Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Elsie Gibbs on March 9, 2012 at 4:14am

And now we have the truth about why you are here. I use "brine" to make pickles. Brine, meaning salty, can be found in nature and is used to soften water in many of our homes.

Seems that the DNC is doing its best or stop us from becoming energy independent.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Young on March 9, 2012 at 1:47am

Not to belabor all of this, but from what I have seen, all the "affected" individuals are females, so scientifically speaking, one would have to suspect a hormonal or primary chemical more affective on females, as being the potential "air water or land' contamination problem.....  if it is ANY of that in the first place.  Here in PA we are fracing the crap out of everything for 4+ years and no problems like this noted anywhere... including the many female employees around these well fracing sites, on a daily basis for many years now as part of the study group with no affects .....  sooooo unless there is something really special about the fracing used near LeRoy NY years ago..... No scientific basis for any of this...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Elsie Gibbs on March 9, 2012 at 4:21am

As a mother and grandmother I wonder more about the chemicals in the city water systems. All the "drugs" flushed and ending up in the rivers they get the water from has been studied and can't be removed by purification.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Young on March 9, 2012 at 3:08pm

The worst part is the continual build up of female hormones from birth control pills through the water systems and the affect it will have on developing children, as they have both sex hormones in their system, but the potential for hormonal upset by the water is greater for young males and we have no clue to what extent, nor will we know for a generation, then it will change again,  because we still haven't found a reliable way to remove them from surface water supplies.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Moe on March 9, 2012 at 2:35pm

After having read all of the posts in this thread, and not resorting to a drinking binge on account of the stubborn determination to ignore facts and make arguments out of smoke by a very few anti's, I have two comments.

1. The suggestion that fracing has caused any of the alleged damages suggested in any of the posts in this thread is like me saying that my neighbor fired his .22 cal rifle, with a normal load, in my direction and that the bullet embedded itself in my leg from 2 miles away!

2. I recall having read an article - I think it was in Engineering News Record - sometime after the Love Canal debacle that involved a nearby municipality having plans to build a neighborhood park. As well as I can remember, there was some issue regarding the land for the park having been contaminated with some very low levels of toxic chemicals. The usual public outcry ensued and the city finally hired a specialist in toxicology, or a person with appropriate skills and experience, to analyze the soil and provide a report. After a period of sampling, testing, and review, he tendered his report. I will paraphrase its content because I don't remember the actual wording but I do remember the important gist of it. He stated that he had, in fact, found some contamination in the soil and that the only way it could be harmful to a person would be for that person to actually ingest some amount of the contaminated soil as the contaminants were not free from the soil. He opined that the amount of soil that a person would have to ingest to create a toxic dose of the chemical would be something like 3 tri-axle dump truck loads. His conclusion was that the ingestee would surely die from the sheer amount of soil ingested long before there would be any negative effects from the chemical.

People who seem to be educated beyond their intelligence often are the ones to opine that contamination from certain petroleum-based chemicals in groundwater will kill you. If one were to do a simple mathematical analysis of such a claim, when the level of contamination is say 35ppm (parts per million), the amount of water that one would have to drink to ingest a teaspoon of the contaminant would be about 28,570 gallons. If one were to drink a gallon a day, every day of the year, it would take 78 years to ingest that teaspoon of contaminant. I don't know, but I suspect that 35ppm is well above the limits of such a hypothetical contamination according to Federal Drinking Water Standards, or whatever the correct standard is.

 

KEEP ON DRILLING & FRACING!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by hillbilly on March 9, 2012 at 3:30pm

It is ubsurd to think that the frac fluid gets into the water table and can contaminate anything. The water table at the time of fracing the well is protected by 3 different sets of casing and cement. Also, the depth being fraced is 6000-7000 get below the water table. They pressure that would be needed to fracture the formation that far is not used as it would put the fractures out of the production zone and the gas would migrate away from the well. Try stacking a pile of about 30 bricks one by one on top of each other and try to make them crack from the bottom up using a hammer, I bet you will not suceed. This is about the same thing as fracing on a small scale. I know that alot of people that don't know anything about it get worried, but there really isn't much to worry about as far as contaminating water.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Elsie Gibbs on March 9, 2012 at 5:43pm

I would not go as far as saying it is impossible for something to happen. I think it is improbable. Look at the Titanic. It is human to make mistakes. So IMHO we should not tempt God to prove us wrong.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 20
• 21
• 22
• Next ›
• Page