Fracking in Sheffield?

[I1L2T3]

161 deaths so far from wind turbines.

How many from Fracking?

 

161 deaths in the UK from wind farms?

 

I call bull poo on that

 

I'm not claiming fracking has killed anybody but I'm sure it has in some way. You can't have tens of thousands of well heads in the USA for example and have no accidents.

[unbeliever]

Actually it does say that despite your fervent wish that it didn't.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2015 at 16:24 ----------

 

 

So one minute you will only accept peer reviewed evidence, but then when it counters your stance you still disagree with it. So the only evidence you will accept is evidence that supports your stance no matter what the source is.

 

The report I posted is just a counting of wind farm accidents from news reports. Obviously you didn't read it. It's not UK, it's world-wide.

It could be out, but if it is, it'll be an underestimate as some accidents won't make it into the press. I never said it was peer reviewed, there's nothing to review.

 

When somebody is cut in half by a chunk of wind turbine blade, there's not really any debate to be had about whether this is a wind turbine fatality or not.

 

On the other hand, if there's some toxin or another in some water supply, somebody has to do some science to figure out if it's the result of fracking or not. They have to do modelling to determine how the fracking chemicals might have made it from the source to the destination. There would probably need to be a chemical analysis of the water, showing a match between the fracking chemicals and the contaminants. In other words there's a lot of science involved and science has to stand up to scrutiny and be repeatable.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2015 at 17:53 ----------

 

161 deaths in the UK from wind farms?

 

I call bull poo on that

 

I'm not claiming fracking has killed anybody but I'm sure it has in some way. You can't have tens of thousands of well heads in the USA for example and have no accidents.

 

All my source has done is collate news reports from throughout the world on wind turbine accidents.

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

Are you suggesting that there's a world wide media conspiracy to fabricate evidence of wind farm injuries and deaths?

 

I suspect that you've looked for evidence of Fracking injuries and fatalities and not found any. Am I right?

Edited August 22, 2015 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

Hi

The report I posted is just a counting of wind farm accidents from news reports. Obviously you didn't read it. It's not UK, it's world-wide.

It could be out, but if it is, it'll be an underestimate as some accidents won't make it into the press. I never said it was peer reviewed, there's nothing to review.

 

When somebody is cut in half by a chunk of wind turbine blade, there's not really any debate to be had about whether this is a wind turbine fatality or not.

 

On the other hand, if there's some toxin or another in some water supply, somebody has to do some science to figure out if it's the result of fracking or not. They have to do modelling to determine how the fracking chemicals might have made it from the source to the destination. There would probably need to be a chemical analysis of the water, showing a match between the fracking chemicals and the contaminants. In other words there's a lot of science involved and science has to stand up to scrutiny and be repeatable.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2015 at 17:53 ----------

 

 

All my source has done is collate news reports from throughout the world on wind turbine accidents.

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

Are you suggesting that there's a world wide media conspiracy to fabricate evidence of wind farm injuries and deaths?

 

I suspect that you've looked for evidence of Fracking injuries and fatalities and not found any. Am I right?

 

You could have posted the link first time.

 

So some of the accidents were for stuff like workers having an accident while travelling to work? Like in Brazil 15 years ago and stuff like that?

 

I'm not suggesting anything about fabrications. I'm not looking for info on fracking injuries. I was actually discussing water security and management.

 

What you need to do now is finish your argument and come back with data for the fracking industry, across the world, since the 1970s.

 

Finish the argument then we can compare properly or I call strawman.

[unbeliever]

You could have posted the link first time.

 

So some of the accidents were for stuff like workers having an accident while travelling to work? Like in Brazil 15 years ago and stuff like that?

 

I'm not suggesting anything about fabrications.

 

What you need to do now is finish your argument and come back with data for the fracking industry, across the world, since the 1970s.

 

Finish the argument then we can compare properly

 

I did post the link. It seems you're not even reading the posts on this thread.

 

Why is it my job to look up fracking accidents?

[megalithic]

No worries at all, but then I've taken the trouble to do my research away from newspapers and bulletin boards.

 

You assume wrongly. I haven't picked up a newspaper in well over a decade.

[I1L2T3]

I did post the link. It seems you're not even reading the posts on this thread.

 

Why is it my job to look up fracking accidents?

 

No, I want all data that covers injuries for fracking workers travelling to work, data for all on-site injuries, data for all injuries in support industries data, data for transport/vehicle incidents, public health data etc...For all the relevant categories covered in the wind farm document plus all the categories specific to the fracking industry that might not be covered in the document

 

Otherwise how can I be expected to make a judgement and compare?

 

It was you who raised the issue of fatalities so now you must complete your argument.

 

I'll be waiting

[unbeliever]

No, I want all data that covers injuries for fracking workers travelling to work, data for all on-site injuries, data for all injuries in support industries data for all relating transport/vehicle incidents, public health data etc...For all the relevant categories covered in the wind farm document plus all the categories specific to the fracking industry that might not be covered in the document

 

Otherwise how can I be expected to make a judgement and compare?

 

It was you who raised the issue of fatalities so now you must complete your argument.

 

I'll be waiting

 

You knock yourself out.

You obviously also have access to the internet.

I've done my share.

 

The entire anti-fracking case is based on the argument that fracking is not completely safe therefore it shouldn't be allowed.

All I'm saying is that wind turbines are not completely safe, especially if you're sitting on a bus in Brazil.

Safety is a combination of intrinsic safety and additional safety created by strong regulation. If you were making a case for strong regulation to ensure that the risk from fracking was reasonable, I would understand, but you're not. You're saying it's not completely safe so we shouldn't do it. Nothing meets that standard, especially not renewables, so your case is nonsense.

Edited August 22, 2015 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

You knock yourself out.

You obviously also have access to the internet.

I've done my share.

 

Why? I was discussing water security and water management.

 

Then you tried to change the subject to wind farm fatalities.

 

If you believe that fracking fatalities across the globe since the 1970s are less than for the wind farm industry then you must have a similar study for fracking to prove your argument?

 

I am calling strawman because I made no references to fatalities before your intervention.

 

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent" wiki

[unbeliever]

Why? I was discussing water security and water management.

 

Then you tried to change the subject to wind farm fatalities.

 

If you believe that fracking fatalities across the globe since the 1970s are less than for the wind farm industry then you must have a similar study for fracking to prove your argument?

 

I am calling strawman because I made no references to fatalities before your intervention.

 

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent" wiki

 

You were discussing danger to the general public from one source of energy. Obviously the danger of death is the most serious of dangers. The document I linked to also covers injuries, so it's not specifically about deaths.

All I've done is pointed out that even supposedly green sources of energy pose a danger to the public.

If you're not interested in this line of discussion, then feel free to stop replying.

If you think discussing fatalities in the context of a conversation on dangers is a straw man argument, then I suspect that you've not been taking your medication.

[adrea]

The report I posted is just a counting of wind farm accidents from news reports. Obviously you didn't read it. It's not UK, it's world-wide.

It could be out, but if it is, it'll be an underestimate as some accidents won't make it into the press. I never said it was peer reviewed, there's nothing to review.

 

When somebody is cut in half by a chunk of wind turbine blade, there's not really any debate to be had about whether this is a wind turbine fatality or not.

 

On the other hand, if there's some toxin or another in some water supply, somebody has to do some science to figure out if it's the result of fracking or not. They have to do modelling to determine how the fracking chemicals might have made it from the source to the destination. There would probably need to be a chemical analysis of the water, showing a match between the fracking chemicals and the contaminants. In other words there's a lot of science involved and science has to stand up to scrutiny and be repeatable.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2015 at 17:53 ----------

 

 

All my source has done is collate news reports from throughout the world on wind turbine accidents.

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

Are you suggesting that there's a world wide media conspiracy to fabricate evidence of wind farm injuries and deaths?

 

I suspect that you've looked for evidence of Fracking injuries and fatalities and not found any. Am I right?

 

I didn't claim the figure you posted was wrong, or respond to that part of your post.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2015 at 19:27 ----------

 

You knock yourself out.

You obviously also have access to the internet.

I've done my share.

 

The entire anti-fracking case is based on the argument that fracking is not completely safe therefore it shouldn't be allowed.

All I'm saying is that wind turbines are not completely safe, especially if you're sitting on a bus in Brazil.

Safety is a combination of intrinsic safety and additional safety created by strong regulation. If you were making a case for strong regulation to ensure that the risk from fracking was reasonable, I would understand, but you're not. You're saying it's not completely safe so we shouldn't do it. Nothing meets that standard, especially not renewables, so your case is nonsense.

 

Contaminated water can kill or cause disease in millions of people, to compare it to someone being hit by a lump of flying wind turbine is crazy.