4 ms·

Riiiiiggghht https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9-tmudFg0 https://www.you

by AC__ 11y ago

Riiiiiggghht https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9-tmudFg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9-tmudFg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A There are THOUSANDS of similar reports from fracked areas all over North America. That isn't the only problem either, when they do what's called "venting" there is large release of carcinogenic chemicals(although some large scale operations mitigate this by capping the vent stack to collect the gases in practice this is the exception not the rule) We are doing it in Canada as well, absolute insanity! Here is a great documentary http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+Nature+of+Things/ID/2332883489/ http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+Nature+of+Things/ID...

danso 11y ago
OK I downvoted this. And I'm stating that even though I know it's not kosher to have a meta-debate about upvoting/downvoting, but just to dissuade the reflexive suspicion that the downvote is because HN is secretly owned by drilling companies. I don't necessarily disagree with the skepticism, but linking to a bunch of Youtube videos without context is not helpful evidence. And then going on to refer to a vague "THOUSANDS of similar reports" claim without some kind of link to source...that's kind of lazy. I think it's safe to say that the EPA is aware of a high quantity of reports of contaminated water...and that's why they've (belatedly) undertaken this study. The critique should be focused on their assertions and the evidence they use (I mean, they did the courtesy of drafting a report to make such a point by point critique easier), not on generalizations.
- AC__ 11y ago
  They have NO evidence, I downloaded their full report in search of the "official" total of cases where drinking water has been contaminated due to hydraulic fracturing and it is omitted from the report they simply make the assertion that "the number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells" This study doesn't serve to advance our understanding of the hazards of hydraulic fracturing in the least, it's 999 pages of nothing! Down vote all you want
  - danso 11y ago
    I wouldn't have downvoted this comment...because it actually refers to the report at hand and directly critiques it. I'm not anti-anti-fracking, just anti-anti-anti-fracking generalizations.
    - AC__ 11y ago
      Also this "A 2009 ProPublica investigation found that contamination was far more prevalent than indicated in the report, citing more than 1,000 cases tied to drilling and fracking that had been documented by courts and state and local governments." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_water_pollution http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_water_poll...
sliverstorm 11y ago
In at least some of those areas where those "flammable tapwater" videos have been made, the tapwater has always been flammable, because the natural gas deposits we are fracking have been leeching into the groundwater for millions of years.
- AC__ 11y ago
  Yes and now enjoy methane concentrations 17x higher(I view that as the difference between being potable and not)...http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-for-natural-gas-pollutes-water-wells/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-for-natur...
AC__ 11y ago
This is the response I received(astonishingly fast) after writing an email inquiring about the total figure of drinking water contamination cases: "Thanks for your email. To clarify--the purpose of the study was not to count every instance of impacts to drinking water resources. The purpose was to follow the water and to better understand the potential vulnerabilities. In the draft assessment we looked at all the hydraulic fracturing activities that may have had potential impacts to drinking water resources and make mention of specific events throughout the chapters that serve as examples and illustrate vulnerabilities. Based upon the information brought together for the assessment – information drawn from over 950 citations– we did not identify widespread impacts on drinking water resources due to hydraulic fracturing operations. The information available is adequate to qualitatively characterize the frequency of occurrence as being small, particularly relative to the number of wells that are hydraulically fractured each year. That same information, however, is not sufficient to quantitatively measure occurrence nationwide. That was one of the information gaps highlighted by the assessment. I hope this is helpful! Dayna 202-564-7983 gibbons.dayna@epa.gov Communications Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" So they would have you believe that they don't know how often it happens, however, they do know it doesn't happen often. Yeah, this is the type of science, no fuck that, pseudo-science, that leads to dubious legislation.

by AC__ 11y ago

danso 11y ago

OK I downvoted this. And I'm stating that even though I know it's not kosher to have a meta-debate about upvoting/downvoting, but just to dissuade the reflexive suspicion that the downvote is because HN is secretly owned by drilling companies. I don't necessarily disagree with the skepticism, but linking to a bunch of Youtube videos without context is not helpful evidence. And then going on to refer to a vague "THOUSANDS of similar reports" claim without some kind of link to source...that's kind of lazy. I think it's safe to say that the EPA is aware of a high quantity of reports of contaminated water...and that's why they've (belatedly) undertaken this study. The critique should be focused on their assertions and the evidence they use (I mean, they did the courtesy of drafting a report to make such a point by point critique easier), not on generalizations.

AC__ 11y ago
They have NO evidence, I downloaded their full report in search of the "official" total of cases where drinking water has been contaminated due to hydraulic fracturing and it is omitted from the report they simply make the assertion that "the number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells" This study doesn't serve to advance our understanding of the hazards of hydraulic fracturing in the least, it's 999 pages of nothing! Down vote all you want
- danso 11y ago
  I wouldn't have downvoted this comment...because it actually refers to the report at hand and directly critiques it. I'm not anti-anti-fracking, just anti-anti-anti-fracking generalizations.
  - AC__ 11y ago
    Also this "A 2009 ProPublica investigation found that contamination was far more prevalent than indicated in the report, citing more than 1,000 cases tied to drilling and fracking that had been documented by courts and state and local governments." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_water_pollution http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_water_poll...

sliverstorm 11y ago

In at least some of those areas where those "flammable tapwater" videos have been made, the tapwater has always been flammable, because the natural gas deposits we are fracking have been leeching into the groundwater for millions of years.

AC__ 11y ago
Yes and now enjoy methane concentrations 17x higher(I view that as the difference between being potable and not)...http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-for-natural-gas-pollutes-water-wells/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-for-natur...

AC__ 11y ago

This is the response I received(astonishingly fast) after writing an email inquiring about the total figure of drinking water contamination cases: "Thanks for your email. To clarify--the purpose of the study was not to count every instance of impacts to drinking water resources. The purpose was to follow the water and to better understand the potential vulnerabilities. In the draft assessment we looked at all the hydraulic fracturing activities that may have had potential impacts to drinking water resources and make mention of specific events throughout the chapters that serve as examples and illustrate vulnerabilities. Based upon the information brought together for the assessment – information drawn from over 950 citations– we did not identify widespread impacts on drinking water resources due to hydraulic fracturing operations. The information available is adequate to qualitatively characterize the frequency of occurrence as being small, particularly relative to the number of wells that are hydraulically fractured each year. That same information, however, is not sufficient to quantitatively measure occurrence nationwide. That was one of the information gaps highlighted by the assessment. I hope this is helpful! Dayna 202-564-7983 gibbons.dayna@epa.gov Communications Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" So they would have you believe that they don't know how often it happens, however, they do know it doesn't happen often. Yeah, this is the type of science, no fuck that, pseudo-science, that leads to dubious legislation.