Aquifer/Drinking Water Contamination

This is an important finding.   Although we do not understand the process by which waste water buried deep within the ground migrates into aquifers,  evidence suggests that it happens.  Read here.  

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chemicals-found-in...

Views: 2620

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dee Fulton on March 10, 2010 at 6:51pm
Dear Mark,
The same story published in Scientific American (EPA: Chemicals Found in Wyo. Drinking Water might be from Fracking) is available at this website.

http://www.propublica.org/feature/epa-chemicals-found-in-wyo.-drink...

The weblink in the original post above looks incomplete but my browser took me there when I clicked it. Can't explain the failure. Best wishes, Dee
Permalink Reply by Greg Ricks on March 11, 2010 at 1:43am
Dee, it would be easier assume that the Propublica reporters are "journalists" if the site didn't have such an obvious bias.

I notice the article is from August 2009 and there is no follow-up. Has nothing happened in the last 7 months? A good journalist follows a story to a conclusion.
Permalink Reply by Dee Fulton on March 11, 2010 at 5:21am
Dear Greg,

I am thankful that some journalists are bulldogging gas drilling stories that don't always have happy endings. I like happy endings better, but if there is a problem which causes risks to the health of myself, my child and my community, I'd rather be aware of it than uninformed.

Your question about a followup is a good one. I'll pursue that and let you know what response I get.
Thank you for your comments. Dee
Permalink Reply by Dee Fulton on March 11, 2010 at 5:38pm
I received a quick response to my query as of today. A scientist at Region 5 EPA informs me that a second round of testing was conducted in January 2010. Test results have not been finalized. I think it's reasonable to expect a story on this when results are made public.
Permalink Reply by Jean Michel LeTennier on April 8, 2010 at 4:20pm
anyone considering using PROPUBLICA as a serious source should reevaluate .. Please keep in mind it is owned and funded by George Soros.. who he himself has invested 11+ billion dollars into a LNG terminal in New Guinea, for the pursposes of shipping and selling LNG to the USA. With the development of the Marcellus and UTICA after, that makes his investment nearly worthless.. it is in his interest and his investors interests to block or other wise delay drilling in NYS and they are already working on curtailing drilling in PA.. by revisiting the FRACING process in the state Legislature..
I would be very dubious of anyone using the Propublica as as ource of information, period
Permalink Reply by daniel cohen on April 8, 2010 at 4:38pm
Dear Jean Michel,
It's always wise to question sources, and to be aware of connections that could bias the reporting. With that in mind, it's still good to hear as much as possible and to come to your own conclusions.
Dan
Permalink Reply by Jean Michel LeTennier on April 8, 2010 at 4:46pm
do your own research is and has always been the best answer... I have an advantage I have an uncle in Louisiana who is the middle of the gas field there.. so I get a lot of first hand reports, but a lot of the stuff being reported is simply idiotic..
Permalink Reply by Nancy Famiola on April 9, 2010 at 3:35am
Jean and I finally agree on something, haha.

Dan, you say it's good to hear as much as possible - no matter what the source is - THEN come up with your own conclusion. Why? Why would you even consider listening to a group of people who just spew propoganda and lies like Propublica or Shaleshock?

I would say it is very harmful to the actual debate when you take every source of information into account. This is especially true to the newbies who cant discern propoganda from the actual truth. I completely agree with Jean in that people need to stay away from these harmful sources and listen to actual scientific reports instead (DEP, USGS, etc...).

Lies based on no actual science by these extreme organizations have no place in any debate.
Permalink Reply by ben yanda on May 3, 2010 at 4:29pm
Not ot jump into the middle of a steamy debate but... I can't help myself.
There are two really good reasons to invest in an LNG terminal in Papua New Guinea:
CHINA and INDIA
Permalink Reply by daniel cohen on May 3, 2010 at 5:12pm
Dear Ben,
Please expand on your thought if you don't mind.
Dan
Permalink Reply by Jean Michel LeTennier on May 3, 2010 at 5:58pm
very true, but there is little to no GAS infrastructure setup in either country and won't be for at least a decade, so in the mean time... 11 Billion dollars sits and rusts waits..
China and India were always the primary customers , but the immediate customers were th USA
Permalink Reply by daniel cohen on April 8, 2010 at 2:45pm
Dear Dee,
Just got back from traveling, and trying to catch up. Good effort to get the info out.
Dan

RSS

© 2025   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service