The EPA is as crooked at the FDA and USDA. Fracking should be an issue left to the community that it effects. Some communties will welcome it because it brings jobs, others will close their doors because of possible side effects. Longmont, Colorado is a good example of this. The people of Longmont were given the choice of whether or not to allow fracking through a vote, and fracking lost. Rightly or wrongly I can not say, but it was a choice that was given to the people, not the government or the gas/oil companies, so Id say it was a success.
And hey, look what it says: "Several different hydrocarbon gasses, including methane, ethane, propane, and several higher molecular weight compounds, were detected in the groundwater-quality samples." And a separate statement from them: "Oil and gas development and production operations at the surface and below ground can affect water quality." Only took me 5 minutes to find.
USGS statement to NY: [link] If it's too hard for you to read, it was awfully nice of them to have underlined sections. Oh, look what's in the 3rd paragraph: "Methane contamination of domestic water wells has occurred near selected shale-gas development sites in north-central Pennsylvania (Osborn and others, 2011)"
Either way, every state is different. What Just because a well in Arkansas doesn't show contamination doesn't mean a well in Wyoming or Pennsylvaia won't and vice versa.
YO DAWG WE HEARD YOU LIKE NATURAL GAS SO WE PUT NATURAL GAS IN YOUR WATER SO YOU CAN BURN WHILE YOU DRINK
I'm not totally opposed, but right now there's too little information, the technology hasn't caught up enough, and asking the companies to be responsible is like asking the banks to stop fucking up the economy again and again.
Well, I guess let's hope the EPA takes a second look at their studies then.
I rather doubt that Fracking is innocent of problems... there are things that go on which are pretty bad. On the other hand, I know the rumors can also be unrealistically exaggerated, like they are in Gasland.
it makes sense to watch and fix polution problems but the EPA has simply lost it recently... they have become way to strict and now apparently they're skewing results... this is bad, this is very very bad...
a fun example is the 100W bulb issue. my family and many others in the Dairy belt others use them to heat livestock automatic waterers. with 100Ws now illegal. we have to use either two 60Ws, a heat lamp bulb, or a heat coil all of which use MORE power then a 100W bulb... WHERE IS THE LOGIC IN THIS D:
-EPA says coal burning plants must capture at least 20% of their So2 emissions. -Plant A burns such a low sulfur coal that it has exceptionally low So2 emissions even before capture -EPA tells Plant A that they must burn dirtier, more sulfurous, coal so that they can capture more So2.
Fracking is a complex issue that requires actual dialogue. So that means we're never going to get anywhere with it.
Lobbies will spin their shit into gold, politicians in the pocket of oil and gas (like PA's Governor and Utah's legislature) will do nothing, and people who really have suffered will be up shit creek.
I posted industry insider responses to this shit months ago in the last big fracking thread. The dude said bad operators are indeed causing damage and that needs to be addressed and the links between fracking and small earthquakes should be studied.
Since this country was founded to be a place where people are innocent before the law until proven guilty. Notice that Obama was never tried and banned from the presidency for not presenting his birth certificate.
You're contradicting yourself here. If it was never an issue, then the facts would never have been made available to put the issue to rest. The whole point is there were no facts available until an issue was made of the whole thing.
Actually, it is hard, and that's why there's so much debate and controversy over this. How do you prove that it's harming people? That's very difficult to decipher because there are so many variables to remove and consider that get in the way. People could be harmed by it but have no idea because they have no clue that it's their water that's the problem or that it's a result of fracking.
The major, troublesome flaw in your argument is that someone has to be harmed first for their to be evidence. Don't you think that's a problem? Somebody actually has to experience the consequences of these actions for evidence to be valid. Someone should not have to experience possibly severe consequences of a method of drilling for it to be considered dangerous. Consider it humanely.
Let's think about this from the perspective of the people this is being imposed on rather than that of the money/energy hungry corporations. It is clear that we do not understand the consequences of fracking right now, just as occurs with many newly introduced chemicals or processes; however, should the burden of proof really be on the people? To me, that's backwards. The corporations should have to prove that this is safe, first. It should not be up to the people to prove to the corporations that there is a risk. People are more important than corporations! The corporations should be the ones proving the safety of this to the people, not the other way around. This is another example of how we've been enslaved by these wealthy, elite businesses. They exploit our lands and health without giving us any say.
I follow the premise of "better safe than sorry" with situations like this. Although we don't know what the risks are yet, I'd prefer no fracking to prevent any possible risks. That way, all possible detriments are removed until fracking is proven 100% to be safe.
Your posts on the internet put lives at risk by causing cancer. I have no evidence of this, yet you should be banned by the government from posting anything at all on the internet until you can prove that your internet posts do not cause cancer. It's your responsibility to avoid putting lives at risk, so you should face criminal punishment for all the unregulated posting you've already done.
Why don't we be logical? Fracking is a method of drilling. There are clearly are going to be environmental consequences to it, and these consequences should be well understood before drilling such that we do not damage the environment or other people in unforeseen ways.
Why don't we be logical? Internet posting is a method of conveying information over long distances. There are clearly going to be health consequences to it, and these consequences should be well understood before posting such that we do not cause cancer or hurt other people in unforeseen ways.
When you're going to attack an industry and put the livelihoods of real people as well as economic growth on the line, you need something beyond scare-tactics to justify causing them harm. You need evidence. Otherwise you're just hurting people out of blind faith.
Personally, i would like to see scientifically proven results that groundwater is not going to be contaminated by anything related to fracking. I have a hell of a lot of family drinking well water right next to fracking locations, and i would like to know for sure they are not in harms way.
The USGS evidence says that fracking has not contaminated the groundwater in the only place that the EPA claimed it was. I suppose that it's possible that sometime in the indefinite future that fracking will cause contamination, but there's zero evidence that companies and governments will allow it, in the same way that there's zero evidence that solar panel companies are dumping toxic by-products in rivers.
Think of it this way: If your family members aren't already getting methane in their water supply, then the shale formation is not connected to it. If the shale formation were connected to the groundwater, then the methane would have escaped the ground long ago.
The livelihoods of real people ARE on the line! The people who risk contamination are real people! What do you think they are, fake people, just because they're not part of the business? The lives of real people are more important than economic growth for a select few. I cannot emphasize that enough.
The industries are the ones that need to do the convincing to justify their drilling. No one else should have to do it but them.
The livelihoods of real people ARE on the line! The people who risk contamination are real people!
You haven't even provided evidence of that yet. Nobody has shown that there is any risk of contamination from any chemical in any part of the fracking process. Your statement is still rooted in blind faith.