Fracking in the Karoo - why it's bad

DJ... said:
Had nobody ever pissed in the ocean, would you be so vehement against pissing in the ocean? It was quite clearly hypothetical in every sense...
Click to expand...

:wtf: I'm not vehement against dropping nuclear waste into the sun because of that. I specifically said 'technically' (as opposed to practically) we don't know what will happen. I also specifically said it's unlikely given our current understanding of the sun, to do any damage... it was a technicality I made in response to The_Assimilator who asserted that "Dropping waste of any sort into the sun, or any star, won't "kill" it - he can't know that for sure since it's never been done but it's a logical argument not a practical one.

I'm against dropping nuclear waste into the sun because of the danger sending it there. As I pointed out previously, there isn’t a space agency or private firm on the planet with a spotless launch record. And we’re not talking about cheapo rockets—in 2009, the craft carrying NASA’s $280-million Orbiting Carbon Observatory fizzled out and crashed into the ocean near Antarctica. It’s a bummer when a satellite ends up underwater, but it’s an entirely different story if that rocket is packing a few hundred pounds of uranium. And if the uranium caught fire, it could stay airborne and circulate for months, dusting the globe with radioactive ash.

Still seem like a good idea?
 
joelus said:
:wtf: I'm not vehement against dropping nuclear waste into the sun because of that. I specifically said 'technically' (as opposed to practically) we don't know what will happen.
Click to expand...

We know the chemical composition of the sun. We know how the nuclear reactions take place. We know how suns/stars work - their ins and their outs. Physicists have been researching this for years. For obvious reason we cannot probe the thing but why are you assuming that we physically need to touch the thing to know how it works? Our mathematical models give us a very clear indication of what would happen if you chucked in a little nuclear waste into the thing - nothing. This hippie bullschit is really going overboard when people start projecting issues affecting the earth on to the sun, as if they're the same thing. I know you;re not outright doing that but you're bordering on holding up a "protect our sun" placard...


joelus said:
I'm against dropping nuclear waste into the sun because of the danger sending it there. As I pointed out previously, there isn’t a space agency or private firm on the planet with a spotless launch record. And we’re not talking about cheapo rockets—in 2009, the craft carrying NASA’s $280-million Orbiting Carbon Observatory fizzled out and crashed into the ocean near Antarctica. It’s a bummer when a satellite ends up underwater, but it’s an entirely different story if that rocket is packing a few hundred pounds of uranium. And if the uranium caught fire, it could stay airborne and circulate for months, dusting the globe with radioactive ash.
Click to expand...

Valid concern, granted. I take it you don't fly, or drive, in case you're involved in an accident, right? I mean your death is far more significant than some nuclear waste exploding, surely?

Things will get far more efficient. We can't stop progress for the sake of the "what if" nannies...
 
daveza said:
You mean the 'what if fracking destroys the water quality in the Karoo' nannies ?
Click to expand...

I was clearly referring to the nuclear waste issues. Regarding fracking - I am on the fence for the time being. I'm somewhere between JStrike and everyone else's opinions. If the economic benefits are as substantial as flouted, and environmental impact can be minimised (note, not eliminated) then I am all for it...
 
Fair enough, but how do you ' minimise the impact ' of benzene for example which is a carcinogen at even infinitely small quantities.

Do we really want this sh*t pumped into the Karoo - ?

Natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing chemicals with 10 or more health effects

• 2,2',2"-Nitrilotriethanol
• 2-Ethylhexanol
• 5-Chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one
• Acetic acid
• Acrolein
• Acrylamide (2-propenamide)
• Acrylic acid
• Ammonia
• Ammonium chloride
• Ammonium nitrate
• Aniline
• Benzyl chloride
• Boric acid
• Cadmium
• Calcium hypochlorite
• Chlorine
• Chlorine dioxide
• Dibromoacetonitrile 1
• Diesel 2
• Diethanolamine
• Diethylenetriamine
• Dimethyl formamide
• Epidian
• Ethanol (acetylenic alcohol)
• Ethyl mercaptan
• Ethylbenzene
• Ethylene glycol
• Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (2-BE)
• Ethylene oxide
• Ferrous sulfate
• Formaldehyde
• Formic acid
• Fuel oil #2
• Glutaraldehyde
• Glyoxal
• Hydrodesulfurized kerosene
• Hydrogen sulfide
• Iron
• Isobutyl alcohol (2-methyl-1-propanol)
• Isopropanol (propan-2-ol)
• Kerosene
• Light naphthenic distillates, hydrotreated
• Mercaptoacidic acid
• Methanol
• Methylene bis(thiocyanate)
• Monoethanolamine
• NaHCO3
• Naphtha, petroleum medium aliphatic
• Naphthalene
• Natural gas condensates
• Nickel sulfate
• Paraformaldehyde
• Petroleum distillate naptha
• Petroleum distillate/ naphtha
• Phosphonium, tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)-sulfate
• Propane-1,2-diol
• Sodium bromate
• Sodium chlorite (chlorous acid, sodium salt)
• Sodium hypochlorite
• Sodium nitrate
• Sodium nitrite
• Sodium sulfite
• Styrene
• Sulfur dioxide
• Sulfuric acid
• Tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione (Dazomet)
• Titanium dioxide
• Tributyl phosphate
• Triethylene glycol
• Urea
• Xylene
Click to expand...
 
I'm not an environmental expert - I can't answer that. I am willing to accept some risk for massive reward though...
 
DJ... said:
We know the chemical composition of the sun. We know how the nuclear reactions take place. We know how suns/stars work - their ins and their outs. Physicists have been researching this for years. For obvious reason we cannot probe the thing but why are you assuming that we physically need to touch the thing to know how it works? Our mathematical models give us a very clear indication of what would happen if you chucked in a little nuclear waste into the thing - nothing. This hippie bullschit is really going overboard when people start projecting issues affecting the earth on to the sun, as if they're the same thing. I know you;re not outright doing that but you're bordering on holding up a "protect our sun" placard...
Click to expand...
Science is about experiments. That is it's root. I agree with everything you've said which is why I said it's unlikely but hey, you never really know until you try. It's not hippie bullschit, it's simply an observation that we haven't verified our theory and mathematical models with an actual experiment of dropping nuclear waste into the sun. But anyway all this is beside the point, it was just an off-topic offhand philosophical remark I made.


DJ... said:
Valid concern, granted. I take it you don't fly, or drive, in case you're involved in an accident, right? I mean your death is far more significant than some nuclear waste exploding, surely?

Things will get far more efficient. We can't stop progress for the sake of the "what if" nannies...
Click to expand...
Really, you think the risk of a few hundred pounds of uranium catching fire, staying airborne and circulating the globe for months, dusting the earth with radioactive ash, is insignificant? Really? That concern makes me a nanny? :wtf:

Anyway, it's irrelevant since, as already pointed out, it's not currently possible to do this safely...
Lets start by dropping non-radioactive stuff into the sun until we get it right - once that's been achieved we can consider it as a means of nuclear waste disposal.
Right now it's just fantasy and totally impractical.
Again, it's a "Let's create the waste now and figure out how to deal with it later" scenario. An attitude that's responsible for much of the current pollution problems we have. Today we're trying to figure out how to deal with our pollution, no when the worlds already polluted. I say, first figure out how deal with nuclear waste safely, long term and then start building hundreds of nuclear power stations, not the other way around.
 
joelus said:
And what's necessary is safe, renewable and sustainable energy generation. Nuclear power is none of these and neither is fracking.
Click to expand...

Until we identify and can practically implement this holy grail, we'll have to be prepared to compromise somewhat...
 
In 2005, the Bush/ Cheney Energy Bill exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. It exempts companies from disclosing the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing.
Click to expand...

Now why would they want the chemicals used to be kept secret ?
 
DJ... said:
Until we identify and can practically implement this holy grail, we'll have to be prepared to compromise somewhat...
Click to expand...

radioactive waste is not a compromise I, personally, am willing to make. If the rest of you want to frack up the world and die of cancer go ahead...
 
daveza said:
How much reward is cancer worth ?

And it won't be the government or the Shell executives who will be drinking the water ...
Click to expand...

This is a little sensationalist. If there is a known risk of cancer for inhabitants of the area, then alternatives must be in place prior to operations beginning. I'm not claiming we ignore the risk. I'm saying we mitigate risks the best we can - there will always be some element of risk though. And no, I don't know what it is worth.

The economy benefits significantly from a project like this. Those economic benefits can in turn save lives. Arguing against it for the sake of cancer risks is about as disingenuous as me claiming NOT going ahead will directly result in 10000 poverty-related deaths...
 
Horizontal fracking uses up to 300 tons of a mixture of 750 chemicals, many of them proprietary, and millions of gallons of water per frack.

This water then becomes contaminated and must be cleaned and disposed of.
Click to expand...

Let's ignore the 750 chemicals for a moment - how exactly are they going to provide the millions of gallons of water in the middle of the Karoo, and where do they plan to dispose of it ?
 
DJ... said:
This is a little sensationalist. If there is a known risk of cancer for inhabitants of the area, then alternatives must be in place prior to operations beginning.
Click to expand...


Benzene, a known human carcinogen is toxic in water at levels greater than five parts per billion (or 0.005 parts per million).
Click to expand...

That infinitesimally small amount of Benzene in dilution is all that is needed to cause carcinoma.

This gets into the water table, pumped to the surface for cattle, sheep etc and humans to drink.
 
daveza said:
That infinitesimally small amount of Benzene in dilution is all that is needed to cause carcinoma.

This gets into the water table, pumped to the surface for cattle, sheep etc and humans to drink.
Click to expand...

Then eliminate that risk. Look I really don't know enough about this to get into a deep conversation about it all. I'm happy to admit so. What I will reiterate though is that this project could be hugely economically beneficial to SA and to dismiss it outright based on a few concerns is silly. Rather let's see what can be done to mitigate the risk before drawing a line in the sand about how we all feel about it. I'm yet to see any of the cynics address JStrike's question of where one could possibly make up the shortfall of turning this down? Or is that an acceptable thing to do? Because in order to make a decision either way, would require someone having insight into this project that has yet to be posted here. I share JStrike's sentiment in that the pros and cons need to be weighed up before everyone goes off on a tangent about how god-awful everything is and we're all going to die...
 
DJ... said:
Then eliminate that risk. Look I really don't know enough about this to get into a deep conversation about it all. I'm happy to admit so. What I will reiterate though is that this project could be hugely economically beneficial to SA and to dismiss it outright based on a few concerns is silly. Rather let's see what can be done to mitigate the risk before drawing a line in the sand about how we all feel about it. I'm yet to see any of the cynics address JStrike's question of where one could possibly make up the shortfall of turning this down? Or is that an acceptable thing to do? Because in order to make a decision either way, would require someone having insight into this project that has yet to be posted here. I share JStrike's sentiment in that the pros and cons need to be weighed up before everyone goes off on a tangent about how god-awful everything is and we're all going to die...
Click to expand...

I don't like fracking on principle because it is a destructive, inefficient and dangerous way of extracting energy. I feel the same about oil - I'd much prefer we made use of much-less-polluting sources like nuclear. Unfortunately, until the greenies get educated and realise that nuclear power is a far lesser evil than oil, and stop opposing anything that "isn't sustainable"... we're gonna be stuck with fossil fuels and their pollution.

As for fracking in the Karoo, I oppose it due to the ANC, not the process. The politicians stealing all the economic benefits are the issue in this case.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
What are you basing your claim that chucking nuclear waste into the sun will 'kill' it, on?
Click to expand...

Actually none, but I wanted to get across a point that trying to dump uranium into our star may not be a good idea, The_Assimilator's snotty attitude just prompted the challenge to him to prove me wrong. So far I haven't seen anything from him, he might be harassing an astrophysicst for answers :D My understanding is that fusion of elements beyond iron consume energy vs fission where energy is released. While I have no problem admitting that I'm not an astrophysicist and I don't know exactly what will happen, my best bet would be that we would be helping our star to becoming a red giant by wasting its energy through the introduction of heavy elements. This won't actually kill it, but a red giant would certainly kill us.

Getting any uranium there wouldn't be feasible anyways, so I doubt any astrophyicists have seriously considered what would happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X