3 ms·

There's a ton of context that's not included here. For starters: 1) How common was this in PA before fracking started? 2) Are these wells unusable? 3) Is the

There's a ton of context that's not included here. For starters: 1) How common was this in PA before fracking started? 2) Are these wells unusable? 3) Is the situation getting better or worse? 4) Is the gas linked to the fracking (the only interesting question that was mentioned in the article, and the answer is "we don't know") 5) What about other places fracking is occurring? It's not like we're going to stop fracking everywhere: this is a maturing technology. It'll be used all over the planet. What's happening elsewhere? 6) Any other studies being done? 7) What's the measured impact on health in the area? 8) Let's not even start on corrleation and causation -- but it needs to be mentioned, and it's the reason all these other questions are germane. I'm not trying to be an apologist. These are just sincere questions of import when reading about fracking news. They're germane to any reporting on the matter, and they weren't included. If "more details to come" means more random pieces of trivia that we are then supposed to knit up into our own version of a drama, filled in by whatever personal biases we have, then this isn't very useful from a scientific standpoint.

zzzeek 13y ago
hacker news is a community of highly technical and/or scientifically inclined people. Certainly a Scientific American article that discusses ongoing research, and is very specific in noting the preliminary nature of it, is something the community is capable of ingesting and discussing in a reasonable way. I found the article interesting because I recall just a couple of years ago, discussing the idea that fracking could ever have any relationship to the groundwater whatsoever was considered patently ridiculous and you'd get sent right off to pseudoscience reeducation camp just for suggesting it (which is really because: in the absence of reputable research having been done, all opinions were essentially political). Now if we were talking about an article that's discussing philosophy, religion, or other subjects within the humanities, there's a much higher chance the HN community will totally misinterpret and butcher the crap out of that, sure.
- davidw 13y ago
  My wife subscribed to Scientific American for a while, and I thought their political articles were actually pretty crappy and unscientific. Admittedly, it was just a quick glance here and there, but there was some stuff that struck me as very simplistic. As an interesting aside, coal is none too healthy either. There's a town in PA that's been burning for something like 50 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire
chernevik 13y ago
9. Is there something about the geology of spots where companies like to drill that causes higher methane levels? 10. Were the wells sampled chosen for proximity to drill sites? Did the sampling methodology allow for the possibility that methane levels can spike without a nearby well? 11. Was there any relationship between levels and the length of time the well has been operating? Depth of well? I'd add that the SA headline isn't exactly a dispassionate summary of the article.
- johnward 13y ago
  9. Probably since methane is one of the gases they are attempting to extract.
johnward 13y ago
1) How common was this in PA before fracking started? The gas company's have this data. Before any activity in my area (near the PA border in Ohio) someone came and tested my well water for contaminates. I have the report somewhere but it was basically just mineral etc. Drilling hasn't really picked up yet but I will find out if it changes or not. Then again who knows if you can trust the reports when the gas companies are funding them.

zzzeek 13y ago

hacker news is a community of highly technical and/or scientifically inclined people. Certainly a Scientific American article that discusses ongoing research, and is very specific in noting the preliminary nature of it, is something the community is capable of ingesting and discussing in a reasonable way. I found the article interesting because I recall just a couple of years ago, discussing the idea that fracking could ever have any relationship to the groundwater whatsoever was considered patently ridiculous and you'd get sent right off to pseudoscience reeducation camp just for suggesting it (which is really because: in the absence of reputable research having been done, all opinions were essentially political). Now if we were talking about an article that's discussing philosophy, religion, or other subjects within the humanities, there's a much higher chance the HN community will totally misinterpret and butcher the crap out of that, sure.

davidw 13y ago
My wife subscribed to Scientific American for a while, and I thought their political articles were actually pretty crappy and unscientific. Admittedly, it was just a quick glance here and there, but there was some stuff that struck me as very simplistic. As an interesting aside, coal is none too healthy either. There's a town in PA that's been burning for something like 50 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire

chernevik 13y ago

9. Is there something about the geology of spots where companies like to drill that causes higher methane levels? 10. Were the wells sampled chosen for proximity to drill sites? Did the sampling methodology allow for the possibility that methane levels can spike without a nearby well? 11. Was there any relationship between levels and the length of time the well has been operating? Depth of well? I'd add that the SA headline isn't exactly a dispassionate summary of the article.

johnward 13y ago
9. Probably since methane is one of the gases they are attempting to extract.

johnward 13y ago

1) How common was this in PA before fracking started? The gas company's have this data. Before any activity in my area (near the PA border in Ohio) someone came and tested my well water for contaminates. I have the report somewhere but it was basically just mineral etc. Drilling hasn't really picked up yet but I will find out if it changes or not. Then again who knows if you can trust the reports when the gas companies are funding them.