Oil Earthquakes confirmed

[ConstitutionCowboy]

WOWOWOWOWOWOW
Do you know how much medical research is publicly funded? and you don't trust any of that.
Rather you will put your trust into a private company that funds its own research. Now their results could not be biases at all???!!!

I never said I don't trust publicly funded research. I said I don't trust what comes out of the mouths of international studiers.

Private companies are in it to make money, not spend money. Private companies have a reputation to uphold. If a product doesn't perform or is harmful, the company doesn't make money and can potentially lose money.

No doubt there are some credible people working with grants, but on the whole, I believe more harm than good comes from those international and some other studies.

Most of these studies are proven bogus over time, but long after the deleterious effects of those studies have wreaked havoc on people following their 'advice'. Bogus laws have been passed and enforced based on those bogus studies, such as Freon supposedly causing gigantic 'holes' in the ozone layer of the atmosphere. Eggs and butter took a big hit. Anything with cholesterol in it took a big hit. Salt took a big hit.

Now, in the future, please put your reading and comprehension abilities ahead of your ability to spin an argument and you'll acquire a little bit of credibility. (No charge for the fatherly advice.)

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

...

From the last line of the article it sounds like they are gradually reducing the injection levels to nearly 0 and they may ban injection in those 2 counties entirely after the 100 days.
They ordered a gradual reduction of injection volumes because they were afraid that a sudden halt of waste injection might induce an earthquake. LOL

Yes, that's an LOL if I ever heard one!

Woody

 

[Eagle Eye]

Thanks for the advice pops

The problem is not that scientists are publishing false work, because, in none of the peer reviewed papers does it state that "X" (whatever you want it to be, Salt, butter, sugar, etc) will cause "Y" in under all conditions, for all people of different ages, sex, etc. etc.
Scientists are very aware about the limitations of their studies and they communicate this by stating the "X" affected "Y" under specific conditions, And therefore might be be responsible for "Y" in the Men, women, the young, the old, etc, etc.
This means that PROPOSE logical conclusions based on the evidence they have.

It is then the politicians, dietitians, whom ever, that take these findings and spin them to their liking into generalizations.

The published work about Salt, Sugar, whatever, has truth to it, under specific conditions. The problem is that NON-SCIENCE FOLK that lack reading and comprehension skills conclude that "X" will cause "Y" under different conditions, for different people, sexes etc. etc.

POLICIES, and FADS are not made by scientists. They are made by administrators/politicians, who incorrectly interpret the findings of scientists.

So, there you have justification of you mistrust of, well, administrators and politicians (who ever else is in a position of Power).

I don't have a problem with that, my problem is when you then go one and say that the scientists are wrong. Scientists do not have any power, they have to beg for money and do not get to make administrative or official decisions. Their job is to publish scientific findings and communicate them with the public that most likely funded them.

Now, there may be Ex-science folk in administrative/ political positions. Those are not the same scientists that are slaving away in labs, although they may have been at some point in their lives.

It's just too bad that the general public can not critically think or read and interpret results of a scientific study.
Even worse are those that have critical reading and comprehension skills but will not acknowledge findings of studies that oppose their viewpoints.

 

[BReeves]

Problem is nobody really knows anything. Couple days ago I caught Rush talking about lung cancer.. Something about smoking doesn't cause lung cancer carrots do. Not everyone that smokes gets cancer but everyone that has had lung cancer has eaten carrots.

 

[Hobbes]

Since records began in 1776, the people of Youngstown, Ohio had never experienced an earthquake. However, from January 2011, 109 tremors were recorded and new research in Geophysical Research-Solid Earth reveals how this may be the result of shale fracking.

In December 2010, Northstar 1, a well built to pump wastewater produced by fracking in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania, came online. In the year that followed seismometers in and around Youngstown recorded 109 earthquakes; the strongest being a magnitude 3.9 earthquake on December 31, 2011.

The study authors analyzed the Youngstown earthquakes, finding that their onset, cessation, and even temporary dips in activity were all tied to the activity at the Northstar 1 well. The first earthquake recorded in the city occurred 13 days after pumping began, and the tremors ceased shortly after the Ohio Department of Natural Resources shut down the well in December 2011.

Dips in earthquake activity correlated with Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving, as well as other periods when the injection at the well was temporarily stopped.

"In recent years, waste fluid generated during the shale gas production -- hydraulic fracturing, had been increasing steadily in United States. Earthquakes were triggered by these waste fluid injection at a deep well in Youngstown, Ohio during Jan. 2011 -- Feb. 2012. We found that the onset of earthquakes and cessation were tied to the activity at the Northstar 1 deep injection well. The earthquakes were centered in subsurface faults near the injection well. These shocks were likely due to the increase in pressure from the deep waste water injection which caused the existing fault to slip," said Dr. Won-Young Kim. "Throughout 2011, the earthquakes migrated from east to west down the length of the fault away from the well -- indicative of the earthquakes being caused by expanding pressure front."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130819102714.htm

 

[RickN]

A couple of interesting facts. The whole Peer Review system is under investigation because of fraud and many of the anti-fracking studies are funded by Russian and mid-east oil and gas companies. They are also funding anti-fracking groups in the US and funding movies against fracking. ( I forget the name but it flopped anyway)

 

[LightningCrash]

LOL, always good for a laugh.

 

[ronny]

It's been a big day around the Pacific "Rim of Fire". http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthqua...ue,"list":true,"settings":true,"help":false}}

 

[ruckerduck]

They fraq around the Pacific Rim?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Thanks for the advice pops

The problem is not that scientists are publishing false work, because, in none of the peer reviewed papers does it state that "X" (whatever you want it to be, Salt, butter, sugar, etc) will cause "Y" in under all conditions, for all people of different ages, sex, etc. etc.
Scientists are very aware about the limitations of their studies and they communicate this by stating the "X" affected "Y" under specific conditions, And therefore might be be responsible for "Y" in the Men, women, the young, the old, etc, etc.
This means that PROPOSE logical conclusions based on the evidence they have.

It is then the politicians, dietitians, whom ever, that take these findings and spin them to their liking into generalizations.

The published work about Salt, Sugar, whatever, has truth to it, under specific conditions. The problem is that NON-SCIENCE FOLK that lack reading and comprehension skills conclude that "X" will cause "Y" under different conditions, for different people, sexes etc. etc.

POLICIES, and FADS are not made by scientists. They are made by administrators/politicians, who incorrectly interpret the findings of scientists.

So, there you have justification of you mistrust of, well, administrators and politicians (who ever else is in a position of Power).

I don't have a problem with that, my problem is when you then go one and say that the scientists are wrong. Scientists do not have any power, they have to beg for money and do not get to make administrative or official decisions. Their job is to publish scientific findings and communicate them with the public that most likely funded them.

Now, there may be Ex-science folk in administrative/ political positions. Those are not the same scientists that are slaving away in labs, although they may have been at some point in their lives.

It's just too bad that the general public can not critically think or read and interpret results of a scientific study.
Even worse are those that have critical reading and comprehension skills but will not acknowledge findings of studies that oppose their viewpoints.

No problem, young'un!

The problem is that these studies are generally stated as justification for what ever 'cure' the politicians or other advocates of some agenda wish to - for lack of a better word - "administer." Ergo, these studies tend to appear as nothing more than tools of the trade, bought and paid for by politicians and/or advocates.

Woody