Refugee Ban
- Thread starter Blue2010
- Start date
Polls are what they've always been - a sampling of the population. And largely depend on the inputs. If you poll 100 Americans as to what the best state in the country is, and 80 of those 100 Americans are from North Dakota - don't be surprised when North Dakota "wins" that poll, but that when all Americans are polled that the answer is different.
I'd be willing to bet that if 80 out of 100 were from there, ND still wouldn't be the most popular answer. I mean, who the hell wants to live in ND?
Everyone who wants to be close enough to the action to be able to protest the pipeline, duh.
Maybe one day they will put a pipeline through your back yard and you'll have a better perspective of those who are protesting it.
1. I was joking
2. You quoted the wrong post. Should have quoted the post where I made fun of the protesters
3. As long as it was built safely I wouldn't care that much. I haven't looked at the exact route, but I'm assuming it's not that close to anyone's house.
Crude can be transported by rail or pipeline. Pipeline is safer. Some of the folks here in NE are not happy about it either. It's probably 60-40 for it but most don't give a shit.
My guess would be it's more environmentally friendly too if you take into account the amount of fuel a train would burn up to transfer by rail. This is assuming no spills for either method.
Biggest concern here is the large underground aquifer. There have been numerous studies done that suggest it is safe. And true about rail transport.
I was curious so I looked it up. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has reported an average of 632 spills over the last 10 years. That seems less than ideal.
I'm sure "safety" is a measure they use... until it breaks and it contaminates your water supply or your land in general. I'm not saying it's good, bad, right, or wrong, but, until it happens to you, it's not always easy to get perspective. I thought this was about banning refugees.
True, but you don't know that it will actually happen. We can revisit the issue when/if it happens.
Blame @Hark_The_Sound_2010 for bringing up the pipeline and getting us off track.
If I'm reading that correctly, it shows all incidents and not just spills so that number would be lower than 632. Did you happen to find the number of spills from other transportation methods and the amount spilled compared to pipelines. Can't really do a fair comparison without those numbers.
If you're referring to injuries and fatalities, they are subsets of spills, i.e. they're only reported if a spill occurs. You can click through any of the hyperlinked years to see the spill causes, which basically break down like this:
CORROSION
EXCAVATION DAMAGE
INCORRECT OPERATION
MATERIAL/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE
NATURAL FORCE DAMAGE
OTHER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE
ALL OTHER CAUSES
I'm not trying to do a comparison. The point is that pipeline spills are unavoidable, happening at a rate of almost 2 per day. Trying to figure out which method of transportation causes less environmental destruction and loss of life ain't really my bag. I'm just saying it's understandable if nobody wants this stuff in their back yard.
ETA: But if I had to guess, train spills happen most frequently but cause the least amount of damage, pipeline spills happen with average frequency and cause an average amount of damage, and tanker spills happen least frequently but cause the most damage. It all sucks haha.
Last edited:
Well then there is no reason to keep you around if you're going to be useless.
Sure it's understandable, but my guess is that it's not really in anyone's backyard.
