Gasland

[Mick West]

(duplicate post)

 

[firepilot]

This is a recent fear mongering "documentary", that is long on hysteria and short on facts. One of their most "flaming" examples of it, was where well water had enough methane to burn, and it Gasland attributes it to the hydraulic fracturing process

Some of the junk science in that show was so misleading, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission had to put out a rebuttal to it.

http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND DOC.pdf

"Based upon our review of hundreds of Colorado gas samples over many years, the COGCC is able to differentiate between biogenic and thermogenic methane using both stable isotope analysis of the methane and compositional analysis of the gas. In the Denver-Julesburg and Piceance Basins, the COGCC has consistently found that biogenic gas contains only methane and a very small amount of ethane, while thermogenic gas contains not just methane and ethane but also heavier hydrocarbons such as propane, butane, pentane, and hexanes. As explained below, Gasland incorrectly attributes several cases of water well contamination in Colorado to oil and gas development when our investigations determined that the wells in question contained biogenic methane that is not attributable to such development. "

 

[Mick West]

There were actually several real cases of contamination in that report as well, so it's not exactly exonerating the industry. But it does seems like some bad science in the film.

Unfortunately that's often what you get when someone sets out to expose a topic via film. It's an easy medium rely on striking images rather than science and statistics.

 

[firepilot]

There were actually several real cases of contamination in that report as well, so it's not exactly exonerating the industry. But it does seems like some bad science in the film.

Unfortunately that's often what you get when someone sets out to expose a topic via film. It's an easy medium rely on striking images rather than science and statistics.

But, was it from fracking? Even last month the EPA said there are no confirmed cases of Fracking affecting groundwater.

They used an occurance of fish dying off in Gasland too, but that was from coal mine pollution. So far this film seems to be little different than the WITWATS nonsense.

 

[Mick West]

No, they were not from fracking.

 

[Mick West]

Although here's a story with a study that claims otherwise:

For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire.

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking/single

http://www.propublica.org/documents...drinking-water-accompanying-gas-well-drilling

In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L−1 (n 1⁄4 26), a potential explosion hazard; in contrast, dissolved methane samples in neigh- boring nonextraction sites (no gas wells within 1 km) within similar geologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes averaged only 1.1 mg L−1 (P < 0.05; n 1⁄4 34).

 

[firepilot]

Well a couple interesting things from that article

The geology in Pennsylvania and New York, they said, is tectonically active with faults and other pathways through the rock. They noted that leaky well casings were the most likely cause of the contamination but couldn’t rule out long-range underground migration, which they said “might be possible due to both the extensive fracture systems reported for these formations and the many older, uncased wells drilled and abandoned [9].”

In an interview, Jackson said that gas was more likely to migrate underground than liquid chemicals. Based on his findings, he doesn’t believe the toxic chemicals pumped into the ground during fracturing are likely to end up in water supplies the same way the methane did. “I’m not ready to use the word impossible,” he said, “but unlikely.”

Well I would take from that, that it was not so much "fracking" that caused contamination, since it was not any fracking fluids. The fracking may allowed gas to migrate to other older well that may have improper casing pipe joints, since it even mentions that gas migrating upwards through the strata is less likely.

 

[Leifer]

I was invited to see Gasland by a girl I am currently dating.
She is very left-wing, Me, not so much.

She works for a company (Patagonia) that is filled with ultra Green political thinkers and young social activists.
So far, she knows there is quackery out there, with things like "chemtrails", UFO's, bad-science, and the like.
This puts me in a difficult situation if indeed she holds to her politics, and does not remain flexible.

However, I am close enough with her that perhaps some scientific discussion and reason will help her (and both of us) to not fall into uneducated hysteria, which I am sure some of her friends are already involved in.
Rumors, suspicions, and "new causes" in such a closed work environment such as that, feed like wild-fire.....especially when the ownership encourages environmental activism.

She knows my viewpoints on these things, and so far we agree.
I'm not anti-green by any means, in fact I am very impressed in her efforts to keep her household green, and her efforts to actively "do her part" to reduce her human footprint. Kudos to her !

The other movie she wants me to see with her is "Forks over Knives", about eliminating any meat from our diet. While the health benefits of eating well and more organically are certainly goals to achieve, this film seems to claim that most disease can be avoided eliminating anything meat (and fish), seems to be an exaggeration.....and from what I've read, the movie lacks the science to back-up that claim.

My garden is and has always been organic.....but so has most of my yummy meat purchases.
I'll watch both films with her......with some skepticism, and a post-viewing discussion with her about it.

 

[firepilot]

Yeah, its an interesting ethical quandary. Do you speak up and risk a bad reaction, or do you stick to your beliefs and let the chips fall where they may....

 

[Mick West]

That looks like quite a good debunking of "Forks over Knives" there. Has she read it?

Regarding organic food - it does seem like it would be better for you, with no pesticides/hormones etc. However there's no real evidence to support this. There's not even any good evidence that it tastes better. It's an area just primed for confirmation bias.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Nutritional_value_and_taste

According to the UK's Food Standards Agency, "Consumers may choose to buy organic fruit, vegetables and meat because they believe them to be more nutritious than other food. However, the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view."[31]​ A 12-month systematic review commissioned by the FSA in 2009 and conducted at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine based on 50 years' worth of collected evidence concluded that "there is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content."[32]​ Other studies have found no proof that organic food offers greater nutritional values, more consumer safety or any distinguishable difference in taste.[33]​[34]​[35]​[36]​ A recent review of nutrition claims showed that organic food proponents are unreliable information sources which harm consumers, and that consumers are wasting their money if they buy organic food believing that it contains better nutrients.[37]​
Although it is commonly claimed that organically grown food tastes better than conventionally grown food, reviews of the literature that looked at the sensory qualities of the two have not found convincing evidence that there is any significant differences.[28]​[27]​

The most recent review of the literature concludes "evidence is lacking"
http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/wp-content/uploads/Nutrition-Related-Health-Effects-of-Organic-Foods-A-Systematic-Review.pdf


Of course though you can always find individual studies that seem to support a conclusion.

If you (or someone you know) are a believer in those benefits of organic food, then it might help give you an insight into the mindset of other typed of believers. You know it tastes better, and is better for you, science be damned!

The promoters of organic food even use similar phrase to chemtrail believers:

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/values/organic.php

Organic food tastes great!
It's common sense — well-balanced soils produce strong, healthy plants that become nourishing food for people and animals.

"It's common sense", just like it's common sense that water vapor can't persist in the sky for hours!

 

[Leifer]

I will do the research separately before hand, watch the films, and then discuss my findings with her.
I think she is level-headed enough to see deception....otherwise I would not be dating her.

Neither of these films seem to be total bunk, but then neither would reach theatrical release without creating emotional responses.

Mick put it well...

Unfortunately that's often what you get when someone sets out to expose a topic via film. It's an easy medium rely on striking images rather than science and statistics.

I think it's greatly about the promotion if the idea.
It's very easy to promote a one-sided view by the usual filmatic techniques ....like adding sinister-music ....or glorious-music to images, demanding how you want the viewer to feel about the images.
Or documenting primarily one-side of the argument, when there are two or more.
Sounds like propaganda, huh ?

Remember the show, "Conspiracy Theory" ?? They used sinister music often, attempting to show normal scenes as "secret and dubious". Imagine if someone switched the music elements around.....glorious/happy music when showing coffin liners, and sinister music when Jessie Ventura is discussing the their suspicions with his buddies.






She does not seem to be close-minded

 

[Mick West]

Film can be very compelling. I remember being pretty convinced by Oliver Stone's JFK (even though it was a drama). I've been drawn into the argument presented by many documentaries. It's easy and natural to accept what you see on screen as fact, and then be lead to natural conclusions.

I try to keep a skeptical mind (not just an open mind) when watching anything one-sided, even if I agree with it.

 

[Leifer]

Mick, those studies are interesting, I'll read them.
The attempt to eat more organically, also has a side-effect of attempting to eliminate previous bad-eating habits and an improvement in a healthier life-style....like not smoking, reducing drinking, limiting excessive bad fats, and exercising more.
I don't think it's possible for most people to "eat all organic". I think it's more of a lifestyle change.

It's also about the effect pesticides has on the environment, not just the consumer.
"pesticides kill the good insects as well"
and
"pesticide overuse may create pesticide-resistance"
....may be a good topic for another thread....lol

 

[Mick West]

Oh yes, there are plenty of good reasons to eat organically. Sustainable and local agriculture being a couple. But the health and taste benefits of organic tomatoes vs. non-organic tomatoes don't materialize under scrutiny.

Single sided video:

​

 

[MikeC]

mick post #1 & post #6 appear to be identical & post #1 doesn't make a lot of sense as an opening post for a thread....???

 

[Mick West]

Hmm, Not sure what's going on there. I think Firepilot's post was the first post.

 

[Leifer]

A rounded view of packaged foods, eating "right", and the mass-meat culture...
​

 

[Jay Reynolds]

On the topic, the center of Arkansas is a large shale gas play, and the usgs has been testing water wells around the fraced wells, as of yesterday finding no contamination.
http://www.fox16.com/news/local/sto...nd-in-water-wells/t6kEJFvCJEqnZ210qgfM6A.cspx

 

[Leifer]

Interesting interviews concerning "Fracturing" and the natural gas boon (boom), excellently hosted by Warren Onley......
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp120106us_hydraulic_fractur
begins about 7 minutes in to the program...

Links (given by the program)
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/america-fiddles-while-china-surges/247883/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/30c4c46e-35e2-11e1-9f98-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1ii7ch48j
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11349/1196904-55-0.stmhttp://www.sustainablefuture.cornell.edu/news/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2011.pdfhttp://
http://www.jptonline.org/index.php?id=1405http://

My links...
http://www.jptonline.org/index.php?id=1405
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/tag/deep-water-injection-wells/
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2011/09/20/does-fracking-cause-earthquakes/

 

[Leifer]

Here is another review of the "Forks over Knives"....
http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/1569918890/movie-review-forks-over-knives

 

[Joe]

Debunking the movie Gasland . [h=1]Truthland: Dispatches from the Real Gasland - Full Movie [HD]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iTJaaeiuzSU#![/h]

 

[Leifer]

But the film was paid for, by gas companies.
I kinda sensed that, and was revealed at the end. I love to read the ending credits.
This is not to say what was presented is false or true....but that it contained much of the same bias as Gasland, in order to present their case..
It is another confusing example of biased filmatic representation.
The people who believe fracking is bad, lean toward Gasland.
The people who believe fracking is OK, lean toward this film.
Where does that leave us ??..., knowing that filmatic visions and versions influence our thinking......but not the real knowledge that we so desire ?
Does it leave us in a distrust of all films ?

 

[Joe]

Yea kinda posted it before watching the whole thing . Id say the same thing if i were going to profit off a gas well . Somewhere in the middle maybe the truth lies ?

 

[Charlie Primero]

But, was it from fracking? Even last month the EPA said there are no confirmed cases of Fracking affecting groundwater.

Later in December they said Fracking does indeed contaminate ground water.

“The presence of synthetic compounds such as glycol ethers … and the assortment of other organic components is explained as the result of direct mixing of hydraulic fracturing fluids with ground water in the Pavillion gas field,” the draft report states. “Alternative explanations were carefully considered.”

http://www.propublica.org/article/feds-link-water-contamination-to-fracking-for-first-time