yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
The Guardian is good for investigative journalism as can be the Independent, Telegraph, Times etc..... even The Mail sometimes
Everyone has an angle.....
Everyone has an angle.....
Off Topic The Environment
- Thread starter Leo
- Start date
What I find amusing though Yorkie is that the Liberal Left consider the Guardian and The Independent as the Oracle of all knowledge that can be quoted verbatim to support ones opinion - however those same people deride the opinions of more Right thinking people as those of the Daily Heil and not possibly their own.
Believe it or not, the only newspaper that I would purchase is The Independent on a Saturday (not always if we have a long trip away that day, but certainly every week out of season). Reason I buy this paper is because generally the coverage of articles that I have an interest in are covered in more detail, however they do spin some stories to support the position of that newspaper. As an example, a couple of weeks ago they had a double page spread covering the prosecution of British soldiers for alleged war crimes in Iraq - there was a large section covering the experience of an ex Adjutant General lawyer (who is now a vicar in a posh boys school) and a section regarding the large numbers of soldiers that have been interviewed (some have even been door stepped by lawyers) or have been sent letters asking for information. However there was no mention of the huge numbers of cases that have failed and never had any chance of being won (but they did mention the few prosecutions that succeeded), they did not mention the 3 lawyers being investigated by their own professional body for malpractice in this area, they did not mention that one of the legal companies very active in this area being investigated for shredding evidence. Thus I consider their coverage as not balanced - thus does it reinforce the opinion of the reader in an unbalanced way?
I am looking forward to see how they cover the recent exposures of charities.
Believe it or not, the only newspaper that I would purchase is The Independent on a Saturday (not always if we have a long trip away that day, but certainly every week out of season). Reason I buy this paper is because generally the coverage of articles that I have an interest in are covered in more detail, however they do spin some stories to support the position of that newspaper. As an example, a couple of weeks ago they had a double page spread covering the prosecution of British soldiers for alleged war crimes in Iraq - there was a large section covering the experience of an ex Adjutant General lawyer (who is now a vicar in a posh boys school) and a section regarding the large numbers of soldiers that have been interviewed (some have even been door stepped by lawyers) or have been sent letters asking for information. However there was no mention of the huge numbers of cases that have failed and never had any chance of being won (but they did mention the few prosecutions that succeeded), they did not mention the 3 lawyers being investigated by their own professional body for malpractice in this area, they did not mention that one of the legal companies very active in this area being investigated for shredding evidence. Thus I consider their coverage as not balanced - thus does it reinforce the opinion of the reader in an unbalanced way?
I am looking forward to see how they cover the recent exposures of charities.
Random one but I do love new finds like this
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35482467
Shows how little we know about the planet we live on...
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35482467
Shows how little we know about the planet we live on...
Cheers Toby. I love these stories about the sea. It's nearly 50 years since man went on the moon yet we only know a small fraction about our oceans. Amazing really and thank goodness for David Attenborough
I learnt tonight from a TV program that the speed of the earth's rotation is actually changing simply because of water storage. Knowing that there is only so much water available we are trying to store it, but because it is more available in some parts of the planet, and not in others, it is having an unbalancing effect because of the stored weight.
Not yet starting to feel dizzy though.
Not yet starting to feel dizzy though.
There are many many variations in aspects of our Planet OFH that most believe are not aware of. For instance Gravity is not consistent and is influenced by many natural parameters, the magnetic field is not consistent and will even reverse at times and many of these are not caused by mans activities.
I learnt tonight from a TV program that the speed of the earth's rotation is actually changing simply because of water storage. Knowing that there is only so much water available we are trying to store it, but because it is more available in some parts of the planet, and not in others, it is having an unbalancing effect because of the stored weight.
Not yet starting to feel dizzy though.
It must be rotating very slowly in this part of Hampshire....water is being retained in considerable quantities wherever you set foot. Mind you, I don't retain it as long as I used to!
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
Now this is interesting news
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...lls-uks-first-tesla-powerwall-storage-battery
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...lls-uks-first-tesla-powerwall-storage-battery
Not if it takes 45 years before it breaks even. Let's keep trying to find ways to store power, but we still haven't got there yet. I am sure that a company will find a way eventually and make some money out of it, but leave it to the state and not a lot will happen.
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
Yes i am mindful of the fact that it probably needs to be a third of the price and even more efficient .. and batteries degrade .etc etc.... but slowly getting there.
Will be much more cost effective in sunnier climes.....
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/116344?reveal_response=yes
I hope i can put this petition up requesting parliament to reconsider fracking in national parks etc without sparking off internecine political debate
mmm.... always wondered what internecine meant
I hope i can put this petition up requesting parliament to reconsider fracking in national parks etc without sparking off internecine political debate
mmm.... always wondered what internecine meant
Slight correction I think Yorkie - it's not Fracking "IN" National Parks, it's Fracking "UNDER" National Parks - there is a slight difference.
However the infrastructure and increased traffic etc will be "IN" the National Park.
I will sign the petition.I just don't think we know enough about the movement of underground water and the effect whether short term or long term will have, or where it will be. Once polluted there is no remedy and it seems to me that its a case of sod the consequences for cheaper energy.
I will sign the petition.I just don't think we know enough about the movement of underground water and the effect whether short term or long term will have, or where it will be. Once polluted there is no remedy and it seems to me that its a case of sod the consequences for cheaper energy.
That's not my understanding - the drilling will be done outside the Park but into rock under the Park. Directional drilling is a very well advanced technology used for years in drilling oil and gas wells.
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
I for one have found little evidence to support fracking on environmental grounds....... to put it another way if fracking was going on under my house or garden I would be 100% against it... and of course the National Parks are our gardens. They are our heritage and we should value and protect them
Let them direct their drills somewhere else IMO.
Of course they say outside but then they are going in and under.... and there is quite a lot of evidence of gas escapes, unsettling the terrain, minor 'quakes' etc. etc
Let them direct their drills somewhere else IMO.
Of course they say outside but then they are going in and under.... and there is quite a lot of evidence of gas escapes, unsettling the terrain, minor 'quakes' etc. etc
There are very few methods of generating power that do not have some kind of environmental impact. I suppose the only one that has minimal impact are offshore wind farms. Personally I quite like the look of wind farms, but not in areas of beauty - I was quite shocked so many on the rolling hills in Scotland on my travels last year, they really did not enhance the environment.
We have very few options in this country to quickly grow the capacity to support the growing demand and successive governments have not taken the decisions needed to guarantee supply for this increased demand.
I suppose in 20-30 years time there will be an issue with the safe disposal of all of these batteries now being produced for cars and the Tesla type products.
We have very few options in this country to quickly grow the capacity to support the growing demand and successive governments have not taken the decisions needed to guarantee supply for this increased demand.
I suppose in 20-30 years time there will be an issue with the safe disposal of all of these batteries now being produced for cars and the Tesla type products.
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
OK...
I think they should put wind turbines along sides motorways etc like I have seen them in France
The current question is whether to support or not fracking in/under national parks....
From an American chess playing friend:
Fracking in your national parks!? Wow, and I thought we were bad in the U.S.!! You surpassed us on this one!
I agree re batteries and is an ongoing issue....... as so much of what we produce is...
I am really no expert but I can see nothing but concerns with fracking....
I'm not saying I agree with Fracking, but I would like to see more detail on the subject. At the moment the debate is between the Fracking companies and environmentalists on behalf of the NIMBY's - we need a bit more science and real information from the US where it is huge.
I would be happy to see a couple of wind turbines in the fields at the back of my garden, as I said I find them quite soothing and less ugly than the 11Kv poles that already cross the field!
I would be happy to see a couple of wind turbines in the fields at the back of my garden, as I said I find them quite soothing and less ugly than the 11Kv poles that already cross the field!
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
Agreed .....I would even have a domestic turbine on the roof of my house... you can get virtually silent ones....
Source of Fracking Contamination
Due to the multitude of potential health and environmental impacts of hydrofracking source contamination can be complicated. The well location where drilling takes place is only one piece of the frack puzzle. Since each well can require up to 8 million gallons of water, and up to 40,000 gallons of chemicals, a well site may need up to 2000 tanker truck trips, per frack. A well can be fracked up to 20 times.
Storage for the waste water can take place either on site, in an injection well, or in open air ponds in the surrounding areas. Transport of the waste poses a contamination risk outside the actual well location. Air pollution also extends beyond the immediate drilling site and transportation route, since a by-product of natural gas drilling is methane gas, one of the worst greenhouse gas pollutants contributing to climate change.
Impacts of Fracking
Air Pollution
Natural gas flares from a flare-head at the Orvis State well on the Evanson family farm in McKenzie County, North Dakota, east of Arnegard and west of Watford City.
Methane is a main component of natural gas and is 25 times more potent in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. A recent study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) monitoring gas wells in Weld County, Colorado, estimated that 4 percent of the methane produced by these wells is escaping into the atmosphere. NOAA scientists found the Weld County gas wells to be equal to the carbon emissions of 1-3 million cars.
A number of other air contaminants are released through the various drilling procedures, including construction and operation of the well site, transport of the materials and equipment, and disposal of the waste. Some of the pollutants released by drilling include: benzene, toluene, xylene and ethyl benzene (BTEX), particulate matter and dust, ground level ozone, or smog, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and metals contained in diesel fuel combustion—with exposure to these pollutants known to cause short-term illness, cancer, organ damage, nervous system disorders and birth defects or even death .
The Associated press recently reported that Wyoming's air quality near rural drilling sites is worse than Los Angeles'–with Wyoming ozone levels recorded at 124 parts per billion compared to the worst air day of the year for Los Angeles, at 114 parts per billion. The Environmental Protection Agency's maximum healthy limit is 75 parts per billion.
Oblique low-altitude aerial photo of wellpads, access roads, pipeline corridors and other natural-gas infrastructure in the Jonah Field of western Wyoming's upper Green River valley
A 2007 report prepared for the Western Governor's Association, that inventoried present and future nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from oil and gas drilling in the west, projects Montana to experience a 310% increase in nitrogen oxide pollution (smog).
Crystalline silica, in the form of sand, can cause silicosis (an incurable but preventable lung disease) when inhaled by workers. Sand is a main ingredient used in the fracking process. The National Institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH) collected air samples from 11 fracking sites around the country. All 11 sites exceeded relevant occupational health criteria for exposure to respirable crystalline silica. In 31% of the samples, silica concentrations exceeded the NIOSH exposure limit by a factor of 10, which means that even if workers were wearing proper respiratory equipment, they would not be adequately protected.
Due to the multitude of potential health and environmental impacts of hydrofracking source contamination can be complicated. The well location where drilling takes place is only one piece of the frack puzzle. Since each well can require up to 8 million gallons of water, and up to 40,000 gallons of chemicals, a well site may need up to 2000 tanker truck trips, per frack. A well can be fracked up to 20 times.
Storage for the waste water can take place either on site, in an injection well, or in open air ponds in the surrounding areas. Transport of the waste poses a contamination risk outside the actual well location. Air pollution also extends beyond the immediate drilling site and transportation route, since a by-product of natural gas drilling is methane gas, one of the worst greenhouse gas pollutants contributing to climate change.
Impacts of Fracking
Air Pollution
You must log in or register to see images
Natural gas flares from a flare-head at the Orvis State well on the Evanson family farm in McKenzie County, North Dakota, east of Arnegard and west of Watford City.
You must log in or register to see images
Methane is a main component of natural gas and is 25 times more potent in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. A recent study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) monitoring gas wells in Weld County, Colorado, estimated that 4 percent of the methane produced by these wells is escaping into the atmosphere. NOAA scientists found the Weld County gas wells to be equal to the carbon emissions of 1-3 million cars.
A number of other air contaminants are released through the various drilling procedures, including construction and operation of the well site, transport of the materials and equipment, and disposal of the waste. Some of the pollutants released by drilling include: benzene, toluene, xylene and ethyl benzene (BTEX), particulate matter and dust, ground level ozone, or smog, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and metals contained in diesel fuel combustion—with exposure to these pollutants known to cause short-term illness, cancer, organ damage, nervous system disorders and birth defects or even death .
The Associated press recently reported that Wyoming's air quality near rural drilling sites is worse than Los Angeles'–with Wyoming ozone levels recorded at 124 parts per billion compared to the worst air day of the year for Los Angeles, at 114 parts per billion. The Environmental Protection Agency's maximum healthy limit is 75 parts per billion.
You must log in or register to see images
Oblique low-altitude aerial photo of wellpads, access roads, pipeline corridors and other natural-gas infrastructure in the Jonah Field of western Wyoming's upper Green River valley
You must log in or register to see images
A 2007 report prepared for the Western Governor's Association, that inventoried present and future nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from oil and gas drilling in the west, projects Montana to experience a 310% increase in nitrogen oxide pollution (smog).
Crystalline silica, in the form of sand, can cause silicosis (an incurable but preventable lung disease) when inhaled by workers. Sand is a main ingredient used in the fracking process. The National Institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH) collected air samples from 11 fracking sites around the country. All 11 sites exceeded relevant occupational health criteria for exposure to respirable crystalline silica. In 31% of the samples, silica concentrations exceeded the NIOSH exposure limit by a factor of 10, which means that even if workers were wearing proper respiratory equipment, they would not be adequately protected.