- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,694
- Reaction score
- 75,639
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Everything has risks. The risks with fracking are minimal and the potential harm actually quite minimal while the benefit is huge.
Fracking is here to stay, Chicken little rhetoric or not.
I have a degree in Natural Resource Management. Lots of geology, hydrology, forestry....again, you make large incorrect assumptions based on limited info.
The benefit is only huge for the energy companies....:doh
I have a degree in Natural Resource Management. Lots of geology, hydrology, forestry....again, you make large incorrect assumptions based on limited info.
And who determines if it affects drinking water? Duke Energy? Southern Company? Or a handful of corporations in the country?
Extremely good question: The government. Google CERCLA and then Google EPCRA and then read them. Many of your concerns will be answered. As for disclosing the chemicals used, Google SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act - which is the other name for CERCLA) Title III Reporting to see exactly what those companies have been required to do and have been doing since 1986. I think you'll be surprised. It goes against the anti-fracking rhetoric that they are secretly pumping poison into our water. There's no secret cover-up. The government knows exactly what they're doing, and what they are doing it with.
Natural Resource Management....
So, at the University of Colorado, an NRM degree is described as follows:
Natural Resources Management Degrees
The goal of the natural resources management major is to provide students with a broad-based understanding of the interconnectedness of social, political, and ecological systems. This knowledge will enable students to design sustainable solutions to address natural resource conservation and management problems. Students will learn about natural resource stewardship in both theory and practice, with an eye toward designing systems that are adaptable and resilient in light of the social and ecological complexity and change that characterize today’s challenges.
So perhaps you can help. Where would did you find the real focus of this education be? Social, Political, or Ecological? I see lots about management, policy and engagement, but really nothing about geologic engineering, or even chemical engineering for that matter.
Perhaps I've missed something.
Really? I took s hell o f alot of geology, couple of courses in hydrology, tons of bio, botany, forestry, chemistry, organic chemistry, and I have a huge interest in epidemiology so continue to study that.
How does one manage what one does not understand? How does one create solutions for things they dont understand? And regarding policy....we studied the impacts of policies, politics, and industry...We studied things like how much of the 'Green Revolution' was a failure...it was not a one-sided agenda. So I'm pretty sure you did miss something.
I also did a a couple of yrs into an Environmental Hygiene degree...was at the time looking into getting into the environmental consulting industry.
(That wasnt my course description of course.)
It's also been documented that outside of ground spills, which could occur with any industrial operation, the actual fracking does NOT affect groundwater because it happens too far below the surface.
How Anti-Fracking Activists Deny Science: Water Contamination
New Federal Study: Fracking Did Not Pollute Groundwater
Energy Department: Fracking doesn
Landmark-study alert: We still can’t actually find a link between fracking and groundwater contamination. Shocker. « Hot Air
Guest Post: Water Contamination – Fracking is not the problem | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog Network
New study finds fracking does not contaminate well water - 21 News Now, More Local News for Youngstown, Ohio -
Read more: Energy Department: Fracking doesnThe National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh monitored wells for a year by injecting special tracers into fracking fluid to see whether any chemicals migrated up towards drinking water. Researchers found that the fracking fluid stayed nearly a mile below drinking water supplies.
“This is good news,” said Duke University scientist Rob Jackson, but warned that a single study does not prove fracking can’t ever pollute since industry drilling practices vary widely throughout Pennsylvania and the country.
Guest Post: Water Contamination – Fracking is not the problem | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog NetworkSo what is the truth?
Can drilling for natural gas contaminate drinking water? Yes.
Is hydraulic fracturing to blame? No.
Bottom line: water contamination does happen, but not because of hydraulic fracturing. The MIT Future of Natural Gas Study, released in June 2011, examines the causes of 43 reported environmental incidents and finds that, “no incidents of direct invasion of shallow water zones by fracture fluids during the fracturing process have been recorded.”
So what causes the contamination? According to the study, “almost 50% [of the incidents were] the result of drilling operations… most frequently related to inadequate cementing of casing into wellbores.” The table below is from the Future of Natural Gas Study and highlights the frequency and causes of incidents.
seems your sources are not all that definitive to your claims of no problema...
Read more: Energy Department: Fracking doesn
Guest Post: Water Contamination – Fracking is not the problem | Plugged In, Scientific American Blog Network
So ground water contamination—according your sources—does happen through the fracking process and no long term studies have yet to been definitive.
If they find chemicals in his drinking water, how do they know where to find where they came from and stop it?
How do they even know what to look for? Not everything shows up in testing.....
Honestly let's just cut to the chase. I am not going to google all that. This bill is exactly designed to stop whistleblowers. Period. Man just think what would have happened if the State Department or VA had some kind of protections
like this.
You can trust corporations, but sorry I don't when it comes to the environment.
They're injecting this **** into the ground, putting my drinking water at risk. Yeah, I have a right to know what they're shoving in there.
Could the chemicals have been spilled or from some other source?Well it's been documented....
Fracking Chemicals in Drinking Water | Chemicals Used in Fracking |
Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals Linked to Fracking Found in Colorado River – News Watch
USGS Finds Fracking Water Contamination in Wyoming
Fracking Tied to Drinking Water Damage by EPA Regional Official
Er....so much for it being 'bullcrap."
Really? I took s hell o f alot of geology, couple of courses in hydrology, tons of bio, botany, forestry, chemistry, organic chemistry, and I have a huge interest in epidemiology so continue to study that.
How does one manage what one does not understand? How does one create solutions for things they dont understand? And regarding policy....we studied the impacts of policies, politics, and industry...We studied things like how much of the 'Green Revolution' was a failure...it was not a one-sided agenda. So I'm pretty sure you did miss something.
I also did a a couple of yrs into an Environmental Hygiene degree...was at the time looking into getting into the environmental consulting industry.
(That wasnt my course description of course.)
They're injecting this **** into the ground, putting my drinking water at risk. Yeah, I have a right to know what they're shoving in there.
Interesting.
You see, it seems to me, we've allowed people to claim they are experts in areas they have little to no real experience or knowledge and despite these glaring voids in qualifications, allow them to set agenda's and National policies which carry significant economic impact on citizens.
For example, we allow people who are not Chemical Engineers to determine what happens with chemicals We allow people who are not geologists to claim a couple courses in geology is sufficient to declare processes that involve geology to be unsafe.
While it's certainly appropriate for everyone to voice an opinion, it's a bit ridiculous to allow amateurs to suggest they are experts, and allow them to set the agenda.
And if the chemicals violate the Clean Water Act, the offenders should be prosecuted.
Good morning, ocean515. :2wave:
When the inmates of an insane asylum are allowed to run things, I suppose this could be expected. My question is - how did this ever occur, and whatever happened to the experts? Were they simply overrun by the amateurs who yelled louder and longer - or were they put in the position of being an outcast because they didn't go along with someone's agenda? From what I read, our military is being purged the same way, and that is worrisome, because the world hasn't suddenly become a peaceful utopia where talks and meetings settle all differences. I wish that were the case, but it is not, as we are witnessing daily.
Hi Polgara. I've been traveling quite a bit so my responses have been delayed.
I think the answer to your question is that the experts have been allowed to be disqualified by assumptions from those who demand to have their ideas of progress trump logic and sound policy. To them, this means the experts have all bought off by the Koch Brothers and "energy" companies.
This is why the President and the people he has put in power make unilateral rules that eliminate the objective voices of those who stand in the way of the absurdity of the Progressive agenda. It's a shame since it means economic hardship and loss of jobs, something the last 6 years have proven to be something the President and his followers care little about.
It's easier to talk theory than walk the walk to create jobs, I guess. What are your thoughts on the "smelt" problem that's causing water shortages for farmers out there? Dumping millions of gallons of water into the Pacific when you are in a serious drought just doesn't make sense to people here in Ohio, and we've got lots of available water. Maybe desalinization might be seriously considered now, but it's expensive - can you handle more taxes? :mrgreen:
Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?