Why Anti-Fracking Environmentalists Are Holding Back the U.S.

The real story on fracking, say scientists, is that the risks are small and the rewards immense.

Celebrities are now upset about fracking, the injection of chemicals into the ground to crack rocks to release oil and gas. With everyone saying they want alternatives to foreign oil, I'd think celebrities would love fracking.

I'd be wrong. Lady Gaga, Yoko Ono and their group, Artists Against Fracking, don't feel the love. Yoko sang, "Don't frack me!" on TV.

Stopping fracking is the latest cause of the silly people. They succeeded in getting scientifically ignorant politicians to ban fracking in New York, Maryland and Vermont.

Hollywood gave an Oscar to "Gasland," a documentary that suggests fracking will shove gas into some people's drinking water, so the water will burn. It's true that some water contains so much natural gas that you can light it.

But another documentary, "FrackNation," shows that gas got into plumbing long before fracking came. There's gas in the earth. That's why it's called "natural gas." Some gets into well water. Environmental officials investigated the flames shown in "Gasland" and concluded that the pollution had nothing to do with fracking.

"FrackNation" director Phelim McAleer tried to confront "Gasland" director Josh Fox about this, but Fox wouldn't answer his questions. Instead, he demanded to know whom McAleer works for. He also turned down my invitations to publicly debate fracking. Many activists don't like to answer questions that don't fit their narrative.

Even some homeowners who filed a lawsuit claiming that their water was poisoned by fracking weren't happy to learn that their water is safe. I'd think they would be delighted, but "FrackNation" shows a couple reacting with outrage when environmental officials test their water and find it clean.

The real story on fracking, say scientists, is that the risks are small and the rewards immense. Fracking lowered the price of natural gas so much that Americans heat our homes for less, and manufacturing that once left America has returned. For those concerned about global warming, burning gas instead of oil or coal reduces CO2 emissions.

"Skeptical Environmentalist" author Bjorn Lomborg points out that "green" Europe promised to reduce emissions, but "only managed to cut half of what you guys accidentally happened to do when you stumbled on fracking."

Still, the process sounds dangerous. It requires chemicals and explosions. So fracking is now scapegoated for the usual litany of things that peasants feared when threatened with curses centuries ago: livestock dying, bad crop yields, children born with deformities.

None of it is backed by scientific evidence. Even environmentalists who usually are too cautious (by my standards) see little danger. President Obama's first EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, told Congress that the EPA cannot show "that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater."

One of the more outlandish fears is that fracking will cause earthquakes. Silly people at MSNBC say fracking creates "a skyrocketing number of earthquakes." Yes, cracking rocks does cause vibrations. But then, so does construction with dynamite or jackhammers -- not to mention trucks on the highway.

Time and again, as humans make a good-faith effort to find new, cleaner ways to produce the energy a growing population needs, environmentalists find a reason -- often very small or non-existent -- that makes the new method unacceptable.

They say coal is dirty and normal oil production might overheat the planet. Hydroelectric dams kill fish. Nuclear plants could suffer meltdowns. Windmills kill birds.

Some won't be happy unless we go back to what we did before industrialization: burn lots of trees and die young.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm glad that picture doesn't show what's going on below the dude's waist.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Talk about gettin' wood.

  • Capt Ace Rimmer||

    I get a fracking woody thinking about all the money my grandfather is making after leasing his land to an oil company.

  • trshmnstr||

    The first line of your comment made me think that money-bot got an upgrade and was speaking coherent english.

  • Juice||

  • Juice||

    Dammit, that link got shafted.

    http://www.big1059.com/cc-comm.....e=11059430

    "That tree is my best friend."

  • Sevo||

    "With everyone saying they want alternatives to foreign oil,"...
    Like Norma and that supposed paycheck, they're lying through their teeth. They want NO oil.

  • mtrueman||

    This is a good point.

    Why is fracking being promoted, in a libertarian blog no less, as an alternative to foreign oil?

    Jingoistic appeals to American oil have no place in the free market, yet here we have it in the very first paragraph, before any reassurances of safety or economic expediency.

  • Sevo||

    I don't think the article is promoting that view, simply pointing out that the view is common.

  • mtrueman||

    "the view is common"

    It actually says it's everyone's view. I assure you this is not true.

  • Zeb||

    Because every time someone uses the word "everyone" they literally mean every single person in the world without a single exception. That seems much more likely than they used "everyone" euphamistically to mean lots of people.

  • Sevo||

    "It actually says it's everyone's view. I assure you this is not true."

    OK, but it STILL is NOT promoting the view.

  • mtrueman||

    ¨it STILL is NOT promoting the view¨

    Agreed. You've convinced me.

    And after all, why promote something that everyone believes to be true?

  • Brandon||

    Because jingoism exists, and can have an effect even on a free market.

  • albo||

    Gas companies paid $1.2 billion in royalties to landowners in Pennsylvania last year.

    Much of it was paid to people in the state's rural and economically weak northern tier. Meanwhile, NYers right across the border, who have the same problem economy, get squat because NY is owned by treehugging progress haters.

  • John||

    But the real story on fracking, say scientists, is that the risks are small and the rewards immense.

    And there you have your explanation why environmentalists hate it. They don't want to clean up the environment. They want us to pay for our sins.

  • mtrueman||

    "But the real story on fracking, say scientists, is that the risks are small and the rewards immense."

    That's the real story? I'm not sure that scientists can offer anything much to back this kind of claim. Don't let yourself get swept away by the hype.

  • John||

    The people investing billions in this and the huge increases in gas production seem to support the hype.

  • mtrueman||

    Just be careful before you join the herd.

  • John||

    Really? Why? If it is not worth doing, people won't do it.

  • mtrueman||

    ¨Why?¨

    Because the line you quote is a huckster´s line. Even from the mouth of a scientist.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman| 3.13.13 @ 1:47PM |#
    "Just be careful before you join the herd."
    How about some facts rather than a wink and a nod?

  • GILMORE||

    being an ignorant contrarian is far more fashionable

  • mtrueman||

    If you are looking to me for facts, I have to confess I will only disappoint you. I have neither the expertise, the inclination, nor the time to satisfy you with facts. Something of value I can offer you is my assessment of this article. The author is scamming you, or if not then parroting others who are scamming you.

    Right off the bat, second sentence, the author tells us that everyone wants an alternative to foreign oil. A shallow appeal to patriotism and moreover false.

    An attack on those who oppose fracking by singling out a performance by Yoko Ono and some Hollywood folk. Shallow and lazy celebrity gossip in lieu of argument.

    The quote about tiny risks and huge rewards comes right out of the bridge venders handbook. It's attributed to 'scientists' but the only person I see quoted here directly, other than Yoko Ono, is Lomborg, an author who is no expert on fracking. Perhaps more than Ono, perhaps not.

    This is the spiel of a huckster, that's a fact.

  • Drake||

    "Fracking lowered the price of natural gas so much that Americans heat our homes for less, and manufacturing that once left America has returned..."

    There's your problem. The last thing Environmentalists want is lower fuel prices, people heating their homes, or manufacturing.

  • tarran||

    The reaction to fracking is very simmilar to outrage toward the invention of the pill.

    Some people like austerity. They view it as a virtue. And they hate it when people reject it in favor of libertinism. They hector the libertines about the negative real-word consequences of non-austere behavior and prosletyze them by arguing that behaving more austerely would avoid these negative consequences. And often they hide their love of austerity by pretending to be solely motivated by their dislike of the negative consequence.

    Then along comes some game changing invention that eliminates the negative consequence. And the austere folks show their true colors by failing to rejoice at the end of the negative consequence they campaigned against.

    The anti-sex leaguers claimed to be motivated by a desire to eliminate the social ills of VD and unwanted pregnancies. The pill took care of the latter, and anti-biotics for a time took care of the former. And the anti-sex leaguers bemoaned both.

    Similarly, the people who have a religious love of energy poverty claimed to be motivated by a fear of climate change and promoted expensive NG as the holy fuel that would placate Gaia wrath. But when a method that allowed humanity to benefit from cheap abundant NG came out, allowing the cult to have it's holy fuel with no energy poverty, they revolted. Because to them it's all about promoting the austerity of energy poverty.

  • John||

    The anti-sex leaguers claimed to be motivated by a desire to eliminate the social ills of VD and unwanted pregnancies. The pill took care of the latter,

    The explosion in the number of illegitimate children since the invention of the pill would argue otherwise. There seem to have been some second order effects of the sexual revolution.

  • tarran||

    Please don't conflate illegitimate children with unwanted pregnancies.

    The intersection of those two sets is much smaller than it once was.

  • John||

    In 1962, illegitimate and unwanted meant the same thing. The pill was supposed to end both. Somehow it didn't work out that way.

  • tarran||

    The question, John is whether they mean the same thing now...

    An illegitimate child is one that was born to unmarried people. As you are fond of pointing out for many people marriage is financially a horrible proposition. That doesn't mean that the children in their family are unwanted.

  • John||

    The question, John is whether they mean the same thing now..

    No it is not. We are not talking about now. The analogy is to the debate over the pill in 1962. We are talking about the debate then,not now.

    Regardless, the pill did not end or really even reduce unwanted pregnancies. We know that because there are still something like a million abortions every year. It seems like it should have ended unwanted pregnancies. But there were apparently second order effects that prevented what seemed to be intuitively obvious from actually being true.

  • Zeb||

    I guess my response is, so what? The pill does reduce unwanted pregnancies among people who use it properly. Which is what it is supposed to do.

  • John||

    You can say that Zeb. But the people who argued for the Pill claimed otherwise and time has proven them to be wrong.

    The lesson is that if you want something to be legal because of freedom, then make that argument and avoid blowing smoke up people's asses pretending that you actually know how a particular piece of new technology will effect things.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Yes, it did. Have you ever heard of Generation X? the Baby Bust?

    And, while there were still unwanted pregnancies, there was also the pill, which made previously 'unwanted pregnancies' into nothing at all--they weren't though of, worried over or counted. They simply didn't happen.

  • Zeb||

    Changing attitudes about the whole idea of "legitimacy" and of marriage have as much to do with that as anything. I bet the number of shotgun weddings dropped a lot in the same time period.

  • sarcasmic||

    Even some homeowners who filed a lawsuit claiming that their water was poisoned by fracking weren't happy to learn that their water is safe. I'd think they would be delighted, but "FrackNation" shows a couple reacting with outrage when environmental officials test their water and find it clean.

    Of course they're pissed off. They though they'd won the lottery. Now they have to go back to working or collecting welfare.

  • albo||

    No to mention that Pennsylvanians have been lighting gas from their faucets ever since the first water well was dug.

  • albo||

    Every gas well that is fracked is another nail in the heart of the government-subsidized shiny green energy future that environmentalists want to happen now.

    That's why they're so opposed--it's personal. They have the president they want. They have taxpayer funds to spend. Now comes cheap gas, harshing their mellow, barging into their house, changing the channel to Fox News and asking if they have any beef jerky and Funyuns.

  • Sevo||

    "barging into their house, changing the channel to Fox News and asking if they have any beef jerky and Funyuns."

    I'm stealing that.

  • CatoTheElder||

    When natural gas prices were on the way up from $2/MMBtu to $10/MMBtu, the environmentalists were hugely in favor of gas. Projecting ever higher prices, they were happy tout the environmental advantages of natural gas. They were confident that high prices would curtail demand. Of course, they did not anticipate that technology development would vastly expand supply and cause prices to fall.

    The enviros are for any energy source that does not work. Once it shows prospect of actually working, they turn against it.

  • Sevo||

    "Of course, they did not anticipate that technology development would vastly expand supply and cause prices to fall."

    Malthus all over again, and they never learn. Never!

  • GILMORE||

    "With everyone saying they want alternatives to foreign oil,"...

    what a heaping crock of shit

    nat gas isnt really a significant "alternative" to oil. oil is mainly used in transportation and manufacturing, with some home heating. natural gas is mainly used to generate electricity and heat homes. whatever nat gas usage expansion occurs, the car isnt going away. we will always need oil. the envirotard story of 'reducing need for oil' has never even made sense from the start (solar, hydro, wind? SO WHAT? they dont power cars) What irks me is that people even accept that idea on the face of it without laughing at them and going, "do you even understand energy use at all??" its insulting that this argument is even repeated in the press as though it has even the slightest conceptual legitimacy.

  • SKR||

    weird, I could have sworn there are NG vehicles on the road.

  • CatoTheElder||

    That, and it is used in manufacturing.

  • CatoTheElder||

    But liquid hydrocarbons are in fact better transportation fuels.

  • MOFO.||

    You can concatenate NG to gasoline.

  • Zeb||

    They are certainly easier to handle, and I think they have higher energy density, but if the prices keep on as they have been recently, NG looks pretty good as a transportation fuel.

  • Sevo||

    Zeb| 3.13.13 @ 2:39PM |#
    "They are certainly easier to handle, and I think they have higher energy density, but if the prices keep on as they have been recently, NG looks pretty good as a transportation fuel."

    I'm guessing plane, ol' gasoline will be the choice for anything out of the city, with NG, LNG or plug-ins for city transport and delivery.
    And that split usage would keep a lid on gas prices.

  • GILMORE||

    weird, I could have sworn there are NG vehicles on the road.

    yeah

    120,000

    out of 246 million
    http://www.ngvc.org/about_ngv /index.html

    so did you have a point or are you being willfully obtuse?

  • hotsy totsy||

    nat gas isnt really a significant "alternative" to oil. oil is mainly used in transportation and manufacturing, with some home heating

    Actually a significant portion is used in making plastics, such as neoprene. Rubber tires aren't really rubber, you know.

  • hotsy totsy||

    I'm referring to oil, not natural gas.

  • GILMORE||

    aka "manufacturing" ... i meant materials, chemicals, fertilizers. rubbers...

    WTF i make a simple point and the pedantic police attack

  • phandaal||

    Mad Money had Dick Heckmann, the CEO of Heckmann Corporation on last night. Heckmann Corp is a company that deals with fracking water, basically.

    Heckmann basically said that fracking is a windfall in the 26 states in which it currently takes place. He said this means 52 Senators and hundreds of Congressmen on the hook for making sure they don't screw up that windfall. Not a "small government" answer, but it does lend credence to the idea that fracking isn't going away any time soon.

  • InlineSkate||

    Environmentalists simply want to legislate humanity back to the pre-colonial era.

    They won't be happy until we're living the Pandora way of life.

  • rts||

    Fracking is old and busted. Bring on the methane hydrate!

  • John||

    What is great about that is that the methane hydrate melting and creating a positive feedback loop is one of the great AGW scare stories. So melting it ourselves and burning it away would reduce what the greens claim is a tremendous risk.

  • mrvco||

    All I ask for is 100% transparency when it comes to disclosing the chemicals being pumped into the ground. I know everyone with a vested financial interest in fracking operations claim that the risks are somewhere between low and non-existant, but we've heard that countless times in any number of instances where things haven't worked out so well over the years. If there are alleged issues, I'd rather be able to head off the speculation and fear-mongering and get down to facts sooner than later.

    I don't buy the "Intellectual Property" BS. If one company really has developed a better cocktail that results in more effective fracking results, then they should work out a business arrangement where they can all use the more effective cocktail. We should be maximizing the extraction the first time since it isn't going to make sense for Company B to re-frack what Company A has already fracked to extract that additional gas, whether be .01%, 1% or even 10%.

  • GILMORE||

    i love people who claim they think "there's not enough information" when it is entirely a factor of their being far too lazy to ever fucking read

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracturing_fluid

    mostly water bro. and guar gum. and some other "scary" shit in such low concentrations that you injest regularly with no efffect

    in short, you seem to be addicted to reductio ad ignorantum

    we've heard that countless times in any number of instances where things haven't worked out so well over the year

    name ...two?

  • GILMORE||

    i also think its funny how agitated people are about injecting "mostly water + some chemicals" in the ground...when said ground is already chock-full o' fucking *flammable gas* that can power turbines.

  • Loki||

    So fracking is now scapegoated for the usual litany of things that peasants feared when threatened with curses centuries ago: livestock dying, bad crop yields, children born with deformities.

    That could have something to do with that fact that environmentalism is a scientifically illiterate cult.

  • Em||

    Gasland was actually only nominated for an Academy Award, didn't win.

  • Daz||

    This article does not go into any detail regarding the safety or facts regarding fracking? It does not show any scientific information discrediting peoples claims? Its a finger pointer that just stands for improving jobs and gas pricing. This is where I differ from most of the reason crowd, yes jobs and profits are great but so is quality of the environment and life. I want to see some proof that we are not just causing more damage for short term gains and cheaper resources. I would love to see an article from Reason about why oil corporations and the US government are holding the world back from finding a universal free energy source.

  • sarcasmic||

    It does not show any scientific information discrediting peoples claims?

    Which claims? The ones about the water that caught fire before fracking? The guy who went into a rage when the EPA scientists said his water was fine?

    Or do you mean the vague claims that fracking must be bad because it must, prove that it's not?

    That's a logical fallacy.

    The burden of proof is on those who say fracking is causing harm. "Prove it's not causing harm" is a fallacious argument.
    How can frackers prove that they're not doing harm? They can't. How does one come up with evidence that no harm is being done? No harm is a lack of evidence that harm is being done. It's not possible to prove to anti-industry zealots will never be satisfied.

    The burden of proof is on those who want to show that fracking causes harm. It's up to them to come up with evidence of harm, not the frackers to come up with no evidence.

    Logic 101.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....._ignorance

  • Daz||

    Thanks for your reply. Yep that's exactly what I expected to hear. Your faith and trust in the oil companies assessment of frackings safety and damage to the environment is spot on. I would not bother proving anything with you lot. You will buy what is sold and whine on about regulation while your world turns to concrete, smog, and pigeons. Forget the free energy portion of what I said as well it is above your ability to comprehend. If it can't be bought or sold you would not have a clue what to do with it.

  • GILMORE||

    Yep that's exactly what I expected to hear. Your faith and trust in the oil companies assessment of frackings safety and damage to the environment is spot on. I would not bother proving anything with you lot.

    reductio ad ignorantum writ large. you dont believe in any data.

    You will buy what is sold and whine on about regulation while your world turns to concrete, smog, and pigeons. Forget the free energy portion of what I said as well it is above your ability to comprehend.

    dipshit doesnt realize the world is far 'greener' now than ever without any govt meddling.

    Forget the free energy portion of what I said as well it is above your ability to comprehend.

    redux.

    you see no reason to actually use facts to make arguments. we get it now. please dont be surprised when people treat you like the asshat you are.

  • ||

    When you say, "universal free energy source" is that an energy source that has liberated itself from our universe, an energy source (that presumably consumes some resource) that is provided to everyone free of charge, or both?

    If the second and not the third, please provide a universal explanation or other explanation that satisfies the question "whuhhaaa...?"

  • Sevo||

    I'd sure like some of that "universal free energy", and if it's "free", how can it be held back?
    I think DAZ is offering $74/hour on a computer, too.

  • GILMORE||

    he wants The Matrix ASAP

  • SiliconDoc||

    Tinfoil hatter...

    Free energy source, yeah right.

    Since all those barely larger than a breadbox free energy devices are made with magnets and wires, how exactly do the oil companies and the fed gov hold everyone back from them ?

    Plans and videos are all over youtube, and they all do the same thing - expose themselves as scammers, whine about a big oil conspiracy, try to sell you plans for ytour own free energy magnetic wire generator, and talk crap about zero point and quanta energy flux...

    One might believe them if 75 year old electric tech wasn't the backbone of all the claimed free energy generators the government and big oil and the dark DOD black ops programs "have snatched up" the "patents for" while they "disappeared" the "inventors".

    Sorry Charlie.

  • ||

    Some won't be happy unless we go back to what we did before industrialization: burn lots of trees and die young.

    Burning trees releases C02. What would the carbon footprint be to heat, say, all of NY with wood burning furnaces this year?

    Something tells me that environmentalists won't be happy until you find an alternative to combustion.

  • SiliconDoc||

    If they destroy big oil, their greedy lying politician leftist lose a gigantic 75 cents a gallon tax base, while greedy big oil loses only the 9 cents a gallon they get.

    Think about it - currently the lefty green libtards and their soapboc liars pol crew are screwing everyone out of nearly ten times the money they claim "big oil" steals in " excessive profits".

    They got on TV news soapbox for YEARS STRAIGHT and still do it and NO ONE and I mean no one calls them on it.

    Since reality is so far off in some distant sealed dark theatre black hole when the activists squeal nationwide 24/7/365, don't ever expect anything to change.

    From the very beginning the lying hypocrite activists are a joke, and they and their sick pols are certain to never comprehend that.

  • Sevo||

    "while your world turns to concrete, smog, and pigeons."

    Oh, self-righteous twit, please lead us to the natural utopia you visualize!
    Or, more realistically, stuff it up your ass, nitwit.

  • sydneyrechard||

    til I looked at the receipt which had said $9939, I did not believe that...my... father in law actualie receiving money in there spare time at their computer.. there mums best friend haz done this for under twenty one months and resantly repayed the loans on there mini mansion and purchased a top of the range Mitsubishi Evo. we looked here,
    http://jump30.com

  • Flat Fifth||

    "They say coal is dirty and normal oil production might overheat the planet. Hydroelectric dams kill fish. Nuclear plants could suffer meltdowns. Windmills kill birds.

    Some won't be happy unless we go back to what we did before industrialization: burn lots of trees and die young."

    No, they'd grouse about that as well because you're cutting down trees (for shame!) and then polluting the air with smoke (double shame!). Much better for humanity to die off at the next cold snap.

  • IceTrey||

    Nuclear fueled molten salt reactors would never melt down. If something goes wrong the fuel actually freezes.

  • SiliconDoc||

    The older libtards had their proudest moments in the 70's when they marched against nuclear power, bragging they stopped it dead in it's tracks.

    Secretly now, they worship the twie foreigner lying usurper as he secretly dismantles USA nukes ( the news keeps it real quiet).

    So it does not matter if you come up with a free energy nuke power plant from a household fire alarm - the libtards are lifers dead set against no matter what.

    In France where they are just subjects 90%+ nuke power just happens, and all the lefttards want to be frenchies deep down inside, and they say so, because of course nuclear power there -- uhh --- well libtards are retarded is the answer, as usual.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep that's exactly what I expected to hear.

    So your fallacious arguments must get shut down on a regular basis.

    It just goes to show that you can lead an idiot to knowledge, but you can't make him learn.

  • sarcasmic||

    Forget the free energy portion of what I said as well it is above your ability to comprehend.

    TANSTAAFL

  • SiliconDoc||

    Don't say "TESLA SUCKS" to that one, it would be cruel and unusual punishment.

    BTW Tesla was castrated, yeah, had a very high pitch whiny and irritating voice, and was Thomas Edison's little worker bee, under the Great Edison.

    Something the free energy wackos also should not be tortured with knowing, lest they explode and we have tinfoil confetti everywhere.

  • SiliconDoc||

    The frakkin reply didn't work right so....

    mtrueman said: "
    This is a good point.
    Why is fracking being promoted, in a libertarian blog no less, as an alternative to foreign oil?
    Jingoistic appeals to American oil have no place in the free market, yet here we have it in the very first paragraph, before any reassurances of safety or economic expediency. "

    Actually we don't have it in the entire article. What you said is not true mtrueman who is untrue...

    The article points out the silly banning jerks and hollywierd idiots of the same note and the lies and the stupid politicians, and the lying little peasants and their lawyers and failures.

    Once again all I see is blind idiot rage and the legislation that goes with it, twisted into a new world order form of Minortiy Report - their never ending power grab to stifle everything and everyone they hate. They hate big oil, they hate big gas, they hate big corp, they hate them all.
    Same thing here - it's all about being an activist jerk with power and prissy angelic wings of grace and honor and a savior glow about the halo to be displayed, usually after turning red with rage and hatred based upon lies and ignorance that only Beelzebub could be ashamed of.
    I don't see a jingoistic oil stance in the article, in fact it is not there, so are you one of the convinced by your own mental prowess instead of the actual text ?

  • ||

    Piper. I just agree... Victoria`s c0mment is flabbergasting, last week I bought a brand new audi after bringing in $5888 this-past/4 weeks and a little over $10k last-month. without a question it is the easiest-job Ive ever done. I started this 9-months ago and almost straight away started bringin home at least $73 p/h. I use this website, http://www.fly38.com

  • Floyd64||

    uptil I saw the draft of $9973, I did not believe ...that...my father in law could trully receiving money part time at their computer.. there aunts neighbour has done this 4 only about eleven months and at present paid for the mortgage on there place and got a gorgeous Chrysler. we looked here, http://www.wow92.com

  • Stephdumas||

    Sorry for my late post. I spotted that article with a video on Breitbart who mentionned then some farmers was barred from questionning Josh Fox and Yoko Ono. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-H.....restricted http://youtu.be/bVgVw2VtTxE

  • garym4444@gmail.com||

    On the Fracking article. Only see a falsehood in your version of progress. Happen to have an MPH. Noticed there is an illusion of progress more than progress. We used to take lead out of the ground, put it in paint and smear it on the the walls in buildings. Similarly with asbestos. Took that out of the ground and smeared that on any hot pipe. That would have been considered progress. There are hundreds of example. My thing now is that incandesant light bulbs are outlawed and all you will be able to purchase is lights filled with mercury and/or lead. Trade off might be a better term. My doc likes risk - benefit. Turns out the more we know the higher the risks turn out to be. (also have a lecture on bad science).

  • garym4444@gmail.com||

    As mentioned, just want to make a small comment on science and the law. With a single mice experiment, cyclamates were outlawed in this country as a carcinogen. The Canadians had the same experiment and did not get the same results so their diet sodas have cyclamates and not saccharin which left their mice with tumors. The opposite happened here so we then allowed saccharin in all the diet beverages. FDA risks assessments still use low numbers of subjects for a short time (vs. generational studies).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement