That study is interesting but unhealthy levels would require you to be on-site for 25 years.

if you aren’t being obtuse (i can’t tell yet) and are genuinely interested in learning something about it, a simple google search will get you there. there have already been a few lawsuits (two that i’m aware of in Texas, and one or two in Louisiana and Oklahoma if memory serves… Colorado maybe) where there have been…

traffic-> “Fiction, except at the most local levels.”

If there were any valid reasons to oppose fracking, of course that wouldn’t be such a simple dichotomy - but in fact every claimed negative has turned out to be complete fiction, pushed by racists.

and the air quality around high concentrations of fracking wells? which was my original question. is that public health hazard? any ongoing or settled suits concerning air quality?

Landowners get paid handsomely (in royalties and bonuses) even if the oil companies never set foot on their property.

and the air quality around fracking wells… that pretty good too? nothing there that could eventually contaminate the general area and groundwater?

Alaskans set all that shit up before everything got started. No way that’s happening now. It would be a better analogy to compare this to the Exxon Valdez spill. Of which Exxon still owes something like $100mil on and are attempting to circumvent payment by tying it up in court.

How the hell am I supposed to finger bang drunk girls I meet on Tinder in that thing?

Why do so many of Dubai’s skyscrapers catch fire? And how terrifying is it that this city can’t seem to stop this from happening?

i look forward getting laid exponentially more in a future that is full of nerds.

What? You mean Trump? Or the fact that we pretty much created ISIS? Or are you talking about the two trade agreements we’re piloting, which will undoubtedly lead to an astronomical increase in global financial inequality? How prevalent institutionalized racism in our country is?

That’s not the point. The point is that it doesn’t matter what they call themselves.

Oh. So because the other new organizations don’t call themselves “entertainment” companies, I guess that solves it. All the others must be more concerned with accurately reporting the news than they are in making money. Because of what they label themselves as. Thanks for clearing that all up for me.

only fox is the one that labels themselves as “entertainment” and frequently pass false information off as “true news”.

only fox is the one that labels themselves as “entertainment” and frequently pass false information off as “true news”.

I would agree with you, and suggest one small alteration to the statement you must made.

I wouldn’t call either of those outlets you mentioned unbiased. The BBC admits their own biases. On the record. Al-Jazeera isn’t really super bias per se, however very untrustworthy from time to time. They use very dubious sources.

and I think you’re missing the point that NONE of those other MAJOR news organizations label themselves as “entertainment” as you originally claimed.

Fox News bends everything to the right, CNN bends everything to the left... so the truth... the real truth is lying somewhere in the middle.