4 ms·
This is based on an enormous unproven assumption, which is that fracking can be done without incurring catastrophic environmental costs. Coal mining and cigaret
by vannevar 14y ago
This is based on an enormous unproven assumption, which is that fracking can be done without incurring catastrophic environmental costs. Coal mining and cigarettes look economical too as long as you foist the real costs onto the general population.
- leifaffles 14y agoI found this short fracking discussion enlightening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW_xJqPjE_I# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW_xJqPjE_I#!
- vannevar 14y agoThanks for the link. The expert in the video says that he believes fracking is safe, yet the facts he cites support the opposite conclusion. According to the video, unlike ordinary natural gas drilling, fracking involves pumping toxic chemicals (including benzene and formaldehyde) under pressure into the ground. But like ordinary drilling, failures can and do occur. The video cites faulty drilling casings and operator incompetence as the causes of two incidents where water was contaminated with natural gas, and a third incident where water was contaminated by trucks bringing benzene to the drilling site. That the first two failures weren't unique to fracking and that the third was not directly related to the drilling itself are not rational reasons for discounting them in assessing the overall risks of fracking. Even if the expert is correct in saying that the risk of failure is the same as ordinary drilling, it is the consequence of failure that must be considered. If the risk for a plumbing failure at a nuclear power plant were the same as the risk of a leak in my garden hose, no reasonable person would conclude that the plant was therefore no riskier than watering my lawn. Yet that is essentially the logic applied by the video's 'expert'.
- bluedanieru 14y agoI think it's rather that there is another totally reasonable and historically accurate assumption that catastrophic environmental costs need not factor into the projection.
- vannevar 14y agoIt is not reasonable to assume that because a phenomenon is not observed in a small sample size, that it will also be absent in a much larger sample size. The volume of fracking fluid being pumped into the ground today is orders of magnitude larger than has been used historically.
- vannevar 14y agoIf our anonymous downvoter has information to the contrary, it would be helpful if they would post it.
- DuskStar 14y agoI think he means that the companies have a history of not being stuck with environmental cleanup costs or other secondary costs- and thus even if there will be enormous damages, it won't impact their profits.
- vannevar 14y agoAh yes, under that interpretation I would agree wholeheartedly.
- bluedanieru 14y agoEh, yeah and that's the correct one. In the interests of brevity I guess I left some ambiguity there in what I meant.
- pasbesoin 14y agoPotable water shortage projected to last indefinitely.