of poisoned groundwater or earthquakes is small.And fracking still produces green house gases. Accidents DO happen.I really don't want more nuclear accidents built....3 is far too many. And wind turbines, which may well prove to be a triumph of lobbying over practical power generating decisions,can be dismantled.

But where would you get energy from, ts? I think you may be over-reacting re three meltdowns = future calamity.

**MrGongGong** · 10-12-12, 21:29

Originally posted by Resurrection Man View Post

Oh wonderful.

Rule 2 applies...when boxed into a corner, come out with some trite comment such as this.

Just dipped in to see if you'd improved. Clearly not.

Welcome back

**teamsaint** · 10-12-12, 21:34

actually, what I have to offer, and I accept its not a lot, is in my #221.
reduce unnecessary consumption, both of goods and domestic energy. Do everythng possible to minimise domestic use, and encourage production at the domestic level, (solar etc).
Clean burn coal as an interim measure.
Invest big time in public transport.
There is plenty we can do. We just need to get on with it.(and to be helped to by our government)

**An_Inspector_Calls** · 10-12-12, 22:16

Originally posted by teamsaint View Post

But the dangers are earth tremors (recorded) and ground water pollution, which seems certain to have happened, even if it is just in "accidents",

Yes, it's been claimed that there are instances of water pollution, but in spite of a vigorous programme of testing the EPA (USA) has yet to find a convincing example. But earth tremours do occur, although they are tiny, at level 2 on the Richter scale; exactly the same as we used to experience from deep coal mining.

The Green party were claiming at Sunday's (?) London protest that fracking would involve heavy vehicles driving into our countryside. Well, there's very little of our countryside that hasn't been visited by heavy traffic, especially on arable land. And the vehicles involved in fracking are as nothing compared to the 100 ton loads involved in the erection of windmills so beloved of the Greens.

Our own EA has pronounced on this subject and said fracking should be allowed to continue but with a programme of careful monitoring. That's seems a fair stance to me.

One of the alternatives you mention is reduction in energy consumption. That again, is a fair point, but it's a strategy that can be common to any other energy policy. I doubt the dividends of that approach will be as high as some would like to imagine.

**teamsaint** · 11-12-12, 07:10

Re a trategy of reduced consumption, we know from past experience that while there are cheap abundant energy supplies, his won't happen. It needs to be made a central part of energy strategy as a priority.
Re fracking, well I really don't know how the evidence stacks up. I would be less liberal than the Inspector and allow very selective , very carefully monitored tests (at most) in the least sensitive areas, and with a very wary eye on how any results were being used by the industry.

**MrGongGong** · 11-12-12, 10:34

Originally posted by An_Inspector_Calls View Post

But earth tremours do occur, although they are tiny, at level 2 on the Richter scale;

I'm no scientist BUT I do know that earthquakes are no longer measured on the "Richter scale" .... so either this is old data ? or not really from someone who knows what they are talking about ?

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/why+the+richter+scale+is+no+more/1666747.html