I see there is some village in Sussex where they are demostrating about fracking. (Some of them professional whingers).
Same lot of NIMBYs as don't want wind turbines I expect.
Pity there isn't any coal there to dig up. or maybe nuclear waste could be buried there instead.
Are you sure it can't cause earth tremors or contaminate water-courses? Mining companies don't have great record on environmental responsibility do they?
And no I don't want a massive wind farm off of the Sussex coast and I'm entitled to that view in both sense of the word!
The fundamental issue is unbridled population growth but doing something about that doesn't earn subsidies or profits.
Andy C
No harry. they are the same lot of green rent-a-mob that want to ram wind power down every rural communities throat.
Fracking might make people ask 'why do we have to have windmills' and come up with the startling answer 'actually we dont'
No problems with them burying nuclear waste anywhere round here.
After all that's what the whole planet is made of anyway.
>So who got out of the wrong side of the bed today then?
Brian
Gosh a massive 2.0 on the Richter scale. About the same as a lorry going past your house. Or an old coal mine workings collapsing.
Note: I've been in a 7.1 so I know what I'm talking about.
Suggest you read up about the Oklo natural reactor.
Bit like nature then. I dunno, there I was in Pompeii minding my own business, and then bloody nature plugged Vesuvius in without checking it was sealed properly. Result: bloody dust everywhere. Feet of it. Really, you just can't get the staff these days can you.
That's simply isn't true. Blackpool wouldn't notice a lorry going down a single street !
I've also been in a shaking building and it not enjoyable or structually a good idea.
Not sure of the relevance but I'll have a look.
So because nature causes disasters, it's OK for man to do it deliberately! Strange logic.
Andy C
What is the connection between an ancient nuclear reaction in Africa and a company pumping chemicals in the ground around Balcombe now?
Andy C
The fundamental issue in the UK is immigration.
Bill
From the broadcast interviews, they seem to be in the majority.
Yes. Injecting water may release a tremor that was going to happen anyway, but it won't cause one that wasn't going to happen. Indeed, selective water injection has been suggested as a technique for the controlled release of stresses in major faults, such as the San Andreas fault, in the expectation that a series of small earthquakes would be better than one big one.
Not if the geology has been done correctly and the reason for the bore hole at Balcombe is to check the geology. It is not going to involve any fracking.
Colin Bignell
Caused mainly by burgeoning world population. 1+ > 7 billion in 200 years and all quite reasonably wanting a much better standard of living. Apparently we're now creating meat from stem cells because we're running out of protein.
Andy C
Ok, that makes sense as long as there's compensation for structural damage caused.
No I realise that, but things progress and there's a serious lack of trust with such operations. Perhaps there should be better and more imformed public consultation to ease people's inevitable fears.
Andy C
On 07/28/2013 11:37 AM, Nightjar wrote: >> Are you sure it can't cause earth tremors > > Yes. Injecting water may release a tremor that was going to happen > anyway, but it won't cause one that wasn't going to happen. Indeed, > selective water injection has been suggested as a technique for the > controlled release of stresses in major faults, such as the San Andreas > fault, in the expectation that a series of small earthquakes would be > better than one big one.
Ok, that makes sense as long as there's compensation for structural damage caused.
No I realise that, but things progress and there's a serious lack of trust with such operations. Perhaps there should be better and more imformed public consultation to ease people's inevitable fears.
Andy C
From whom and why? The earthquake is going to happen whether there is fracking or not.
Some people are going to object whatever level of public consultation takes place - just look at the Bexhill to Hastings link road - there couldn't have been much more public consultation about that.
Colin Bignell
From the industry because it might not have happened during any given occupancy or even for centuries hence.
And on the subject of pumping in water to relieve pressure, that's not the same as the chemicals I understand they use for fracking.
Andy C
What structural damage?
Largely because people get lied to by the professional protest industry.
You obviously missed the bit about how the nuclear "waste" generated during the million or so years that this reactor operated, hasn't migrated in the environment over the two *billion* years since it stopped operating.
I'm saying it might be a good idea for you to be a bit less precious about this particular issue (where no disasters have occurred) and pay more attention to others where people *have* been hurt or died.
It's a bit like the hypocrisy shown in the Fukushima business. Let's not worry about the 20,000 killed or missing in the tsunami, lets worry about the 1 or so killed (perhaps) by the reactors).
None killed so far - there was one death of an emergency worker, but IIRC that was a cardiac related incident and nothing to do with ionising radiation exposure.
They are now excluding people from an area less radioactive than Dartmoor, and insisting that it is cleaned up to a state of lower radioactivity than its natural state before the accident!
Not according to the statistics. They show a net economic benefit.
What chemicals do you think they use?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.