Climate continues to change.

[Richard_P_Feynman]

In case anyone is actually curious about the researchers' methodology, here's the abstract.

The development of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is considered the biggest change to the global energy production system in the last half-century. However, several communities have banned fracking because of unresolved concerns about the impact of this process on human health. To evaluate the potential health impacts of fracking, we analyzed records of more than 1.1 million births in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2013, comparing infants born to mothers living at different distances from active fracking sites and those born both before and after fracking was initiated at each site. We adjusted for fixed maternal determinants of infant health by comparing siblings who were and were not exposed to fracking sites in utero. We found evidence for negative health effects of in utero exposure to fracking sites within 3 km of a mother’s residence, with the largest health impacts seen for in utero exposure within 1 km of fracking sites. Negative health impacts include a greater incidence of low–birth weight babies as well as significant declines in average birth weight and in several other measures of infant health. There is little evidence for health effects at distances beyond 3 km, suggesting that health impacts of fracking are highly local. Informal estimates suggest that about 29,000 of the nearly 4 million annual U.S. births occur within 1 km of an active fracking site and that these births therefore may be at higher risk of poor birth outcomes.

 

[Luk]

Que's still trying to cover up his fuck-up. LMAO.

In case anyone is actually curious about the researchers' methodology, here's the abstract.

The development of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is considered the biggest change to the global energy production system in the last half-century. However, several communities have banned fracking because of unresolved concerns about the impact of this process on human health. To evaluate the potential health impacts of fracking, we analyzed records of more than 1.1 million births in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2013, comparing infants born to mothers living at different distances from active fracking sites and those born both before and after fracking was initiated at each site. We adjusted for fixed maternal determinants of infant health by comparing siblings who were and were not exposed to fracking sites in utero. We found evidence for negative health effects of in utero exposure to fracking sites within 3 km of a mother’s residence, with the largest health impacts seen for in utero exposure within 1 km of fracking sites. Negative health impacts include a greater incidence of low–birth weight babies as well as significant declines in average birth weight and in several other measures of infant health. There is little evidence for health effects at distances beyond 3 km, suggesting that health impacts of fracking are highly local. Informal estimates suggest that about 29,000 of the nearly 4 million annual U.S. births occur within 1 km of an active fracking site and that these births therefore may be at higher risk of poor birth outcomes.

And this will end Q's portion of today's program.

Could've just let it go and enjoyed my abundance of factual postings.

 

[Que]

And this will end Q's portion of today's program.

Could've just let it go and enjoyed my abundance of factual postings.

Nothing there disputes anything that which I l said. It's nothing but a geographical study looking for an unsupported conclusion. Suggestive that maybe an actual epidemiological study might find an actual link...but meaningless, ultimately.

Their only data points were exactly as I said where do they live and what was the weight. Nothing else.

Did you also enjoy Trysail's abundance of factual postings?

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Nothing there disputes anything that I just said. It's nothing but a bullshit geographical study. Suggestive but meaningless, ultimately.

Their only data points were exactly as I said where do they live and what was the weight. Nothing else.

Did you also enjoy try sales abundance of factual postings?

LMAO.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Que]

LMAO.

Just stop. You're embarrassing Luk and me.

Okay, since you asked nicely I won't expose your ignorance further.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Okay, since you asked nicely I won't expose your ignorance further.

It wouldn't be so bad for you if you simply read the article and the abstract. But I admit, it's perversely amusing when you choose to display your deliberate obtuseness.

 

[phrodeau]

you can't even follow basic cause and effect. People found materials to mine this attracted miners. Miners were historically coming from the underclass because it didn't pay very well and was highly dangerous.

AFTER an area gets dotted with ugly looking oil extraction equipment and oil rigs, the value of the surrounding area for residential property goes down making rents and Home Ownership more affordable so impoverished people move there.

different states have different methods for ownership of various things beneath the surface. When you buy real estate in Arizona you're only buying the top layer of dirt whatever is located under that does not belong to you. You acknowledge this when you're buying that top layer of dirt.

You seem to be agreeing that there's no trickle-down effect from areas with rich resources to the people living there. In fact, the system is stacked against them, for the reason you mention.

 

[Luk]

Nothing there disputes anything that which I l said. It's nothing but a geographical study looking for an unsupported conclusion. Suggestive that maybe an actual epidemiological study might find an actual link...but meaningless, ultimately.

Their only data points were exactly as I said where do they live and what was the weight. Nothing else.

Did you also enjoy Trysail's abundance of factual postings?

Maybe if you just backed up your bullshit for once, everyone would give you an occasional pass. Your indignant "nuh-uh" has been tired for years. You walk into any and almost every thread masquerading as the most informed person on whatever topic is being discussed.

 

[chillywilly2]

In case anyone is actually curious about the researchers' methodology, here's the abstract.

The development of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is considered the biggest change to the global energy production system in the last half-century. However, several communities have banned fracking because of unresolved concerns about the impact of this process on human health. To evaluate the potential health impacts of fracking, we analyzed records of more than 1.1 million births in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2013, comparing infants born to mothers living at different distances from active fracking sites and those born both before and after fracking was initiated at each site. We adjusted for fixed maternal determinants of infant health by comparing siblings who were and were not exposed to fracking sites in utero. We found evidence for negative health effects of in utero exposure to fracking sites within 3 km of a mother’s residence, with the largest health impacts seen for in utero exposure within 1 km of fracking sites. Negative health impacts include a greater incidence of low–birth weight babies as well as significant declines in average birth weight and in several other measures of infant health. There is little evidence for health effects at distances beyond 3 km, suggesting that health impacts of fracking are highly local. Informal estimates suggest that about 29,000 of the nearly 4 million annual U.S. births occur within 1 km of an active fracking site and that these births therefore may be at higher risk of poor birth outcomes.

Just what is it about fracking do they suppose is causing these lower birth rates.
It could be just a bunch of women freaked out about having a baby near a fracking site, you know, the same as the people that claim windmill noises are hurting their health.
I can't think of anything about fracking that would actually cause this.
It happens a kilometre underground so how can they say somebody is within 1 km unless they are standing on the drill site for a few months
Sounds like bullshit scaremongering to me...as much as I already hate fracking, get some real science to stop it

 

[Luk]

Just what is it about fracking do they suppose is causing these lower birth rates.
It could be just a bunch of women freaked out about having a baby near a fracking site, you know, the same as the people that claim windmill noises are hurting their health.
I can't think of anything about fracking that would actually cause this.
It happens a kilometre underground so how can they say somebody is within 1 km unless they are standing on the drill site for a few months
Sounds like bullshit scaremongering to me...as much as I already hate fracking, get some real science to stop it

Fracking earthquakes.

 

[chillywilly2]

Fracking earthquakes.

The drill pipes leak too and it poisons the water, but, it sure makes winter heating cheap

 

[Luk]

The drill pipes leak too and it poisons the water, but, it sure makes winter heating cheap

The point is that fracking is absolutely disturbing land and animals including humans.

 

[Que]

Maybe if you just backed up your bullshit for once, everyone would give you an occasional pass. Your indignant "nuh-uh" has been tired for years. You walk into any and almost every thread masquerading as the most informed person on whatever topic is being discussed.

Which is it, "nuh UH," or "You wrote a lot of words?" It can't be both. You're free to disagree with my point of view, but suggesting that I did not give a detailed explanation as to why I dispute their conclusion is just silly.

Nuh uh, is what you and "Dick" are saying. "Dick," in this thread, has told everyone that they're wrong and hasn't told anyone why they're wrong. Because that is beneath him.

You do exactly the same thing. You keep saying "I posted a factual article and it has facts!!!

I have explained why those facts, while true, do not support the conclusion they leapt to. You haven't even attempted to refute my contention.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Do you have a handle on reality at all?

 

[Que]

Do you have a handle on reality at all?

Your denial of reality doesn't make actual reality any less real, "Dick."

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

That would be a big No.

 

[Que]

That would be a big No.

You are disputing reality being real?

That's an interesting point of view, "Dick."

 

[Luk]

Do you have a handle on reality at all?

Not even a little bit.

 

[Que]

Just what is it about fracking do they suppose is causing these lower birth rates.
It could be just a bunch of women freaked out about having a baby near a fracking site, you know, the same as the people that claim windmill noises are hurting their health.
I can't think of anything about fracking that would actually cause this.
It happens a kilometre underground so how can they say somebody is within 1 km unless they are standing on the drill site for a few months
Sounds like bullshit scaremongering to me...as much as I already hate fracking, get some real science to stop it

I think you are right

I would bet that lawyers were looking for birth defects around fracking sites in hopes of a class action lawsuit and didn't find them. "Low birthweight" was as close as they could come to a "what-about-the-children" scaremongering.

Nationally 8% of all children are considered underweight at birth. Here we are talking about 10% of a completely unknown, unstudied population sample. We have no idea who these women are who happen to live within 15 blocks of a fracking site.

When you look at the number of children born in the area served by the well in my neighborhood, there are almost no blue-eyed children. It's only slightly less likely that something in my water is suppressing the recessive gene for eye color as it is that something to do with fracking is causing low birth weights.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

I think you are right

I would bet that lawyers were looking for birth defects around fracking sites in hopes of a class action lawsuit and didn't find them. "Low birthweight" was as close as they could come to a "what-about-the-children" scaremongering.

Nationally 8% of all children are considered underweight at birth. Here we are talking about 10% of a completely unknown, unstudied population sample. We have no idea who these women are who happen to live within 15 blocks of a fracking site.

When you look at the number of children born in the area served by the well in my neighborhood, there are almost no blue-eyed children. It's only slightly less likely that something in my water is suppressing the recessive gene for eye color as it is that something to do with fracking is causing low birth weights.

*points and laughs*

 

[thør]

In case anyone is actually curious about the researchers' methodology, here's the abstract.

The development of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is considered the biggest change to the global energy production system in the last half-century. However, several communities have banned fracking because of unresolved concerns about the impact of this process on human health. To evaluate the potential health impacts of fracking, we analyzed records of more than 1.1 million births in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2013, comparing infants born to mothers living at different distances from active fracking sites and those born both before and after fracking was initiated at each site. We adjusted for fixed maternal determinants of infant health by comparing siblings who were and were not exposed to fracking sites in utero. We found evidence for negative health effects of in utero exposure to fracking sites within 3 km of a mother’s residence, with the largest health impacts seen for in utero exposure within 1 km of fracking sites. Negative health impacts include a greater incidence of low–birth weight babies as well as significant declines in average birth weight and in several other measures of infant health. There is little evidence for health effects at distances beyond 3 km, suggesting that health impacts of fracking are highly local. Informal estimates suggest that about 29,000 of the nearly 4 million annual U.S. births occur within 1 km of an active fracking site and that these births therefore may be at higher risk of poor birth outcomes.

What about the number of profitable bars selling alcohol around these fracking sites? We know that roughnecks like to drink.

 

[cowslinger64]

I think you are right

I would bet that lawyers were looking for birth defects around fracking sites in hopes of a class action lawsuit and didn't find them. "Low birthweight" was as close as they could come to a "what-about-the-children" scaremongering.

Nationally 8% of all children are considered underweight at birth. Here we are talking about 10% of a completely unknown, unstudied population sample. We have no idea who these women are who happen to live within 15 blocks of a fracking site.

When you look at the number of children born in the area served by the well in my neighborhood, there are almost no blue-eyed children. It's only slightly less likely that something in my water is suppressing the recessive gene for eye color as it is that something to do with fracking is causing low birth weights.

This is just one of many stories on fracking.

https://www.alternet.org/environmen...-fracking-industry-doesnt-want-you-hear-about

 

[chillywilly2]

The point is that fracking is absolutely disturbing land and animals including humans.

Everything disturbs.
We still need electricity and heat, even if its a greenhouse gas smokey wood stove.
Fracking sucks but its cheap heat and done thousands of miles away from me.
And I make a bunch of money off the plant that makes the pipe

 

[chillywilly2]

This is just one of many stories on fracking.

https://www.alternet.org/environmen...-fracking-industry-doesnt-want-you-hear-about

Well thats a bad report.

Like I said...I don't like fracking

 

[Luk]

Well thats a bad report.

Like I said...I don't like fracking

Right. You've said that. But as long as children are being born with defects in another country and you can make a killing, who cares?