jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (115 posts)

If you think oil is destroying our planet...

  1. emrldphx profile image61
    emrldphxposted 6 years ago

    1 - In what way is oil and drilling destroying our planet?

    2 - What should we do about it?

    3 - How should we power our cars?

    4 - Should we drill to help our economy while we work on other ideas or no?

  2. thooghun profile image82
    thooghunposted 6 years ago

    1. Oil spills have caused untold damage to marine and coastal environments. To name one example.

    2. Drill responsibly while making headway into alternative, renewable sources of energy. BP being granted yet another contract is an example which infuriates me.

    3. Electric, fuel cell, solar, hydrogen and steam are (as far as I can tell) increasingly valid alternatives.

    4. Yes, while I don't like the idea of free-for-all drilling, any change in fuel consumption should be gradual in order to appease economic and market forces. I don't like it, but I can't see a way around freeing ourselves overnight from our oil dependency.

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Nature spills more oil than we do. Deepwater Horizon was 5 million barrels. The gulf of mexico has 1 million + barrels of natural seepage every year.

      I think a big conflict is what defines responsible drilling? Is it responsible to continually hold off drilling while our economy struggles and gas prices are so high?

      Electric has to get it's electricity from somewhere. Hydrogen/fuel cell has to use energy to create the hydrogen. Steam? How are we going to get the energy to make steam? Solar won't work for cars. We would have to throw out safety regulations and sacrifice speed to even get close.

      Every alternative requires energy. This seems to be the point that people miss. Where will we get the energy for our alternative energy?

      It will take a long time to get off oil. I want to show people that it's not as bad as the media and pseudo-scientists want us to think.

      1. thooghun profile image82
        thooghunposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Natural seepage does not mean oil spills are any less harmful (which was your original question), why add to the tally? While I agree that drilling is currently here to stay, until there are efficient alternatives, it is illogical to justify free-for-all drilling by saying that nature does it too. It's simply another reason FOR curtailing the philosophy of "drill, baby drill".

        I'm also a little confused by your flat-out dismissal of the alternatives I suggested. Some models are now widely available such as the fully electric Nissan Leaf. Perhaps you should ask them how they did it. Solar powered cars, as you say, are far from workable as things stand. But several companies such as Venturi have built prototypes that are promising, and solar technology has made leaps and bounds of progress. Should we simply stop pushing because it seems unlikely?

        You are correct that alternative energy requires energy, of course. But you'll also have to agree that energy efficiency on many of these new engines is far superior to petrol based engines (in excess of 60%).

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          The argument is usually that our oil spills are extremely harmful to the environment, when they really aren't. They are a small ding in the amount of natural seepage. Yes, it is bad, but not bad enough to nullify the benefits. The environmental damage is minuscule. The flip side is horrible, horrible drawbacks for humanity.

          The point is, electricity isn't free. If everyone switched to electric, we would have massive blackouts. If we want to replace oil with electric, where are we going to get the energy for it?

          No, not at all. We should keep researching. But none of these alternatives are close enough to justify curtailing drilling when prices are high, the economy suffers, and unemployment is high. It's much better to drill, help the economy, help jobs.

          You have to also consider the energy efficiency of creating the energy for the new alternatives.

      2. maxoxam41 profile image76
        maxoxam41posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        And people died in Iraq, Libya... for oil. Which honorable argument will you give me?

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Do we agree it would be best to drill and use our own oil(we have enough)?

  3. cheaptrick profile image69
    cheaptrickposted 6 years ago

    Every time an oil well is drilled it leaves a big hollow spot.Pretty soon the whole earth will be hollow,then it will drift off like a balloon and bump into the planet Nirubo and I heard that the Anunnaki will get really PO'd and do the same thing to us they did last time we bumped into their planet.
    Personally,I don't like the Idea of mining gold for them if I don't get a little myself.

    Is this the weed thread?

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It should be.

    2. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Uh... no, it's not big_smile

      Maybe we could fill the holes with garbage that could turn into more oil?

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I'm sure that statement is rational to you. Well done!

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          What, I'm not allowed to joke?

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You are, no problem. However, your justification of particular acts, comes at the expense of others.

            1. emrldphx profile image61
              emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              What are you even talking about?

              1. Pcunix profile image93
                Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                That's the problem, isn't it?  You don't know what we are talking about.

                Yes, the pursuit of oil is harmful and quite stupid. It doesn't take much research to see that.

                But you will not see it, so why bother talking about it?

                1. emrldphx profile image61
                  emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Show me how harmful it really is. Show me the cons and pros of more, 'status quo', and less drilling, and let's see what's truly harmful.

                  1. Pcunix profile image93
                    Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    No.  Why should I waste the energy of my fingers?

                    The question is settled in all but the minds of a few people like you.  If you won't educate yourself when it would be so easy to do so, why should I bother?

              2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                I thought it was obvious. You are allowed to joke (is that not the question you asked? Correct me if I'm wrong) You have attempted to justify drilling, have you not? Keep up, E, I shouldn't have to explain you own posts to you! Come on, behave like a grown up, now.

                1. emrldphx profile image61
                  emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Hollie, you said my justification of 'particular acts' comes at the expense of others.

                  If you were talking about drilling, wouldn't it have been easier to just type 'drilling'? Let's see, 15 characters you typed vs. 8 you could have. So, it doesn't even make sense that you would be talking about drilling.

                  I'll give you some help. If you use words that specifically state the idea you are trying to present, it works out better.

                  Nor did you ever say what the 'others' are.

                  Don't blame me for your poor communication.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Just to type "drilling" would be the American way, I use British, English. Or, have you forgotten? You sound a little defensive now E. Poor communication, can arise when an individual is too lazy (or ignorant) to expand and prefers a " testing method" It's not my fault that you have forgotten your original statements. Try to remember the questions you asked originally. Honestly, it works out better!

  4. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    Who controls the oil

  5. Pcunix profile image93
    Pcunixposted 6 years ago

    Oh, and anyone who puts quotes around "scientists" when they aren't using it as I am here is never going to get anything but derision from me.

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I put quotes around 'scientists' for their inconsistencies, obvious political corruption, and outright manipulation of data.

    2. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I put quotes around 'scientists' for their inconsistencies, obvious political corruption, and outright manipulation of data.

      1. Pcunix profile image93
        Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah.  I know why you did it.  I'm telling you what my reaction is.

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Fine. You can worship scientists who manipulate data for political reasons all you want.

  6. IzzyM profile image89
    IzzyMposted 6 years ago

    The extraction of oil, as I see it, is only destroying our planet through man's greed.

    To put that statement in perspective, how many wars in the Middle east would have happened if it hadn't been for oil?

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What about the other side? Where would we be without oil?

      1. Pcunix profile image93
        Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        That's the kind of response that makes me bang my head on the desk.

        Where would we be?  We'd be in a different place.  But that's not the point.  The point is that we are at a point where we desperately need to develop alternatives NOW.   We will likely NEVER replace oil entirely, but the more we can replace, the better off we will be.

        But never mind:  you still don't understand why we'd be better off.

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          When someone says 'consider the wars that never would have happened without oil', it's pretty logical to consider what else wouldn't have happened without oil.

          Why do we need to develop alternatives now? Is it the cost of oil? Pollution? Damage to the environment because of drilling and speculating?

          See, I'm trying really hard here to get you to present some real ideas.

          I have never claimed to be against alternative energies. I'm all for developing alternatives. You seem to think I'm completely against them...

      2. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Who knows but there would have to have been a lot more crops and animals grown to provide the planet with clothing.  One big issue is this:  Most of the clothing worn by first and second nations is made from petroleum based fibers.  Cotton products are more expensive to purchase and processing cotton comes with its own downside.  There isn't enough wool and most people wouldn't wear it anyway.  Silk is too expensive.  Bamboo and hemp are still too expensive.

        So this would be a big issue if there were no more oil processing.  China would be out of business in clothing manufacturing as would most other manufacturers.  What about petroleum based plastics?  A huge can of worms.  I'm not saying drilling is ok, in fact I wish there were a solution substitute but the facts remain.

      3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        A few million lives may have been saved.

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          How many would be lost? How many technological advancements would we not have without modern travel? How many diseases would we not be able to control?

          Where do you actually think we would be without oil?

        2. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          And literally almost every convenience we know wouldn't exist.  Some might exist in another form.  The use of petroleum is clearly out of hand.  Plastic bottles, lamination, plexiglass, all synthetic fibers - clothing, fire retardant gear, sleeping bags, baby wear, uniforms, dive gear, blankets - countertops, equipment cases, machine housings, packaging of all sorts, paints, carpeting, you name it.  Even that computer your typing on.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, but just because it was our best option for advancements at the time, does not mean it is the best option now.  Oil drilling is an outdated practice that is being continued, despite the risk and pollution, because the wealthy are heavily invested in continuing it.

            1. emrldphx profile image61
              emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              We don't have viable alternatives right now. Not unless you want to stop all cars, aircraft, etc...

              Any alternative would require IMMENSE amounts of energy. Either immense new sources of power for electricity, or immense amounts of power to create enough hydrogen to switch to fuel cells.... we're nowhere near that point.

              In the meantime, gas is expensive and our economy suffers. Let's keep working on alternatives, bring the price of gas down, and create jobs.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                That post wasn't directed at you.  I thought we had an agreement.

                1. emrldphx profile image61
                  emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't really care, if you want to post in a thread I make about a topic, I'll correct you like I'll correct anyone else who thinks we can do without oil.

                  1. Pcunix profile image93
                    Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Nobody said we can do without oil.  We need to REDUCE our dependence on oil.

                  2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    You're not correcting anyone. You are merely offering an opinion. That is not a correction, who on earth do you think you are?

                  3. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                    MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Oh, I see.  You word doesn't matter.  Nice to know.  I didn't trust anything you said before, but thank you for giving me proof.  If you are trying to make a point, then telling the truth is irrelevant.

                  4. maxoxam41 profile image76
                    maxoxam41posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Why don't you stick to the American oil, why go and murder people for your own comfort? And the money doesn't even go to your pockets. or does it?

  7. Pcunix profile image93
    Pcunixposted 6 years ago

    By the way, I'm done here.  See y'all elsewhere.

  8. IzzyM profile image89
    IzzyMposted 6 years ago

    I was a political activist back in 80s, and I campaigned fr alternatives to oil, which will one run out.

    I am so happy that windfarms have since been introduced, and the wavefarms are in the offing, and that alternatives to fuelling cars are available.

    What is this argument about?

    Governments successively, in all Western nations, have used oil as a negotiating point.

    The increase in alternative power sources, decreases our dependence on oil, which one day will run out.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Well enough for the sake of energy.  There are alternatives for energy but what about all the other uses petroleum is put to?  That's a long road

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Not so long as you would think.  Products were developed using petroleum based products because the materials were by-products(read cheap). Remove cheap materials and you would be surprised how quickly new products will be developed.

        You also fail to address that many of the products made with petrochemicals are ridiculously dangerous/toxic.   We would be better off without them anyway.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Oh, I agree with you on that.  I'm a pro naturalist, remember?  I'd love to see it all shut down but it's not likely to happen any time soon.

  9. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 6 years ago

    @Emrldphx. I have raised my 19 year old son and 14 year old daughter, alone, since 2002. Never, despite recessions and a poisonous divorce, have I had to choose between one or the other. Why? Because I was always one step ahead of the game. No employer would ever have that power over me, because I've never been a conformist or an apologist for the disgustingly wealthy. I have made my own money and supported my children completely. Perhaps the quintessential student, should think about protecting his own instead of making ridiculous arguments.

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry Holly, you didn't pick an answer. You criticize me for my choice, what would you have done in my shoes?

      If you think that it is 100% up to you whether or not you are 'ahead of the game', then you show your lack of knowledge, wisdom, and compassion. Not everyone can work for themselves. Not everyone can control what happens.

      If you want to continue criticizing me, pick an answer.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Not everyone can work for themselves. Not everyone can control what happens.

        Yet, when you talk about the OWS movement, you are completely judgemental. You appear to have absolutely no compassion for people who have lost their homes, jobs, pensions and self respect! How does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot?

        Here's the answer, I would beg, borrow and steal, to keep my children from starving. Fortunately I've never had to. Which is why I would never judge a parent who is in that position. Wake up, many of your fellow American citizens are. They need your help, not your judgement.

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Ok, you would beg, borrow, and steal(and presumably lose your job).

          I didn't steal. I worked. When I was home I cooked what we had and took care of my family. I would have intervened if I needed to to save my son's life, but it wasn't to that point. It was much better for me to keep my job so he would have food and shelter the next week too.

          I have compassion for people who are struggling. I don't have compassion for people who complain about the police when they are breaking the law.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image76
            maxoxam41posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The same police that pepper spray kids with our money...

            1. emrldphx profile image61
              emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Those 'kids' are adults, who we now know to have been resisting arrest.

  10. maxoxam41 profile image76
    maxoxam41posted 6 years ago

    Where is the point of your questions? To lead us to believe that oil is key and we should still drill?
    Let me be as manipulative and biased.
    In what way is oil and drilling not destroying our planet?
    What should we do about it?
    Should we power our cars with natural gas or electricity or another form of energy?
    Should we stop now drilling since the electric car is on the market?

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      When he can't counter this argument, he'll say it was a joke.

      1. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        No, not really.

      2. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        No, not really.

    2. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      My point is, yes, we should continue to drill while we work on alternatives. We can create jobs, lower gas prices, and help our economy.

      Oil and drilling create pollution and occasional oil spills. However, the effect of these spills and the pollution is minimal compared to the necessity of maintaining our economy. The pollution isn't destroying our planet through global warming... I admit is hurts health, but so does unemployment.

      We should continue to drill, and continue to work on other energy sources.

      We should power our cars with gas until a viable solution is presented.

      We should continue drilling, because we don't have the infrastructure for all-electric cars, long-distance trips wouldn't be possible, and airlines can't operate off of electric.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image76
        maxoxam41posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        therefore no more cars and the problem is solved. We walk, we bicycle... and it is positive for our health...
        Which jobs would be created?

        1. maxoxam41 profile image76
          maxoxam41posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Lower gas prices whereas we passed the oil peak? Good analysis! On which planet are you leaving?

          1. maxoxam41 profile image76
            maxoxam41posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Only the producers have an influence on the price. The rest follows like sheep. Don't you remember the oil crisis?

        2. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          You would cut out anyone who lives too far from work to walk or bike. Anyone who is in too hot or cold of a climate to walk or bike. What about construction? Do we need to carry each bit of sheetrock from a factory to where we want to build a house?

          The jobs are created at drilling sites, transportation, construction, maintenance, more processing factories, etc, etc, etc...

          The money people make at those jobs is spent at stores, which further helps create jobs. It's all about cash flow.

  11. maxoxam41 profile image76
    maxoxam41posted 6 years ago

    The future is on self-reliance

  12. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "range of 20-100 years of oil." Where is that?

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      We use 7 billion barrels of oil in one year.
      http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6

      I was wrong, we have an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in shale alone.

      1,800,000,000,000 / 7,000,000,000

      over 200 years of oil just from shale. I had forgotten how much of that there is.
      http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reser … _Sheet.pdf

      Then you have Alaska, Gulf, and other offshore drilling.

  13. rlaframboise profile image59
    rlaframboiseposted 6 years ago

    I have an idea for all of you green advocates. Why don't we drill everything we have right now to have energy independence and get rid of the world's fossil fuels, the faster we deplete them, the quicker inefficient green technologies will become cost effective and the world will shift towards them. We also could create jobs so that we can employ the smelly hippies with Guy Fawkes masks dancing to bongo drums and wasting tax dollars. Drill here, drill now, get it over with and push for renewable energies full steam ahead. Don't be stupid eco-dummies, we can work together without destroying the environment long term and you won't have to burn your bra's and produce carbon, not to mention the methane coming from your unshaven, non-deodorized arm pits.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Wow!  I'd love to respond to this but not really sure where you're coming from.  Whom do you hate, the tree huggers, the hippies, the bra burners, the naturalists, or the oil drillers?

    2. IzzyM profile image89
      IzzyMposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I was almost listening to you, until you mentioned bra-burning.

      Excuse me, but my bra keeps me in shape (sort of).

      This isn't a sex topic. This affects all of us.

      Green technologies should be promoted at every opportunity.

      Know why? Because the oil isn't going to be there forever.

      I'm an oldie, and I see that.

      1. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Not forever, but it isn't going to run out any time soon either.

        We have plenty of time to develop alternatives without having to rush and ruin our economy/infrastructure.

        1. rlaframboise profile image59
          rlaframboiseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Yea, we have plenty of time to shift our wealth to the middle east for energy while we make our assets worth nothing at home. Our economy already is ruined we pour our depleting currency overseas by the bucket for oil to countries that are the most tyrannical and unjust to human rights on Earth. Then we get involved in no win wars over a resource we have plenty of at home and no political will to tap. We could actually develop renewable energy that is realistically competitive if we get rid of our own super cheap fossil fuels at home without enriching dictatorships and primitive theocratic human rights nightmares.

          What is plenty of time? I am paying 3.37 at the pump and I know most of that is taxes to an out of control government but the rest goes overseas to support governments I think even less of.

          You propose we replace oil before we get rid of our oil supplies and we hover at 9% unemployment under another incompetant president? Please. Get rid of all the fossil fuels while they still have value, then your green dream will become a reality; not before the inefficient green technologies bankrupt our economy after each failed experiment to replace a cheap fuel source is subsidised by Obama and the rest of the socialist humanists world's government fueled disaster project. This is like using government and taxpayers to finance airports in the 1700's.

          1. emrldphx profile image61
            emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I'm talking about oil in America. We have enough to keep ourselves going for a long long time. I'm saying we should utilize the oil we have, drive prices down, and create new jobs.

            1. rlaframboise profile image59
              rlaframboiseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Oh, sorry I tottally agree.

          2. maxoxam41 profile image76
            maxoxam41posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Why would america plegde war if it had plenty of oil, for the second biggest oil consumer

          3. maxoxam41 profile image76
            maxoxam41posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            With your realism framboise, you still believe that governments are competent? That master degrees in economics can fix the problems of the economy?

            1. maxoxam41 profile image76
              maxoxam41posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Seen under your reductive prism, you found all the answers to the problems and the green advocates are the idiots. But you, you are smart, you ahve everything figured out with your pseudo explanations

              1. emrldphx profile image61
                emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Who are you talking to?

          4. maxoxam41 profile image76
            maxoxam41posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            And America is the country of freedom. No tyranny at all, no surveillance of black listed journalists, lobbies through congress decides which policy to apply in the name of their interests and you dare refer to tyranny? What did American soldiers in Iraq, in Guantanamo, you call that human rights? When kids demonstrate peacefully they pepper spray them! Let's see what will happen if they riot, if they won't send the army?

            1. maxoxam41 profile image76
              maxoxam41posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Which government are you referring to? The puppet, one? Therefore, who stands behind the puppet? The money obviously. And, it is not tyranny? I advise you to check your dictionary before writing down anything.

        2. IzzyM profile image89
          IzzyMposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          And the one world order doesn't exist! Please, you sound like a sensible person, spread the word. Let people know what we are all up against.

          The guy who posted after you made some valid points too, but the fact is that oil has corrupted our politicians; it has corrupted some of the wealthiest people on the planet, and yet at the same time it is needed.

          It is only needed until an alternative fuel is found.

          The FACT that oil will run out, makes it valuable.

          With today's technology, we could build cars with tires that never wear out.

          Do you think business wants that?

          Do they want cars built that aren't wrecked in the slightest collision? Because we have the technology to build them.

          We, the people, want one thing, them, the top money makers want another thing.

          1. emrldphx profile image61
            emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not sure what kind of tires you are referring to. My guess would be they would either be very expensive or very uncomfortable

            Actually, it's very important for a car to wreck in a collision. All of the energy that goes into bending that relatively soft metal is energy that doesn't go into your body.

            We can ultimately change things, we're not so far gone that the voice of the people doesn't have a say. I'm hopeful for some real changes, but at the same time, I've got other ideas on where I would like to spend the rest of my life in case it doesn't.

            1. IzzyM profile image89
              IzzyMposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Right now, right in this time, it is possible to make tyres that do not degrade.

              Tires, tyres, spelling difference only.

              The majority of accidents that happen on the road in wet weather are caused by worn tyres.

              You need to have tyres with a good thread to deal with surface water on the road

              Worn tyres, even those that are only worn to the minimum level, are a danger.

              Yet the technology exists to make tyres perfect forever, or damned near it.

              If those that governed our world REALLY cared about us, do you not think they would have forced through a law to make everlasting tyres a reality?

              No, they prefer the returning profit of an ever-renewing source, like tyres, which it doesn't need to be.

              1. emrldphx profile image61
                emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                That's just a matter of driving faster than you should in given conditions.

                Not if you are driving properly. Proper driving means giving yourself room to stop.

                What tires? Made out of what? Can you post a link? They'll either be very expensive or very uncomfortable, or both.

                Even if they did, would we be able to afford them?

            2. IzzyM profile image89
              IzzyMposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              [

              Do you believe that? Why is it then that Heads of State travel around in crash-proof cars?

              Why do most families prefer the German-built Volvos to carry their family around?

              Volvo's don't crumple on impact.

              They can build impact-proof cars.

              With tyres/tires that last forever.

              But then, they'd be out of work, wouldn't they?

              1. emrldphx profile image61
                emrldphxposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Do you understand physics at all? Let's assume you had a car that wouldn't even dent in a crash, and you are firmly secured. If you get into a crash and stop instantly, there is going to be TREMENDOUS pressure on you from the restraints, you would likely break your neck and/or dislocate joints, and the force of your brain pressing into your skull could kill you. The faster you stop, the more it hurts.

                If you don't understand, look at these examples. Which one is going to hurt most?

                You go from 60 to 0 in 10 seconds with the brakes.
                You go from 60 to 0 in 2 seconds hitting the back of a car.
                You go from 60 to 0 in .5 seconds hitting an oncoming car.

                Crumple zones absorb force, which makes it so you can live. They are a VERY good thing.

                Volvo are very safe, Swedish(right?) cars. Not everyone can afford a $27,000 entry level coupe though.

                Volvo's crumple too. Watch the crash tests. The goal is to have maximum crumple without any structural integrity lost in the passenger areas.

                Show me an impact-proof car.

                Show me tires that last forever(and costs)

                1. IzzyM profile image89
                  IzzyMposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  OK, my school physics isn't quite up to the impact/survival rate, though it should be - I am getting forgetful the older I get - but faulty tyres is the cause of most accidents.

                  Who sold those faulty tyres?

                  Well they were brand new six months before, but a few thousand miles down the line and they are worn.

                  Tyres aquaplane on wet road surfaces when they are worn.

                  The whole point of a deep thread is that water is dispelled sideways.

                  Having good tyres on a vehicle makes all the different between life and death.

                  Why wait for a collision?

                  The Law in most countries in the world demands a good thread on tyres.

                  Butu I would pay 10 times the current price for a new tyre, to have ones that didn't wear down.

                  Uh-uh! Ain't for sale.

 
working