View Single Post
  #79   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
[email protected] emdeplume@hush.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,021
Default You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:53:36 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:37:57 -0800,
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:29:05 -0500,
wrote:



Why not invest in something we can grow instead of ripping apart the
earth's crust while spoiling the water table with toxins and dangerous
gases?

Because we are going to run out of water long before we run out of
oil.

So, we should make the problem worse by using fracking?

Did you just learn a new word?


? Are you trying to insult me? If so, try again.


No, it was just your one word answer to two posts in a row.
No offence intended


Ok. In any case, I pointed out that that technique isn't
pollution/risk free. In fact, it's pretty bad.


I agree there have been some problem in a few places with this but the
majority of the fracking does not hurt anyone.


Some problems? Lots of problems... igniting water from someone's tap
is pretty serious. Don't know about the majority. You mean more than
50%?


There have been a few problems, widely reported by the media but the
process has been harmless most of the times it is used.
What was that you said about the health care bill 'Fix the problems"


More than "a few problems." I'm happy to entertain the notion of
fixing the problems with fracking. Perhaps they can start by
disclosing the chemical mix they use.

Do you know of anything that doesn't affect someone?


Sure. If my cat pees on a bush and I don't know about it, I suspect
nobody is affected. Is that an equivalency attempt you're trying to
make?


I am trying to say "energy" is never going to be free of costs or even
dangers.


I agree. How about nuclear? France seems to be doing it safely. Oh
wait, the French can't be trusted... lol