Fracking: No "Widespread" Effects to Drinking Water

[longknife]

Oh my goodness. You mean the rants and raves of the Greenies doing their best to return the USA to the days of dependence on Arab oil may not be correct. How can that be? And, please note, this is a government study, not one conducted by an oil company.


"After more than five years and millions of dollars, the evidence gathered by EPA confirms what the agency has already acknowledged and what the oil and gas industry has known: hydraulic fracturing is being done safely under the strong environmental stewardship of state regulators and industry-best practices," said Erik Milito, upstream group director of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's top lobbying group.


Read the full article @ Fracking No Widespread Effects to Drinking Water - Health Science - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

The article concludes with "The study did not examine effects on air quality, or public health at large."

 

[hadit]

The article concludes with "The study did not examine effects on air quality, or public health at large."

And why would it? They were looking at ground water.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The article concludes with "The study did not examine effects on air quality, or public health at large."

And why would it? They were looking at ground water.

It's limited is my point. And five years and millions of dollars is not enough to make a decision about the "long term."

 

[JakeStarkey]

The article concludes with "The study did not examine effects on air quality, or public health at large."

And why would it? They were looking at ground water.

It's limited is my point. And five years and millions of dollars is not enough to make a decision about the "long term."

I mean consider the far right reactionaries on the board and their education. Many went to college. Long term, no one could realize what a bunch of idiots they turned into. My point is that more testing needs to be done on fracking.

 

[hadit]

The article concludes with "The study did not examine effects on air quality, or public health at large."

And why would it? They were looking at ground water.

It's limited is my point. And five years and millions of dollars is not enough to make a decision about the "long term."

I mean consider the far right reactionaries on the board and their education. Many went to college. Long term, no one could realize what a bunch of idiots they turned into. My point is that more testing needs to be done on fracking.

And more will be done. The encouraging news, however, is that there are no glaring, insurmountable problems with it. Fracking has the potential to make America energy independent and give us much greater control of petroleum. We will do everything we can to make that a reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only if it does not threaten human health.

 

[hadit]

Only if it does not threaten human health.

We do a whole heck of a lot of things that threaten human health, but we value the output of those things more than we do the potential loss of life. Example, how fast do you drive a car? Cutting the speed limit to 35 mph would save tens of thousands of lives every year, but we value driving fast more than the lives lost.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only if it does not threaten human health.

We do a whole heck of a lot of things that threaten human health, but we value the output of those things more than we do the potential loss of life. Example, how fast do you drive a car? Cutting the speed limit to 35 mph would save tens of thousands of lives every year, but we value driving fast more than the lives lost.

Fallacy of false analogy.

We are talking about fracking not driving. One is voluntary, because one can find other alternatives.

Fracking is arbitrary and threatens folks without any recourse. Of course, the companies will find out differently in the courts.

 

[hadit]

Only if it does not threaten human health.

We do a whole heck of a lot of things that threaten human health, but we value the output of those things more than we do the potential loss of life. Example, how fast do you drive a car? Cutting the speed limit to 35 mph would save tens of thousands of lives every year, but we value driving fast more than the lives lost.

Fallacy of false analogy.

We are talking about fracking not driving. One is voluntary, because one can find other alternatives.

Fracking is arbitrary and threatens folks without any recourse. Of course, the companies will find out differently in the courts.

Society has deemed that driving fast is worth the loss of life. Society will also deem that ensuring our supply of petroleum and keeping costs low is worth any perceived (none yet proven) risks from fracking.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only if it does not threaten human health.

We do a whole heck of a lot of things that threaten human health, but we value the output of those things more than we do the potential loss of life. Example, how fast do you drive a car? Cutting the speed limit to 35 mph would save tens of thousands of lives every year, but we value driving fast more than the lives lost.

Fallacy of false analogy.

We are talking about fracking not driving. One is voluntary, because one can find other alternatives.

Fracking is arbitrary and threatens folks without any recourse. Of course, the companies will find out differently in the courts.

Society has deemed that driving fast is worth the loss of life. Society will also deem that ensuring our supply of petroleum and keeping costs low is worth any perceived (none yet proven) risks from fracking.

You are entitled to your opinion, yes. And, yes, those harmed by fracking will destroy said companies in court.

 

[hadit]

Only if it does not threaten human health.

We do a whole heck of a lot of things that threaten human health, but we value the output of those things more than we do the potential loss of life. Example, how fast do you drive a car? Cutting the speed limit to 35 mph would save tens of thousands of lives every year, but we value driving fast more than the lives lost.

Fallacy of false analogy.

We are talking about fracking not driving. One is voluntary, because one can find other alternatives.

Fracking is arbitrary and threatens folks without any recourse. Of course, the companies will find out differently in the courts.

Society has deemed that driving fast is worth the loss of life. Society will also deem that ensuring our supply of petroleum and keeping costs low is worth any perceived (none yet proven) risks from fracking.

You are entitled to your opinion, yes. And, yes, those harmed by fracking will destroy said companies in court.

They first have to prove it was fracking that harmed them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only if it does not threaten human health.

We do a whole heck of a lot of things that threaten human health, but we value the output of those things more than we do the potential loss of life. Example, how fast do you drive a car? Cutting the speed limit to 35 mph would save tens of thousands of lives every year, but we value driving fast more than the lives lost.

Fallacy of false analogy.

We are talking about fracking not driving. One is voluntary, because one can find other alternatives.

Fracking is arbitrary and threatens folks without any recourse. Of course, the companies will find out differently in the courts.

Society has deemed that driving fast is worth the loss of life. Society will also deem that ensuring our supply of petroleum and keeping costs low is worth any perceived (none yet proven) risks from fracking.

You are entitled to your opinion, yes. And, yes, those harmed by fracking will destroy said companies in court.

They first have to prove it was fracking that harmed them.

Of course. And then the company's assets will put all the children and grand children through college.

 

[hadit]

We do a whole heck of a lot of things that threaten human health, but we value the output of those things more than we do the potential loss of life. Example, how fast do you drive a car? Cutting the speed limit to 35 mph would save tens of thousands of lives every year, but we value driving fast more than the lives lost.

Fallacy of false analogy.

We are talking about fracking not driving. One is voluntary, because one can find other alternatives.

Fracking is arbitrary and threatens folks without any recourse. Of course, the companies will find out differently in the courts.

Society has deemed that driving fast is worth the loss of life. Society will also deem that ensuring our supply of petroleum and keeping costs low is worth any perceived (none yet proven) risks from fracking.

You are entitled to your opinion, yes. And, yes, those harmed by fracking will destroy said companies in court.

They first have to prove it was fracking that harmed them.

Of course. And then the company's assets will put all the children and grand children through college.

Only if they can prove it. Studies like this are making that less likely.

 

[Old Rocks]

All they have to prove is that there was no problem before the fracking, and that the aquifer was poisoned after the fracking began. Already we have seen a company in California knowing contaminate a major aquifer. A couple more instances of this, and most will assume guilt, no matter what the companies arguements.

 

[Mr. H.]

Not to be trolling or changing the subject, but adding a bit of perspective and priority...

Why such inordinately serious scrutiny towards fracking, and such total ambivalence towards the massive pollution wrought by the agriculture industry?

The perceived threats from fracking are just that- perceived. As for agriculture, we've been standing by idly literally for generations while turning a blind eye to some very real and serious problems.

Agriculture has always been a beloved and revered profession, hydrocarbons are the perennial whipping boy of the public and the politic.

 

[Mr. H.]

A friend of mine once told me "you can't bake bread without spilling some flour".

There is risk in any industry, and there is some degree of environmental impact in all. Including wind, solar, ethanol (ugh), hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, etc. etc.

Hydrocarbons have literally changed the course of history for mankind. For the good. And they will continue to do so for generations to come. Can you imagine where the field of medicine and medical care would be without?

That's what I mean about perspective and priority...

 

[longknife]

A friend of mine once told me "you can't bake bread without spilling some flour".

There is risk in any industry, and there is some degree of environmental impact in all. Including wind, solar, ethanol (ugh), hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, etc. etc.

Hydrocarbons have literally changed the course of history for mankind. For the good. And they will continue to do so for generations to come. Can you imagine where the field of medicine and medical care would be without?

That's what I mean about perspective and priority...

You are absolutely right!

Everybody makes a big deal about the fuels but totally forget the other things made from petroleum.

The very computer you are reading this on contains plastic. Where would the rest of modern society be without products that come from petroleum?

 

[hadit]

All they have to prove is that there was no problem before the fracking, and that the aquifer was poisoned after the fracking began. Already we have seen a company in California knowing contaminate a major aquifer. A couple more instances of this, and most will assume guilt, no matter what the companies arguements.

Not so. They have to prove that any contamination was actually from fracking. Since fracking occurs well below ground water, that will be difficult. If the company can show run off from a large farm in the area putting contaminants in the ground, they'll be in the clear.

 

[hadit]

A friend of mine once told me "you can't bake bread without spilling some flour".

There is risk in any industry, and there is some degree of environmental impact in all. Including wind, solar, ethanol (ugh), hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, etc. etc.

Hydrocarbons have literally changed the course of history for mankind. For the good. And they will continue to do so for generations to come. Can you imagine where the field of medicine and medical care would be without?

That's what I mean about perspective and priority...

You are absolutely right!

Everybody makes a big deal about the fuels but totally forget the other things made from petroleum.

The very computer you are reading this on contains plastic. Where would the rest of modern society be without products that come from petroleum?

Society does a balancing act and decides if a given activity or substance is more valuable than the risks it poses, and in this case, petroleum is very valuable. There are always going to be some who disagree with society.