E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jacki Schilke
This cow on Jacki Schilke's ranch in northeast North Dakota lost most of its tail, one of many ailments that afflicted her cattle after hydrofracturing, or fracking, began in the nearby Bakken Shale.
In the midst of the domestic energy boom, livestock on farms near oil- and gas-drilling operations nationwide have been quietly falling sick and dying. While scientists have yet to isolate cause and effect, many suspect chemicals used in drilling and hydrofracking (or “fracking”) operations are poisoning animals through the air, water or soil.
Earlier this year, Michelle Bamberger, an Ithaca, N.Y., veterinarian, and Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine, published the first and only peer-reviewed report to suggest a link between fracking and illness in food animals.
The authors compiled 24 case studies of farmers in six shale-gas states whose livestock experienced neurological, reproductive and acute gastrointestinal problems after being exposed — either accidentally or incidentally — to fracking chemicals in the water or air. The article, published in “New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health,” describes how scores of animals died over the course of several years. Fracking industry proponents challenged the study, since the authors neither identified the farmers nor ran controlled experiments to determine how specific fracking compounds might affect livestock.
The death toll is insignificant when measured against the nation’s livestock population (some 97 million beef cattle go to market each year), but environmental advocates believe these animals constitute an early warning.
Exposed livestock “are making their way into the food system, and it’s very worrisome to us,” Bamberger said. “They live in areas that have tested positive for air, water and soil contamination. Some of these chemicals could appear in milk and meat products made from these animals.”
In Louisiana, 17 cows died after an hour’s exposure to spilled fracking fluid, which is injected miles underground to crack open and release pockets of natural gas. The most likely cause of death: respiratory failure.
In New Mexico, hair testing of sick cattle that grazed near well pads found petroleum residues in 54 of 56 animals.
In northern central Pennsylvania, 140 cattle were exposed to fracking wastewater when an impoundment was breached. Approximately 70 cows died, and the remainder produced only 11 calves, of which three survived.
In western Pennsylvania, an overflowing wastewater pit sent fracking chemicals into a pond and a pasture where pregnant cows grazed: Half their calves were born dead. Dairy operators in shale-gas areas of Colorado, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Texas have also reported the death of goats exposed to fracking chemicals.
Drilling and fracking a single well requires up to 7 million gallons of water, plus an additional 400,000 gallons of additives, including lubricants, biocides, scale- and rust-inhibitors, solvents, foaming and defoaming agents, emulsifiers and de-emulsifiers, stabilizers and breakers. At almost every stage of developing and operating an oil or gas well, chemicals and compounds can be introduced into the environment.
Cows lose weight, die
After drilling began just over the property line of Jacki Schilke’s ranch in the northwestern corner of North Dakota in 2009, in the heart of the state’s booming Bakken Shale, cattle began limping, with swollen legs and infections. Cows quit producing milk for their calves, they lost from 60 to 80 pounds in a week and their tails mysteriously dropped off. Eventually, five animals died, according to Schilke.
Ambient air testing by a certified environmental consultant detected elevated levels of benzene, methane, chloroform, butane, propane, toluene and xylene -- and well testing revealed high levels of sulfates, chromium, chloride and strontium. Schilke says she moved her herd upwind and upstream from the nearest drill pad.
Although her steers currently look healthy, she said, “I won’t sell them because I don’t know if they’re OK.”
Nor does anyone else. Energy companies are exempt from key provisions of environmental laws, which makes it difficult for scientists and citizens to learn precisely what is in drilling and fracking fluids or airborne emissions. And without information on the interactions between these chemicals and pre-existing environmental chemicals, veterinarians can’t hope to pinpoint an animal’s cause of death.
The risks to food safety may be even more difficult to parse, since different plants and animals take up different chemicals through different pathways.
“There are a variety of organic compounds, metals and radioactive material (released in the fracking process) that are of human health concern when livestock meat or milk is ingested,” said Motoko Mukai, a veterinary toxicologist at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine. These “compounds accumulate in the fat and are excreted into milk. Some compounds are persistent and do not get metabolized easily.”
Jacki Schilke
An oil-drilling rig is visible from Jacki Schilke's ranch in North Dakota.
Veterinarians don’t know how long chemicals may remain in animals, farmers aren’t required to prove their livestock are free of contamination before middlemen purchase them and the Food Safety Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture isn’t looking for these compounds in carcasses at slaughterhouses.
Documenting the scope of the problem is difficult: Scientists lack funding to study the matter, and rural vets remain silent for fear of retaliation. Farmers who receive royalty checks from energy companies are reluctant to complain, and those who have settled with gas companies following a spill or other accident are forbidden to disclose information to investigators. Some food producers would rather not know what’s going on, say ranchers and veterinarians.
“It takes a long time to build up a herd’s reputation,” said rancher Dennis Bauste of Trenton Lake, N.D. “I’m gonna sell my calves and I don’t want them to be labeled as tainted. Besides, I wouldn’t know what to test for. Until there’s a big wipeout, a major problem, we’re not gonna hear much about this.”
Fracking proponents criticize Bamberger and Oswald’s paper as a political, not a scientific, document. “They used anonymous sources, so no one can verify what they said,” said Steve Everley, of the industry lobby group Energy In Depth. The authors didn’t provide a scientific assessment of impacts -- testing what specific chemicals might do to cows that ingest them, for example -- so treating their findings as scientific, he continues, “is laughable at best, and dangerous for public debate at worst.” Bamberger and Oswald acknowledge this lack of scientific assessment and blame it on the dearth of funding for fracking research and on the industry’s use of nondisclosure agreements.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the main lobbying group for ranchers, takes no position on fracking, but some ranchers are beginning to speak out. “These are industry-supporting conservatives, not radicals,” said Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the environmental group, Natural Resources Defense Council. “They are the experts in their animals’ health, and they are very concerned.”
Last March, Christopher Portier, director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called for studies of oil and gas production’s impact on food plants and animals. None is currently planned by the federal government.
As local food booms, consumers wary
But consumers intensely interested in where and how their food is grown aren’t waiting for hard data to tell them their meat or milk is safe. For them, the perception of pollution is just as bad as the real thing.
“My beef sells itself. My farm is pristine. But a restaurant doesn’t want to visit and see a drill pad on the horizon,” said Ken Jaffe, who raises grass-fed cattle in upstate New York.
Only recently has the local foods movement, in regions across the country, reached a critical mass. But the movement’s lofty ideals could turn out to be, in shale gas areas, a double-edged sword.
Should the moratorium on hydrofracking in New York State be lifted, the 16,200-member Park Slope Food Co-op, in Brooklyn, will no longer buy food from farms anywhere near drilling operations -- a $4 million loss for upstate producers. The livelihood of organic goat farmer Steven Cleghorn, who’s surrounded by active wells in Pennsylvania, is already in jeopardy.
“People at the farmers market are starting to ask exactly where this food comes from,” he said.
This report was produced by the Food & Environment Reporting Network, an independent investigative journalism non-profit focusing on food, agriculture, and environmental health. A longer version of this story appears on TheNation.com.
More from Open Channel:
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Anything to reap the wealth from within the ground. Big Oil's days are numbered here on earth. If not, they will be sued into oblivion by those whose lives are wrought with sickness and even death. Cattle is just the beginning, next is children and elderly as they are most vunerable. Stop fracking now!
Are you kidding? The people are the ones getting screwed, not the oil companies. If you think they're ever gonna truly pay for any of it then you are sorely mistaken. Once they're allowed in, it's all over.
Agreed. Sometimes 1+1=2. Those that are for Fracking are blind to what is happening. Soon it will affect the children and elderly, it's already hurting our animals and in turn our food and drink.
They aren't blind, they just don't care. They won't eat food from areas doing fracking, and they won't drink the water either, that is for the poor suckers who live there. Anything for the sake of the almighty dollar. Anyone who protests about the dangers is just a stupid liberal who is trying to steal the money from the poor oil companies.
This should lead to an immediate halt to fracking, and some serious jail time for any safety related criminal actions. The industry should be mandated to pay for independent scientific and medical studies that show how this relates to human safety. We know it won't happen though because the only thing the greedy see is the color of money. Responsibility falls onto the shoulders of the taxpayers and the poor saps who live there, not the hard working greed mongers.
It is also keeping energy prices down to the point that green energy, something we need, cannot survive on its own.
It is simple ... those companies just don't care about the side effects of their drilling processes. As for all the people who scream and shout that environmentalists are kooks and are destroying the economy ... wait until it's your family being injured by the dangerous practices and then let's hear what you have to say.
All the Republicans are pushing the agenda of going forward with the Keystone pipeline and drilling in the national parks. When will it end?
Solar, geothermal, wind ... there are realistic alternatives to the so-called fossil fuels, but so long as our "elected representatives" look out for only the interests of big oil and gas and decry ANY attempt to bolster funding to alternative energy companies ... as long as our government uses our tax dollars for corporate welfare handouts to only those fossil fuel corporations ... as long as people continue to allow themselves to be brainwashed by FAUX entertainment ... the situation will continue to worsen.
In Pennsylvania, where I live, the state loosened the water-quality restrictions on oil & gas drillers. It had been that, if someone drilled within 500 feet of your water well and the water well went foul, the drilling company was obligated by law to drill a new water well. Now, if a water well goes foul while they are drilling, the water well owner has to prove, in court, that it was caused by the drilling company. It is difficult to prove because the drilling companies have dozens of so-called 'experts' on staff that will deny that the drilling caused the problem. It is possible to win the case, but it costs thousands of dollars because the water well owner needs to hire their own experts (hydro-geologists, etc.) to argue against the oil & gas company experts. It is far cheaper to just pay for a new water well.
Also, in our state, if you buy property you had better make darned sure you buy ALL the property in a straight line from heaven to hell - what are known as the SOGMs (surface, oil, gas, minerals). If you buy 20 or 30 acres, but only get the surface rights, you are NOT the primary owner of the property in several states (Pennsylvania being one of them). Oh, you have to pay 100% of the property taxes, but you are considered, by law, subservient to the holder of the oil, gas and mineral rights of the same parcel of land. This means that they can come in and dig or drill pretty much anywhere they want, without giving you a dime for the loss of your surface. Most gas well drillers will come onto the property, clear cut the timber in an area of around an acre and that is the amount of surface you lose without any remuneration from them for your loss. They can drill wells a few hundred feet apart, so a 30 acre parcel can end up with three of four wells - or more - and the loss of use of three or four acres of land. They bury the debris left over from the drilling (toxic chemicals) near the well head and there's not a damned thing the property owner can do about it.
What happened to our government protecting the CITIZENS against big corporations? Oh, yeah ... I forgot ... money talks. Our politicians are bought and paid for by those companies which allows them to have free reign over the taxpayers. We need government reforms now! No more PACs, lobbyists and special interest groups influencing our representatives. No more massive 'campaign donations' [read: bribes] from big corporations. The court was wrong ... companies are NOT PEOPLE. People live and breathe and love and procreate. Companies don't drink polluted water or breathe contaminated air. Companies do not die from the unsafe practices of the big oil companies. People do.
We have the right to live healthy, happy and productive lives. How dare those we vote for, who are supposed to represent us, sell us down the river for a few pieces of gold.
How can they sell you down the river for a few pieces of gold? Man, while they're spending that gold on their vacation to Monte Carlo you're the last thing on their mind.
Of course livestock are dying! What did we think would happen when companies use toxic chemicals that gets into the water and soil?
I'm tired of hearing how great it will be when the U.S. is oil-independent because of fracking. Do they really think we buy that B.S.? Our world is SO toxic already and we're just adding to the deaths so a relatively small number of people can make a lot of money.
Human nature, unfortunately, never changes.
This is PG&E and hexavalent chromium all over again. The irony is most of this is occuring in 'conservative' states and is being fully supported by state/local government in most cases. So until there's been enough deaths and/or a full-blown environmental disaster, it's likely nothing will happen. Even if/when it's stopped, the damage may already have been done.
What the hell are we doing? This is insane! It's irreversible and will never stop until we are all dead, this effect is going to last for millions of years. Good Luck. There was something found on Mars but our government won't tell us because it's what is happening here! We have destroyed this planet and it's just a matter of a few more years before we start dying by the millions!
Meg-5 is a nasty little chemical used in the drilling process, I read the MSDS one day after our drunk driller kicked a five gallon container over and it splashed all over me. It can cause severe neurological damage as well as liver damage which I now have plenty of, my head shakes uncontrollably, I feel like I have crushed glass being forced through the veins of my head and my blood pressure which had always been perfect inexplicably jumped up 20 points and stayed there and I have liver damage even though I don't drink. Of course Nabors Drilling and BP claimed it was not the cause even though the MSDS said coming in contact with it WOULD cause those very symptoms.
I watched a cow drink out of our pits and take five steps and die, yet BP claimed it wouldn't hurt the workers we got covered in the crap all day long.
I can't decide who is more evil, the oil companies or Monsanto, one is poisoning our water and the other our food.
These cattle are like the canaries in mining--they're warning us of our future, and it's not good. Fracking companies are not even required by law to reveal what chemicals they use, but we do know they use benzene, a highly toxic carcinogen.
For enormously high profits over maybe a few decades, no longer, Big Oil is willing to destroy humanity's habitats. I now believe only revolution of the majority can affect any change in the corporate agenda overtaking our entire planet.
Remember when being conservative meant being conscientious stewards of our natural resources and environment? Corporations have hijacked our government--only corporate lawyers have written U.S. fed law in the past 30 years. Now the Supreme Court has invited them to sue the fed government whenever regulations may possibly harm their profit margins, by granting corporate money the sacred protections of the 1st Amendment. Big Tobacco already won against graphic warning labels on cigarette packages, citing Citizens United--even though the labels hadn't even been made yet. Revolution is justified when one branch invites corporations to sue another branch--that's treason.
Let's hope nature's next great experiment in critical thinking fares better than we will have.
Nothing will be done if elderly die. They are 'yesterday'.
But! When children die, they are 'tomorrow'. Then, and only then, will the fight to end this practice have a face.
Unfortunately, 'logic' and 'facts' will not win out. It will be sentiment and emotion - that publicly shames these companies to stop their deadly acts.
Intelligent & Independent - And you can bet that the oil companies will sell that oil to the highest bidder, which may be China. China or Europe will get the oil, we'll pay the same $3.50-$4.00 a gallon for gas, and the people and animals living in the fracking zones will pay with their lives. The government (both Democrats and Republicans) don't care, and big oil and Corporate America sure don't give a rat's behind!
This is the beginning of many nightmares to come. This film clip is from Bakken North Dakota:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN_YwQp4pzY
I live in New York State where there is a battle over whether to let them come in and frack here. In fact, I am from Ithaca. There are many here who do not want fracking. This is a food growing area, and a lot of people buy food (and wine) produced right near where they live. To destroy this area would be a crime.
Whatever it takes, fracking has to be stopped. Nothing is worth destroying the food-producing areas of the country. Fracking does more damage than a military invasion by an enemy. I would regard fracking as a threat to national security as it destroys our food, our water, and our air...things we need for life itself. We would have the same justifications to rise up against fracking as our forefathers did to rise up against the British king.
We must do our best politically to rid ourselves of these frackers. Join anti-frack groups. Pass a ban on fracking in your town and county. Several have done so in New York State. If you must, litigate them in courts where you can. Make it COST them so fracking will not be profitable. Those who sell out to them in your community, expel them and ostracize them socially. When the frackers come to town, make them very UNCOMFORTABLE like the French did to the Germans in World War II. Treat it like a war because it is for America's sake and for your children and future. This should have nothing to do with political party. They should be as welcome as Hitler in Tel Aviv.
If you think this is just one more environmental campaign, please research it because it is much more serious. You have a pretty good chance of falling dangerously ill.
For an overview:
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/
Clearly humanity is insane, because we just keep doing the same @!$%# OVER, and OVER and OVER and.....always expecting a different outcome, and surprised as all get out when NOPE, same @!$%# different day.
NortheastVick -- what evidence do you have that "GMO corn is more likely to be the source of their illness"? Not anecdoctal -- I'm curious to see real, actual evidence that these cattle are not being harmed by the fracking concoction as noted by this article.
For what it's worth, we get more oil from the US than anywhere else in the world. In addition, we import more oil from Canada and Mexico than from Venezuela and Iran. The majority of the oil imported into the U.S. comes from non-OPEC countries. Most of the oil we use in the U.S. comes from North America already, even though many people associate oil with the Middle East.
I still think that the best way to reduce foreign oil imports is to REDUCE DEMAND. Sure, we can increase supply from the U.S., but we *know* that petroleum is not unlimited, so why waste the precious oil we do have that can be extracted at this time (we'll probably never really "run out" of oil -- it'll just be prohibitively expensive to get)? We know that the US military probably will rely upon oil products for the foreseeable future. Do we really want to use all of our easy-to-get-at-$100-per-barrel oil NOW, or should we bite the bullet and spend the additional money to reduce consumption in the first place?
I watched (and shared) that youtube video, Empress. To someone like Northeast Vick who seems to think everything's fine - (must be a paid troll by BP) who can't realize that the barn cats in that lady's barn along with her symptoms and those of her husband are true signs of chemical POISONING, are BLIND. This chit is in our air, contaminating our food, our crops and our groundwater! I see NBC reporting this very serious story and is in their top stories today....When will our government say ENOUGH! There's PLENTY of PROOF to insist this activity ends NOW. But then again...it's just another form of 'population control.' So many people have to die off because so many others (ones earning over $250k/yr) are living longer. This could be exactly the reason the gov't is so nonchalant about all this.
I suggest everyone go get their Bible out and look up the trumpets and the bowls in the Book of Revelation. The second and third trumpet fit what is currently going on. The second one fits the BP disaster in the gulf a while back, and the third trumpet fits fracking. It seems man is bringing about the plagues of the Apocalypse on his own. Below is a clip from a film called "Image of the Beast." In this clip is an explanation of the trumpets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OPFdZJ5gE8
Bowl judgements (about 6 and a half minutes into the clip):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhTSGkZij84
That was from the film "Prodigal Planet." These films were made many years ago. It is creepy how it is now all coming to pass. I grew up hearing this stuff in church. I am sure there will be many people who will wonder why they missed the rapture. It looks like we human beings are bringing about the end of days ourselves.
wow . really? is there anyone on the planet that was to stupid to see this coming? hey but lets keep @!$%#ing up the planet! who needs a big ball of dirt floating in space to live on anyway?
"Energy companies are exempt from key provisions of environmental laws..."
That is the FIRST thing needing a remedy. You break something, spill something, contaminate something, poison everything, you should be HELD RESPONSIBLE AND PAY FOR IT (not exempted). These mega-hyuge energy corporations are raking in Billions, but it will be the (poisoned) taxpayers in the end that will have to pay for their mess, including the hospital/mortuary bills. Incredible....
a petition about fracking
Based on past blunders by our apparently STUPID species we won't quit until we are poised at the brink. The cogs in the machine - that is you and I as common folk - are ONE HUNDRED PERCENT expendable (up to the point of having the machine halt due to lack of workers).
As long as the fouled ground is away from rich and bureaucratic people the spoilage will continue. Case in point the exportation of many of our most toxic jobs to overseas firms where environmental oversight is nonexistent. The chickens are coming home to roost folks with this last gasp effort to 'harvest' resources deep in the earth.
Sure is a sad thing. My best suggestion is to plant a BIG organic garden, learn to harvest water from your roof into a cistern and buckle down for some rough times. Help your neighbors to do the same. If you live near a wooded area perhaps a wood stove is in order. These ARE things you can do NOW. TODAY. To help yourself have a smoother ride through the apparently inevitable weird times facing our species as we extinct ourselves. We AREN'T completely powerless in this. Doing the above two or three tiny things will empower you greatly. You will then find other things you can do to prepare.
Sounds like too much of an agenda to me. If you feed any animals bleach, ammonia or any chemical it will kill or sicken them but chemicals injected underground should have no impact if they aren't found in the water. Any supposed study that poisons animals then feigns shock they're sick are themselves sick. People who determine their agenda then attempt to prove their point can always do exactly that. Clearly there needs to be unbiased studies if anything is truely wrong.
Oh, one more thing: Do you use plastic? Who talks about a moratorium on that? Do we need one? Plastic is derived from petroleum. If we choose glass containers perhaps that will help. All that plastic dedicated to SINGLE use containers. A travesty in front of ALL our faces and yet we continue on using it. The oil people must be delighted along with the plastics manufacturers.
We don't need an act of congress folks; just some awareness and willingness to be inconvenienced a little. Quit buying plastic. Reduce, re-use and recycle will go a long way to help with our problems also. If YOU aren't willing to suffer some inconvenience why would you expect corporations to suffer???
What the frack? They should just fracking quit all the fracking fracking!
Alex the Blade - You're right, that is the answer, but for some reason, VP Cheney made sure that these companies (initially Halliburton) are exempt from the prvisions of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act as well. Conservative Conservation - can those two words even be used together in the same sentance??
A good first step would be to repeal the bill he pushed through that provided that exemption - but I imagine there is more lobbying dollars supporting the status-quo for fracking than any of us can realize - so, yeah, we'll see how that turns out.
You mean to tell me that by pounding thousands of gallons of chemicals into the ground to actually fracture bed rock that you dont see how the cracks cant carry methane upwards to contaminate wells and the ground? Seriously?
And you think its because of corn? ROFL
I guess you didn't read the article, Larry. Otherwise, you would know that many of the animals were exposed to chemicals tht spilled into their water/environment.
Not that any of this matters much. I see this as a positive thing, actually - more opportunitiesfor poisons to get into our food supply and kill some of us off, particulalry the elderly and weak. This effect also has a bonus: cuts the roles of those collecting Social Security/Medicare, which will help cut federal spending - WIN/WIN!
If the cows would belch up a little more methane we wouldn't have this problem - it's their own fault. Tails falling off is just an evolutionary response to the fewer insects around a drilling project.
Let's just FRACK THE WHOLE WORLD UP!
i mean, the worlds ending anyway...let's just drill baby drill!
rich people need more money!! think of their childrens, childrens trust fund!
burn baby burn, fracking inferno!
Nothing to see here move along.
How very sad. The question now is are we going to do anything about it, pay attention to the warning signs, or like cracks in a dam just patch them up (keep paying people off, victims and politicians) until its too late and the dam breaks, which in this case will be a lake full of toxic sludge and polluted water flooding the poor peasants below.
I understand our energy needs are great but at what cost? When will we say enough? You can't drink or eat gas? But so what so for the poor jerks who get to live there, not my problem, out of sight out of mind.
Yes its true we need a balanced energy spectrum at the moment but more has got to go to alternative energies. No solar and wind won't be a base power source, not until battery tech catches up and even then it will be limited, but they do have a key place. We have got to start look at other alternatives like LFTR's to combine with things like solar and wind. I know there are cost issues and we also have to place some reality into all of this but we are also ignoring the costs to our planet, some of which will be debts that will take hundreds and in some cases thousands of years to pay off.
Like another poster said consumption has got to keep coming down. And yes I too agree why try and sell it all of now? What good does that do us in the long run? Well sold all of our energy resources what do we do now? It makes no sense but I know those selling don't care, they can afford to buy it back when they need it, rest of us too bad. Live in the dark and the cold.
Also, I agree with the comments about the pricing. Any of you fools that believe prices will come down, well I have a few bridges to sell you. Like I said it will be sold off to highest bidder and if prices do start to drop, simple, shut down the production and wait until demand goes back up in order to keep prices inflated. Happens all the time. That, then combine WS speculation that goes nuts everytime some far off dictator in a no name country farts and prices go nuts as well. Same for electricity rates, utility companies always seem to make it up by crying that their profits have dropped because demand went down so they get to raise the rates as well because of utility friendly rate laws or commissions. Must be nice to be able to manipulate things like that. So why not do things to put that control back into the consumers hands?
And back to the consumption, someone pointed out the plastic and glass, true we need plastic but that is another problem, our throw away society now. Didn't used to be like that. Yes glass takes more energy to make but can be reused many times and is less in the long run. Just like our country used to do up into the 50's and 60's and had done for years prior. Pay a deposit and get it back when you turn the bottle back in or don't pay if you get another. In fact many other countries still do just that, you see little use of plastic bottles. Doesn't mean no plastic just less in areas that we can and using alternate biopolymers ect. when we can as well. There are options in lieu of FF based plastics, we can limit their use very much if we choose to.
Great points some are making on here. But it is this very issue that I've always talked about. Forget the global warming argument and that political mess it is, this right here is as good if not better reason than any to start being more responsible and investing more in the alternative energy tech that we have. Cold hard evidence right in front of us. Soil, water, and air pollution regardless of climate change and warming. Don't want to believe that then here is the other option right in your face.
Like I said we need many sources for the foreseeable future but we have got to start being more responsible and making these companies follow the rules and pay for their crimes. We also have to continue to look at ways to conserve and invest all we can into alternate energy sources. Lets make the amount of time that we have to use FF in our future as short as possible and/or as little as possible. Little pain now to avoid alot of pain later.
It is time
Larry, I agree with one aspect of what you're saying--we need more studies ASAP. We also need to halt at least any new fracking development, particularly near people and livestock, until much more is known. Also, if this is happening:
"There are a variety of organic compounds, metals and radioactive material (released in the fracking process) that are of human health concern when livestock meat or milk is ingested," said Motoko Mukai, a veterinary toxicologist at Cornell's College of Veterinary Medicine. These "compounds accumulate in the fat and are excreted into milk. Some compounds are persistent and do not get metabolized easily."
Shouldn't we be worried about fracking occurring anywhere?
@ John J. Roger,
there are petitions already out there already.
@ AlexTheBlade,
you beat me to it.
Now everybody can do something. I keep signing every petition against fracking I can get my hands on, I also contacted my Congressman and Senatos. But I am also very concerend about all those animals that have to suffer horribly because of that. (Yes, I'm concerned about people too, but for now it's animals so far that have died) What the hell are we doing to this precious earth?
Yes, we need domestic oil production, but it has to be done SAFELY! Record profits these companies enjoy come at the expense of environment. No doubt about that.
Many years ago (about 40), a train derailed outside of my hometown. In some of the railcars were rather deadly chemicals. The wreck happened near our city's water wells, and they were polluted. The town had shut down the water wells immediately after the accident, and went quite a bit further away and drilled new wells. Problem solved.
Well, not really. Now, 40 years later, a great number of the water drinkers, and their children, and grandchildren are cancer ridden, dying from cancer, or suffering from really rare diseases that aren't so rare in our region. Perhaps, they needed to go even further away to have drilled the wells. The ground where the wreck occurred is polluted to this day. Realistically, there were other factors included, too. Our area was a dumping ground for stuff that should have probably been sealed in a landfill, but that was pre-WWII. A lot has happened over the years. However, many of those with the cancer are in my age group, and they are dropping like flies!. (Fortunately, not me--so far. We weren't water drinkers. We drank milk and pop. They didn't help our teeth or waistline, but I think it saved us from cancer. --at least that's we chalk it up to.)
While fracking has its supporters and opposers, I think that in the long run, we will be much better off without it. We might not see the effects of fracking application for many years, but I think we will pay a horrible price in the future. (BTW, if I missed mentioning it, fracking can pollute water tables.) We must be better custodians of our planet, or we won't have a place to LIVE and be alive on. History tells me fracking is probably a very a bad thing, and history usually bares out the truth.
Yet, everyone commenting here enjoys inexpensive petrolium products.
A simple cost benifit analysis needs to be run, and the oil companies need to work out appropriate compensation for the farmers.
Then, let's get back to taking leadership on energy development rather than fearing new processes and new technology. The US will be the world's leading energy producer by 2030 or so. That's exciting news that makes me proud to be an American.
Europeans, with their $10 per gallon gas and unworkable economic model think they're above fracking. I'm glad to see we're not.
The US needs to create this new wealth. We need the money. We can put cattle anywhere with grass, and we can make europeans raise our beef since they don't allow fracking, and will soon provide cheap labor (i.e. Greece).
We didn't need to rely so heavily on petrolium. We could have had greater clean nuclear energy, but you were afraid of that simply because you didn't understand it. Well, we have petrolium. It works.
If you want social security, if you want a healthcare infrastructure, quality education and a vibrant economy for your children to find jobs in-let's be a country that values wealth creation over warm and fuzzies.
Treat the earth well.
It was not given to you by your parents,
it was loaned to you by your children.
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors,
we borrow it from our Children.
Ancient Indian Proverbs:
When all the trees have been cut down,
when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted,
when all the air is unsafe to breathe,
only then will you discover you cannot eat money.
Cree Prophecy
I do not think the measure of a civilization
is how tall its buildings of concrete are,
But rather how well its people have learned to relate
to their environment and fellow man.
Sun Bear of the Chippewa Tribe
Thanksgiving Grace:
We return thanks to our mother, the earth,
which sustains us.
We return thanks to the rivers and streams,
which supply us with water.
We return thanks to all herbs,
which furnish medicines for the cure of our diseases.
We return thanks to the moon and stars,
which have given to us their light when the sun was gone.
We return thanks to the sun,
that has looked upon the earth with a beneficent eye.
Lastly, we return thanks to the Great Spirit,
in Whom is embodied all goodness,
and Who directs all things for the good of Her children.
Iroquois
Do you not see the fallacy in modern thought? And many of you thought that Native Americans were illiterate. By far, they have proven themselves to be smarter as to Nature.
Not too mention the gold, uranium, copper and coal they've been taking out of North Dakota for well over a century. They've been using North Dakota as a cast off and dumping ground for the tailings. Why do y'all think Republicans put so much effort and money towards North Dakota campaigns? To make sure their industry buddies get the mineral wealth and to screw the consumers who were foolish enough to vote for and allow Republicans to sell off the underground wealth of the state while dumping all bullsh1t into the ground and streams. Ask those on reservations of the continued travesties heaped on that land up North throughout history.
I don't think this philosophy turned out well for Native Americans in general. Living in harmony with nature isn't sustaineable, because someone willing to dominate nature is going to come along and sieze the land, and put it to good use.
I guess that's the greater problem with all these people commenting. There's a lot of economic wishful thinking going on here. Everyone likes energy, and everyone likes wealth, but no one likes the business of creating wealth and energy.
Let's put our children first and leave them a country that's on top of the heap. People in countries that fail economically, like many Euro zone countries that don't frack, will work for our children, and provide them their best, cleanest food and produce.
I work in the environmental business and some of my direct reports work on a number of drilling locations in PA. There's certain things you need to take away from this article. One of them being, the animals were exposed to the fluid directly, not that the groundwater was impacted.
It's well known that the drilling fluids they use to frack are highly toxic. I don't necessarily agree with their makeup, but it's a fact. 9 times of out 10, this isn't an issue. The reagents are injected very deep into the ground, much deeper than an irrigation or production well is typically installed.
However,
Sometimes dissolved concentrations of these compounds can show up in aquifers. There's a variety of reasons, mainly however, it occurs through "short-circuiting" which is when the reagent fluids and/or trapped methane gas travel up along the length of the steel pipe they advance during drilling procedures. I always get a laugh out of the commercials they show when the hole extends well below the aquifers.
The way it's going, our children aren't going to be healthy enough to force anyone. They will be unhealthy and we will become a beggar nation because we can't feed ourselves. Your argument falls flat on its face.
You are making the inherent assumption that a high level of technology means that you don't live in harmony. Actually, we are now finding out that the situation is the reverse. The environment is, of itself, a vastly sophisticated machine. Living "in harmony with nature" means not upsetting this machine.
What does officer Barbrady say on South Park?
"Move along people, nothing to see here"
That's how this will be treated.
Come on people! Who needs water and food when you have gas and oil?
I just love a bunch of liberals commenting and preaching on a subject they know nothing of. I personally know both industries and all you fracking haters look like idiots to those in the know. I guess most of you didn't read DMan's post and he works in the environmental industry and while he didn't get terribly clear about it, even he said most of these incidents were due to "accidents" of direct exposure, not normal fracking.
First, as a cattle woman, the tail loss on the cows and loss of calves in most cases is due to fescue poisoning. For those of you who don't know, which is most of you, fescue is a grass that is widely used in many pastures due to it's tolerance for cold and stays green almost year round. It's very hardy but can get infected and cause problems in livestock. I personally own a couple cows with this very issue and there is no fracking near my ranch.
Second, working in the oil industry, I am familiar with fracking although the companies I work with don't do it. I do know though that most of you have no understanding of the geological structures and how far below the water tables this fluid is injected. Only under very very rare circumstances would there be a small "breakout". Most of you don't even know that about 99% of what goes into the ground is water with a very minute amount being chemicals. Yes, the are dangerous but so is aspirin in large dosages. Use some common sense, they are extremely diluted and far below any sort of exposure to our water and food supply.
Third, for all you raving idiots, you are exposed to so many more chemicals by living in the city than you would ever be by fracking. You can rant and rave about the greedy oil companies but all you idiots are on your computers!!! What do you think most computer components are made with? Are you still driving a car, riding a plane, using plastic of any sort???? Oh, then you are using petroleum made products so quit being a hypocrit! You benefit from the production of oil/gas so I don't think you need to rant against it. The oil industry provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in tax dollars so I think they are doing their fair share of contributing to society. When you rant about the huge profits that the oil companies make, you might want to think about all the MILLIONS of share holders that recieve a profit from those companies. Those people aren't just big oil men, they are all of us who have 401ks, etc. because a majority of those are invested in oil. Many retired peoples live off investments that are oil related. Let me do a simple math example that most of you might understand, $1,000,000 in profit out to 100,000 investors equals $10 profit for each investor. Not much huh but liberal media never explains how greatly divided those large profits are. As for the price at the pump, you might take the time to find out that the government is getting the largest share there, not the oil company.
Wow, I'm always totally amazed that these very simple facts are so often beyond the liberal left's comprehension. They love the benefits but want to play hypocrit by reaping the rewards but not excepting responsibility for the costs. I personally am completely in favor of finding clean alternative energy but it has to be done in a responsible and cost effective way because otherwise the economy and the average person is hurt financially
Relax,
Actually, you are wrong. Look at same S countries. They are doing far better than us here, economically and environmentally. Do some research and you will find that Germany, all Scandinavian countries Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, etc. are doing far more for the environment than U.S. citizens. Recycling is mandatory- you get fined if you don't. They use a crap load of solar panels, drive smaller more fuel-efficient cars, etc., etc. Do some research, please!
truth seeker, false choice, but I'd rather have gas and oil-because you can buy water & food, and get health care, pay social security, set aside land for parks, drive your car, and do all sorts of stuff besides with the money.
Oklahoma mom, wish I could give you 10K thumbs up. One exception though--I'd like to think this is a bipartisan issue though, pragmatists vs dreamers, not a liberal vs conservative subject.
Oil & gas prices matter to poor and middle class Americans. Fracking in North Dakota helps everyone who uses energy. That's all of you typing on this message board. This is a discussion about human progress and what's good for all Americans vs a mindset of fear, hysteria, and backwardness.
Oklahoma mom,
my, didn't we get our panties in a bunch?
Can't get your point across without insulting everybody? Know what that makes you look like? If you are so in favour of this method, and don't care for the environment, why not invite them onto YOUR property? The majority of people on here happen to be of other opinion than you, that should not be a reason to get so nasty.
Okie Mom sure bought it!!!
justthefax, Germany is the only of those countries you listed that's remotely comparable to the USA. It's the only one of the entire Eurozone (princeapalities like Luxembourg could be compared to Manhattan, but not the USA) that's still treading water.
First off, kudos to Germany for having a functional, affordable, sustainable healthcare system. Other than that, the USA trounces Germany in every way. Our GDP per capita is higher, and more importantly, our GDP growth per capita is higher.
We can learn some things from Germany (especially healthcare), but I believe Germany can learn more from us, especially when it comes to growing and developing economically.
Maybe the fact that beer is over 90% water might change some peoples minds about fracking? Some good breweries out in rural PA, I sure hope their water sources aren't getting polluted. :(
Jessica, that is their ideology exactly.
A wingnut that was part of the Reagan Administration put the conservative thought process into a single sentence.
"We do not need to concern ourselves with saving the environment, the second coming is at hand." James Watt, Secretary of the Interior
To D. Appel, If you live in PA, you weren't sold out for a few pieces of gold. The idiot republican govenor gave it away for free. No taxes on the oil and gas industry that is fracking here. We need to work to vote him out. If the citizens are going to suffer the consequences, the state should at least make enough money to take care of any citizen who becomes ill from this.
The article says the fracking companies won't disclose what chemical they are using in the process. How can they complain that the study isn't scientific because the researchers didn't study which chemicals are causing the problem. If they don't think they are doing anything wrong, they should give the researchers all the chemicals they are using and let them run the tests and find out whether or not their chemicals are to blame.
Your right on North, but how many of these dumbed down jackasses do you really think are going to believe even a 1/4 of what you say. we've been putting this bs out for over 4 yrs the dangers of Fracking. But you know what they'll believe it when the fracking causes the country to split right up the middle and Louisiana ends up under water, they aint seen nothing yet. instead of paying attention to this bs paid media many would wake up and learn boing to natural news dot the com, and or infowars. The bs the feds are pulling is so sci fi. The sick part is the truth is coming out more and more because even paid medai can't keep the people from waking up because they are. .... We are owned by the UN people wake the hell up. We are no longer America and even your trusty news articels have stated just days ago, ... cuba and a few other countries have more freedom now than we do. Do you think the zombies are going to wake up, and or belive any of this of course not they voted for the jackass who pretends to be a commander and chief and he never served a day in his fkn life other than giving our country over to the UN to controll us. omg ppl are so fricken dumb.
Accumulative poison. Ethylene Glycol/ Methanol (Anti-Freeze) is used to liquefy shale deposits. Since no one who supports all American oil companies will believe it anyway. Let us just call it chemical X.
For ethylene glycol: Death may occur within the first 24 hours. If the patient survives, there may be little or no urine output for several weeks before the kidneys recover. Any brain damage may be permanent. Vision loss or blindness may also be permanent.
For methanol: Methanol is extremely toxic. As little as 2 tablespoons can kill a child, while 2 to 8 oz. can be deadly for an adult. The ultimate outcome depends on how much was swallowed and how soon appropriate care was given.
Partial list of symptoms.
?? What would liquefy shale?
A little cave or mine science is needed. If you make a hollow hole in the ground with no support what happens? Anyone? It collaspes. Then fluid can and will be displaced, usually above collapsed solid. At times water table will be affected, if teaspoons can kill then the amount needed to poison complete table is fractional.
This is very worrisome. If animals are getting sick, people will too.
Just on principle alone I am opposed to the fracking of cattle!
My experience during the Summers of my youth on my grandparent's farm is that farm animals -- especially cattle -- will dependably release large quantities of natural gas without any extraordinary assistance by humans (...or did I misread the headline?)
Yes, I agree that is more than likely to happen if what their studies show is based on science and not bias environmental gibberish. The only way to verify their findings is to have a disinterested third party fact check the studies and perform the similar studies in other areas to confirm it or debunk it.
Fracking is a viable technique - IF the rules are followed and the process is appropriately monitored. However; when livestock and other animals are becoming ill, that shows that there are problems with contamination and people not following agreed upon procedures. The last thing we need is problems in the food supply. It is unfortunate that a few people cutting corners, and actually not saving much money or time by doing so, are creating problems. These folks need to be shut down immediately and put on double-secret probation where they can only resume operations under very strict monitoring.
This is very worrisome. If animals are getting sick, people will too.
people already are getting sick! but some people are rich enough to suppress the news.
These folks need to be shut down immediately and put on double-secret probation where they can only resume operations under very strict monitoring. or take away all of there money, use it to clean up there mess and put them in prison for ever.
a petition about fracking
node-4
so you'd be ok with fracking next to your children's school yard? If the answer is no, then why would you accept the processes next to someone Else's home?
anyone else find it ironic the massive amounts of water used to blast open the bedrock just to find tiny pockets of gas...
meanwhile, major parts of the US are suffering from drought.
this is how greed works...this is how societies fall
who cares how much gas costs if we cant afford to eat because the droughts have wiped out most of our food supply.
and frankly, US drilling isnt brining down the cost - the companies extracting the gas and oil are rolling in the dough, with ZERO intention of lowering the costs for americans, because it would only lower their profits - on what logic does someone think they'll do it just to be nice?
we reap what we sow - and in this case it's going to be devastation, in so many forms...all so a handful of oil tycoons get even richer.
Rocco, until then, what should be done? Should we allow new fracking to occur? Continue fracking near peoples' houses and/or livestock? Unfortunately, we are a society that in the case of harmful chemicals, acts first and thinks later: according to the President's Cancer Panel (2008-2009):
The "prevailing" US model for environmental policy regarding the science of harmful contaminants "is reactionary rather than precautionary." They go on to note that, "That is, instead of taking preventive action when uncertainty exists about the potential harm a chemical or other environmental contaminant may cause, a hazard must be incontrovertibly demonstrated before action to ameliorate it is initiated…[H]armful effects [from chemicals]. . .may occur only at very low doses. Further, chemicals typically are administered when laboratory animals are in their adolescence, a methodology that fails to assess the impact of in utero, childhood, and lifelong exposures. In addition, agents are tested singly rather than in combination."
This problem is compounded in fracking by many things, including the fact that fracking is exempt from the US Safe Drinking Water Act [Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal is my source, who believes they should not be (2011)].
Then you've got issues of lack of enforcement (I invite node the commenter to comment on this): "[S]tate regulators [in North Dakota] have often been unable — or unwilling — to compel energy companies to clean up their mess, our reporting showed" ("Oil boom brings wealth and waste to North Dakota," msnbc news). How do we enforce the laws we do have?
Until we change the way we determine which chemicals are lawful and find better ways to enforce the laws we do have, why should we allow new fracking to begin? Why should we continue?
Jessica "this is how greed works...this is how societies fall".
No, societies fall when their economies no longer function well. That's why China thrives and Greece, which has plenty of anti-fracking EU rules, fails.
Money from fracking can buy clean water, food, healthcare, etc. New wealth must be created or the society falls.
relaxdontdoit, I'm not sure I'm following your thinking. Why do we need the "wealth" from this specific commodity--or at least need to keep going with the way things are currently headed? Could you truly show that money gets back to the average person to buy "clean water, food, healthcare, etc."?, particularly when considering this next question. How does dirty water from fracking and contamination of the food supply (we don't know how bad it currently is/could be due to lack of studies and regulation) factor in? The costs of dirty/lost water could prove to be devastating (dirty wells means transporting or cleaning water, which wastes more energy, and/or could necessitate relocation of people and/or farms). Clearly, people would die of diseases (mainly cancer) if fracking were not regulated at all, with a continuum of less people dying/becoming sick the more regulated it is. Just what are the long term costs?
Kryss, I agree that real regulation needs to be in place, and farmers must be compensated to the extent they are affected. An honest cost/benifit analysis just needs to take place, as you described. I think an honest analysis is done most places, and the benifits are enormous.
Citing Yahoo Finance's 3 Feb 2012 article, "The Fracking Revolution..." Obama said. "Experts believe [fracking] will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade."
That's a lot of jobs, but the economic benifit to the average Joe consumer, especially someone who's poor or lower income, in the form of lower energy prices is where fracking really pays off.
If you can lower the bottom 150,000,000 wage-earning Americans' yearly energy bill by a few dollars, and those dollars can be put toward needed healthcare, education, heck... shoes, then some really amazing good is being done.
Totally agree with you, an honest cost-benifit analysis has to be done. Thus far, I'm pretty confident the benifits to fracking to the poor and middle income Americans--the tens, or hundred million people whose energy bills are painful--outweigh the costs in a massive way.
relaxdontdoit,
I'm glad that we agree on the need for more regulation. I'd need a lot of proof that fracking itself would truly be beneficial in the long term, and that is complicated by the fact that we don't even know all the chemicals used in the process, along with fracking's exemption from the clean drinking US Safe Drinking Water Act. On top of that, our system of regulating chemicals in the first place is, as the President's Cancer Panel, puts it, currently "reactionary rather than precautionary." So many studies would have to be done in the first place to convince me to support fracking on a very limited basis, let alone to see fracking as a truly safe process. I'm not seeing how lower energy bills truly outweigh the longterm risks--given the unknowns I've just stated (and again, we both agree the costs/dangers are on a continuum). What kind/s of regulation were you thinking of?
Regarding jobs, according to Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican and a member of the House Tea Party Caucus (and supporter of wind energy), wind energy alone has created 5,000 wind-industry jobs statewide [in Iowa]. We need more focus on sources that are far less problematic, like wind.
"complicated by the fact that we don't even know all the chemicals used in the process"
You'd know them if you looked them up, it's all available information. You can look them up on a per-well basis on FracFocus many states, like Texas and Wyoming, require full disclosure of frac job chemistry to the state, some of them require posting the chemistry to frac focus. Many other state agencies, such ans PA DEP and NY DEC publish lists of frac chemicals on their websites.
"fracking's exemption from the clean drinking US Safe Drinking Water Act"
Hydraulic fracturing has never been covered by the SDWA, was never discussed when the bill was debated and passed (and hydraulic fracturing already existed for 25 years in 1974) and no regulatory action has ever been taken under the SDWA regarding it. This is because hydraulic fracturing doesn't have anything to do with drinking water (unless it's used on a water well, which it frequently is, but private water wells are also not covered by the SDWA) and also because it is not an injection process but an extraction process. SDWA regs do cover injection wells, where stuff is being put into a permeable formation, but don't cover wells where stuff is being produced from them. The EPA fought in court under President Clinton (with Carol Browner as EPA director) to keep hydraulic fracturing out of the regulatory purview of the EPA and the SDWA. In that case, the EPA and Browner filed papers with the court saying that hydraulic fracturing was well regulated by state environmental regulators and the EPA saw no need for it to interfere or get involved in it. This incorrect idea, that hydraulic fracturing was suddenly "exempted" from regulation is just BS enviro propaganda, and tries to play into liberal hatred and demonology by saying the magic words "Cheney" and "Halliburton." Lefties salivate and bark on command at hearing such dog whistles, just like cons do at the words "Obama" and "Muslim." (as you can guess, I'm not a liberal or a conservative and don't think much of either belief system hehehhah :-) ) The truth is, you can't "exempt" something from a law that never regulated it, can you?? And the truth is, nothing changed in the regulatory environment for hydraulic fracturing with the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Nothing that was regulated before became unregulated. Nothing changed, something people pushing this idea of "exemption" never seem to bring up for some reason.
It's easy to see hydraulic fracturing as a "truly safe process" as you put it, if you simply look at the gigantic number of frac jobs, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, that have been done around the world and the very few real problems that have occurred. Another good analysis is to look at the huge amounts of energy made available to humanity using hydraulic fracturing, vs. the miniscule number of real problems that are documented and proven. Then you can compare that to other forms of energy production, such as coal, wind, solar, etc. and look at accidents per BTU. Thus it is shown by repeated experiment to be as safe or safer than any other energy production method.
I don't believe you will find, if you do such an analysis, that wind or solar is any safer than hydraulic fracturing for the same amount of energy produced. Solar in particular, though I'm a fan of it and have built passive solar installations myself, uses a great deal of very nasty and toxic chemicals and processes, and the solar industry has fought regulations requiring manufacturers to deal with paying for treatment and disposal of solar waste at the end-of-life of solar panels. I believe that wind and solar seem so much safer to many people because they are so much smaller and are such a tiny part of the energy mix. If wind and solar were scaled up to the level of energy production where hydrocarbons are now, suddenly many large problems would appear that seem hidden with them being such small industries now. That's something I wish more folks would consider.
As far as what kinds of regulation, I'd like to see two primary regulations that I believe would help a great deal. 1 - a regulation requiring a cement bond log and integrity/pressure test be run on the well and signed off on by a qualified engineer or geologist, after it is constructed and the casing and cement run. That would prevent nearly all the problems that I have ever heard or read about with well construction, which are just about all the problems that we've seen in the press attributed to "fracking" as they call it. 2 - I'd like to see a regulation requiring that on frac jobs over a certain size, or which use over a certain amount of water, that when the water returns it is to be processed onsite and returned to a distilled-water quality. It can then be used for any purpose, from drinking water to (most likely) another frac job. The technology to do this is out there, and many drilling operations use it, but if everyone was required to use it, the price would drop, and it would answer all complaints having to do with water usage, wastewater disposal, wastewater injection wells, etc.
@Lori: yes, I would be perfectly comfortable with next to my own home - *IF* it was done properly and monitored appropriately. However; most operations find it better to not expose themselves to liability and would normally purchase homes and public gathering places rather than take the chance.
I have natural gas piped into my home for heating and am have been operated on while anesthetized - both of which were not safe to do initially.
relax, you seem to forget that if there are no people because theyre sick and dying from food, air and water pollution/poisoning then there is no effing economy. youd rather see people and animals die so we can make more money? just plain stupid logic, or lack there of.
node, gas and anestheziologists have strict regulations and are held responsible for there actions in which these companies are not. think about it. you tink theyll just regulate themselves to be nice? spend money for safety that they are not required to? does anybody read history? for gods sake i feel like im taking crazy pills.
does anyone else find it odd that we are fracturing the earths mantle? are you serious that you dont think this could possibly have any negative effects? i wish i was able to walk around so oblivious to common sense.
Chris Salmon,
You wrote, “You'd know them if you looked them up, it's all available information [chemicals involved]. You can look them up on a per-well basis on FracFocus many states, like Texas and Wyoming, require full disclosure of frac job chemistry to the state, some of them require posting the chemistry to frac focus.”
Do you have any sources that prove there is true full disclosure in any or all states where fracking is done? According to “What Texas’ Fracking Disclosure Law Does and Doesn’t Do,” as of August 2012, “[A] paper finds that most of the chemicals were disclosed, but some were not, having been deemed ‘trade secrets.’ And some of the chemicals included in the mix were toxic, ‘with potentially fatal consequences for inhaling or swallowing it or through skin contact’ and ecologically dangerous, Loftis writes.” (I see that FracFocus was put out in Feb. of the year; Texas enacted an incomplete disclosure “rules” set only this last December). Then there’s the “medical gag rule”: “[Dr. Rodriguez’] lawsuit against Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer, Public Utility Commission chairman Robert Powelson and Attorney General Linda Kelley claims that Act 13 of 2012 imposes an unconsititutional ‘medial gag rule’ on him and other doctors who - when treating patients exposed to fracking fluids - would be required to sign confidentiality agreements with gas companies before being able to know the specific chemical components the patients have been exposed to” (“PA Doctor Challenges Gas Law’s ‘Medical Gag Rule’ in Federal Court,” pennlive.com, July 2012) (As of mid-October, this act had gone to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court). In Ohio, "The OSMA strongly believes that physicians should have access to all of the relevant information needed to deliver high-quality medical care to their patients," senior director of government relations Tim Maglione wrote in a [public] letter to Public Utilities Chairman Peter Stautberg. "This information also needs to be shared with other medical providers who are contributing to caring for a patient" (“OH Docs Can't Reveal Drilling Chemicals to Public,” Urbana Daily Citizen). The NYT also notes, “States’ rules generally contain a ‘trade secrets’ provision that allows companies to withhold public disclosures of certain chemicals so they can avoid giving away proprietary recipes for the fracking fluids...Some states require companies to report those chemicals to regulators (which keep the information confidential, barring a legitimate public challenge), while others, like Colorado, do not even require the industry to disclose the ‘trade secrets’ chemicals to the regulators…Another point of contention is when the disclosures should take place…” Dallas News notes: “Texas passed a law in 2011 requiring disclosure, but the Legislature left important loopholes. One, the law came into effect after tens of thousands of wells were fracked; the number being fracked now is small. The law is not retroactive. So the overwhelmingly majority of wells in North Texas will never have information disclosed. Two, the law does not require public notice of the use of fracking chemicals but only after the work is done. Three, the law allows drilling companies to keep some information secret as confidential business information.” It concludes: “The conclusion: Texas’ new law increases disclosure and provides the industry — which backed it — cover from accusations of secrecy.”
Regarding your comments about the Safe Drinking Water Act: Scientific American called the exemption/issue a “loophole”: “[T]he U.S. House of Representatives did introduce a bill in March to close that loophole,” Scientific American notes, also noting: “The bill seems to have strong Democratic support, but it is unclear how popular it will prove overall” (This was as of May 2011).
The House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Minority Staff noted, “Concerns also have been raised about the ultimate outcome of chemicals that are recovered and disposed of as wastewater. This wastewater is stored in tanks or pits at the well site, where spills are possible (See EPA, Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan (Feb. 7, 2011), at 37; Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers, New York Times (Feb. 26, 2011).” They also note,
“EPA also has created a Candidate Contaminant List (CCL), which is a list of contaminants that are currently not subject to national primary drinking water regulations but are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the future.26 Nine chemicals on that list—1-butanol, acetaldehyde, benzyl chloride, ethylene glycol, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, methanol, n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, and propylene oxide—were used in hydraulic fracturing products between 2005 and 2009” (April 2011).
The New York Times notes, “[Internal] documents reveal that the wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle.” (Feb. 2011)
As I already mentioned above, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal also recommends fracking adhere to the Safe Water Drinking Act.
“We’re burning the furniture to heat the house,” said John H. Quigley, who left last month as secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (NYT). “In shifting away from coal and toward natural gas, we’re trying for cleaner air, but we’re producing massive amounts of toxic wastewater with salts and naturally occurring radioactive materials, and it’s not clear we have a plan for properly handling this waste.” (NYT Feb. 2011)
You wrote, “Thus it is shown by repeated experiment to be as safe or safer than any other energy production method.”
What are your sources for this statement?
Your proposed regulations sound reasonable. I happen to think a whole lot more need to happen, as well as a major reexamination of how we treat both energy and chemicals in thinking about our future. What are the long term costs, and who’s paying? I am also clearly not persuaded that disclosures have gone far enough, and I firmly believe fracking should also have to follow the rules when it comes to the Safe Drinking Water Act (especially when it comes to radiation in drinking water from fracking).
Yeah, I heard plastics was the greatest thing to ever come along too. Now we can't get rid of the tremendous waste that has polluted and infected at least a third of all sea-life. What happens if a third of potable water becomes infected by antifreeze, that cannot be filtered out as cyanide cannot be either. That was a coating on rail ties and telephone poles for years to prevent termite damage. Does anybody know what the word leech means?
It is not nor has it ever been safe for the environment or the people living around it. They come in and suddenly you realize your backyard is a gas farm. They run pipes underground right next to where people live and reshape the land to fit their needs. It doesn't take long before they have turned thousands of acres into nothing more than a gas farm/wasteland. I've seen it. It's a sprawling work site people, and nothing about it is clean or safe.
That's during construction, which is a short time in the life of a gas well. What about during the production phase, which lasts for decades? Have you seen that yet? It's some small gravel pads with white pipes coming out of the ground. Very unobtrusive and clean. That's how a gas well spends most of it's life.
I realize you're talking about during the construction phase, which is pretty much the equivalent of a NASA moon shot on some of the huge, modern horizontal wells. But keep in mind - that won't last for long.
Also I believe I detect the sound of a surface owner who doesn't own the subsurface and has all the noise and inconvenience and none of the royalties - am I right about that? Is that your situation? I'm just curious.
What a surprise!!! Watch the documentary, The Sky is Pink, by Josh Fox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtN98oAtfX8
After the companies destroy the region, they will pack up and leave. the cleanup will fall once again on the taxpayers.
Nothing will be done until either an oil executive or a member of Congress loses one of their own appendages, like the one between their legs. Then you would see action. Until then, we are out of luck.
Wait until the earthquakes start.
In my 60 years, I never heard of an earthquake in North Central Texas.
Now, they're becoming common since widespread fracking.
I agree Sam, I live in N. Texas, have been here 40 years, 18 months after fracking started, so did the earth quakes, but the oils/gas companies claim there is no correlation...I call bull crap!
Of course they don't, those that do the investigations into the incidents are more likely then not in the oil/gas companies pocket.
sam and Old Man,
Remember when Ohio allowed fracking and began having almost continuous earth tremors - November 2011? Then the Republican governor halted all fracking operations. And mysteriously, the tremors stopped. But there was no connection there either.
I am surprise the earth hasn't rumbled more since all the decades man has been removing the oil & natural gases & other chemical from within. Fracking has become one short cut. Mankind has lost balance with nature & earth and the only way to restore it is when man goes the way of the dinosaur.
You guys are conflating hydraulic fracturing with wastewater disposal injection wells. They are two very different things. Completely different - the first is done on wells where fluids are extracted, the second is composed of wells where fluid is injected. One comes out, one goes in, to put it simply. It's the going in one that causes quakes, not the pulling out one :-) Hydraulic fracturing has only been shown to cause very minor temblors that typically can't be felt at the surface in 4 cases with special geology out of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of frac jobs. None of these quakes which mostly can only be detected with very sensitive instruments, have ever caused damage. While with injection wells, it's been known for 50 years that if high volumes of fluids are injected at high pressure near a fault under strain, it can cause slippage and result in a quake. Not normally a big quake, but a quake nonetheless.
The quakes you are talking about in Texas and Ohio were NOT from hydraulic fracturing, but from injection wells. If injection wells are inadvertently drilled in the vicinity of a fault that's under stress, it's common for the fault to slip, causing a quake. The solution is simple: you drilled your injection well in the wrong place. Plug the well and drill another that's not near a fault. Or, lower the pressure and volume of injected fluids so it doesn't "lift" the fault enough for it to slip.
"I am surprise the earth hasn't rumbled more since all the decades man has been removing the oil & natural gases & other chemical from within"
Rocks don't depend on what's in their pores for structural integrity.
Not sure what point you're trying to make Chris. Without fracking, there is no need for injection wells, so the bottom line is.....Without fracking, no earthquakes.
Either that or you're going to have to find a another way to dispose of millions of gallons of polluted water for each well that you frack. You could make the drillers clean the water, but that would be "regulational" and "green" and both of those things are BAD...BAD I TELL YOU!
Rocks
don'tdepend onwhat's intheirpores forstructural integrity.Why building on sand is a bad idea.
This is just too awful and sad!!!
they started fracking in arkansas and immediately we started having earthquake "swarms" of several hundred quakes PER DAY in areas that had never had any recorded seismic activity...and of course "it has nothing to do with fracking"....even though after a court ordered a halt, ALL the earthquakes stopped THE NEXT WEEK and we have not had any since...but the courts just rulled that it's all a big coincidense and has nothing what so ever to do with fracking....and they get to start it back up now...yep, good ol' USA, the best justice system money can buy!
It didn't have anything to do with hydraulic fracturing, it was from two wastewater disposal wells that were inadvertantly drilled close to a fault under pressure.
Also Arkansas is one of the most seismically active states in the union. And, almost none of the quakes you mention could be felt at the surface, though a few could.
The drilled an injection disposal well too close to a previously unmapped fault, that was under strain. Simple problem, with a simple solution - plug the well and drill it in another locations. No biggie.
move along people nothing to see here. clean coal, clean gas, clean oil my shiny clean a$$
Can you say "Canary in a Coal Mine"??? However, until some disaster happens to galvanize the public, nothing being done will be the Status Quo.
It will only get a "There go those d^mn liberals trying to suck the life out of the Energy companies"
People get so mad when someone blames "Bush" for something that happens. Well, Bush and Cheney exempted the oil companies from the clean water and clean air acts right before they left office. Do you think they didn't know what they were doing? They knew this was coming or they wouldn't have needed to exempt them. Our government is such a scam. So why didn't congress nulify or reverse this for the good of the American people? Better stop eating beef and pork and drinking milk. I don't know how the Organic growers and meat suppliers are going to avoid this. What a mess. Oil rules!
"Bush and Cheney exempted the oil companies from the clean water and clean air acts right before they left office."
Hydraulic fracturing has NEVER, EVER been covered by the acts mentioned in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Oil and gas companies are covered under very stringent state regulations, and the states and the federal government both want it that way. In fact, the EPA went to court under President Clinton to fight an attempt to get them to step into oil and gas activities covered by state regulators. Oil and gas drilling is a local activity that occurs within the borders of a state. When these activities affect more than one state, that is covered by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
Activities never covered by federal regulators continued to not be covered by federal regulators, both before AND after the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Not one, single thing changed in the regulatory environment. Not one thing that was regulated, is now not regulated. Not one enforcement action taken before the Energy Policy Act of 2005 would NOT be taken after the act became law. Nothing changed at all !!
It should also be noted that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was heavily favored by BOTH republicans AND democrats. And, that it also authorizes loan guarantees for technologies that avoid greenhouse gases, authorizes subsidies for wind and other alternative energy producers, funds tidal, geothermal, and biomass energy research and production, provides tax breaks for energy saving additions to homes, and quite a number of other things.
What makes anyone *think* that any farmed meat/fish or dairy products are safe? Educate yourself on how farmed animals (and farmed fish) are *raised* and the horrific, filthy and cruel practices posed upon ALL animals that end up as *food* on your plate. Watch the hidden videos that prove such cruel and filthy conditions and why there are warnings on meat/egg/ products to ensure it is cooked properly. USDA inspected? Educate yourself on what that means. Numerous recalls of beef. Some persons used to eat raw meat and eggs. Anyone doing that now? Anyone going to the store, purchasing beef/eggs and taking it home to eat raw now? Google Emily, the cow who escaped a slaughterhouse and ponder why so many, worldwide, cheered for her escape yet, remain silent on the abuse farmed animals suffer and why the media does not want to report on TV the hidden videos because *it will upset viewers.*
Thank you katy katy for your post! So very true! Most of the population does not get it.
My Spring project is to build a raised garden in my back yard. I'm also installing nice spacious chicken coops. We can have up to 11 chickens (no Roosters) within the city limits. The eggs are fabulous. Couple of my neighbors are already doing it.
katy katy,
I will not deny that such operations do not exist, but they do not constitute the majority of America's meat, fish and poultry producers. In poultry and egg production, much of the "blame" belongs to the comsumer who has demanded larger breasts , larger eggs, and more wings than drum sticks. The unfortunate truth is that chickens and turkeys are naturally somewhat skinny birds who only plump-up when confined and specially bred. Likewise, while LJ may think that her 11 hens will produce all her egg needs; is free-range chickens and manual collection of eggs practical to meet the needs of 330million people in this country?
It should be noted that the "ethical" producers of meat animals and fish are the ones who will be most impacted by the environmental hazards presented by fracking. And not just from potential sick or contaminated animals, but economically due to local market collapses. Again, I ask can these producers provide for the needs of 330million people?
Your mention of recalled meats points not to deficiencies in the raising of the animals; but problems in handling and sanitation of post-slaughter processing. E.Coli and Salmonella are not in the meat, but spread upon it by improper flushing of the abdominal cavity or equipment which has come into contact with animal wastes (feces) or comtaminated meat (improperly cleaned abdominal organs or meats). Fish recalls may be for either bacterial contamination or due to heavy metals accumulations (usually a problem in WILD-caught fish).
What are real issues in modern meat, poultry, fish and egg production are the increased usage of anti-biotics, biochemicals (including steroids), and localized living and feeding locations for sea-farmed fish.
True an animal should be put time quickly & as painless as possible nor should they live in cruelty or be abused but in the end we are meat eaters. It is our nature.
I live in northwestern North Dakota - smack in the middle of the boom and I know several land/cattle owners and this is the first I've heard of anything like this. I'm all for creating and using a more environmental friendly resource but until that happens, we have to keep the lights on, cars running and so on to live the lives we've grown accustomed to living and oil, coal and gas are the only options that can provide this. Either we come up with a solution or we stop complaining. Oil companies are held to a very high enviromental standard and there's always room for improvement and I'm sure the oil companies would be very interested in hearing anyone's ideas that help save our planet. Oil companies exist due to OUR DEMANDS for energy - remember that while your driving down the road. You want change - go to work for an Oil Company and inspire change from the inside...
"..oil, coal and gas are the only options that can provide this"
This thinking is the entire problem. You already work for an Oil Company as Public Relations, I bet.
If we don't eventually wean ourselves from ALL fossil fuels, we are doomed as species.
If renewable energy got the HUGE SUBSIDIES that Big Oil GETS NOW, we'd already have a distribution system for renewable energy nationwide. Big Oil successfully lobbies the goverment... and runs TV ads.. to keep everything running exactly the way it is now.
I don't think going to work or an oil company is the way to enact any change within that industry. Maybe BUYING one would make a difference...Also these corps spend a lot of time, money and effort getting themselves exempted from as many environmental standards as possible, and watering down the ones that remain.
Tanya and Bill M are similarly positioned on the fact it is our demand, but do not appear to think/include the fact of the US Armed Forces as being the World's Largest Consumer of Oil and Oil byproducts, such as fuels, into their easy equation and solution offerings. I was told I am a hypoctite if I was not barefoot, using a windmill to power my computer, or some such nonsense, as well as some suggestions on self reflections.
Thanks. We need more distraction and misdirection from the actual problems affecting the rest of us. Glad you are so immune. Hope your kids are as well. They and theirs will be taking the brunt of these unchecked violations against Nature and Us.
Mother Earth is calling us, calling to let us know that we will become the new extinct species.
She calling you,go kill yourself!
mas098 she has been warning all those who care about your and their health and welfare, and their children's. in many ways. Eyes wide shut. True. states that are going gun ho on this ungodly practice and a few other mining methods are staunch Republican. Guess we have to wait 25 years for the pollution to wipe them out. In Michigan we got the opportunity to put in our constitution a mandate for wind and solar power. Big oil and Republicans spent millions defeating the proposal through lies that the sheep and ignorant believed. Sad day for humanity. We have a reputation for turning a blind eye to chemical company contamination and as such enjoy the distinction of the most birth, deaths and diseased state in this sad nation. Waiting for the rest of this country to fall into the abyss so we have some company.PS while you and your children are taking your last breath remember that those who enjoyed the profits are relaxing on their millions in another state while they stashed the proceeds in an offshore tax haven.
Maybe that is why Obama is not worried about bringing down the debt, there will not be anyone still alive to collect or pay it.
The pot cannot call a kettle black? a) When its dark, b) When its empty, c) When the pot is illegal, d) When there is no pot.
Congress has passed laws saying that what you don't know cannot hurt you and that of it comes between harming you and disclosing the proprietary chemicals used by monopoly energy companies it would be unfair to harm the energy company's secrets. (Monopoly Secrets - Double Protection).
Well, since the monopoly energy companies cannot disclose their proprietary secrets to scientist it seems fair for the scientist to become reporters so that they can protect their sources from being harmed by proprietary energy companies. To bell the cat the lawyers must first be disarmed.
Since these cannot be substances of known content 'legally', the possibility of them being hazardous should mean that the public should never be 'legally' accidently exposed.
These are all nearly deadly, accidental dispersal, must be proved to be impossible.
Congress is beholden to energy companies, since scientist are mere employees, funding is either from Congress (unlikely) or from Energy Companies (unlikely).
Of course knowing what to test for is made easier by knowing what you may have to test for, again proprietary chemicals used by monopoly energy companies, would cause a problem to safety.
Of course knowing what to test for is made easier by knowing what you may have to test for, again proprietary chemicals used by monopoly energy companies, would cause a problem to safety.
It's Nature's way of telling us, somethings wrong.
Spirit, Natures Way, Great Song!
Fracking will eventually surpass poisoning the environment. Great geological upsets of biblical proportions could occur. It's cause and effect.
I don't think we can suck all of the oil out of the earth and screw with the earths layers and not expect repercussions.
This is pure foolishness. Oil and gas occurs in sedimentary basins, which are themselves on top of the crust, which is a tiny thin layer of solid rock on top of the lithosphere, asthenosphere, mantle, and core.
Why not take a freshman geology course from your local college and gain some understanding?
Who thinks fracking is a good idea (aside from politicians who are in bed with companies and the companies themselves)?
Bad idea.
"Who thinks fracking is a good idea "
Everyone except environmental extremists who want to return us to a pre-industrial society. President Obama. The EPA, and all the state environmental regulators. The Department of Energy. Pretty much all scientists. Anyone who seriously studies the issue and looks at the science.
Ya, but these issues of tails falling off of cattle etc seem to indicate maybe we need to look into this with a bit more depth.
We tend to jump whole hog into things and many times it bites us back. Fracking seems to be a candidate for more research.
Time to back off.
Unmentioned in this article is the fact that in all cases that I know of, these claims are part of a landowner lawsuit against a drilling company and/or oil & gas company where the claimant is trying to land a settlement with a large dollar value.
Typically in these cases the landowner doesn't own the entire property, but only the surface, and is angered by the fact that he/she has to put up with inconvenience from drilling operations but doesn't get any royalties because he doesn't own that part of the property.
That may be often the case but what makes this one different is it is the result of a study done by a Veterinarian and a Professor of Molecular medicine.
This isn't an example of someone saying, "things aren't right give me money."
These are two individuals with qualifications that are saying things are happening in places where fracking occurs. There may be a connection.
It really isn't worth the gamble. While there may be individuals that will sue just to get money, history shows us big corporations are not afraid to let people die for their profits.
Isn't fracking a term used to imply fracture?
LJ,
No, hydraulic-fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing actually breaks the existing shale bed into something resembling a shale gravel slurry, allowing the released of captured gas pockets or gas actually dissolved into the shale.
And, although the "industry" claims that the toxic brew of chemicals and forever poisoned water is pumped below the level of groundwater and aquifers through a fully grouted bore hole - sealed from contaminating the public water supply. What is not considered are other fractures allowing gas, oil and the fracking slurry to rise into the water supply. And given the earth tremor swarms reported to accompany fracking in Ohio, Arkansas and Texas; such secondary fractures would seem possible.
"No, hydraulic-fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing actually breaks the existing shale bed into something resembling a shale gravel slurry"
Simply untrue. I don't even know where you'd get such an idea?
"allowing the released of captured gas pockets or gas actually dissolved into the shale."
Also untrue. Gas doesn't occur in pockets, and, gas doesn't "dissolve" in shale.
Hydraulic fracturing .. fractures. That's why it's called hydraulic fracturing. Then the fractures are propped open by injecting a proppant, like sand. Gas is held in pore spaces in the shale. Shale is very low permeability, and a molecule of methane takes a very long time to migrate through it to a borehole. Fractures expose more porosity to borehole pressures, and shorten the distance to borehole pressures for much more gas.
"What is not considered are other fractures allowing gas, oil and the fracking slurry to rise into the water supply."
Such fractures don't exist. If they did, the gas or oil would have floated to the surface long ago and wouldn't be there in the first place.
"And given the earth tremor swarms reported to accompany fracking in Ohio, Arkansas and Texas; such secondary fractures would seem possible."
These come from wastewater disposal injection wells and are unrelated to hydraulic fracturing. It's been known for 50 years that injection wells, if they are accidentally placed close to faults under stress, can cause slippage of the fault, resulting in small quakes.
The purpose of hydraulic fracturing is not to inject fluids, but to remove and produce them.
Currently the trend is going toward recycling frac flowback water, which can be returned to a state as clean as distilled water by current equipment, and as that technology is used more, there will be less need for wastewater disposal wells for flowback. However there will still be many thousands of wastewater disposal wells used for other purposes.
How much evidence are we going to need before we figure out that fracking is not a good idea?
Did not see in article where it was a proven fact. It is all hear say so far. Could be from something else altogether. This statement doesn't say he has a problem all it says what he doesn't like to see.
"My beef sells itself. My farm is pristine. But a restaurant doesn’t want to visit and see a drill pad on the horizon,” said Ken Jaffe, who raises grass-fed cattle in upstate New York.
He is implying that restaurants may not purchase from him because they are concerned about the meat being poisoned by nearby fracking wells. If the restaurants are concerned, you should be, too.
Kepone. Asbestos. PCBs. We use to think all these chemicals didn't cause any harm. Now we know that all these compounds are carcinogens.
How many times must our species roll the dice on our health? And for what? Because we love our cars, because gas costs more than it before (it's called supply and demand!), because we don't care about the water that our children drink or the food that we eat.
Poison the planet for politics and profit, and meantime stand there and say "there's no proof we did anything wrong...."
Industrial Pollution - remember DDT? That goes right with your list above. It was the miracle chemical. Sprayed right on children, vaporized down streets, sprayed into water, laid on fields. Then we learned it stays in the environment and causes myriad problems. We banned it in the US. (Unfortunately it is still in use around the world and comes back on some produce imported out of season . . . but that's another topic.)
This article isn't science or scientific at all. It's hearsay, anecdotes, and unsubstantiated claims. That's all anti-frackers have to work with, because the real evidence contradicts their claims.
Seems to me the Pro Frackers are more interested in the money and less interested in life.
The fact is there are significant questions about the safety of this practice. The risk is unacceptable. Gamble with your own money. Humans are not poker chips.
Did you check the link they gave?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446060
I've seen documentaries about people in towns near fracking operations coming down with cancer and their water fouled. The evidence is mounting.
So we wait for an increase in cancer. Another thalidomide disaster. How about the deaths of humans.
Are politicians that stupid to allow oil companies "carte blanche" in despoiling the environment.
Did we not learn anything from the recent BP fiasco in the gulf. Must we spoil more of the planet in the name of progress, greed and money.
"Drilling and fracking a single well requires up to 7 million gallons of water, plus an additional 400,000 gallons of additives, including lubricants, biocides, scale- and rust-inhibitors, solvents, foaming and defoaming agents, emulsifiers and de-emulsifiers, stabilizers and breakers."
SEVEN MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND GALLONS of tainted water, chemicals known to cause cancer injected into the ground.
Man in his quest for energy has spoiled the atmosphere and now spoils the water so necessary for life.
will we ever learn!!!
By the time people start to die we may have reached critical mass. When the environment crumbles we will have to watch it happen as we die right along with it.
The MAIN problem I see is overpopulation of our species. Were the world's load of humans reduced by say, half, many of these problems would disappear. We can voluntarily reduce our breeding OR nature can accomplish it on our behalf. Take your choice. (No, I do NOT have children BTW.)
Hope
Overpopulation? What actual proof do you have beside reading someone else bull sh1t..?
I can't see how that can't have severe negative effects on our lands.
Scary