Runboard.com
Слава Україні!



🙂       Use the black navigation bar to log in or create your account.

Jump to Page:  1  2  3 

 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Minerva
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 9606
Karma: 132 (+147/-15)
ReplyQuote
Halliburton, dead fish in Ohio, factcheck


Someone posted this meme on Facebook:

Image

For those who can't see the image, this meme has an image of thousands of dead fish (presumably; I didn't count them) that were washed ashore, and has the following caption:


Nobody knows what killed 70,000 fish after a fracking spill in Ohio because Halliburton is exempt from disclosing what chemicals they use


It was in all caps, but I posted it normally for easier reading.

First of all, that image is from a Lake Karla reservoir in Greece, not Ohio as the meme claims.

Second, the spill in Ohio killed fish in a creek. 70,000 fish in a creek? Does any creek have 70,000 fish of that size?

Third, Halliburton is not exempt from the law that mandates the reporting of chemicals used for fracking. None of the companies are required to divulge this proprietary information to the public, but they are required to divulge it to certain environmental agencies, which is exactly what they did. It took them a while, but they did it before the article this appears to be based on was posted.

I am no fan of Halliburton or fracking, but this meme is factually incorrect, and I explained why. After I told them I was done arguing, they persisted, and this ensued:

Me:

This is irrelevant to anything I have said about the meme.


Them:

Everything you said about the meme is irrelevant to the meme.. IKR


Me:

Me: The meme is incorrect.
Dude: But fracking is bad!
Me: I know fracking is bad, but the meme is incorrect.
Dude: But here's proof that fracking is bad!
Me: I already told you I know that fracking is bad, but the meme is incorrect.


Everything I said about the meme is irrelevant to the meme? I was explaining why the meme is factually incorrect!

I made that last reply about an hour ago, and they haven't been back. I hope that means they're starting to get what I was saying, but I somehow doubt it. Some people can be so stubborn in their self-imposed ignorance.

Just so you all know how those fish really died (not the ones in the picture, but the ones in Ohio, and I'd say there were hundreds instead of 70,000), a spark in the drilling machinery ignited the natural gas, which caused an explosion. This explosion caused a chemical spill, which killed the fish in the nearby creek. It doesn't take mysterious chemicals to kill fish. Even salt will kill freshwater fish, which is what you'll find in a creek. It isn't good to pump chemicals of any kind into the ground, and fracking is bad for the environment, but the fact remains that Halliburton is not exempt from laws that other companies have to abide by, as that meme claims, and that was my whole point.

Instead of concentrating on one company that does fracking, we should be concentrating on the development of renewable energy. These conspiracy theorists are ignoring the big picture by concentrating so much on one company that will continue doing what they're doing for as long as it remains legal.

Last revised by Lesigner Girl, 10/9/2014, 5:08 am


---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
10/9/2014, 5:03 am Link to this post PM Lesigner Girl Read Blog
 
Queenyforever Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ignore me.

Registered: 01-2007
Province: Just north of the clouds...
Posts: 1467
Karma: 48 (+48/-0)
ReplyQuote
Re: Halliburton, dead fish in Ohio, factcheck


OMG....My garden is dying! Can I blame Halliburton? emoticon

---

“Freedom and democracy are dreams you never give up.”

10/10/2014, 9:04 pm Link to this post PM Queenyforever Read Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Minerva
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 9606
Karma: 132 (+147/-15)
ReplyQuote
Re: Halliburton, dead fish in Ohio, factcheck


emoticon emoticon

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
10/11/2014, 12:37 am Link to this post PM Lesigner Girl Read Blog
 
Morwen Oronor Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Citizen

Registered: 01-2008
Province: South Africa
Posts: 2604
Karma: 57 (+58/-1)
ReplyQuote
Re:


Where was that discussion Lesa? On Facebook? Facebook is the worst place for debates. People get hysterical, then other people who have nothing to do with the conversation, or whose comments aren't valid in the context of the conversation, pop in and put in their 2c, which then leads to the hysterical person attacking them and their comment, rather than the original discussion. For instance, someone may post a meme or a link about say vegetarianism. Then the discussion will go on quite happily, between people who don't eat meat. Then a meat eater will come along and say "I like meat, I don't read those articles, I don't want to know." Then the discussion will go on to attack the person who said that, and the discussion of the original article ends. I don't understand why, if someone doesn't eat meat, and feels they're justified in doing that by ignoring the evidence as to why it's harmful, they simply don't ignore discussions about vegetarianism. Some people feel they just have to butt into every discussion, even if they have nothing of value to add. It's why I go to specialist groups to discuss serious topics on Facebook.

Did this person defriend you?
10/13/2014, 8:07 am Link to this post PM Morwen Oronor Read Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Minerva
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 9606
Karma: 132 (+147/-15)
ReplyQuote
Re: Halliburton, dead fish in Ohio, factcheck


Yes, it was on Facebook. This person wasn't a friend. They posted the meme publicly, one of my friends posted a frown, and this 'comment' made it show up in my live feed. I was skeptical of the meme's claim, so I ran it through Google Image Search, and quickly discovered that the picture was taken in Greece. The rapidly-changing weather caused the condition of that lake to change so drastically that it became inhospitable to those fish. It was climate change, not fracking, that killed the fish in that meme.

I posted the link to a news story about those fish in Greece (which included that picture) to let them know the meme was wrong. Then, the guy who posted the meme said it uses a stock photo for illustrative purposes, and posted this link. He also posted the picture from that article separately, claiming that it was a picture from this year's Ohio spill. But guess what, he was wrong about that, too. You can find that same picture in this pdf, which is dated 10 months before the fracking spill in question.

It's true that thousands of fish in an Ohio stream were killed by a fracking chemical spill this year, but here's how it really happened: A mechanical malfunction ignited the natural gas in the ground, which caused explosions and fires. To put out the fires, crews flooded the well area, which pushed the fracking chemicals into the creek. What's not true is the claim that Halliburton is exempt from having to disclose what chemicals they use. They are required to disclose this to an environmental agency, and this is what they did. None of the companies are required to disclose this to the public. It is already well-known that many common fracking chemicals are toxic, and making up false claims about one company out of several isn't going to stop this harmful practice. As long as it's legal, they're all going to keep doing it. These people who spread false claims about Halliburton being exempt are wasting a lot of time and energy that they could be spending on the real issue.

I'm not defending Halliburton. I have not forgotten about their link to Cheney and their no-bid contract in Iraq when Cheney was Vice President, but that doesn't change the fact that the meme and that Green Forward 'News' article are factually wrong.


Though officials didn’t provide the Columbus Dispatch with a list of chemicals that were present at the site of the fire, many common fracking chemicals have been found to be toxic. Last year, a study that looked at groundwater samples from fracking sites found elevated levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which have been linked to infertility, birth defects, and cancer. [Source]


More reading: Halliburton delayed releasing details on fracking chemicals after Monroe County spill (but they did eventually, because they had to)


---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
10/13/2014, 5:40 pm Link to this post PM Lesigner Girl Read Blog
 
Morwen Oronor Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Citizen

Registered: 01-2008
Province: South Africa
Posts: 2604
Karma: 57 (+58/-1)
ReplyQuote
Re:


Yes, I remember the connection between the then VP and Halliburton. I also agree with what you're saying.

The problem with most people is that they don't see that they can't see that even the worst people/corporations have protection under the law, or some redeeming features. For instance this big court case that's going on in South Africa at the moment. The "Blade Runner" killed his girlfriend by shooting her through a locked door. He's been found guilty of manslaughter, not because the judge didn't believe that he over-reacted and shot her in a fit of temper, but because the prosecution didn't present a strong enough case for that allegation. People are saying the judge was too lenient, when all she did was interpret the law. Now with the sentencing it doesn't make sense to put a man in his position into an over-crowded jail, but there are people baying for him to be locked up for 15 years. People only see black and white, they don't see the nuances of shades in between.
10/14/2014, 7:17 am Link to this post PM Morwen Oronor Read Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Minerva
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 9606
Karma: 132 (+147/-15)
ReplyQuote
Re: Halliburton, dead fish in Ohio, factcheck


They reported on the Pistorius trial here, but I didn't follow it. Most of what I know about the case is what I read last year, and it seemed to me that he knew it was Reeva in that bathroom.

The Shooting Star and The Model
June 2013

But the evidence indicated intentional murder, [Detective] Botha told me. Why would a burglar lock himself in a bathroom cubicle? Why would the victim be shot through her shorts if she was using the toilet in the middle of the night? And why would she have taken her cell phone into the bathroom at three A.M.? (Unsupported media speculation would swirl that Reeva had received a tweet or a text from the South African Rugby star Francois Hougaard, a previous boyfriend, and that that may have ignited Pistorius’s rage.) According to Botha, the bullets had struck her on the right side, which meant that she was not sitting on the toilet but probably crouching behind the locked door. From the location of the bullet casings in the bathroom, the detective believed that Pistorius had fired at the door from less than five feet away. By standing straight and imagining himself pointing a gun at the door, Botha believed that the bullet holes were slanted down, which would indicate that Pistorius had been wearing his prosthetic legs, not, as he would later claim, that he was on his stumps. But why would he enter the very area where he believed the burglar was lurking and begin firing, instead of grabbing his girlfriend and running for cover?


If the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove their case, that isn't the judge's fault. However, if the prosecution did present sufficient evidence and the judge failed to understand it, the same way the jury in the OJ Simpson case failed to understand that evidence, then that would be her fault. Since I didn't watch the trial, I don't know what evidence was presented or how it was presented, so I have no basis to form an opinion on how the trial went. Since Detective Botha stepped down, I have to wonder how much of his evidence was presented by the prosecution.

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
10/14/2014, 9:14 pm Link to this post PM Lesigner Girl Read Blog
 
Morwen Oronor Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Citizen

Registered: 01-2008
Province: South Africa
Posts: 2604
Karma: 57 (+58/-1)
ReplyQuote
Re:


Oooh. It's a long long story Lesa. The gist of it is that he woke up because it was very hot, so he claims, so he went outside to fetch more fans into the room. He thought she was still in the bed when he heard a noise in the bathroom. He jumped up took his gun, shuffled on his stumps to the door of the bathroom, and fired four shots into the toilet cubicle door. This after he claims, he shouted to the "intruder" to get out of his house. To answer the questions. It makes sense that if a burglar was trapped in the toilet cubicle they would've locked the door to prevent a possible beating. So the judge understood that. She had emptied her bladder, which was why she was dressed, possibly on her way out when he started shouting, possibly thought there was someone in the house, so locked the door to protect herself. Again the judge understood this, because the prosecution couldn't explain away this hypothesis. Also she had her iPhone with her because it comes with a flashlight, and the lights were out in that cubicle, so they used their phones as a light when they used it in the dark. So it seems that all the questions can be logically explained by OP's defence.

What the prosecution failed to do, was to present evidence that refuted those explanations. Also the original police doing the investigations didn't observe proper protocol, taking photos of the crime scene, and making notes to verify what the pictures indicated. They failed to wear booties, so they stomped all over the evidence, moved things out of the way to do measurements and so on. So although the prosecution tried to show that he shot her with intention, their evidence didn't support their claims. The only thing that they were able to show was that he shot at the door, negligently, aware that there was someone behind the door, whoever that was. Which is why he was convicted of culpable homicide and not premeditated murder. Most of us who are amateur commentators think that if you pick up a gun, and fire at a door, knowing that the person behind the door is unable to avoid being shot, that's premeditation. The judge didn't see it that way.
10/15/2014, 7:38 am Link to this post PM Morwen Oronor Read Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Minerva
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 9606
Karma: 132 (+147/-15)
ReplyQuote
Re: Halliburton, dead fish in Ohio, factcheck


It sounds like they thought of everything, but I still don't buy it. I could buy a crime of passion, but I can't buy that story.

3D diagram with Oscar's account
Floor plan, which shows a bit more area

How could he not even consider that Reeva could have gotten out of bed to use the toilet? Even if he believed she was, why wouldn't he wake her up so she can hide from the intruder? He was right there next to the bed.

How would he have known for sure whether the sound was coming from the bathroom or the lounge (see floor plan above)? If he had chosen poorly and an intruder was in the lounge, they could have hurt Reeva in her sleep while he was off on a wild goose chase in the bathroom, and it would have taken him longer to get there and back to the bedroom without his legs.

Why not call the cops, and wait in the bedroom with the gun until the cops arrive?

Several people said he was controlling and emotionally abusive. Reeva said herself in a text message that she was only happy with him about 90% of the time, and it sounded like she was thinking of leaving him. And then there are those other incidents with his gun, once inside a restaurant and once in a car. Did those incidents happen before or after he killed Reeva?

Did Reeva know he had a gun? Oscar said he yelled at the intruder. Did he say he was standing inside the bathroom when he did that? If so, she must have realized it was he who shot through the door, and screamed after the first shot to let him know she was in there. If he yelled from the bedroom, he would have had to wonder why she didn't wake up and ask him what was going on.

But I guess that's all circumstantial, right?

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
10/16/2014, 8:17 am Link to this post PM Lesigner Girl Read Blog
 
Queenyforever Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ignore me.

Registered: 01-2007
Province: Just north of the clouds...
Posts: 1467
Karma: 48 (+48/-0)
ReplyQuote
Re: Halliburton, dead fish in Ohio, factcheck



Why not call the cops, and wait in the bedroom with the gun until the cops arrive?



Considering his "life"...this is what he should have done.

I don't know what I believe, but I don't think it was an accident. Not sure about all the details..

---

“Freedom and democracy are dreams you never give up.”

10/16/2014, 6:21 pm Link to this post PM Queenyforever Read Blog
 


Add to this discussion

Jump to Page:  1  2  3 



You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top

This board's time is GMT.