PrimeNumber

Greenpeace is definitely wrong about some things. I have never supported them or their methods. What they did to the Nazca Lines is unforgivable. With that being said I don't know why you would resort to using greenpeace to prove your point, especially since I haven't linked or used or quoted any information from them during this entire discussion, just shows how desperate you really are. Well obviously given that NY state is conservative they are just protecting their own state from fracking, knowing the potential dangers associated with it, they could obviously care less about anyone else, a typical conservative policy so they continue to import it. Wind capacity has already reached beyond 10% grid capacity in many countries such as 33.2% of grid electricity production in Denmark ,19% in Portugal and 16% in Spain and Ireland while Germany is currently at 8% and climbing. In 2011 South Australia, championed by Premier Mike Rann, reached 26% of the State's electricity generation through Wind power, edging out coal for the first time. It's viable and can be done despite what you hear from the pro-fossil fuel corporate propaganda. My position is based on evidence, scientific fact and findings and logic. Nuclear in Canada is a better option than Natural Gas. You have exposed nothing but your own lack of knowledge on the subject.

But they won't meltdown, we know this. So your argument is invalid. So NY states government, a conservative government, shuts down fracking because they have reason to believe it's not harmful? "While a guarantee of absolute safety is not possible, an assessment of the risk to public health must be supported by adequate scientific information to determine with confidence that the overall risk is sufficiently low to justify proceeding with HVHF in New York. The current scientific information is insufficient… Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public health from HVHF and whether the risks can be adequately managed, HVHF should not proceed in New York State." The better safe then sorry approach is fine by me. Now your being a Nuclear fear monger while a few posts ago you were saying if climate change supporters were serious about going green they would support Nuclear. So which is it do you support nuclear or do you support fossil fuels. It seems like no matter what I say all you want to do is argue, are you a lawyer? lets straiten out your argument for a second: 1. If the climate change folks were serious about eliminating emissions they would support Nuclear. 2. Nuclear is bad because something that can't happen, might happen. 3. We should support fracking because they're isn't enough evidence to support a catastrophic event will occur, even though smaller events including health problems in humans and livestock, seismic activity, contaminated water supplies and other effects on communities have occurred. But we can prevent these, even though we are not doing so. 4. Fossil fuels aren't the problem, people who don't support them are. 5. You have nothing, not a shred of evidence save for a sentance in a "leaked" document that supports the claim that fracking is safe because we have no evidence of it not being safe even though we do.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327111724.htm

Back that up with some science then. Rather than pointing to a report I posted and saying it's flawed. Where's your evidence that no harm has ever come from fracking? We could put a nuclear plant so far away from civilization in this country that it wouldn't kill anyone if it melted down. Also there has never been in the history of Canadian built CANDU reactors a meltdown either in this country or another, because we know and have taken the precautionary step to prevent this. it's virtually impossible; We have already learned from the mistakes. There will be no accidental deaths. No large swathes of uninhabitable land. You're comments are not backed up by any science just your uninformed opinion on the matter.

Unfortunately we already know the risks associated with Nuclear and can now act accordingly. I'm pretty sure Saskatchewan and Alberta are pretty safe from earthquakes and tsunamis. We still don't know all we need to know about fracking so why test the waters when it's not needed we have an alternative for baseline power. But you've made it pretty clear that you see human beings other than yourself as guinea pigs to be used in experimental ways. If one dies well that's okay because there are more to take its place. So long as there continues to be an exchange of currency it's all good. You also have made it pretty clear you don't care about this planet nor any future generations of our species on it.

So what you're saying is you won't be against fracking until a few thousand people die, a couple hundred lakes used as drinking water become contaminated and a few major earthquakes occur because of it?

He can't back it up he just spews hate it's people like him that ignore fact and science for corporate propaganda. He is the reason we are still burning fossil fuels and haven't had a chance to make any new substantial progress in cleaner technology in this country. He talks about how he wants nuclear but could care less as long as we continue to use fossil fuels. He hates humanity and progress. Partisan right wingers fear change especially for the betterment of society, it's hardwired into them.

It's not knee-jerk reactions to fracking. Fracking has been happening for a very long time and we are starting to see the results of this practice. It's called researching something without taking a company who stands to benefit from it use's word for it. I don't want cleaner, I want clean. Nuclear will get us there closer than natural gas. So I refuse to support it, we don't need it, which i have proven above so frankly it's quite useless considering what we know about it. As is coal. Nuclear can be a base-line in this country supported by any number of clean renewable technologies which only stand to get better with more research. Every year there are breakthroughs in clean energy, do you want to be the country that discovers that breakthrough, or the one buying it from another country?

Some people could care less about the future generations of our species. Then there are those of us on this planet that don't know how one could be so selfish.

What exactly am I doing that suggests I am part of the problem?

Or like i said, convert to Nuclear. Considering the incredible amounts of Nuclear potential we have in this country. Saskatchewan has somewhere around 16% of the world's supply of Uranium alone. The carbon capture project at Boundary was largely a waste of taxpayer money and time. They have 6 lignite-fire units, 1 of which has been fitted with a carbon capture unit at a cost of around $1.5 billion and about 7 years of planning and construction. now an argument can be made that because this was a pioneering project the costs can go down, but the reality is they won't go down by much. That money and time could have been invested on 2 CANDU nuclear reactors in southern Saskatchewan that could have seen the coal-fire plant decommissioned over the period of construction. Boundary Dam has a capacity output of 820MW or so but realistically is outputting around 650MW. 2-2nd generation CANDU reactors have capacity output of about 1,756MW which would be enough to effectively power the entire southern portion of the Province for years to come. At a construction cost of about $4 billion or so. But the long term costs would be much cheaper than coal.

I worked on the carbon capture project at Boundary Dam, a coal fire station just outside of Estevan, SK for one and half years. I would leave to return to my home in Richmond, BC every chance I would get often times flying out of Regina. When living in Estevan I found myself constantly coughing and sneezing and when I would return home to Richmond my sinus' would clear up within a day or so and the coughing and sneezing would go away but when I would return in about a day or so the coughing and sneezing would return. After a two trips back home I realized I wasn't sick, it was just the air in and around Estevan that was causing the problem. Many other people I knew living there had the same dry cough and sneezing problem. Often times if the wind blew the right direction the town would be covered in a haze and almost every single morning my vehicle would be covered in fly ash from the plant.

I suppose I don't know because I'm not in or around high schools these days, but when I was, there was not much guidance from teachers to go to College over University. Often times guidance counsellors pushed University as youfr best option, and while 20 years ago this may have been the case, it's just not true anymore. This girl herself in the article you posted didn't think about it until she had almost completed her degree. These days you can spend less money and time going to a college, get hands on training and be making more money sooner than if you go to University. One of my best friends in high school dropped out in grade 10 to pursue a career in welding, as in Saskatchewan you only need grade 10 level to get apprenticed in welding. By the time we all graduating he had already been looking into buying his first home. Made a lot of us regret not doing the same. To this day he still does not have a grade 12 diploma and makes more than enough money to support himself and his family.

The thing about these youth apprenticeship programs is that you still need to find an employer willing to sponsor high school kids, which a lot of trades employers are not willing to do. Definitely a start though but this was never offered in my school. If we leave it up to the "educators" they will never push college, polytechnic, technical institutes on kids, they will always push University as the education system feels like anything less is failure. In my high school we had one class known as Industrial Arts that covered two semesters. In those two-semesters the time was split up amongst the following topics; small engine repair, welding, drafting, carpentry and electronics. None of which covered anything very useful and nothing counted towards pre-employement courses. What we need in this country is to offer pre-employment level programs for Mechanical, Electrical, Carpentry, Welding, Plumbing and Refrigeration offered within high schools so that by the time a student graduates with the needed credits they also have a pre-employment level trade. Which can easily land them a job in the real world the day after they graduate. Then once they have the required hours they can challenge their 1st year test within any post-secondary institution. Many may even use this as a fall-back if they decide to go the university route anyways. It's better to have to many skilled workers, than not enough.

Alternatively we hear the same thing from the other side of the political fence. The reality here is that documented health effects have occurred, contaminated ground water has occurred, seismic activity has occurred and other effects on surrounding communities have occurred. The problem with this is that supporters of fracking are not satisfied until a sizable catastrophic event happens. A few people here and there with long term health effects is seen as a means to an economic end. This is why NY state is shutting it down. It's not about what if anymore, it's about when.

He couldn't even muster a reply that had anything to do with my post, just deflected it with that nonsense comment. If he was an educator he would have had something perceptive and at least slightly informed to say on the matter.

New York state has also just recently issued a complete ban on Fracking following the states 184 page report which details research started in 2008 examining frackings effects on respiratory and other major health problems, drinking water contamination, seismic activity, the climate, soil contamination and community effects. Found Here:https://www.health.ny.gov/press/reports/docs/high_volume_hydraulic_fracturing.pdf

Yes, no one has a say about education unless they have a masters degree in it... So then, by your logic, an average citizen has no say in politics, unless they have a masters degree in it? Well I guess we should just shut down the forum and all go back to our day jobs like good little citizens.

I think if the brightest are willing to start at the bottom and are rewarded for doing well, they will make enough money in due time and the ones who really shouldn't be teachers will get weeded out if they haven't already been weeded out while attaining their degree. My concerns mostly have to do with high school, maybe it was more to do with my own experiences, but I think we could be doing much better in this country with our education system by not emphasizing university as the only way to make a living and be successful in this country. I think adding pre-employment level trades classes to the system could greatly benefit those who would be choosing that kind of career path and giving kids a jump start rather than having these classes available through post-secondary institutions when, at this time, it's a smarter option to go the apprenticeship route than waste your time with pre-employment. Just one of many ideas I've had.

I do understand the stress teachers can face but making class sizes smaller, hiring more teachers and lowering the pay is the way to go I think. Don't even get me started on the actual execution of our education system.

Rural teachers? Seven different grades in one classroom that was still probably a smaller class size. I remember in grade 8 when the Sask government tried an experiment in my elementary school. They split the class up into two separate grade 8 classes, males and females. We had about 56 kids in my grade 8 class. Split up it was 33 males and 23 females. We made 2 teachers quit by christmas break, one in the middle of a class lesson. Ahhh the good old days. There is no way you could pay me to be a teacher these days. Anyone saying they don't have stress should hang out with 33 kids for 8 hours a day and report back on your findings if you made it through the day without breaking any of the same rules and regulations a teacher must follow.

Anyone whom earns their degree is qualified, those which are better teachers and/or have higher qualifications will move on to better positions or get raises. Many jobs have a performance based raise scale, teaching should be no different. The fact of the matter is we have enough teachers. The learners will benefit from decreased class sizes. A single adult person can live comfortably in this country on $50,000-$60,000/year.

Well that depends entirely on the amount of new teachers needed to reduce said class sizes. But with reduced class sizes they would unfortunately have to take a pay cut as this obviously means less time planning/preparing.

I've heard that stress on teachers can often come from increased class sizes. Having to supervise more people often times means more stress in any job. Maybe the answer is more teachers, lower wages, smaller classes. Statistically students learn better in smaller class environments as well.

The key words there would most likely be "properly regulated".