Fracking ourselves to death in Pennsylvania

[sunwyn]

More than 70 years ago, a chemical attack was launched against Washington state and Nevada. It poisoned people, animals, everything that grew, breathed air, and drank water. The Marshall Islands were also struck. This formerly pristine Pacific atoll was branded “the most contaminated place in the world.” As their cancers developed, the victims of atomic testing and nuclear weapons development got a name: downwinders. What marked their tragedy was the darkness in which they were kept about what was being done to them. Proof of harm fell to them, not to the U.S. government agencies responsible [PDF].

Now, a new generation of downwinders is getting sick as an emerging industry pushes the next wonder technology — in this case, high-volume hydraulic fracturing. Whether they live in Texas, Colorado, or Pennsylvania, their symptoms are the same: rashes, nosebleeds, severe headaches, difficulty breathing, joint pain, intestinal illnesses, memory loss, and more. “In my opinion,” says Yuri Gorby of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, “what we see unfolding is a serious health crisis, one that is just beginning.”

The process of “fracking” starts by drilling a mile or more vertically, then outward laterally into 500-million-year-old shale formations, the remains of oceans that once flowed over parts of North America. Millions of gallons of chemical and sand-laced water are then propelled into the ground at high pressures, fracturing the shale and forcing the methane it contains out. With the release of that gas come thousands of gallons of contaminated water. This “flowback” fluid contains the original fracking chemicals, plus heavy metals and radioactive material that also lay safely buried in the shale.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/fracking-ourselves-to-death-in-pennsylvania/

[boston bean]

1. Just watched Promiseland on VOD last night, with Matt Damon.

I suggest everyone watch it.

I can't say much about it, cause I don't want to give away a spoiler, but it was really good.

[Cirque du So-What]

2. I also watched it last night

I recommend it highly.

[Buzz Clik]

3. There are lots of unknowns about the health implication of fracking. For nuclear...

... we already know a lot.

Comparing the two in this way is irresponsible.

[Newest Reality]

4. Mega-corporations

are riding an apocalyptic horse, roughshod across the globe as a scourge with exclusive rights.

As the window for climactic catastrophe opens and the time-frame for the ice melt in the Arctic contracts, the quest for the more expensive petroleum reserves is rather pointless and futile.

The estimates are that we have a clear and present danger. The marker is around burning no more than 20% of the current reserves before we go to two-degrees warmer and beyond. That's critical and so, fracking away is merely a profit-driven obsession that punishes what is left.

[MineralMan]

5. The Marshall Islands reference was gratuitous.

There is no relationship between the two situations.

In many ways, this writer has screwed his or her credibility with that juxtaposition of dissimilar things. I wish people wouldn't do that.

[Buzz Clik]

6. +1. As a rabid environmentalist, I choke every time I see stuff like that.

We should be 100% certain that everything we put out is based on scientifically defensible facts.

Basing a movement on raw emotion is the fastest route to total failure.

[MineralMan]

7. Advocacy websites are the worst offenders, I think.

Without realizing it, they damage their credibility with thinking people by bending the truth to the breaking point, just to make a point. Then, they complain that they are not being taken seriously. It's a real mistake to do that.

The Marshall Islands thing was very, very bad. So is unregulated and uncontrolled fracking. But the two are not related, so it is a mistake to try to link them together, and anyone who knows anything about either sees that conflict immediately. Those who do not see the conflict are not the people who need to be reached.

I cringe every time I see a link to an advocacy website. I know that when I go to the site to read whatever article is referenced, I'm going to find distorted information that is easily debunked. More harm than good is done by such sites.

[marions ghost]

8. I think the "downwinders" reference is fair

you have to distill the nature of the danger and using a term that is known & accepted can help. I think it's quibbling when it comes to comparing environmental assaults. Fracking affects both water and air:

"...gas drilling operations release airborne contaminants that can have detrimental effects on our health. Areas where there is gas production have reported significant increases in ozone, commonly known as smog, because some of the toxic precursors to smog, such as volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides are released during the process that brings natural gas from the ground to market. Lisa Jackson, former Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) admitted in an interview with National Public Radios’ Michele Norris at the Aspen Ideas Festival in June 2011, “You are going to have huge smog problems where you never had them before……These are rural areas. … There is a lot of activity around those wells and that has an impact on air quality — and we know it already.”

http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/our-programs/fracking/whats-wrong-with-fracking-2/air-pollution/