Word Games Continue: Just What Evidence Did EPA Not Find? - SkyTruth

[Panich52]

SkyTruth

Word Games Continue: Just What Evidence Did EPA Not Find?
By David Manthos

Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a series of draft reports on their findings from five years of research and literature review on the question of whether or not fracking contaminates groundwater. But if you just read the headlines you might have been confused about what the EPA had actually concluded. As Forbes pointed out, the headlines were a bit contradictory. 

. ...

But the bigger news is that even EPA was inconsistent about the findings of their own report. The press release from EPA states that their assessment (emphasis added): 

"...shows hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources and identifies important vulnerabilities to drinking water resources." *

However, the Executive Summary of the report puts things differently (emphasis added):

We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. 

These two statements may look similar, but there is a big difference between saying that you did not find find any evidence of a crime and definitely claiming that you have proven the suspect's innocence. But try telling the House Natural Resources Committee that fracking has never been proven NOT to cause contamination, and members of Congress will laugh aloud and joke about pigs not flying to Mars. Seriously (check out 1:12:10).

But buried on page 22 of the 28-page executive summary, the EPA goes on to say (again, emphasis added):

This assessment used available data and literature to examine the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing from oil and gas on drinking water resources nationally. As part of this effort, we identified data limitations and uncertainties associated with current information on hydraulic fracturing and its potential to affect drinking water resources. In particular, data limitations preclude a determination of the frequency of impacts with any certainty.

More
http://skytruth.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e8a012de013399ca3907e3133&id=315825fd42&e=4f946530e5



* I find last part, "identifies important vulnerabilities to drinking water resources" the important. Who got to the writers of the release, and with what incentive, to so blatantly obscure that important point?

•

[n2doc]

1. The report had its intended impact

To muddy the waters (pun intended), create uncertainty, generate RW meme that tracking is harmless because the 'Epa said so'.

[djean111]

3. It is not just the RW.

Hillary says fracking is okay with "smart safeguards". And pushed for fracking overseas when SOS.
Martin O'Malley supported fracking in Maryland, right before he left, with "smart regulations". His successor was not pleased.
Bernie was very happy that Vermont banned fracking. But good luck with that, Vermont, once the TPP get shoved up our, um, country.

[djean111]

2. The intent of the report was to use "science" in order to enable "Frack on!!!!" politicians and

corporations, now and in the future. All for profit. This will make it easier for corporations to overturn local regulations about no fracking, in court. The report is establishing a sort of precedence, to be used against people who are standing in the way of profit.