RT: US fracking extremely dangerous; poses cancer threat.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mad_Cabbie

Gold Member
Nov 2, 2013
13,115
2,537
As a life long hunter, fisherman, conservationist and libertarian, I find this practice (in its current incarnation) both reprehensible and irresponsible. I totally get it that this country should have the right to make money, but the oil company's rights end where my lungs begin.

This problem is already wide-spread in Canada (I know, WHO cares) and it's headed to a town near you.





report-fracking-danger-cancer.si.jpg




'US fracking extremely dangerous, poses cancer threat’
Published time: October 31, 2014 15:52


The way that oil and gas fracking is practiced in the US is dangerous to public health exposing people living around wells to respiratory infections, cancer and a reduction in brain activity, David O. Carpenter, environmental health expert, told RT.

Scientists have discovered dangerously high level of cancer-causing chemicals in the air around fracking wells in five different states in the US. A report revealed that levels of benzene, hydrogen sulfide and formaldehyde were many times above American air pollution limits and were detected within residential areas near to fracking sites.

RT spoke with David O. Carpenter, author of the study to find out how dangerous fracking is for health.

David Carpenter: I don’t think fracking has to be dangerous to our health but fracking in the way it’s practiced right now in the US - at least in these five states - is extraordinary dangerous. We focused a lot in our report on two chemicals that cause cancer – benzene and formaldehyde - and their levels were sky high, much higher than it is regulated in other industries. They are both known human carcinogens, according to the World Health Organization. They should not be released in this fashion. It isn’t that the fracking per say is something that is necessarily dangerous but clearly there is a release of all of these organic chemicals, including these carcinogens, benzene is released, formaldehyde is formed. That’s just not acceptable because these [chemicals] are very dangerous for public health.



fra-fra-1.jpg

David McNew/Getty Images/AFP



RT: Why are they still doing it then?

DC: I think it’s because they are careless. There are leaks in the system. That’s not for the benefit of the industry either because they want to capture this natural gas and sell it. One of the problems in the US is our Congress because they wanted to promote energy self-sufficiency, and has exempted oil and gas industry from most of our federal regulations. No other industry would be allowed to release benzene, formaldehyde in these concentrations. It is contrary to the Clean Air Act.

RT: How much do you hope your study will break ground in terms of convincing governments of the perils of fracking?

DC: I think that our study alone won’t accomplish that. But I hope that it helps moving in that direction. We are caught in this bind between the benefits of something that helps the economy and the risk to human health. That’s always a debate and politicians are usually more interested in short-term benefits than long-term risks. Cancer isn’t going to occur tomorrow, it is going to occur 10-20-30 years from now in people that are exposed to those dangerous contaminants. What we are seeing right now are respiratory infections and nose bleeds. Think about formaldehyde, that’s basically an embalming fluid, if you breathe it in 24 hours a day – and are samples from formaldehyde were taken over eight-hour periods – you are going to pickle epithelium in your nose. Many of the people living around these sites have nose bleeds. Is it surprising? Not at all.

RT: Isn’t it surprising that government isn’t listening to you?

DC: There hasn’t been much evidence like this and again, that’s one of the problems because the federal government doesn’t support much research in that area. The health agencies have been intimidated because the US Congress exempted the industry from regulation. So they have shied away from founding research. I do hope that our study and others that are being done demonstrating health risk in these communities will tighten up the regulation....

US fracking extremely dangerous poses cancer threat RT Op-Edge


Please post relevant, on-topic remarks, thank you.
 
Very well presented.


The 'report' cited, Environmental Health Full text Air concentrations of volatile compounds near oil and gas production a community-based exploratory study , does not address the scare tactics this opinion piece is based on.

Has anyone read this report?




dangerous poses cancer threat RT Op-Edge
  1. Op-edge — RT
    rt.com/op-edge
    Housing opinion pieces Op-Edge section is a platform for those unafraid to voice their stance and question what are considered established truths.
 
Last edited:
So Putin News doesn't like the US helping to drive down oil prices? LOL, tough shit Vlad. It's been thoroughly researched here and it's the market that will decide, not Putin. At the current price per barrel it isn't a economical practice.
 
Anyone actually looked into what is going on in Canada? I'm hearing horror stories about living conditions in areas where fracking is going on.
 
I would venture to guess the "reduction in brain activity" in people around areas with fracking would likely be due to the large number of liberal environmental activists that show up at these locations regularly.
 
I would venture to guess the "reduction in brain activity" in people around areas with fracking would likely be due to the large number of liberal environmental activists that show up at these locations regularly.

So, fracking DOES NOT harm people, because???
 
Because it's done 10,000 feet underground. More people die in their bathtubs than are killed by fracking. You don't even know WTF it is so don't worry about it.

Just enjoy your 1.85 gas that you smile when you fill up every time.
 
Fracking goes way below groundwater wells.

The average groundwater wells are 100 to 500 feet. The one we use is 400 feet.
On rare occasions it may go to 1,000 feet but then you get into problems of contamination.

Fracking starts at 7,700 feet and continues to go even deeper to 12,000 feet.
 
These damn liberals wouldn't know a frick from a frack. They need to go hug some more trees. At least then they're useful. The only thing these morons know is what they read. They aren't a part of the industry, they've never worked in the industry, nothing.
 
Last edited:
As a life long hunter, fisherman, conservationist and libertarian, I find this practice (in its current incarnation) both reprehensible and irresponsible. I totally get it that this country should have the right to make money, but the oil company's rights end where my lungs begin.

Yeah ... I have a better idea: we should increase our use of coal! No, wait ... coal is bad.
OK ... let's add more nuclear power!
No, wait ... nuclear is bad.
OK ... how's this: we should return to the 17th Century where none of this is an issue!
 
Can they do it without releasing those chemicals?

Evidently they can, they just don't seem to be doing it right now.

I don’t think fracking has to be dangerous to our health but fracking in the way it’s practiced right now in the US - at least in these five states - is extraordinary dangerous. We focused a lot in our report on two chemicals that cause cancer – benzene and formaldehyde - and their levels were sky high, much higher than it is regulated in other industries.

^^^^ Anyone want to address the OP or are we just going to bash Liberals as per usual?
 
Last edited:
As a life long hunter, fisherman, conservationist and libertarian, I find this practice (in its current incarnation) both reprehensible and irresponsible. I totally get it that this country should have the right to make money, but the oil company's rights end where my lungs begin.

Yeah ... I have a better idea: we should increase our use of coal! No, wait ... coal is bad.
OK ... let's add more nuclear power!
No, wait ... nuclear is bad.
OK ... how's this: we should return to the 17th Century where none of this is an issue!

I'm asking if it is actually a heath risk; you are not even attempting to address the issue.
 
RT ? :laugh:

Lol !!! That network is nothing more than blatant Russian propaganda. Please don't bother bringing anything here from such a ridiculous source !
 
As a life long hunter, fisherman, conservationist and libertarian, I find this practice (in its current incarnation) both reprehensible and irresponsible. I totally get it that this country should have the right to make money, but the oil company's rights end where my lungs begin.

Yeah ... I have a better idea: we should increase our use of coal! No, wait ... coal is bad.
OK ... let's add more nuclear power!
No, wait ... nuclear is bad.
OK ... how's this: we should return to the 17th Century where none of this is an issue!

I'm asking if it is actually a heath risk...

No, you're not. You asked no questions. You simply posted an RT article which claims fracking is unhealthy. I don't know about the author's claims but I do know fracking has been done for decades without a whole lotta tree-hugger whining. I simply pointed out that other energy sources have inherent dangers that we do know about.
 
I'm asking if it is actually a heath risk...

No, you're not. You asked no questions. You simply posted an RT article which claims fracking is unhealthy. I don't know about the author's claims but I do know fracking has been done for decades without a whole lotta tree-hugger whining. I simply pointed out that other energy sources have inherent dangers that we do know about.

So, fracking DOES NOT harm people, because???

Then, if you aren't here to debate or comment beyond making snarky remarks, is there anything else I can help you with?
 
Last edited:
Everybody who has ever died of cancer has one thing in common.

They were born.

If only every baby were killed before birth we could eliminate cancer in a single generation.
 
RT ? :laugh:

Lol !!! That network is nothing more than blatant Russian propaganda. Please don't bother bringing anything here from such a ridiculous source !

Yes, the source -- is the source wrong? Please enlighten us. No better way to disprove it than to show us where the article is flawed.

Incidentally, I, myself don't usually dismiss articles out of hand, that's a cowards way out of a debate.
 
Everybody who has ever died of cancer has one thing in common.

They were born.

If only every baby were killed before birth we could eliminate cancer in a single generation.

So, no efforts should ever be made to avoid getting it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top