It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Santorum wants more fracking!!!

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


I agree. When I lived in California, didnt worry one bit about Fracking. No significant shale to speak of. However, I just moved to Houston, Texas; near two small but substantial shale deposits. Luckily because I live in an urban area my water source is not from the ground, however it still worries me.

I honestly feel like these candidates live in an alternate reality where Fracking has no environmental consequences, we can make colonies on the moon, and God only knows whats next.




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Caver78
 

Formation of chloroform during disinfection of drinking water has been known for a long time and is correlated to the total organic loading of the water. This means we are making the Chloroform [CHCl3] when we treat the water with chlorine. No amount of control on CHCl3 emissions will change the problem as long as we use chlorine to treat water.
This detail confounded the EPA lawyers for years and still may. The organics that make CHCl3 on chlorination need only have a methyl ketone moiety present. These are common in nature but can be from any source, natural or anthropogenic. All will produce chloroform on chlorination. The reaction is well known to basic organic chemistry students and is called the "haloform reaction" as it works with bromine also.

I backtracked an old reference should anyone want to read it. The first page is available for viewing without charge at pubs.acs.org... but your local college library should have the complete paper in their stacks.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 1977, 11 (5), pp 478–482



brilliant find!!! Thanks for contribooting



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarlboroRedCowgirl
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


I agree. When I lived in California, didnt worry one bit about Fracking. No significant shale to speak of. However, I just moved to Houston, Texas; near two small but substantial shale deposits. Luckily because I live in an urban area my water source is not from the ground, however it still worries me.

I honestly feel like these candidates live in an alternate reality where Fracking has no environmental consequences, we can make colonies on the moon, and God only knows whats next.


Houston, aye? My ex lives in Houston, strike one.. =P


I agree with your point though, at what point does 'small but substantial' meet 'profitable'? Probably someplace past the intersection of 'giving a sh!t' and 'safety'.

Also- being in Houston, have you ever driven to Galveston and checked out the FEMA camp? Been there. Legit. It's real. Barbed wire to keep everyone in...err... i mean out.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
You guys gotta let this thread die.

Seriously, the mental imagery of a candidate to become President of the US campaigning on wanting people to Frak is killing me.



new topics

top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join