*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, February 13th, 2011 10:30pm PST - promote requested by original submitter dystopianfuturetoday.

Gasland the movie

Regulations tend to favor people with expensive lobbies. Perhaps a better way to go about it is clearer definitions of properties rights more specifically, in this case, when it comes to drinking water. And access to a plain English, laymen system of court proceedings that a normal person could use and large companies couldn't use as leverage. Seems like a lot of the pollution problems could be bettered with a more defined system of property definitions. If people can extract money justice for polluters quickly, and for sizable sums, it would most likely be cheaper and faster than a regulatory body, imo.

^I don't see we why shouldn't have both proper regulation and a more level judicial playing field.

CSI did an episode on this subject called: "Fracked".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640843/

LOL Streissand effect

Also, that man's speaking is so labored. Why is that his job? HOW is that his job?

When I searched Google for Gasland...the first thing to come up was an ad linking to this.

http://anga.us/learn-the-facts/the-truth-about-gasland?gclid=CNK1g7SuiacCFQIBbAodOCqteQ

Not really surprising but I'd like to see a rebuttal from a knowledgeable third party if possible.

EDIT: Found a PDF which might help me and has some good info if you're inclined.

http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sept_2010.pdf

It's very funny to me that "anga" and "the others" really think it can just keep searching related terms to/for itself to hide everything and the tech savvy don't notice. It wouldn't surprise me if google kills that card sooner or later; very lame.

What a joke this is...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^I don't see we why shouldn't have both proper regulation and a more level judicial playing field.


^To a certain extent, I think flimsy regulations can lull public concern and investment for the issue. I know I don't routinely examine my MUD provided water, I just assume all is ok. When I had my own well, I had to keep tabs on it to make sure we didn't get radon bleeding in...which happens all the time in the mountains. When you regulate from the business side, the bucks are invested in a side of protection you don't examine, and can't examine. Consumers aren't expected to protect themselves, and therefore the tools for doing so are more costly and more cumbersome. It is just clunky. It would be like if cars didn't have speedometers and instead needed pace cars to set their speed relation too, it's just unnecessary. It would be better to equip people with the tools to protect themselves.

With that said, FRAKING seems like a really bad idea. Back in the day, we had tons of problems with natural gas migrations into our water wells. We had to dig a 800foot well just to find good water, which isn't cheap. You don't need to help that situation any, for sure. Though, it would seem to be a hard thing to prove that a specific action caused a gas contamination vs natural occurring one. I wonder if they are tracing the fluid contamination over the methane?

Edit: And I should note, now that we have a water softener, I pay more attention to my water content now that I have the tools too

They're just starting in Michigan now.

http://www.cleanwateraction.org/feature/rush-drill-threatens-michigan%E2%80%99s-water-and-quality-life

Unfortunately, the economic situation in many states is forcing mineral rights sales...fun times. I can't see how risking contamination of as much fresh water as is in question here can possibly be a good idea for anyone. Can you imagine the economic damage that comes with entire areas of the country having unsafe drinking water?

There needs to be some sort of standard punishment for causing long-term damage to any public system, whether it's economic or environmental. The fact that the gas companies can do this or banks can do similar things economically and get away with executive bonuses and such is simply intolerable. In the case of fracking, even if some case were somehow brought against Halliburton can you even put a true dollar amount on the damages you'd be responsible for as a corporation when you're talking about an entire aquifer or watershed?

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Also, that man's speaking is so labored. Why is that his job? HOW is that his job?


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has a condition called Spasmodic Dysphonia. I listened to an interview a few years ago he had with Diane Rhym on NPR who somewhat famously has it as well. They treat it with direct injections of botox which works for a while, so it varies. He didn't apparently know he had the condition until someone suggested it into his late 30s. It turns out sounding like you're constantly on the verge of tears helps one sound passionate in their various causes.
Why does he have this job? He's a Kennedy and wants it?

mglittle, you officially made me smile for humanity.

>> ^mgittle:

I can't see how risking contamination of as much fresh water as is in question here can possibly be a good idea for anyone. Can you imagine the economic damage that comes with entire areas of the country having unsafe drinking water?

Doesn't sound like he is on the phone.

Looks like the oil and gas companies won. This video doesn't play anymore on this site or youtube. Sux.