https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... tters.html
This article is the equivalent of going around to grave yards with a flir and saying any hot or cold spots you can find are proof of ghosts.
They assume anything hot or cold is a methane leak.
Methane is lighter than air, but some of the exhaust plooms they show are sinking, which means they are obviously not lighter than air and are likely high in sulphur gases or ammonia.
They show a building thats "leaking methane", I don't think so on account of it would blow up with the smallest spark.
They say "a worker walked through a cloud of methane" since the cloud was sinking it wasn't methane, it might have looked like he walked through the cloud to the perspective of the camera. There's no way he walked through a cloud of heavier than air gas like that. It stinks and burns your eyes, nose and lungs.
It appears almost as if it's the first time these reporters have held any kind of camera.
Anyone who has ever used a flir knows this is bs.
If it was that easy to find methane leaks, why doesn't the epa drive around with a flir and cut huge tickets to all the offenders?
Why doesn't the gas company use flir to find line and meter leaks? If it worked it would be a lot faster than using people with hand held methane sniffers.
"THE ABOVE POST CONTAINS MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION. PLEASE CONSIDER IT OPINION, NOT FACT". -someone who I offended and is unable to produce the facts in question.