Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (896372)	10/25/2015 5:16:35 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573927

It needs to be cleaned out and purged of the corrupt extremists that fill it's ranks now. Stalin would be proud.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (896372)	10/25/2015 5:20:02 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573927

Sand Causes Cancer, Say British Fracktivists. Green activists have found a new way to villainize hydraulic fracturing in Britain: claiming that sand, one essential component of the sluice pumped at high pressure into horizontal wells to “frack” shale, will give people cancer. . . . By this logic, greens ought to be calling for the quarantining of beaches—to hear these activists tell it, the sand you’d be tanning on there would be as big a cancer risk as the UV rays you might be soaking up. This kind of campaigning isn’t unique to this specific green group, either. It’s part of a pattern of behavior employed by the modern environmental movement, in which sober analysis of important policy decisions is overrun by overwrought and often emotional rhetoric—baseless fear-mongering. For a group that prides itself on being joined at the hip to science, greens show a remarkable tendency to ditch the facts when it’s convenient to serve their point, and this latest sand-causes-cancer campaign is a great example of that. Once you realize that it’s about protection money and lefty agitprop, it makes more sense. instapundit Can I bait anymore dopes into taking up the sand causes cancer banner?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (896372)	10/25/2015 5:49:16 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573927

" maybe they're not as bad as the EPA. Which is horrible" Like I said; faux concern. Why is silica a concern for workers during hydraulic fracturing?Recent NIOSH field studies identified overexposure to airborne silica as a health hazard to workers. Large quantities of silica sand are used during hydraulic fracturing. Sand is delivered via truck and then loaded into sand movers, where it is subsequently transferred via conveyer belt and blended with other hydraulic fracturing fluids prior to high pressure injection into the drilling hole. Transporting, moving, and refilling silica sand into and through sand movers, along transfer belts, and into blender hoppers can release dusts containing silica into the air. Workers can be exposed if they breathe the dust into their lungs. NIOSH identified seven primary sources of silica dust exposure during hydraulic fracturing operations: Dust ejected from thief hatches (access ports) on top of the sand movers during refilling operations while the machines are running (hot loading). Dust ejected and pulsed through open side fill ports on the sand movers during refilling operations Dust generated by on-site vehicle traffic. Dust released from the transfer belt under the sand movers. Dust created as sand drops into, or is agitated in, the blender hopper and on transfer belts. Dust released from operations of transfer belts between the sand mover and the blender; and Dust released from the top of the end of the sand transfer belt (dragon's tail) on sand movers. NIOSH Findings on Worker Exposures to SilicaIn cooperation with oil and gas industry partners, NIOSH collected 116 full shift air samples at 11 hydraulic fracturing sites in five states (Arkansas, Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas) to determine the levels of worker exposure to silica at various jobs at the worksites. Many air samples showed silica levels for workers in and around the dust generation points above defined occupational exposure limits. 1 Of the 116 samples collected: 47% showed silica exposures greater than the calculated OSHA PEL. 79% showed silica exposures greater than the NIOSH REL of 0.05 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3). 9% of all samples showed silica exposures 10 or more times the PEL, with one sample more than 25 times the PEL. 31% of all samples showed silica exposures 10 or more times the REL, with one sample more than 100 times the REL. osha.gov