ObamaCare mandate ruled unconstitutional by AURaptor

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

If you coverage is not paying for anything why to you maintain it?

Because he'd be fined up to 2,000 yearly in taxes when the ACA act takes effect, for as long as he doesn't have insurance?

Not even getting into the fact that his security team probably qualifies as a small business, meaning he has to provide insurance policies.

It is not 2014 yet, and having to provide does not mean has to accept or enroll.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:02 AM

There aren't subsidies in the health care law itself. Projections were made that plans would be affordable with EXISTING premium subsidies.

Quote:
Really? How is that rutting it?

Quote:
I don't see much similar?

Quote:
By that argument all laws and regulations are worthless.

We have a winner.

It's alarming to think of a world without the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act, and I'm not even sure it's a world I want to live in, I admit it. But if you can't see that lawyers and lobbyists have their way with every piece of regulation and every loophole and that government and industry is in cahoots, I don't know what to tell you.

Our socio-economic system is pretty strongly stacked against the average citizen, and stacked for anyone who has money. And so long as that flaw exists, corporations can and will abuse their consumers and make off like bandits all the while.

Our socio-economic system DOES make laws and regulations worthless.

Quote:
Really, do you have any citation for that, at all?

It is not a easy as you think to change chemical groups and still maintain the effectiveness of a drug. Plus they are comming out with new drugs.

It's possible that DT might be able to address this with some eloquence, and not have it take up thirty pages of diagrams.

But as for the "difficulty" of changing out the chemical groups, it's pretty basic chemistry. And for "maintaining the effectiveness," it's guesswork. That's the reality of the science. They have some basic idea when they start of how the different chemical groups will interact with different tissues, cells, and proteins, but they don't know what the effectiveness is UNTIL they test it, and I have some serious questions about the scientific rigor of a lot of their tests.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:55 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Actually we're currently running it as a subsidary of the realty company which owns most of the sites we service, while exploiting the everliving hell out of the exception provision of public law 330 of 1968(1), and as such are stuck with their coverage, buying into it on bulk rate instead of negotiating our own at a much higher rate cause of the nature of the work and how pathetically small we are.

Now, we *used* to be an actual security company till we had sort of an in-house coup d'etat over the fact that I will NOT work for, or with, TSA/DHS/Law Enforcement, no matter how profitable it is, and enough of our people wanted to that I threw the whole ball of wax right in their lap and said fine, YOU do it, I'm out of here.

Less than three months later not one of em was still employed, and a couple came crawling back begging for their old jobs, to which I chased them out as traitors and woulda blackballed em if TSA/DHS hadn't pre-emptively done it - you start takin their money, you wind up takin their orders, and when you balk, that's *IT* for you in the security industry on the spot, you become what we call a "shaved ape", someone who has betrayed their employer and is no longer trustworthy, resulting in kind of an in-business mark-of-doom, NO ONE worth a damn will employ you, and anyone who does will face sanctions from other companies.

And yes, I pitched em out the door DESPITE them balking over various harrassment/shakedown stuff, particularly patting down peoples kids, cause I told them in advance how it was gonna be and they were very derisive about how "they wouldn't do that!" and it was "all propaganda" and what a paranoiac asshole I was...
Hell if I was gonna hand them ANOTHER chance to put a knife in my back, especially since I highly suspect at least one of em might have been working as a plant/agent provocateur in order to sabotage non-affiliated security companies and make them look bad in comparison to TSA/DHS, something I don't even think is *possible* given how incompetent they are.

Anyhows, yeah verily we have to have the goddamn insurance, and it covers nothing, has a long history of bullshit, and being fined(2) for various misdeeds, but so long as we're stuck riding the back of this realty company were stuck paying these bastards cause anyone else would demand so much that we'd wind up OWING money at the end of the month and couldn't make payroll.
As it is, total takehome after payin these folk a decent wage and dealing with the rapacious tax burden of a non-corporate small business and these greedy assholes, is SO minuscule that I have a food budget of $25.00 USD/Week, THAT is how little I make at this, despite walking rounds myself and having a negotiated lease to save every possible expense.

Had that bullshit driving a cab too, I quit after Engler fucked us and I wound up OWING $14.00 USD after working a twelve hour day.
And folks wonder why I turned to crime in my misspent youth...

(1) Public Law 300 of 1968 was a sop to the goddamn police after certain events in Michigan, specifically Detroit, back in 1968 made people question whether we needed them, whether they weren't really just a mafia, a protection racket, and started trying to replace them with contract security - so the police unions and other affiliated groups went and leaned on lawmakers all mafia-style in order to get an act passed so restrictive it places extremely high barriers to entry on the profession and all but requires them to be either former law enforcement personnel or closely affiliated with them.
Mind you, not a lot regarding police behavior around here has changed since 1968, as I am constantly pointing out.
There's certain loopholes added to the act much later in part to make it possible for off-duty cops to supplement their income by serving as security, since the initial act was so restrictive that it prevented even that, and we operate via a couple of those.

(2) Such fines almost inevitably amounting to far, far less than the profit they made by the violation, which of course is no deterrent but more to my mind simply cutting the Government in on the largess, that's like fining a bank robber who made off with $30K the sum of $300.00USD with no other penalty other than a lecture, you really think that's gonna deter him ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:38 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
There aren't subsidies in the health care law. Projections were made that plans would be affordable with EXISTING premium subsidies. Oh look, COBRA just ended.

Yes there are. You may have missed them because they are in the form of an advancible tax credit.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/blog/saving_money.html

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

How about you enlightin me!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
We have a winner.

It's alarming to think of a world without the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act, and I'm not even sure it's a world I want to live in, I admit it. But if you can't see that lawyers and lobbyists have their way with every piece of regulation and every loophole and that government and industry is in cahoots, I don't know what to tell you.

Our socio-economic system is pretty strongly stacked against the average citizen, and stacked for anyone who has money. And so long as that flaw exists, corporations can and will abuse their consumers and make off like bandits all the while.

Our socio-economic system DOES make laws and regulations worthless.

If you really believe that why have this debate?

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's possible that DT might be able to address this with some eloquence, and not have it take up thirty pages of diagrams.

But as for the "difficulty" of changing out the chemical groups, it's pretty basic chemistry. And for "maintaining the effectiveness," it's guesswork. That's the reality of the science. They don't know what the effectiveness is UNTIL they test it, and I have some serious questions about the scientific rigor of a lot of their tests.

Not as basic as you think, nor as much guesswork. You may have some serious questions, but right now you have little to back up your claims.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:24 AM

The first one is a basic assessment of savings with the ACA act, not a subsidy. The second is an calculator for existing subsidies. This doesn't prove your point.

Tax incentives, also not a subsidy. They're tax incentives.

Quote:
If you really believe that why have this debate?

Because you don't? *boggle* What kind of counter-point was that?

Quote:
How about you enlightin me!

How about no, and if you really want to know why I think the way I do, you just reread what I've already said, because it's been pretty comprehensive.

Quote:
Not as basic as you think, nor as much guesswork. You may have some serious questions, but right now you have little to back up your claims.

Fine. But at some point you can't just keep asking "cites please." At some point you have to respect a fellow debater enough to just carry on the debate. Otherwise we're just going to get mired in widely known and accepted minutia.

"Practically speaking, it involves chemical aspects of identification, and then systematic, thorough synthetic alteration of new chemical entities to make them suitable for therapeutic use."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicinal_chemistry

Synthetic alteration. You catch that?

Then hit to lead methodology, where you test the chemicals, and drop the ones that don't have any effects you want. Then after the process chemistry, the clinical trials.

It's damn easy. I've made chemicals using bacteria and altered genes before myself. Takes maybe 30 minutes to splice the gene sequences, then mix them with the bacteria. After that, you have about a day then you go back and look at which bacteria colonies picked up the gene sequence you want. And for the stuff you can't use bacteria, it's simple chemistry, like I said.

Don't tell me what I think, or don't think, or that something "isn't as easy as what I think." It's a good way to get my gander up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:44 AM

FREMDFIRMA

*blink*
Can't comment there, the only chemistry I know a damn thing about is the kind that goes kaboom, usually in a perchlorated kinda way...

SCIENCE!

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:14 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The first one is a basic assessment of savings with the ACA act, not a subsidy. The second is an calculator for existing subsidies. This doesn't prove your point.

Tax incentives, also not a subsidy. They're tax incentives.

Your right they are not subsidies, they are tax credits. The first link does mention the tax credits. The second one is a calculator for the tax credits in the afordible health care act. Here are some more links:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=220809,00.html

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/Documents/36BFactSheet.PDF

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Because you don't? *boggle* What kind of counter-point was that?

No I don't. I think some laws and regulations are not a effective as they could be, but they are far from useless. You even said yourself that you would not live without a few of those laws and regulations. They must be doing something.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
How about no, and if you really want to know why I think the way I do, you just reread what I've already said, because it's been pretty comprehensive.

If you are talking about how both insurance and sub-prime morgages rely on people not being able to afford payments I pointed out how that was flawed.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Fine. But at some point you can't just keep asking "cites please." At some point you have to respect a fellow debater enough to just carry on the debate. Otherwise we're just going to get mired in widely known and accepted minutia.

"Practically speaking, it involves chemical aspects of identification, and then systematic, thorough synthetic alteration of new chemical entities to make them suitable for therapeutic use."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicinal_chemistry

Synthetic alteration. You catch that?

Then hit to lead methodology, where you test the chemicals, and drop the ones that don't have any effects you want. Then after the process chemistry, the clinical trials.

It's damn easy. I've made chemicals using bacteria and altered genes before myself. Takes maybe 30 minutes to splice the gene sequences, then mix them with the bacteria. After that, you have about a day then you go back and look at which bacteria colonies picked up the gene sequence you want. And for the stuff you can't use bacteria, it's simple chemistry, like I said.

Don't tell me what I think, or don't think, or that something "isn't as easy as what I think." It's a good way to get my gander up.

I'm glad you find it easy. I hope you were successful in your experiments and that you got the results you were hoping for. I also hope that you are talking about work you were doing in your own research or for a company.

I don't think most people would think that it is easy. Nor many of the scientist that work to create these new drugs.

I also doubt that easy means cheap.

"Drug companies are like other companies in that they manufacture products that must be sold for a profit in order for the company to survive and grow. They are different from some companies because the drug business is very risky. For instance, only one out of every ten thousand discovered compounds actually becomes an approved drug for sale. Much expense is incurred in the early phases of development of compounds that will not become approved drugs.[4] In addition, it takes about 7 to 10 years and only 3 out of every 20 approved drugs bring in sufficient revenue to cover their developmental costs, and only 1 out of every 3 approved drugs generates enough money to cover the development costs of previous failures. This means that for a drug company to survive, it needs to discover a blockbuster (billion-dollar drug) every few years.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_company#cite_note-Why_Drug
s_Cost_So_Much-3

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:30 AM

Quote:
You even said yourself that you would not live without a few of those laws and regulations. They must be doing something.

Correction: I think they're good ideas, but as implemented, they're very flawed. Just because we have a Clean Water and Clean Air Act in no way actually means the public is kept safe from dangerous and toxic amounts of pollution.

If we were to reconstruct the system from the ground up, with different implementation, there are some ideas that I would keep.

Quote:
If you are talking about how both insurance and sub-prime morgages rely on people not being able to afford payments I pointed out how that was flawed.

By ignoring my point. You committed what's called a red herring fallacy.

Quote:
"Drug companies are like other companies in that they manufacture products that must be sold for a profit in order for the company to survive and grow. They are different from some companies because the drug business is very risky. For instance, only one out of every ten thousand discovered compounds actually becomes an approved drug for sale. Much expense is incurred in the early phases of development of compounds that will not become approved drugs.[4] In addition, it takes about 7 to 10 years and only 3 out of every 20 approved drugs bring in sufficient revenue to cover their developmental costs, and only 1 out of every 3 approved drugs generates enough money to cover the development costs of previous failures. This means that for a drug company to survive, it needs to discover a blockbuster (billion-dollar drug) every few years.[4]"

So it's shoot and miss, like I said. I still hold that if it's really costing them this much, they're not doing it right. And I'll also admit these are smart people, so there's got to be a reason they're not doing this right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:23 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Correction: I think they're good ideas, but as implemented, they're very flawed. Just because we have a Clean Water and Clean Air Act in no way actually means the public is kept safe from dangerous and toxic amounts of pollution.

If we were to reconstruct the system from the ground up, with different implementation, there are some ideas that I would keep.

You do realize that no system will guarantee people are kept safe right? Those acts have helped. You can see that just by the fact that we don't have flammable river anymore. The Safe Drinking Water Act is responsible for most of the drinking water in the country being chlorinated and tested.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:By ignoring my point. You committed what's called a red herring fallacy.

I don't think so. I asked what the similarities were, you said I should be able to find them. I still don't see them. So make your argument.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:So it's shoot and miss, like I said. I still hold that if it's really costing them this much, they're not doing it right. And I'll also admit these are smart people, so there's got to be a reason they're not doing this right.

Or they are doing it right and you are wrong. That is what all the facts indicate.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 3:28 PM

Quote:

You do realize that no system will guarantee people are kept safe right? Those acts have helped.

Instead of having no upper limit on contamination, now we have clean-up levels that will still get people sick if exposed to those concentrations.

I'm sorry, we can do a lot better than a system that's currently controlled by the industries that are polluting.

Quote:
You can see that just by the fact that we don't have flammable river anymore.

No, we just have flammable groundwater and roads because of loophole additions pushed by business.

Quote:
I asked what the similarities were, you said I should be able to find them. I still don't see them.

I said the similarities were that they both assume that some people will be too poor to pay for a certain service, but the banks/insurance industry pays for those services anyway. Normally that's not a bad thing, except, it creates an unstable business model, which results in collapse if it's undermined by too few people paying enough back into the business.

This is why I think, as I said, that the insurance industries pushed for everyone being forced to buy a plan, both because debts of the poor are still worth something, and also to bring in people buying the higher end insurance packages. But I think the effort is going to fail, and they've only undermined themselves further, by taking on more policy holders.

If it were the case that this would allow people to rip off the insurance companies, I might be more optimistic, but I don't think it is, I think it's corporate greed that will lead down the same route as the big banking firms. What's more, because everyone is forced to buy in, I think it's going to hit everyone when it happens.

You responded with "but the sub-prime mortgages bundled the bad loans to make their profit," which was missing the point of why I made that comparison. Red herring.

Quote:
Or they are doing it right and you are wrong. That is what all the facts indicate.

That they could do it cheaper, and they're not exaggerating costs for research grants? What facts have you presented to prove me wrong there? I was right about the HOW of how they create chemicals, maybe I know a little something about the industry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:08 PM

DALEK!

Quote:

Instead of having no upper limit on contamination, now we have clean-up levels that will still get people sick if exposed to those concentrations.

I'm sorry, we can do a lot better than a system that's currently controlled by the industries that are polluting.

How about because getting down to the minimum detection level for all water is unrealistic. See that those Maximum Contamination Levels (MCLs) are for life time exposure under those limits people are only getting sick if they are sensitive.

I would post the EPA MCLs info but I think you would disregard it because the industries are in control. If we get any deeper I may need my tinfoil hat.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:No, we just have flammable groundwater and roads because of loophole additions pushed by business.

By flammable groundwater I take it you are talking about Fracking. Studies are underway and the more evidence that is gathered that Fracking is causing Methane contamination in ground water the better new regulations can be.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:I said the similarities were that they both assume that some people will be too poor to pay for a certain service, but the banks/insurance industry pays for those services anyway. Normally that's not a bad thing, except, it creates an unstable business model, which results in collapse if it's undermined by too few people paying enough back into the business.

This is why I think, as I said, that the insurance industries pushed for everyone being forced to buy a plan, both because debts of the poor are still worth something, and also to bring in people buying the higher end insurance packages. But I think the effort is going to fail, and they've only undermined themselves further, by taking on more policy holders.

If it were the case that this would allow people to rip off the insurance companies, I might be more optimistic, but I don't think it is, I think it's corporate greed that will lead down the same route as the big banking firms. What's more, because everyone is forced to buy in, I think it's going to hit everyone when it happens.

You responded with "but the sub-prime mortgages bundled the bad loans to make their profit," which was missing the point of why I made that comparison. Red herring.

No it was not a Red Herring, because that is how the mortgage industry made money on sub-prime mortgages. It was not a case for sub-prime that they expected only so many to fail, but to make money on the others. It was about buying bundles, holding them to get a few months of payments then selling them. Now the traditional mortgage industry does take into account that a certain number of loans will not be repaid. This is similar to the insurance industry knowing that certain accounts will cost more then the make. That is why they want a large pool.

Were you are wrong is that the traditional mortgage industry was very stable for many years, until dragged down with the sub-primes. The health insurance industries problem is the same problem everyone has, raising cost. Those raising costs mean that the people who don't need insurance drop out leaving only the people who do need it, but cost more then their premiums bring in.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:That they could do it cheaper, and they're not exaggerating costs for research grants? What facts have you presented to prove me wrong there? I was right about the HOW of how they create chemicals, maybe I know a little something about the industry.

I posted how much it costs.

So they are just not doing it as cheap as they could why? They don't like more profits? They are stupid, in that case let me know when you start your company I will invest! It is not like we can see the profits they make....oh, yes we can!

Yes you were right on how they create chemicals. Of course I don't think we share the same definition of easy or simple. Even if easy and simple that does not mean it does not cost a lot.

So I've provided links to the cost of bringing drugs to market and you have just repeated that those evil companies are not being honest, because you claim to know about the industry.

....is that like how you know those companies are controlling regulations.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:20 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:39 PM

Quote:
How about because getting down to the minimum detection level for all water is unrealistic.

That, sir, is another red herring. The toxicology of the compounds has NOTHING to do with the minimum lab detection levels. And if you know enough to throw around words like the minimum lab detection levels, then you damn well know it, too.

The EPA is very political, and the administration of it on the top level is NOT run by scientists. So yes, quite often, the amount of contamination established as a Federal Standard is influenced by industry.

If you believe they are safe, explain to me why the MCLs often come under review. If they were already at the given safe levels, then they wouldn't change them or adjust them, wouldn't they?

Quote:
If we get any deeper I may need my tinfoil hat.

Conspiracy Theorist? Proudly. What you fail to understand is that some of them turn out to be real.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/commentary/epa-air-pollution-plan-puts.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/04gas.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.fatih.edu.tr/~kcivan/access%20to%20medicines%20fatih%20conf
erence%20final.pdf

Quote:
Studies are underway and the more evidence that is gathered that Fracking is causing Methane contamination in ground water the better new regulations can be.

It's only methane contamination, and not at all the fracking fluids that are used, and not at all deliberate.

Quote:
No it was not a Red Herring

Let me put it this way. I said that the similarity between subprime mortgages and insurance is that the expectation is that policy holders can not normally afford the service.

If people could always afford a house, would they get sub prime mortgages? If people could always afford a medical procedure, would they get insurance?

If not, then what I said was a correct statement. Anything else is changing the subject. Therefore, Red herring.

The last section of your post and the tinfoil comment is you starting to become BEYOND uncivil. So, respond if you like, but I'm done talking to you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 5:10 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
That, sir, is another red herring. The toxicology of the compounds has NOTHING to do with the minimum lab detection levels. And if you know enough to throw around words like the minimum lab detection levels, then you damn well know it, too.

The EPA is very political, and the administration of it on the top level is NOT run by scientists. So yes, quite often, the amount of contamination established as a Federal Standard is influenced by industry.

If you believe they are safe, explain to me why the MCLs often come under review. If they were already at the given safe levels, then they wouldn't change them or adjust them, wouldn't they?

Your right toxicology does not have anything to do with MDLs. That is a nice strawman you built since I never said that it did. I said that getting down to the MDLs was unrealistic. That statement had noting to do with toxicology.

MCls come under review because information changes. Yes there are some politics involved, but not to the point that they can remove solid evidence.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Conspiracy Theorist? Proudly. What you fail to understand is that some of them turn out to be real.

Yes, and even if 30% of them turn out to be true, and that is generous, you are still wrong 70% of the time.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:It's only methane contamination, and not at all the fracking fluids that are used, and not at all deliberate.

That is because the methane is what they have found so far. They may very well find others later. Until they do they have nothing to go on.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Let me put it this way. I said that the similarity between subprime mortgages and insurance is that the expectation is that policy holders can not normally afford the service.

If people could always afford a house, would they get sub prime mortgages? If people could always afford a medical procedure, would they get insurance?

If not, then what I said was a correct statement. Anything else is changing the subject. Therefore, Red herring.

I take it you mean afford the payments for the house. If not your similarities would not be just for the sub-prime mortgage market.

You are right that people get loans and insurance because they can't afford what they are looking for. The difference is that the insurance industry and the mortgage industry do not look to make money the same ways. The insurance industry looks to make money on the overall group. They know some people will cost them more then they pay. Mortgages look to make money off each and every loan through interest. Sub-prime, at least the problem ones, looked to make money by selling the loans.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:The last section of your post and the tinfoil comment is you starting to become BEYOND uncivil. So, respond if you like, but I'm done talking to you.

That was not close to uncivil. If you are going to state proudly that you are a conspiracy theorist you are going to take flak!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 6:55 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"If people could always afford a house, would they get sub prime mortgages?"

Well, Bob, I'll take the answer YES!

It turns out that many people who could afford regular loans were only offered subprime - and subprime which they couldn't afford became the only way to get a house. The 50 States Attorneys General led by Elliot Spitzer were about to file a petition in Federal court for investigation and prosecution when Bush's FBI put a tail on Spitzer's tail, and the republican Congress passed a bill post-haste removing any banks and lending agencies from state regulation.

Bush really REALLY had an interest in keeping the housing bubble inflated no matter how corrupt, illegal and unsustainable - the credit generated and the market boom were the only spots still alive in an otherwise moribund economy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:48 PM

Nick,

Lots of people on the board know folks from regulatory agencies, some may actually be them. I could forward you to some, but I dom't know you from Adam. That's part of the problem here. You're new, and should probably stop an listen for a while.

I don't want to butt in, because I really want no part of this, I'm just saying this because you're new here, so I'm trying to be nice. The way your presentation comes across is like a college student, lecturing everyone on what's "right" that is a secret stash that only you are privy to. If the people you a talking to happen to be in the industry you're talking about, why would they want to hear this?

The thing about opinions is if someone wants it, they'll solicit it, they don't want it hurled at them gratis. But it's going to take a little while before anyone knows who you are.

For example, I was never in the military. If I have a military question, I ask ome of the military experts here on the board. Often which one will depend on the type of question, sometimes I might post it to the whole board, but what I'm really looking for is "hey, military guys, collectively, give me your opinion on this." If I were to get a response from some kid with less combat experience than myself ranting as if they were an authority because they read a book on it, or a wikipedia entry, telling me why everyone else was wrong, chances are I would not read a second post from that person.

So, specifically? You're arguing with someone in industry right now. If you want I can bring in someone from the EPA, but why would I waste his time? It would just annoy him. If you're really curious as tk the level of infiltration by industry? Yes, sure, everyone at the EPA is from the industries that are being regulated, specifically the energy industry. That doesn't invalidate their opinions, in part because it means their opinions are very informed, but it also does not make them objective. They trust the words of industry heads more than those of environmentalists. Not because they're all paid to (though some are) but because they know and respect those people's opinions and they think of environmentalists as tinfoil hats.

So, I'm not jumping in to this argument, I have no interest in it. You don't come across as a moron, but I still don't know you from Adam. If you want people to listen to what you have to say, you have to listen to what they have to say, this is my one off post on this, and I'll leave you with some simple thoughts:

Those who talk much, say little.

Questions are more imporant than answers.

The voice of authority sounds like ignorance. It asks no questions, spouting only answers.

Of as a Chinese librarian put it thousands of years ago:

A wise man is like a valley: all the water flows to the valley, so the valley is rich with it.
An idiot is like a mountain: all flows from him; he hears nothing, and thus does not learn.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 12:54 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The thing about opinions is if someone wants it, they'll solicit it, they don't want it hurled at them gratis.

Yes I do!
But I wanna know WHY you hold it, in your own words, in a detailed and coherent fashion.

As to why I wanna know...
I'll withhold comment.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 2:24 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nick,

Lots of people on the board know folks from regulatory agencies, some may actually be them. I could forward you to some, but I dom't know you from Adam. That's part of the problem here. You're new, and should probably stop an listen for a while.

I don't want to butt in, because I really want no part of this, I'm just saying this because you're new here, so I'm trying to be nice. The way your presentation comes across is like a college student, lecturing everyone on what's "right" that is a secret stash that only you are privy to. If the people you a talking to happen to be in the industry you're talking about, why would they want to hear this?

The thing about opinions is if someone wants it, they'll solicit it, they don't want it hurled at them gratis. But it's going to take a little while before anyone knows who you are.

For example, I was never in the military. If I have a military question, I ask ome of the military experts here on the board. Often which one will depend on the type of question, sometimes I might post it to the whole board, but what I'm really looking for is "hey, military guys, collectively, give me your opinion on this." If I were to get a response from some kid with less combat experience than myself ranting as if they were an authority because they read a book on it, or a wikipedia entry, telling me why everyone else was wrong, chances are I would not read a second post from that person.

So, specifically? You're arguing with someone in industry right now. If you want I can bring in someone from the EPA, but why would I waste his time? It would just annoy him. If you're really curious as tk the level of infiltration by industry? Yes, sure, everyone at the EPA is from the industries that are being regulated, specifically the energy industry. That doesn't invalidate their opinions, in part because it means their opinions are very informed, but it also does not make them objective. They trust the words of industry heads more than those of environmentalists. Not because they're all paid to (though some are) but because they know and respect those people's opinions and they think of environmentalists as tinfoil hats.

So, I'm not jumping in to this argument, I have no interest in it. You don't come across as a moron, but I still don't know you from Adam. If you want people to listen to what you have to say, you have to listen to what they have to say, this is my one off post on this, and I'll leave you with some simple thoughts:

Those who talk much, say little.

Questions are more imporant than answers.

The voice of authority sounds like ignorance. It asks no questions, spouting only answers.

Of as a Chinese librarian put it thousands of years ago:

A wise man is like a valley: all the water flows to the valley, so the valley is rich with it.
An idiot is like a mountain: all flows from him; he hears nothing, and thus does not learn.

Your right, you don't know me. I'm sure people do know folks from the regulatory agencies. If you get to know me, you will know one more.

This is a discussion forum. If you post here people are going to give their opinions about your post. That is the way it works.

If the subject is only a matter of opinion then I tend to believe people who have more experience then myself. Not when it comes to facts. I don't care how much experience someone has if they are posting something as fact but can't back it up I will call BS.

The funny think about experience is that if you do something the wrong way for 30 years it still does not make you any closer to right.

This is also the second time you have said you are trying to be nice because I'm new here. Cut it out. I appreciate the courtesy, but I do not want it. I may be new here, but not new to discussion forums or debates. So if you have something to say, say it.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 11:43 AM

Nick

People here work for govt or industries, and also political govts. I own a book store and work for the democratic party. I get annoyed with people on the left whomm I call "democrat or die" because that position doesn't win political fights. Also. I have only a couple of political interests, the main ones being environmental destruction and genocide. On other issues. I'm a libertarian and fiscal conservative. I'm also a taoist, and as pirate news says, a jew. That's a little about me.

My typical response to people who I am not taking it easy on is to ignore them. I will only ever argue with you if I truly value your input, but we have a misunderstanding. If I'm irritated at you or angry, I will just ignore you. I have way too much to do to get caught in a back and forth on some topic. My remark about a one off was serious, meaning I wasn't intending to respond. Also, take note at Frem's last post. Oh, one more thing: the people whose opinions I respect on this forum is based on the content of their posts, I give try to give no favoritism to those who politically agree with me.

If you work for an environmental agency, we might have something to talk about. Sig works for the california weather service IIRC, speaking of which,

Sig,

Do you have any responsibilities re: air pollution? That's another angle on the fracking we can pursue.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 3:25 PM

DALEK!

I'm definitely not a Democrat or Die type, although I can understand why people may think that. I am a realist, or at least try to be.

As far as health care goes I understand that we were not going to get Universal Health Care. What we got is not perfect, but it is not as bad as people want to make it out to be.

You and I are different because I do not ignore people when they make claims I don't believe are true. I will challenge them on those beliefs and will ask for some type of proof, or facts to back up those claims.

Unfortunately I don't work with air quality issues. I inspect and regulate potable water systems. Everything to from small systems serving small businesses or churches, to large regional water systems. By systems I mean water plants and distributions systems and the administration that over sees them.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:35 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Its so fun to find out what people on the Internet, or at the Renaissance Faire or at cons for that matter, do for work. Nick, it sounds like your job keeps you pretty busy and it sounds important.

I've been at training all week, we're all getting certified as Peer Support Specialists so I have to take this class, I have mixed feelings about it, but as long as I answer the exam questions in the fashion they want I'll have another certification under my belt and I'm hoping my experiences in the class will further my career and help me do even better at my job. Irrelevent to the discussion, but hey.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 3:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

I inspect and regulate potable water systems. Everything to from small systems serving small businesses or churches, to large regional water systems. By systems I mean water plants and distributions systems and the administration that over sees them.

Which agency? We might have a lot to talk about.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 3:27 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Which agency? We might have a lot to talk about.

Florida Department of Health, but I do the work for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Slightly confusing so I will explain.

In Florida the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is in charge of regulating Public Potable Water Systems, except for very small limited use systems. They do it through Florida regulations based on the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and EPA regulations.

How ever in large counties the Department of Health (DOH), through an inter-agency agreement, does the work for DEP when it comes to Public Water Systems. That includes compliance and permitting. Which is why the department I work in is called Environmental Engineering. We also regulate public swimming pools, test private wells for contamination, and a few other odds and ends.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 6:06 AM

I don't know if anyone has plans to export fracking waste to florida, i doubt it, but rptesting of private wells is a major issue here in Ny.

The major issue is CFC contamination, which I suspect is intentional.

My uncle works for the EPA. He used to work for the oil industry. He says he recognizes all of his new co-workers because they used to be his old co-workers.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 7:03 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I don't know if anyone has plans to export fracking waste to florida, i doubt it, but rptesting of private wells is a major issue here in Ny.

The major issue is CFC contamination, which I suspect is intentional.

My uncle works for the EPA. He used to work for the oil industry. He says he recognizes all of his new co-workers because they used to be his old co-workers.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Why do you expect the CFC contamination to be intentional?

People from industry are not bad thing, depending on the person. One of my co-workers worked in industry and ahs taught me a lot about what to look for.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 7:58 AM

They're not necessarily bad, but sometimes they might overlook potential dangers simply because their personal history has caused them to relax their judgement and alertness. They've sometimes been lulled into a false sense of security.

This is probably why it took so long for the IAEC to admit that Fukushima was still in melt down and that it had probably even melted THROUGH containment. Meanwhile, here on FFF, you'll find if you look back through the archives, most of us were concerned about China Syndrome from the moment we heard that they were picking up very hot radiation from the water.

Even if industry professionals are only acting in self-interest and not intending to do harm, which is usually what's going on, other people can and do use people for their own agendas. Look at conditions in Argyle and Bartonville Texas, then ask yourself why T Boone Pickens has started investing in bottled water. They are not unrelated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 8:09 AM

No, they're not necessarily, my uncle is from the industry, but they have a collective pro industry bias.

This industry is getting huge investment from water monopolists like BP capital, Bechtel and Halliburton, and the chemicals, 60,000 gallons of haloalkane mix per frack, is absurdly high. Every square mile is hit by twice as many top level toxicity WMDs as Saddam's entire arsenal was supposed to possess.

The govt. Of N. Dakota did tests which showed that the CFC additives provided no measurable increase in gas yields. I don't see any reason why they would.

Also, the mix is used once, and then diposed, being dispersed over a 500 mile radius. If you measure the total number of fracks times the number of planned wells, the entire US, and ultimately, inhabited free world, will be contaminated at around 1000 ppm, one million times the minimum toxic level.

They're now calling it "brine" and pouring it onto the roads. This stuff is more toxic than mustard gas.

At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, this is not an energy industry run amok, this is war. I've been ringing the alarm bell here for some time.

Also, shale is only 1% carbon by weight. Coal is 99% carbon by weight. These yield estimates are nonsense. They're not getting "micropockets." they're looking for gas veins, they figure if they create fractures throuout the whole continent, they'll find the real gas wells. But somewhere along the line these chemical weapons guys hitched a ride on the industry. I don't think they have a sound industrial purpose, I think they're just terrorists.

That, and the whole thing is basically a giant ponzi scheme. They inflate the yield from these wells, use that to pass radical environmental repeals, and attract tremendous investment which they use to pay off the earlier investors whose money they used to buy the mineral rights.

I'd love there to be a regulatory solution to this, but regulators are failing at all levels, and one of the reasons is that they are relying on industry experts for information, and they are being fed deliberately bogus data.

This nightmare is the child of several other nightmares:

The WV coal industry
The 2008 housing bubble
The 2000 blue gold water market in Bolivia
The 2005 Halliburton loophole
The war

The problem with the war is we're losing, and with it, we're losing control of the world's oil, so there's also a push switch off of oil onto something else. This comes in a world market that's looking like the dominant players in oil will be Russia, the Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela and the sunni muslim world, all of which basically hate us.

Anyway, pack all of these agenda monkeys into a barrel together and you have the fracking bubble.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 8:15 AM

Byte

Not just bottled. Water deliver systems for agriculture.

http://www.gilttaste.com/stories/327-what-will-fracking-do-to-your-foo
d-supply

I axtually skipped a hershey's this morning after reading about the possibility that the water used may be contaminated.

I think the radiation risk is low, but the chemical weapon risk is extremely high. Each well involves more chemical weapons being released into the environment than either vietnam, WWI or WWII. And they're talking about one million wells. This is really armageddon.

Actually, the real armageddon was seized by israel from palestine a couple years back when they built the fence ;)

Also note BP cap, Bechtel and Halliburton, the three major investors in fracking are also the three largest investors in water monetization schemes.

I the end, of course, it's not about money, it's about power.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 3:15 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
They're not necessarily bad, but sometimes they might overlook potential dangers simply because their personal history has caused them to relax their judgement and alertness. They've sometimes been lulled into a false sense of security.

Perhaps, the few people I know that have come from industry are less likely to over look something because they know where the skeletons are hiding.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 3:49 PM

I know about half a dozen ex-industry regulators in the field, and my uncle knows several dozen. What you say is true, but it is a double edged sword:

They understand the science of it very well, which is a plus, definitely. The downside is that they tend to rely heavily on industry sources for information and have a lot of industry contacts which lends them very susceptible to industry arguments.

It's hard to convince them at times that people might do things like:

1) expend more energy getting fuel from the ground than they are getting in yield.

2) drill in places where they could be pretty sure there was no mineral riches to be found

3) use substances they knew to be toxic which had no added value to the process.

Part of my own background was working for a decade as a financial analyst in derivatives for two brokerage firms. The above scenarios make perfect sense to me. It's hard to convey why to people in the industry, but the core of it is that value is based on speculation, not on reality. In the derivatives market, the appearance of yield is far more important than actual yield. As long as there is investment or subsidy money, you can pass off all expenses, and you launch right away into a rob peter to pay paul business model, so the initial set up costs you, personally, nothing, even if the total cost of the setup is going to vastly exceed the profit, it doesn't matter because you didn't foot the bill.

As I see it, Essentially, all of this is financial shenanigans, even intentionally contaminating the water. All you really need to launch a Bolivia style water market in the north east is the *impression* that water is contaminated. Such markets have already been launched to some degree in the southwest.

One snag for these companies, which are all based in texas, is the sheer deliverance/hillbilly culture of new york, penn, and wv, which means that the people are just as likely to shoot them as do anything else. This is the sort of error in judgement that the us govt. And before them the ussr, made in afghanistan.

The difference between ny and pa and wv is that wv has no money at all, pa is fairly poor, and ny is loaded with cash, relatively to most of the country, just not relative to NYC.

This is the sort of situation that creates misconceptions which led to the current predicament for industry: they took us for a backwater, which we are, but we're a well financed, well connected backwater, and yet still a possum on a stick redneck culture.

The reason for this is economies of scale, and you can see it world wide: poor america is still middle class mexico, and poor mexico is downright wealthy guatemala.

In our case, NYC is rich NY, but if you took NYC away, and cut off upstate NY and made it a separate country, we'd still be one of the most successful economies on earth, but no less likely to fry someone on a stick, with is a way of saykng we're basically like finland.

They result of all of this misunderstanding was that the gas companies marched into our back yard expecting a cakewalk and what they got was a civil war.

Anyway, we have our own industry guys working on it, and don't get me wrong, they're indispensible. They think of stuff we never would have thought of. The danger comes when you have a bunch of industry guys talking to one another and to other industry guys when they start to fall back into the industry line.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 3:56 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This industry is getting huge investment from water monopolists like BP capital, Bechtel and Halliburton, and the chemicals, 60,000 gallons of haloalkane mix per frack, is absurdly high. Every square mile is hit by twice as many top level toxicity WMDs as Saddam's entire arsenal was supposed to possess.

I have not seen, nor can I find any tests that have confirmed contamination from any of the fracking chemicals. That does not mean I think it is a good idea.

Right now the issue seems to be gas contamination. Wells have come up with dissolved methane.

If those companies are trying to contaminate water supplies purposely they need to understand that contamination will spread, so the ground water they have rights to can very well become contaminated. They should also know that the organic chemicals can be removed with GAC filters or Pack Tower Aeration systems.

I think the exemptions for Fracking that protects it from the EPA needs to go. Then the EPA can do its job.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 11:08 PM

Nick

Nevermind the budget. Focus on this one. Yes, the methane is what sets the water on fire, and it can be hazardous, but it's actually the lower hazaard here.

My mom has a list of accident stories, but the real danger isn't the accidents, it's the normal frack. A well can be fracked up to 18 times. Each frack contains about 2% mix of chemicals, largely haloalkane nerve gas. That which goes down under pressure forces the rock up for a moment, and then the rock falls, settles, and pushes the water and chemicals back up.

The result is called flowback water, and represents 1/2-2/3 of that which went down. The flowback "water" is really 20,000 ppm mix of nerve agents (sl,e of which have been reported deadly at concentrations as low as 0.001 ppm,) which havs already killed people I know and are currently killing my sister. Once these flow back, they have to go somewhere. Here are the options being used:

1) storage. Places accept the flowback to store in 8,000 gallon tanks. Sometimes they accept a quarter of a million gallons per tank. How does this work? A number of ways: put a vaporizer on the top of the tank, or just a put a pipe to drain out the bottom. How can tney do this? Halliburton loophole. Yes, this is now legal.

2) recycling. The fracking fluid is taken to a "recycling" facility at the edge lf a bldy lf water, and poured into a swimming pool. The goal appears to be to recover a small percentage of chemicals for re-use, while pouring the rest kn the river.

3) water treatment. This is when the haloalkane mix is diluted 10:1 and then poured back into the water supply. This means now it is 2,000 ppm, but it makes no difference as the end result is that so much of this stuff is being produced the final contamination is dependent only on the amount of haloalkanes and other toxins and not the concentration, which in the entire water table will ultimately be several ppm. My sister appears to have been hit by vapor from wqter contaminated at about one part per million. Abiut one milliliter lf contaminant appears to be enough to have a majority chance of killing you.

4) brine. This is when they take potent nerve agents mixed with other toxins, diesel and gas heavy water and call it "salt" and pour it on the roads. The industry is producing this stuff in large enough quantity that it doesn't matter *where* it enters the ecosystem, it will contaminate the entire state.

Quote:
I have not seen, nor can I find any tests that have confirmed contamination from any of the fracking chemicals. That does not mean I think it is a good idea.

Which is the problem with industry folk. Stories have been circulating "the water was already contaminated" and "people could always set their water on fire" etc. They can make whatever case they want to, and because they speak the sasme language, other industry people will buy it.

Nothing is going to alter the fact that the industry is synthesizing more than a million times more chemical weapons than have ever been synthesized before, then releasing those agents into the environment, and not taking them back. You can't create a billion gallons of tetrachloroethylene, and then truck it out into the countryside, and come back without it, and say "oh, it's perfectly safe, it's in storage." Taking aside for the moment thst there are no billion gallon storage facilities for the stuff, there's just no excuse for making the stuff in the first place.

If the industry is allowed to do the total number of fracks they have planned for the US, that will mean one trillion gallons of haloalkanes.

To truly grasp the danger level, the plan calls for one million drilling pads, eqch with several wells, and each pad covering on square mile of drilling and occupying six acres. Each pad, individually, with no accidents, represents a higher cancer risk than the Fukushima meltdown.

Quote:
Right now the issue seems to be gas contamination. Wells have come up with dissolved methane.

That's what's setting water on fire. It's an issue. But it's also the lesser issue.

Quote:
If those companies are trying to contaminate water supplies purposely they need to understand that contamination will spread, so the ground water they have rights to can very well become contaminated. They should also know that the organic chemicals can be removed with GAC filters or Pack Tower Aeration systems.

Of course they understand this. They intend to sell us back our water like they are doing in Texas. What ultimately happened in Bolivia was a communist revolution, or national socialist, technically, but the morales govt. Is more closely allied to china than to germany.

Quote:
I think the exemptions for Fracking that protects it from the EPA needs to go.

Absolutely

Quote:
Then the EPA can do its job.

Maybe, but they have failed before. The word from my uncle is "don't count on us to do our job. Go out and get it done. If we both succeed, it's just redundancy, but if we both fail it will be a disaster.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2011 5:17 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Nevermind the budget. Focus on this one. Yes, the methane is what sets the water on fire, and it can be hazardous, but it's actually the lower hazaard here.

My mom has a list of accident stories, but the real danger isn't the accidents, it's the normal frack. A well can be fracked up to 18 times. Each frack contains about 2% mix of chemicals, largely haloalkane nerve gas. That which goes down under pressure forces the rock up for a moment, and then the rock falls, settles, and pushes the water and chemicals back up.

The result is called flowback water, and represents 1/2-2/3 of that which went down. The flowback "water" is really 20,000 ppm mix of nerve agents (sl,e of which have been reported deadly at concentrations as low as 0.001 ppm,) which havs already killed people I know and are currently killing my sister. Once these flow back, they have to go somewhere. Here are the options being used:

I don't even know where to begin.

I can't find anything even close to resembling what you are claiming about nerve agents deadly at 0.001 ppm. For the love of fuck VX at deadly at 0.0027 ppm after 10 minutes.

Even the haloalkanes you find can find in water have MCLs around 0.001 mg/L, and the MCLs are set for long term exposure.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:1) storage. Places accept the flowback to store in 8,000 gallon tanks. Sometimes they accept a quarter of a million gallons per tank. How does this work? A number of ways: put a vaporizer on the top of the tank, or just a put a pipe to drain out the bottom. How can tney do this? Halliburton loophole. Yes, this is now legal.

You maybe talking about deep injections wells here, I'm not sure. If you are, yes they are legal for some chemicals, but are a lot more then just a drain line.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:2) recycling. The fracking fluid is taken to a "recycling" facility at the edge lf a bldy lf water, and poured into a swimming pool. The goal appears to be to recover a small percentage of chemicals for re-use, while pouring the rest kn the river.

You maybe talking about chemical recycling centers, which remove the chemicals from the water and release the treated water.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:3) water treatment. This is when the haloalkane mix is diluted 10:1 and then poured back into the water supply. This means now it is 2,000 ppm, but it makes no difference as the end result is that so much of this stuff is being produced the final contamination is dependent only on the amount of haloalkanes and other toxins and not the concentration, which in the entire water table will ultimately be several ppm. My sister appears to have been hit by vapor from wqter contaminated at about one part per million. Abiut one milliliter lf contaminant appears to be enough to have a majority chance of killing you.

Why? dilute it and then add it to the water supply, it would dilute in the water supply.

The Floridan Aquifer produces somewhere in the range of 3.5 billions gallons a day. It would be near impossible to contaminate the entire aquifer to several ppm.

I take it you mean 1 mg/L when you said 1 milliliter.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:4) brine. This is when they take potent nerve agents mixed with other toxins, diesel and gas heavy water and call it "salt" and pour it on the roads. The industry is producing this stuff in large enough quantity that it doesn't matter *where* it enters the ecosystem, it will contaminate the entire state.

Contaminating an entire state would be close to impossible. Far before the contamination spread it would be so obvious no one would be able to ignore it.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Which is the problem with industry folk. Stories have been circulating "the water was already contaminated" and "people could always set their water on fire" etc. They can make whatever case they want to, and because they speak the sasme language, other industry people will buy it.

That is entirely possible. Not all contamination comes from man made sources. Wells come up contaminated from naturally occurring deposits of arsenic, radium, and any number of compounds.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Nothing is going to alter the fact that the industry is synthesizing more than a million times more chemical weapons than have ever been synthesized before, then releasing those agents into the environment, and not taking them back. You can't create a billion gallons of tetrachloroethylene, and then truck it out into the countryside, and come back without it, and say "oh, it's perfectly safe, it's in storage." Taking aside for the moment thst there are no billion gallon storage facilities for the stuff, there's just no excuse for making the stuff in the first place.

Well other then industrial processes. Your right there is no billion gallon storage facilities. It is a Volatile, meaning it aerate. Most of it will go into the atmosphere.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:If the industry is allowed to do the total number of fracks they have planned for the US, that will mean one trillion gallons of haloalkanes.

To truly grasp the danger level, the plan calls for one million drilling pads, eqch with several wells, and each pad covering on square mile of drilling and occupying six acres. Each pad, individually, with no accidents, represents a higher cancer risk than the Fukushima meltdown.

One trillion sounds like a lot. Then again the US uses over 80 billion gallons of ground water per day, or 29 trillion gallons a year.

....and that is just ground water.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Of course they understand this. They intend to sell us back our water like they are doing in Texas. What ultimately happened in Bolivia was a communist revolution, or national socialist, technically, but the morales govt. Is more closely allied to china than to germany.

That makes little sense when you also claim that the entire water supply will be contaminated.

All in all I think you have little idea about what you are talking.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 21, 2011 12:25 AM

Nick,

Some of this is good criticism and deserves serious debate, and we should wait until ByteMite is back from vacation to have it, as she is the most knowledgeable, and should be included.

Just a couple of thoughts for now:

1) The volatiles, it's my understanding, will cycle back into the water supply.

2) The water you use also cycles back.

3) Far lower levels have been demonstrated to permanently contaminate the water supply of Vietnam.

4) Looking at the contamination in Vietnam, we see that contamination gets trapped cycling through particular river valleys.

5) It would be easy to reserve a few pure water systems to control and sell.

6) Difficult, not impossible. When I've done the math before it seems to me that the amount of planned fracking is thousands to million of times higher than that necessary to irreversibly contaminate the groundwater.

7) My figures like "some of these agents are toxic at 0.001 ppm" come from industry people who are constantly giving lectures, but checking online I see no reason to doubt them. I'm sure there's some stuff in there on that level. Diluted Mixes range from 0.5% to 2% chemical soup and the lists contain high levels of volatile haloalkanes like TCE, DCM, etc.

8) 1 ml means 1 ml, as the neurotoxicity is cumulative. Given the amount of water that passes through a human's system, this amount can accumulate pretty quickly even at 1ppm. Remember, it's not just the water we drink, we also breath it.

My sister has been given six months to live after contamination following a spill near her workplace after a truck containing fracking fluid tipped over. Doctors say that the cause is a contamination of cumulative exposure to potent volatile CFCs which may have entered the ventilation system of the building. The mix contains high levels of tetrachloroethylene and other chlorinated hydrocarbons readily absorbed into the human body mutating her DNA. The estimate was at least 100 million contamination events within her brain caused the extremely aggressive tumor growths which affect her, and both of her coworkers in the building, one of whom was the one whose brain leaked out his nose, which I posted earlier. The third had her spine extrude out the back of her skull, which has now been replaced with cowhide. I'm told that this is the result of a few ppm contamination. This is pretty serious.

The compounds can easily get trapped in the ecosystem and cycle through forever, which is what is happening in Vietnam. It's not a one time deal. You add volatile CFCs to your ecosystem, they don't evaporate and then float into space punching a hole in the ozone layer on the way out, they tend to precipitate back down into the ecosystem, and cycle through as water does.

The total mass of the US groundwater system is 33 trillion gallons. That's not infinity. That's a finite number. If you take 1 trillion gallons of chemical nerve agent and add it to the water, that would be 3 percent of the water supply. Sure, some of it will cycle through, and over the course of the next million years that number will be reduced, but not substantially during our lifetimes.

Four other local people are dead already, from a suddenly very common conditions we are told are exceedingly rare, with some people having multiple forms of cancer concurrent and unrelated, a signature condition of chemical warfare, due to the extremely high levels of toxicity. I suspect things are much worse across the border in Pennsylvania.

Yes, this is a different issue from people being able to set their water on fire, though that is a serious issue. I suspect that is coming from natural gas pockets being uncovered through the massive fracturing of bedrock. I also suspect that there are no serious measurable gas yields coming from so-called "micropockets" as very few of these would actually be ruptured by fracking, given the geometry of sheer-lines, but rather that the goal is to discover normal large scale natural wells without having to actually explore for them.

The industry is sustaining heavily on subsidies and investment, and I'm concerned that it has been infiltrated by people I am tempted to call "terrorists." With the Halliburton loophole, it is possible for companies to use virtually anything, and that's an ideal opening for a massive chemical attack.

If you followed the story with "Corexit" in the BP Gulf spill, this sort of haloalkane/CFC carcinogenic mix integrating quickly into the environment and binding to hyrdrocarbons in massive doses of a million gallons is nothing new. If you picture that as a test run of intentional mass contamination, the timing is perfect for the introduction of these mixes into the hydraulic fracturing industry.

Now, maybe this has some fuel-recovering use. I've heard arguments that it enables a wider area of shale fracturing, or that the CFCs bind to gasses, removing heavier elements and make the methane more recoverable.

I don't care. I'm not interested in making their job easier or cheaper.

I've also seen lots of estimates of yield, ranging from the industry's claims of "Two Saudi Arabias" to their actual yields of 2 bbl/acre to 12.5 bbl/acre, (lower than corn ethanol) down to the Sierra Club's estimates of 0.14 to 1.0 bbl/acre.

I don't care. This is not worth turning the Earth into an apocalyptic wasteland.

I've also heard a lot of other things, like that the yield falls off substantially after the first year, and doesn't meet industry claims of being stable for a decade or more, but again, so what if it did?

Or that they are exaggerating yields so they can flip the wells at a profit, that the whole thing is a giant ponzi scheme...

Or that they want to push America to switch off of oil which is increasingly controlled by our enemies... or to build more nat'l gas consumption to drive prices up... or to pass radical energy regulation repeals to increase corporate profits.

I don't care. What I care about is that water remain water, and not be any part chemical weapon. I don't want people dying from it, I don't want trees dying from it, I don't want little watersliders, sow bugs and salamanders dying from it.

Up until the last couple of years, we had a pretty good life here. Basically nothing had changed since American Revolution. The last few of years have shown the rapid invasion of something conspiracists call the New World Order, and with it, lots of "change." I would like that change gone. None of it is good.

Imagine if the terrorists on 9.11 had, instead of flying in all unannounced, hired lobbyists to push their position, and got the Bush admin to pass a law that said that there was "an acceptable level of jihadist terrorism" in the United States, and that terrorism would not need to be regulated unless it exceeded a threshold limit, like, say, 10,000 deaths per year. And then imagine that some industries had gotten in on it, insurance, healthcare, funeral homes, and picture that these were powerful industries with lobbyists in Washington. Then when some suicide bomber blew up the local shopping mall, and someone collected millions on insurance money, and the hospitals got lots of business from the hundreds of wounded, and then the event was followed by this: "Only a dozen people were killed, but the city was able to rake in 50 million, so it seems like the terrorism was good for our town. Still, there is controversy, with some on the lunatic anti-jihad front saying that no level of deaths are acceptable. Jihad industry experts counter by saying that a similar number of people would have died anyway, even without the lucrative jihadist business. This has been a channel five news update."

That's basically where we are right now.

So, sure, deep down, horizontal drilling might release trace amounts of natural arsenic and radioactive isotopes, but that does not particularly concern me, because they don't have factories intentionally producing a trillion gallons of it, and it's not going to have a strong impact on the integrity of living things, nor circulate forever in the groundwater system.

So sure, such things are good for scare tactics, and I'm all for more fear, because people are too complacent with the situation. I just don't want to get sidetracked into using this sort of thing as the main argument lest anyone think that this is the principle danger, and that only accidents can produce negative effects.

And yes, it's personal. I had heard of fracking before my sister got sick, probably even mentioned it here, but I have really looked into it since, and it does seem to me very seriously that though she was hit by an accident from a PA fracking company truck across the border in NY, that this sort of thing is happening to people all the time in Penn, and it doesn't require an accident like in Dimmock. The regular business of doing business of the horizontal hydraulic fracturing industry seems to present a higher risk to environment and human health than would a full scale nuclear war.

The nation is under attack, and I don't particularly care whether the attackers *mean* to kill America, or whether killing America is just a means of making a quick buck on the way to the bank, the effect is the same, and to not stand up to it is traitorous.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 22, 2011 7:58 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

It sounds like DT and Nick are both very knowledgeable about water related issues. The good thing is that it doesn't sound like there's much frackage in Fla. as of now.

This is a very personal issue for DT, I know that, his view on the matter may sound extreme to Nick, but part of it is his personal experience with how fracking ruts things up for people in his community. There are a lot of things that I find odd in DT's logic about other topics, things that I can't agree with outright. I know though that he's had a lot of experiences with a lot of different things in this world and even though I find some of his other theories to be unsubstantial I have to give credence to what he says about fracking, because it makes sense to me. I don't know a lot about it but what he says makes sense to me, for whatever that is or isn't worth.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:32 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Some of this is good criticism and deserves serious debate, and we should wait until ByteMite is back from vacation to have it, as she is the most knowledgeable, and should be included.

Just a couple of thoughts for now:

1) The volatiles, it's my understanding, will cycle back into the water supply.

2) The water you use also cycles back.

Some will, much is gass off into the atmosphere. That is why they use aeration to remove volatiles from water.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
3) Far lower levels have been demonstrated to permanently contaminate the water supply of Vietnam.

4) Looking at the contamination in Vietnam, we see that contamination gets trapped cycling through particular river valleys.

Most of the water contamination in Vietnam is from Arsenic and other metals. They will recycle throught the water system. Of course much of that contaminations is likley natural.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
5) It would be easy to reserve a few pure water systems to control and sell.

6) Difficult, not impossible. When I've done the math before it seems to me that the amount of planned fracking is thousands to million of times higher than that necessary to irreversibly contaminate the groundwater.

With this difficulty and the fact that it would be more cost effective for most places to simply treat the contaminated water I don't see it.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
7) My figures like "some of these agents are toxic at 0.001 ppm" come from industry people who are constantly giving lectures, but checking online I see no reason to doubt them. I'm sure there's some stuff in there on that level. Diluted Mixes range from 0.5% to 2% chemical soup and the lists contain high levels of volatile haloalkanes like TCE, DCM, etc.

What stuff? That and toxic does not mean deadly.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
8) 1 ml means 1 ml, as the neurotoxicity is cumulative. Given the amount of water that passes through a human's system, this amount can accumulate pretty quickly even at 1ppm. Remember, it's not just the water we drink, we also breath it.

Very few substance buildup in the body. Most substances will be broken down over time.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
My sister has been given six months to live after contamination following a spill near her workplace after a truck containing fracking fluid tipped over. Doctors say that the cause is a contamination of cumulative exposure to potent volatile CFCs which may have entered the ventilation system of the building. The mix contains high levels of tetrachloroethylene and other chlorinated hydrocarbons readily absorbed into the human body mutating her DNA. The estimate was at least 100 million contamination events within her brain caused the extremely aggressive tumor growths which affect her, and both of her coworkers in the building, one of whom was the one whose brain leaked out his nose, which I posted earlier. The third had her spine extrude out the back of her skull, which has now been replaced with cowhide. I'm told that this is the result of a few ppm contamination. This is pretty serious.

If all that happened from one spill it was not a few PPMs. tetrachloroethylene has an OSHA exposure limit of 100 ppm average over an 8 hour shift.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The compounds can easily get trapped in the ecosystem and cycle through forever, which is what is happening in Vietnam. It's not a one time deal. You add volatile CFCs to your ecosystem, they don't evaporate and then float into space punching a hole in the ozone layer on the way out, they tend to precipitate back down into the ecosystem, and cycle through as water does.

No, they don't. They aerate out of ground water and then start to breakdown.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The total mass of the US groundwater system is 33 trillion gallons. That's not infinity. That's a finite number. If you take 1 trillion gallons of chemical nerve agent and add it to the water, that would be 3 percent of the water supply. Sure, some of it will cycle through, and over the course of the next million years that number will be reduced, but not substantially during our lifetimes.

I take it you mean volume, because gallons are not a measure of mass. As I have said the many will gas off. Many more will break down. An that is if you pump all trillion gallons of the fluid in to the aquifers.

The rest of your post is just ranting. I can respect that you have a personal stake in this. However that most certainly clouds your judgement on the issue.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 6:52 AM

Nick,

DNA damage is cumulative. Something might be safe for 8 hours but deadly after 8 months of constant exposure.

Overall, I see no reason to defer to your analysis. If contamination in Vietnam is natural and not from agent orange, then why, last year, did the UN launch a clean-up effort to combat the left over agent orange?
http://mg.co.za/article/2010-06-28-un-announces-agent-orange-cleanup-f
or-vietnam

Things don't evaporate into oblivion, that's why we have problems like acid rain. What goes up is pretty likely to come down again.

Chemistry is a pretty straightforward science. No one needs to rely on the word of govt. regulators to determine what effect chemicals will have in the environment or in the body. In fact, no one trusts govt. regulators, since they are little more than industry spokemen.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 7:13 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nick,

DNA damage is cumulative. Something might be safe for 8 hours but deadly after 8 months of constant exposure.

I agree, that is why I find you discription of your sisters exposer during a single incident dubious.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Prove it! If you can't provide any proof not many will believe you.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Overall, I see no reason to defer to your analysis. If contamination in Vietnam is natural and not from agent orange, then why, last year, did the UN launch a clean-up effort to combat the left over agent orange?
http://mg.co.za/article/2010-06-28-un-announces-agent-orange-cleanup-f
or-vietnam]

Yes there is clean up for some places. I was talking about the major water contaminates found. Not the only ones, nor is it the whole country.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Things don't evaporate into oblivion, that's why we have problems like acid rain. What goes up is pretty likely to come down again.

Your right they don't evaporate into oblivion, but they do change. You will find that chemicals will breakdown in air and water over time. Ethylene dibromide, which usetio be used in leaded gasoline, has a halflife of 40 minutes in air. It is much longer in waterm but it will still break down.

http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/ethyl-di.html

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chemistry is a pretty straightforward science. No one needs to rely on the word of govt. regulators to determine what effect chemicals will have in the environment or in the body. In fact, no one trusts govt. regulators, since they are little more than industry spokemen.

So it should be no problem for people to test and show proof of contamination.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 9:36 AM

It's problematic to prove that a contaminant like TCE is directly derived from fracking, and not another cause, which is one of the blocks the industry has at the moment which they're jumping on.

My point is this:

What does it matter if it's from fracking or not? What we have here is a potent neurotoxic heavy chlorination of DNA coming from haloalkane contaminants in the groundwater which is now proving to cause terminal brain cancer at an alarming rate. None of this is in doubt. So what if we cannot prove that it's from fracking? The industry is admitting to wanting to continue use knowing that billions of gallons will end up the ground water. Why should we allow something we know to be incredibly deadly to increase in contamination by radical orders of magnitude because some corporation says it will add to their profit model or lower their cost, regardless of whether or not they have any other agenda?

My take is, fuck them. The industry argument is like saying "Oh, you can't prove that radiation hiroshima deaths in the 21st century are coming from undetonated U235 from the 1945 bombing, they might well be coming from the Japanese nuclear power industry, therefore, it makes no difference if we go and drop several more nukes on Japan!"

It's an idiotic position. The industry admits to using the contaminant, the contaminant is proven to cause cancer, even at relatively trace levels, it doesn't matter whether it's their TCE or someone else's that caused my sister's cancer, there's ample reason here to stop them from pumping massive amounts of TCE into our water system.

As for the gas yields, there is little question here. Even the industry only claims 12.5 bbl/acre, which is less than the base 17 bbl for corn ethanol, and far less than current yields on other biofuels.

They just dodge this one by talking in terms of TCF and mi², figures which any idiot can convert.

Critics such as the Sierra Club have posted independent measured yields for fracking as substantially lower than industry claims, falling from 2 bbl/acre to much lower, like 0.14. Also, the second year yield fall of rates are showing up at 30-60%, 90% on some wells, far higher than industry predictions, which were more like 5%. These have radical implications for the long term yield rates.

This is why it's so essential to have people investigating yield rates, which is the only thing I've seen yet that you applauded, so I don't see why you're arguing with it now, except that you seem to argue with everything posted.

I tire of this, really I do.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 11:25 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's problematic to prove that a contaminant like TCE is directly derived from fracking, and not another cause, which is one of the blocks the industry has at the moment which they're jumping on.

My point is this:

What does it matter if it's from fracking or not? What we have here is a potent neurotoxic heavy chlorination of DNA coming from haloalkane contaminants in the groundwater which is now proving to cause terminal brain cancer at an alarming rate. None of this is in doubt. So what if we cannot prove that it's from fracking? The industry is admitting to wanting to continue use knowing that billions of gallons will end up the ground water. Why should we allow something we know to be incredibly deadly to increase in contamination by radical orders of magnitude because some corporation says it will add to their profit model or lower their cost, regardless of whether or not they have any other agenda?

What the fuck is "potent neurotoxic heavy chlorination of DNA"? Now you are just making things up. Yes, it is in serious doubt because you seem to be the only one making such claims. Yes, some of the chemicals are potential carcinogens, after long term intake in drinking water. They are also tested for in public water systems routinely. Many states also test private wells. Being over weight most likely to increase you chances of cancer.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
My take is, fuck them. The industry argument is like saying "Oh, you can't prove that radiation hiroshima deaths in the 21st century are coming from undetonated U235 from the 1945 bombing, they might well be coming from the Japanese nuclear power industry, therefore, it makes no difference if we go and drop several more nukes on Japan!"

It's an idiotic position. The industry admits to using the contaminant, the contaminant is proven to cause cancer, even at relatively trace levels, it doesn't matter whether it's their TCE or someone else's that caused my sister's cancer, there's ample reason here to stop them from pumping massive amounts of TCE into our water system.

I agree there is ample reason to stop anyone from pumping massive amounts of TCE in our water system. Just not the reasons you are giving. That is the issue. If you want to fight this come armed with facts. Cold, hard irrefutable facts. If you don't you will be laughed off and ignored.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
As for the gas yields, there is little question here. Even the industry only claims 12.5 bbl/acre, which is less than the base 17 bbl for corn ethanol, and far less than current yields on other biofuels.

They just dodge this one by talking in terms of TCF and mi², figures which any idiot can convert.

Critics such as the Sierra Club have posted independent measured yields for fracking as substantially lower than industry claims, falling from 2 bbl/acre to much lower, like 0.14. Also, the second year yield fall of rates are showing up at 30-60%, 90% on some wells, far higher than industry predictions, which were more like 5%. These have radical implications for the long term yield rates.

This is why it's so essential to have people investigating yield rates, which is the only thing I've seen yet that you applauded, so I don't see why you're arguing with it now, except that you seem to argue with everything posted.

I tire of this, really I do.

If you tire of it don't respond.

The question for industry is not so much yields, but yields to cost. Corn ethanol may have a greater yield per acre, but does if cost the industry less, over time?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 11:55 AM

You make a good point that my arguments need to be sound and credible.

I'm surprised you haven't run into DNA substitution reactions. These are up their as the second major form of carcinogenesis now after microbial agents such as virus HPV-16.

Anyway, here's the standard mustard gas reaction, which is the sort that we're seeing from the chemicals in CFC mixes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_mustard#Mechanism_of_toxicity

Light weight high volatilization compounds like haloalkanes are of personal interest to me because they easily cross the blood brain barrier to institute primary brain cancers like GBM, which is what we're seeing a very high instance of here right now, way over the norm.

ETA: As for the snark, you also might watch to hold the superior tone. I tend to know what I'm talking about, even if I veer off into rampant speculation, I'm not starting from a position of ignorance. But it doesn't matter who the audience is, anyone might react negatively to someone who comes in as a self appointed authority.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:56 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I identified with your nuclear Japan reference DT.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 4:16 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"it doesn't matter who the audience is, anyone might react negatively to someone who comes in as a self appointed authority."

Hello,

This is wisdom.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:09 PM

This is like watching a three way match between a doberman, a pitbull and the remains of a shih tzu.

I would be truly redundant here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 25, 2011 8:42 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
You make a good point that my arguments need to be sound and credible.

Sometimes that ranting, angry man is also the smartest man in the room. Getting people to believe that is another story.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm surprised you haven't run into DNA substitution reactions. These are up their as the second major form of carcinogenesis now after microbial agents such as virus HPV-16.

Had you said nucleophilic substitution I might have caught it, would have had to remind myself by looking it over again. I knew these types of substitutions where used in chemotheopy, but not they where the second major form of carcinogenesis.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Light weight high volatilization compounds like haloalkanes are of personal interest to me because they easily cross the blood brain barrier to institute primary brain cancers like GBM, which is what we're seeing a very high instance of here right now, way over the norm.

It makes sense. I wonder if you are see more substitutions from haloalkanes then from haloalkenes.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
ETA: As for the snark, you also might watch to hold the superior tone. I tend to know what I'm talking about, even if I veer off into rampant speculation, I'm not starting from a position of ignorance. But it doesn't matter who the audience is, anyone might react negatively to someone who comes in as a self appointed authority.

You may not be steering from a position of ignorance, but you are heading into that realm when you go into rampant speculation. If you are a scientist you need to avoid this.

I as for how I sound, well I will grow on you!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:07 AM

Thinking on cancer has changed a lot in the last ten years. Radiation, for instance, is now considered a low level risk. The reason for this is that the common community theory is now that cancer requires several mutations coincidental within the same cell, whereas it was previously thought that a single hit to the wrong gene would trigger the condition. Many growth genes have on off switches which can be hit, and cells maintain redundant growth inhibitors to prevent carcinogenesis. However, there are two substantial ways to trigger multiple mutations simultaneously:

The first, and most common is by means of a pathogen, like a virus. Even the omnipresent vaccine hitchhiker SV-40 is being looked at seriously as a cancer potentiator. The most well documented ones are the papiloma viruses, particularly HPV-16, and the herpes viruses, particularly herpes-8. These viral genomes include specific growth promotion genes and inhibitors to anti-tumor actions of the cell.

The second is massive contamination. At a highest levels, you can get dozens or hundreds of mutations per cell, and if this happens collectively to millions or billions of cells at the same time, any combination might occur. This allows the worst case nightmare scenario to be among the population even as a probability, meaning that one of those cells will have all of the growth inhibitors removed and all the stops on growth promoters pulled out, just by random statistical distribution of mutations. The signature of this form of carcinogenesis is massive disruption of mitochondrial DNA within the primary tumor cells (as opposed to the non-malignant helper cells hijacked by the cancer, such as blood vessels) and a fair amount of mitochondrial dysfunction, though this is generally thought to be a marker for the contamination rather than a causative agent in the cancer itself.

The most extreme mass mutation contamination cases come from chemical warfare, where victims can develop two or three unrelated cancers simultaneously. This condition is basically always fatal.

Radiation on very high levels could cause this second case, but you'd either have to be in a nuclear meltdown or to have inhaled so much radioactive material that it became a permanent part of your body.

Mutations to DNA are cumulative, so multiple incidents are also a possible cause, including a combination of factors. Cells are most vulnerable to mutation when dividing, so things which cause rapid or excessive cell division increase cancer risk, which could be a major factor in the smoking-lung cancer connection, as well as asbestos.

Other things being phased out:

Radiation therapy. There are some experiments with localized radiation, but almost no one seems to think that it's effective. The general feeling is that it more persists as an entrenched industry than as a real viable solution.

Hereditary "genetic" connections is another. The theory was that people with long strings of ATTA sequences were passing on high cancer risks to their children. While it's possible that people might possess a single mutation that would leave them missing a growth inhibitor gene, it seems increasingly likely that familial viruses (commonplace viruses that you can pick up through casual contact) contain a fair number of low level cancer risks among their numbers, and in combination with another condition (something as simple as a simultaneous infection of a virus carrying a growth inhibitor gene and a retrovirus carrying reverse transcriptase infecting the same cell at the same time) could kick off a carcinoma, though typically what you see here is skin cancer, though some more deadly endothelial cancers are indicated.

Certain types of cancers like primary brain cancer are tell-tale chemical contamination cases; and some like spinal cancer are almost always spun off from metastatic cancers of higher growth areas, breast, prostate, intestine. One of the problems is that when you get small cell cancers, they can be unnoticeable until this late stage (big problem with small cell lung cancer esp.)

When you start to see high numbers of GMB cases, there's clearly a problem with hyper-volatile chemical contaminants capable of crossing the blood brain barrier.

This is the situation we're trying to deal with right now. While stopping fracking is a definite goal, before it gets any worse, we already have to deal with cases of those who are already sick, like my sister, and see if anything can be done at all.

Cancer research has done almost a complete 180 in the last ten years. A decade ago, a GBM case would have been basically a complete write-off. Now there's a chance, but 5 year survival rate is still only 3%. A lot of this has to do with a much better understanding of how cancer can hijack the body's normal functions, some of it has to do with awareness of how it got there in the first place. That's where you get to the applied cytotoxins you were just alluding to. Sometimes knocking out standard body functions results in some overall weakness but not death for normal cells, but can shortcircuit cancer cells. Over the last couple years there's been a rush of more highly targeted cytotoxins so the entire body isn't debilitated by these genetic snippings.

When people hear "chemo" they think of massive poisoning of the system to try to collapse the cancer, and a withering sickness that goes with it, but that's more or less a thing of the past, a 1900s outlook on cancer. The term "chemo" sticks around because people recognize it, and it makes sense to those not familiar with the field.

I have some background of biochem. I studied genetic engineering and got into med school, but balked when I saw the cost. It was a half million dollars in loans for something I wasn't sure I could finish, and I had never seen $5000 at the time. When I went to college, it was $1,350 a year, which I paid for by working to jobs. Now I have mixed feelings about it. I've obviously made some mistakes, but, on the other hand, I've probably had more free time to research than I would have had otherwise. I ended up working as a financial analyst for wall street.

I'm pretty happy with my lot. The only thing I do for money is I own a kid's bookstore. Outside of that, I have a lot of hobbies, programming, farming, and lately sailing, or failing to, sinking I suppose you could say.

You're absolutely right about the madmen. There are two madmen here who I know are smarter than me, Frem and Pirate News. Other people here are smarter than me, but they're not mad ;) Well, Mike is angry, but that wasn't what I meant.

(as for speculation, I speculate on human motivations and intentions. This is not my field, so I have to just guess. I am scientific in my guesses, in that I only accept those explanations that explain the results that I see. My basic underlying theme is that I start from the position that everyone is intelligent and did what they intended to do. Though I know this is not always true, it is a better rule to follow than its counterpoint.)

As to haloalkenes, yes, technically, haloalkane is a more generic, but TCE is an alkene, sure. I suspect that it destabilized into DCM which I think is the more potent mutagen, but I would intentionally go near any of the stuff. If you look around you, you find that it's all over the place: Household cleansers, industrial solvents, even air-conditioners. I'd much rather jump in the pool than breathe that stuff in. An air conditioner holds a fair amount of fluid which leaks over time, just figure where it goes. We've become a very self-destructive society, and we need to remove as many of these high risk contaminants as possible. I have intentionally removed myself very far from them, but now they are coming to me.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:30 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:As to haloalkenes, yes, technically, haloalkane is a more generic, but TCE is an alkene, sure. I suspect that it destabilized into DCM which I think is the more potent mutagen, but I would intentionally go near any of the stuff. If you look around you, you find that it's all over the place: Household cleansers, industrial solvents, even air-conditioners. I'd much rather jump in the pool than breathe that stuff in. An air conditioner holds a fair amount of fluid which leaks over time, just figure where it goes. We've become a very self-destructive society, and we need to remove as many of these high risk contaminants as possible. I have intentionally removed myself very far from them, but now they are coming to me.

There is no doubt that we are a destructive society. Maybe in the future we will learn a little bit more and change our ways.

I do thank you for the info on current cancer research.

One think you might be interested in is Disinfection Byproducts that are found in drinking water as a result of chlorination.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:39 PM