https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvJAKVnK4qM


A RIVER ON FIRE! Gas explodes from Australian river near fracking site.


766,139 views
•Apr 22, 2016

Jeremy Buckingham
753 subscribers


A RIVER ON FIRE! Gas explodes from Australian river near fracking site. I was shocked by force of the explosion when I tested whether gas boiling through the Condamine River, Qld was flammable. So much gas is bubbling through the river that it held a huge flame.

There has been concern that fracking and extraction of coal seam gas could cause gas to migrate through the rock. Not only is it polluting the river and air, but methane is an extremely potent heat trapping gas. Fugitive emissions from the unconventional gas industry could be a major contributor to climate change and make gas as dirty as burning coal.

Gas first started bubbling though the river shortly after the coal seam gas industry took off in the Chinchilla area.  Since then the volume of gas bubbling through the river has massively increased and has spread along the river.

You can see stakes in the river bank were the Queensland Government has marked each gas seep.  You can also see pipework near the river where Origin Energy has installed for monitoring the gas bubbling through the river.

You can blame that Matt Caravan c..t for this. Fricken pinhead he is :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 6:10pm:

You can blame that Matt Caravan c..t for this. Fricken pinhead he is :(

And they said that fracking was OK.   ::)

"Barrett said there were naturally occurring fissures in the rock in that part of the Darling Downs where, owing to the coal beds being less than 100m from the surface, methane had been known to leak out. At least four of those fissures are in a 3km stretch of the Condamine river, including Pumphole.

“The presence of the industry there has not caused that crack to occur or that fault to occur, it’s been there for aeons,” Barrett told Guardian Australia. “The gas has probably been coming to the surface there for as long as people have been there.”

Barrett said the amount of gas seeping in that area had markedly increased in the past 12 months, a trend he said could be caused by a shift in sediment from the river bed, which would mean the gas was less dispersed, or could be the result of water that rushed into the alluvial aquifer during the 2011 Queensland floods slowly depleting, which would release the pressure and allow more methane to come to the surface.

Barrett said evidence from the CSIRO’s study suggested it was “unlikely” the increased gas seepage was caused by the coal seam gas industry."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/24/river-on-fire-in-greens-mps-video-is-natural-not-fracking-says-csiro

From the garudian so it must be true.

""Tho discovery of a small oil seep between Toowoomba' Bnd Helidon might or migbt not turn out to be of commercial importance," «aid Dr. U. X. Jensen. "The advice of Mr. Ball (Government Geologist) to the syndicate to hasten slowly and to closely study the locality of the seep before getting super-optimistic and forming companies, is sound and safe advice."

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/98127949?searchTerm=gas%20seep&searchLimits=l-state=Queensland

from the 1930

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 6:10pm:

You can blame that Matt Caravan c..t for this. Fricken pinhead he is :(

Matt Canavan first elected to parliament 2014

"A video recently posted online by a NSW Greens MP who opposes natural gas production claims that gas industry operations have caused bubbling in south-west Queensland’s Condamine River.

This accusation is not supported by scientific or historical evidence.  Bubbling gas in the Condamine River pre-dates gas production activity in the area.  The natural gas industry strongly supports further research into this phenomenon.

Some facts about gas seeps and bubbles in the Condamine River

Fact 1: Natural gas seepage in parts of the Condamine River is not new – according to local knowledge it goes back at least 30 years.

Fact 2: The coals beneath the Condamine River naturally contain methane gas and are much closer to the surface than is normally the case.

Fact 3: Following an investigation into Condamine River gas seeps, the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines said in 2012: “…there is no safety risk or evidence of environmental harm occurring in the immediate area from the Condamine River gas seeps”.  (Source: https://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/119669/condamine-river-gas-seep.pdf).

Fact 4: Following 2.5 years of research into Condamine River gas seeps, the CSIRO stated: “the work has looked at the environmental impact in that area and it shows no impact whatsoever.” (Source: http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/gas-seeping-from-condamine-river-poses-no-threat-says-csiro/news-story/a5d03e36626644b87eeccaab9710e37b )."


[url]https://www.ournaturaladvantage.com.au/blog/condamine-river-gas-seeps/[/url]

Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines looked at that 2 years before Canavan was elected to Parliament.

Of course Fracking is so environmentally and conservationally wrong. But its all about deep pockets and every Government gets it's 'mining cut' like a diamond.

Jasin wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 7:03pm:

Of course Fracking is so environmentally and conservationally wrong. But its all about deep pockets and every Government gets it's 'mining cut' like a diamond.

It's short term gain made by wrecking the underground
environment forever.
Underground bore water could be polluted till the end of time.
A lot of bore water is already ruined naturally by
Uranium and other toxic chemicals.
We risk ruining more of it.

This Topic has been done before ages ago I think.
Seems not much has been done - the Fracking still goes on.
People are willing to sell their properties for Fracking - to take the money and leave.

Jasin wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 8:21pm:

This Topic has been done before ages ago I think. Seems not much has been done - the Fracking still goes on. People are willing to sell their properties for Fracking - to take the money and leave.

It shows how greedy human beings are -
to make a short term profit but leave the world
with polluted water forever.

It would be better if such people were never born.

That's why the Virus is a good thing.
It cleanses the filth from the world.

Jasin wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 9:08pm:

That's why the Virus is a good thing. It cleanses the filth from the world.

How many people will the poisoned water kill
in the next 1000 years?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 6:24am:

How many people will the poisoned water kill in the next 1000 years?

What poisons? A river on fire suggests methane which is relatively non-toxic. it is how they found coal and oil in the early days.

lee wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 2:23pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2020 at 6:24am: How many people will the poisoned water kill in the next 1000 years? What poisons? A river on fire suggests methane which is relatively non-toxic. it is how they found coal and oil in the early days.

No - the poisons used in fracking and the other
natural poisons that are released such as
Uranium caused by interfering in the bedrock.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 10:24am:

the poisons used in fracking and the other natural poisons that are released such as Uranium caused by interfering in the bedrock.

What poisons used in fracking?

Uranium is naturally released in water anyway. But filters are available.

lee wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 5:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 10:24am: the poisons used in fracking and the other natural poisons that are released such as Uranium caused by interfering in the bedrock. What poisons used in fracking? Uranium is naturally released in water anyway. But filters are available.

Google it - I'm not going to spoon feed you.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 5:58pm:

Google it - I'm not going to spoon feed you.

I have. That's where the info comes from.

"What chemicals are used?
Under UK regulations, operators have to submit a list of the chemicals they will use to the Environment Agency, or they will be refused consent. In the UK, one of the most commonly used chemicals is diluted hydrochloric acid. A government expert told the Guardian that in the case of a leak, the risk from the chemicals used is “very low”. In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency found a median of 14 chemicals for each sample it took. The most common were methanol (an alcohol), hydrochloric acid, and hydrotreated light petroleum distillates (a combination of hydrocarbons). "

"The UK government has repeatedly said that fracking can be done safely and without harming the environment or human health, so long as it is properly regulated. New rules mean that companies have to closely monitor and report seismic activity, as well as potential water and air pollution.

But that’s not been the case throughout fracking’s history, particularly during some of the ‘wild west’ years when it grew rapidly in the US.

Water contamination has been one of the biggest environmental concerns and where some of the most egregious incidents have occurred. A years-long piece of research by the US Environmental Protection Agency concluded in 2016 that in some cases fracking had harmed drinking water supplies.

Most of the cases of water pollution in the US have involved boreholes that were not built properly, or mishandling of wastewater. Images of burning taps in the 2010 documentary Gasland arguably turbocharged the anti-fracking movement in the US, even though cases of gas contaminating water supplies have been hard to prove."

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/26/fracking-the-reality-the-risks-and-what-the-future-holds

From the garudian - it must be true.

Thanks lee but
fracking causes natural poisons to be released that
were formerly locked up in the rock.
We could make this thread 500 pages long but I
don't think anyone would read it.

Fracking is bad - it's that simple.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 6:32pm:

Thanks lee but fracking causes natural poisons to be released that were formerly locked up in the rock.

At what level?

And the conversation has gone way past a "river on fire".

lee wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 8:54pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 6:32pm: Thanks lee but fracking causes natural poisons to be released that were formerly locked up in the rock. At what level? And the conversation has gone way past a "river on fire".

The ground is full of poisons that are locked up
and stored away.
Fracking releases them.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 9:10pm:

The ground is full of poisons that are locked up and stored away. Fracking releases them.

But at what level? Fatal? Injurious? Or undetermined?

lee wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 9:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 9:10pm: The ground is full of poisons that are locked up and stored away. Fracking releases them. But at what level? Fatal? Injurious? Or undetermined?

I'm not an expert but in the case of that river on fire
there is probably a lot more than methane getting into it.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 9:28pm:

I'm not an expert but in the case of that river on fire there is probably a lot more than methane getting into it.

And yet fish continue to thrive. Although some species have been overfished.

Some chemicals to get Lee started:

https://earthworks.org/issues/hydraulic_fracturing_101/

• 2,2′,2″-Nitrilotriethanol
• 2-Ethylhexanol
• 5-Chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one
• Acetic acid
• Acrolein
• Acrylamide (2-propenamide)
• Acrylic acid
• Ammhttp://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/underline.gifonia
• Ammonium chloride
• Ammonium nitrate
• Aniline
• Benzyl chloride
• Boric acid
• Cadmium
• Calcium hypochlorite
• Chlorine
• Chlorine dioxide
• Dibromoacetonitrile 1
• Diesel 2
• Diethanolamine
• Diethylenetriamine
• Dimethyl formamide
• Epidian
• Ethanol (acetylenic alcohol)
• Ethyl mercaptan
• Ethylbenzene      • Ethylene glycol
• Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (2-BE)
• Ethylene oxide
• Ferrous sulfate
• Formaldehyde
• Formic acid
• Fuel oil #2
• Glutaraldehyde
• Glyoxal
• Hydrodesulfurized kerosene
• Hydrogen sulfide
• Iron
• Isobutyl alcohol (2-methyl-1-propanol)
• Isopropanol (propan-2-ol)
• Kerosene
• Light naphthenic distillates, hydrotreated
• Mercaptoacidic acid
• Methanol
• Methylene bis(thiocyanate)
• Monoethanolamine
• NaHCO3      • Naphtha, petroleum medium aliphatic
• Naphthalene
• Natural gas condensates
• Nickel sulfate
• Paraformaldehyde
• Petroleum distillate naptha
• Petroleum distillate/ naphtha
• Phosphonium, tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)-sulfate
• Propane-1,2-diol
• Sodium bromate
• Sodium chlorite (chlorous acid, sodium salt)
• Sodium hypochlorite
• Sodium nitrate
• Sodium nitrite
• Sodium sulfite
• Styrene
• Sulfur dioxide
• Sulfuric acid
• Tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione (Dazomet)
• Titanium dioxide
• Tributyl phosphate
• Triethylene glycol
• Urea
• Xylene




Some more:
https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/05/Toxic-chemicals-fracking-wastewater-spills.html

North Dakota fracking boom leaves residues of radium, selenium, lead, and other contaminants in the environment

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 6:05pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvJAKVnK4qM A RIVER ON FIRE! Gas explodes from Australian river near fracking site. 766,139 views •Apr 22, 2016 Jeremy Buckingham 753 subscribers A RIVER ON FIRE! Gas explodes from Australian river near fracking site. I was shocked by force of the explosion when I tested whether gas boiling through the Condamine River, Qld was flammable. So much gas is bubbling through the river that it held a huge flame. There has been concern that fracking and extraction of coal seam gas could cause gas to migrate through the rock. Not only is it polluting the river and air, but methane is an extremely potent heat trapping gas. Fugitive emissions from the unconventional gas industry could be a major contributor to climate change and make gas as dirty as burning coal. Gas first started bubbling though the river shortly after the coal seam gas industry took off in the Chinchilla area.  Since then the volume of gas bubbling through the river has massively increased and has spread along the river. You can see stakes in the river bank were the Queensland Government has marked each gas seep.  You can also see pipework near the river where Origin Energy has installed for monitoring the gas bubbling through the river.

https://www.csiro.au/~/media/EF/Files/GISERA_MethaneSeepsCondamineRiver-2017-03.pdf

This fact sheet presents the current state of scientific knowledge on methane seeps in the Condamine River including natural and human causes

Hydraulic fracturing is unlikely to be the cause of bubbling in the Condamine River because to date there has been no hydraulic fracturing by the CSG industry in these production fields.

CSIRO research has found no evidence that these seeps have any adverse environmental impact on the plant or animal life of the river and  its surroundings. To date, there is no public health or safety risk caused by the methane concentrations measured in the area of these or any other seeps in the Surat Basin that CSIRO has measured.

The presence of methane in water bores has been documented well before development of the region’s CSG industry as far back as 1919. Since the early 1900s, there has been natural gas in water bores in nearby Roma, which have led to well blowouts and occasionally caught fire. Methane in water bores in the Surat and Bowen basins has also been documented in drilling reports from the 1960s and 1970s.

The bubbling of methane from the Condamine River area has increased three-fold since ongoing measurement began in early 2015, but has declined again recently.

From your reference -

"This wastewater, called produced water, may be reused, injected underground for disposal, or processed—though not always successfully—in water treatment plants."

So it is the water produced by the fracking not by the fracking liquid itself. Good to know.

Now knowing that; monitor the output of wastewater and filter accordingly.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 9:45am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 22nd, 2020 at 6:05pm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvJAKVnK4qM A RIVER ON FIRE! Gas explodes from Australian river near fracking site. 766,139 views •Apr 22, 2016 Jeremy Buckingham 753 subscribers A RIVER ON FIRE! Gas explodes from Australian river near fracking site. I was shocked by force of the explosion when I tested whether gas boiling through the Condamine River, Qld was flammable. So much gas is bubbling through the river that it held a huge flame. There has been concern that fracking and extraction of coal seam gas could cause gas to migrate through the rock. Not only is it polluting the river and air, but methane is an extremely potent heat trapping gas. Fugitive emissions from the unconventional gas industry could be a major contributor to climate change and make gas as dirty as burning coal. Gas first started bubbling though the river shortly after the coal seam gas industry took off in the Chinchilla area.  Since then the volume of gas bubbling through the river has massively increased and has spread along the river. You can see stakes in the river bank were the Queensland Government has marked each gas seep.  You can also see pipework near the river where Origin Energy has installed for monitoring the gas bubbling through the river. https://www.csiro.au/~/media/EF/Files/GISERA_MethaneSeepsCondamineRiver-2017-03.pdf This fact sheet presents the current state of scientific knowledge on methane seeps in the Condamine River including natural and human causes Hydraulic fracturing is unlikely to be the cause of bubbling in the Condamine River because to date there has been no hydraulic fracturing by the CSG industry in these production fields. CSIRO research has found no evidence that these seeps have any adverse environmental impact on the plant or animal life of the river and  its surroundings. To date, there is no public health or safety risk caused by the methane concentrations measured in the area of these or any other seeps in the Surat Basin that CSIRO has measured. The presence of methane in water bores has been documented well before development of the region’s CSG industry as far back as 1919. Since the early 1900s, there has been natural gas in water bores in nearby Roma, which have led to well blowouts and occasionally caught fire. Methane in water bores in the Surat and Bowen basins has also been documented in drilling reports from the 1960s and 1970s. The bubbling of methane from the Condamine River area has increased three-fold since ongoing measurement began in early 2015, but has declined again recently.

thanks FD,
I did a search on the pdf document.

The CSIRO does not even mention fracking for this particular river yet the video does.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 1:48pm:

The CSIRO does not even mention fracking for this particular river yet the video does.

And yet the Conversation says not.

"No CSG production or exploration has occurred within 1.4 km of the Condamine River gas seep. This suggests that CSG is not responsible. "

"In April 2016, we mapped gas leaking from the site of a presumably abandoned leaking coal exploration well just 2.5 km north of the Condamine River gas seep.

We measured maximum methane concentrations of 595 parts per million (ppm) (the lower explosive limit of methane in air is 50,000 ppm). By contrast, the average natural background concentration of methane for the region is 1.79 ppm. The continuously high concentration indicates that there is a direct path between the coal measures and the ground surface."

https://theconversation.com/river-on-fire-even-if-its-not-coal-seam-gas-we-should-still-be-concerned-58718

No exploration, no fracking, no production.

lee wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 3:37pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 1:48pm: The CSIRO does not even mention fracking for this particular river yet the video does. And yet the Conversation says not. "No CSG production or exploration has occurred within 1.4 km of the Condamine River gas seep. This suggests that CSG is not responsible. " "In April 2016, we mapped gas leaking from the site of a presumably abandoned leaking coal exploration well just 2.5 km north of the Condamine River gas seep. We measured maximum methane concentrations of 595 parts per million (ppm) (the lower explosive limit of methane in air is 50,000 ppm). By contrast, the average natural background concentration of methane for the region is 1.79 ppm. The continuously high concentration indicates that there is a direct path between the coal measures and the ground surface." https://theconversation.com/river-on-fire-even-if-its-not-coal-seam-gas-we-should-still-be-concerned-58718 No exploration, no fracking, no production.

I wonder if FD would eat the fish from that river?
What chemicals are in it?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 3:42pm:

What chemicals are in it?

Probably only those that nature provided.

Nothing from fracking, hasn't happened. ;)

lee wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 3:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 3:42pm: What chemicals are in it? Probably only those that nature provided. Nothing from fracking, hasn't happened. ;)

Did you know that when a bore water hole is drilled
the water has to be tested for chemicals?
I heard a rumour that half of all Australian water is not fit for drinking due to chemicals in it -
the usual culprit is natural Uranium.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:10pm:

Did you know that when a bore water hole is drilled the water has to be tested for chemicals?

yes. I posted that yesterday.


Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:10pm:

I heard a rumour that half of all Australian water is not fit for drinking due to chemicals in it - the usual culprit is natural Uranium.

And yet people do and they don't suffer radiation sickness. Dosage of course. ;)

lee wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:13pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:10pm: Did you know that when a bore water hole is drilled the water has to be tested for chemicals? yes. I posted that yesterday. Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:10pm: I heard a rumour that half of all Australian water is not fit for drinking due to chemicals in it - the usual culprit is natural Uranium. And yet people do and they don't suffer radiation sickness. Dosage of course. ;)

I wouldn't want to drink water with any Uranium in it.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:23pm:

lee wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:13pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:10pm: Did you know that when a bore water hole is drilled the water has to be tested for chemicals? yes. I posted that yesterday. Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:10pm: I heard a rumour that half of all Australian water is not fit for drinking due to chemicals in it - the usual culprit is natural Uranium. And yet people do and they don't suffer radiation sickness. Dosage of course. ;) I wouldn't want to drink water with any Uranium in it.

Firewater mate, ? you are obviously not an Abbo..?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:23pm:

I wouldn't want to drink water with any Uranium in it.

Don't drink water from the vicinity of granite belts then. ;)

BigP wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:23pm: lee wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:13pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:10pm: Did you know that when a bore water hole is drilled the water has to be tested for chemicals? yes. I posted that yesterday. Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:10pm: I heard a rumour that half of all Australian water is not fit for drinking due to chemicals in it - the usual culprit is natural Uranium. And yet people do and they don't suffer radiation sickness. Dosage of course. ;) I wouldn't want to drink water with any Uranium in it. Firewater mate, ? you are obviously not an Abbo..?

Thanks - I'm not an Abbo.

Are you the same person as BigP?

lee wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:23pm: I wouldn't want to drink water with any Uranium in it. Don't drink water from the vicinity of granite belts then. ;)

Apparently our bodies can get rid of nano gram amounts of Uranium.
It is a heavy metal though so it does more damage
than just it's radioactive loading.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:33pm:

BigP wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:23pm: lee wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:13pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:10pm: Did you know that when a bore water hole is drilled the water has to be tested for chemicals? yes. I posted that yesterday. Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:10pm: I heard a rumour that half of all Australian water is not fit for drinking due to chemicals in it - the usual culprit is natural Uranium. And yet people do and they don't suffer radiation sickness. Dosage of course. ;) I wouldn't want to drink water with any Uranium in it. Firewater mate, ? you are obviously not an Abbo..? Thanks - I'm not an Abbo. Are you the same person as BigP?

That would be I

BigP wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:36pm:

That would be I

You must be enjoying the lockdown that horse teeth
has put you through?   ;D

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:40pm:

BigP wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:36pm: That would be I You must be enjoying the lockdown that horse teeth has put you through?   ;D

Its been tough , About to finish on Tuesday .. :'(

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:35pm:

It is a heavy metal though so it does more damage than just it's radioactive loading.

"The lethal effects of inhalation exposure to uranium have been investigated in humans in epidemiological studies and in animal studies under controlled conditions. Epidemiological studies indicate that routine exposure of humans (in the workplace and the environment at large) to airborne uranium is not associated with increased mortality. Brief accidental exposures to very high concentrations of uranium hexafluoride have caused fatalities in humans, most likely due to the resulting exposure to hydrogen fluoride."

"No human studies were located regarding the cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, endocrine, metabolic, dermal, ocular, body weight, or other systemic effects of elemental uranium following acute-duration inhalation exposure. Nor were any human studies located regarding the respiratory, hematological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, hepatic, renal, endocrine, metabolic, dermal, ocular, body weight, or other systemic effects of uranium following intermediate-duration inhalation exposure. No studies were found regarding the cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, renal, endocrine, metabolic, dermal, ocular, body weight, or other systemic effects in humans following chronic-duration inhalation exposure. The existing human data on the respiratory and hepatic effects of uranium are limited to acute- and chronic-duration inhalation exposures, hematological effects are limited to chronic-duration inhalation exposure, and gastrointestinal and renal effects are limited to acute-duration inhalation exposure."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK158798/

BigP wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:52pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:40pm: BigP wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:36pm: That would be I You must be enjoying the lockdown that horse teeth has put you through?   ;D Its been tough , About to finish on Tuesday .. :'(

Im kicking around on 13 acres, But at some point you run out of ammunition,,lol

BigP wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:52pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:40pm: BigP wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:36pm: That would be I You must be enjoying the lockdown that horse teeth has put you through?   ;D Its been tough , About to finish on Tuesday .. :'(

Well - we've been in a stage 3 lockdown.
I'm missing to see all my friends.

lee wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 4:53pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 4:35pm: It is a heavy metal though so it does more damage than just it's radioactive loading. "The lethal effects of inhalation exposure to uranium have been investigated in humans in epidemiological studies and in animal studies under controlled conditions. Epidemiological studies indicate that routine exposure of humans (in the workplace and the environment at large) to airborne uranium is not associated with increased mortality. Brief accidental exposures to very high concentrations of uranium hexafluoride have caused fatalities in humans, most likely due to the resulting exposure to hydrogen fluoride." "No human studies were located regarding the cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, endocrine, metabolic, dermal, ocular, body weight, or other systemic effects of elemental uranium following acute-duration inhalation exposure. Nor were any human studies located regarding the respiratory, hematological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, hepatic, renal, endocrine, metabolic, dermal, ocular, body weight, or other systemic effects of uranium following intermediate-duration inhalation exposure. No studies were found regarding the cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, renal, endocrine, metabolic, dermal, ocular, body weight, or other systemic effects in humans following chronic-duration inhalation exposure. The existing human data on the respiratory and hepatic effects of uranium are limited to acute- and chronic-duration inhalation exposures, hematological effects are limited to chronic-duration inhalation exposure, and gastrointestinal and renal effects are limited to acute-duration inhalation exposure." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK158798/

We have evolved as per Darwin's theory to cope
with nano gram amounts of Uranium.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 3:42pm:

lee wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 3:37pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 1:48pm: The CSIRO does not even mention fracking for this particular river yet the video does. And yet the Conversation says not. "No CSG production or exploration has occurred within 1.4 km of the Condamine River gas seep. This suggests that CSG is not responsible. " "In April 2016, we mapped gas leaking from the site of a presumably abandoned leaking coal exploration well just 2.5 km north of the Condamine River gas seep. We measured maximum methane concentrations of 595 parts per million (ppm) (the lower explosive limit of methane in air is 50,000 ppm). By contrast, the average natural background concentration of methane for the region is 1.79 ppm. The continuously high concentration indicates that there is a direct path between the coal measures and the ground surface." https://theconversation.com/river-on-fire-even-if-its-not-coal-seam-gas-we-should-still-be-concerned-58718 No exploration, no fracking, no production. I wonder if FD would eat the fish from that river? What chemicals are in it?

I haven't eaten a freshwater fish in a long time. But I drink water from the condamine river regularly.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2020 at 5:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 3:42pm: I wonder if FD would eat the fish from that river? What chemicals are in it? I haven't eaten a freshwater fish in a long time. But I drink water from the condamine river regularly.

You haven't got any nasty rashes have you?