Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Thomas Lilli on November 8, 2015 at 7:41am

Bill,

Sorry for the late reply. If you live in farming areas you live in an industrial zone. Farming is an industrial process. Fertilizers are made from what? Petrochemicals. Ever read of the hazards associated with pig manure or chicken manueur?

Why do you think the Delaware River WaterShed was created, to control the runoff of farming fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides from entering the watershed that ends up in all the tributaries that eventually find their way into the ocean.

Far more environmental damage has occurred due to "Industrial Farming Practices" than has been cause by fracking for oil and gas. Conversely, far fewer people live in poverty around the world thanks to very inexpensive and easily portable energy in the form of gas, oil and natural gas.

It is so hypocritical that people who have waged war on our petrochemical and energy industry are the same ones who claim to be for the poor while every policy and social cause they promote hurts the poor most.

Just my personal view on things from my perspective.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on October 28, 2015 at 2:30pm

The evidence that drinking water gets contaminated sometimes by gas drilling and fracking is growing. Here's a recent story from Coudersport, PA about water contamination 2 or 3 miles from a drilling site:

http://publicherald.org/drilling-company-hasnt-released-chemical-li...

Drilling Company Hasn’t Released Chemical List More Than A Month After Drinking Water Contamination

"Cole Memorial [Hospital]’s water supply was taken offline as a “precaution” during the week after chemicals were discovered in groundwater that serves as a source for the hospital’s supply."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan on October 28, 2015 at 3:03pm

Yes Paul.......The EPA says over & over that drilling is bad, but "Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials have been watching for any effects on wildlife since the incident began on Wednesday. They are optimistic that the effects of the spill on terrestrial wildlife will be minimal, the EPA said. Fish are more sensitive to changes in water.". When the EPA releases millions of gallons of radio active heavy metal laden water into a pristine River. Only minimal problems though. They are optimistic that the initial EPA spill and the 500 gallons a minute flowing for the next 4 or 5 decades will be OK, like you are optimistic the Solar Panels & Windmills are a answers to our energy needs today. By the way, most of the materials that are needed to produce Windmills & Solar Panels must be mined. Often by women & children in undevoleped countries and some in slavery.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on October 29, 2015 at 4:33am

OK, pollution in Colorado is a problem, but closer to home, we have evidence that groundwater is getting contaminated 2-3 miles from gas wells, and we have other evidence that contaminated water can adversely affect sperm count, testicle size, and hormone levels. Let's not stop cleaning up our backyard because of a problem in Colorado.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan on October 29, 2015 at 6:46am

Paul, The EPA caused this spill in Colorada. They also have ruined folks drinking water drilling test wells incorrectly, trying to prove water was contaminated by O&G drillers when it wasn't. Why would anyone in their right mind trust them. If a driller makes a mistake or intentionally causes contamination they should be held accountable but obviously the EPA has no clue what they are doing. Without baseline water quality conditions, saying a problem is caused from recent activity is unfair and damaging to the whole process of trying to keep our environment clean.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by G.H. on October 29, 2015 at 8:24am

Ok, if we are being objective here, the problem in Colorado happened under the EPA's watch, they planned it out, contractors carried out their plan (from what I understand).  Just like a lot of problems with oil and gas drilling are caused by contractors.  Just saying.  I think there are some interesting observations to be made here... The EPA/O&G companies plan to do something, then hire contractors to do it.  Something gets messed up... is it the fault of the planners or the fault of the people carrying out the plan?  Can go both ways.  Does it necessarily mean that the EPA or O&G company was irresponsible?  Not necessarily, could be one of their contractors cutting corners, and they should be taken to task for it.  Lots of moving parts in these operations.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the EPA or their contractors may have messed this one up, but they serve a purpose...

And mistakes can be made, and will be made.

Either way, I have to say that a lot of what Paul posts is nonsense.  O&G companies certainly need to be held accountable for problems they create, but they need to be held accountable for REAL problems, not some nonsense that is drummed up by the anti-frackers.  If we all stop replying to anything that Paul posts that is nonsense it will stop showing up on the front page.  This is my last reply to any of his topics, unless he posts something that is not totally biased/fabricated.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bonnie Carol Hornbaker on October 30, 2015 at 3:08am

Caution is needed with concern for our water.  Most important the transfer of drugs from human bodies into our drinking water.  A shocking fact is that most of the hormones, and other harmful chemicals that are causing cancer are caused by runoff.  Second, our septic systems.  1500+gallon  tanks are pumped, trucked to the local water treatment plants.  Treated, then what remains is dumped into local river streams.  Many of these streams are the same streams our water comes from that we use in our homes daily.  Nature would tell us that solids from septic tanks cannot be put into water at this rate and be safe.  We wonder why all ecology is out of order in our water systems.  If used as fertilizer on the ground, sun, wind, other forces of nature, would eventually turn this into plants that use pollution to produce oxygen, food, shelter. In our haste we have become foolish. Fracking is not the problem.  Look up percentage of water pollution.  Not even industry compares to runoff, or septic systems.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan on October 30, 2015 at 3:34am

Agreed, urban sewers have even a more direct route back into the Eco systems. In research to find why bat populations are diminishing from fungus, the chemicals found in dead bats include many pharmaceuticals including estrogen, testosterone, ibuphrophen, cholesterol drugs but the # one chemical found is flame-retardants. Remember when toddlers were bursting into flames because folks put their kids in cute fluffing pajamas then to stupid to keep them away from the stove & fireplace? To protect us from our own stupidity all kids cloths are full of flame retardants now. Comes out in the wash, down the drain then the bug larvae hatch, fly into the air and poison the bats.
Even worse is farming. It cracks me up when a fractivist posts a pic looking down at 100s of acres showing the devastation of drilling and you see little tiny dots where the wells are but all around are 100s of acres plowed causing run-off.
These ridicules posts by Paul & others cause folks to look away from keeping their eye on the ball.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M.A.B. on October 30, 2015 at 5:39am

Bonnie, you seemed misinformed about wastewater treatment plants. Having operated one close to 40 years that also accepts septage wastes i can assure you that your statements could not be further from the truth. The only thing that leaves our WWTP is a very clear effluent which is monitored constantly and a treated biosolids that goes to a landfill. (which incidentally have their own treatment facilities to treat the leachate) You would not believe how many regulations, reporting and compliance issues we have to meet. No solids from septage received EVER reaches a receiving stream.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan on October 30, 2015 at 5:53am

are not most of the salts and many liquid chemicals left in the liquid and not removed with the solids?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M.A.B. on October 30, 2015 at 6:14am

all treatment plants since the early 1970's have biological and some, tertiary treatment processes. I'm not implying that traces of what you speak are not detected in the final, treated product, but are reduced to minute levels. Waste water treatment plants are responsible for one of the greatest achievements of mankind in the reduction of water pollution and disease. If water pollution from septic tanks are a problem it is because they are not maintained properly and pumped out on a regular basis. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on October 30, 2015 at 9:19am

Bonnie: I wouldn't say "fracking is not the problem" but rather "fracking is one of several problems".

MAB: "reduced to minute levels" you say. Sometimes minute levels are all that's required to sicken or kill someone.

Sure, wastewater treatment in Pennsylvania is a big success story, in some ways. In the early 1900s, Pittsburgh had one of the highest rates of typhoid fever in the country, and most sewage flowed into the rivers. Today people swim and fish (sometimes) in our rivers. They're a lot cleaner than they were 50 or 100 years ago in most respects (most chemicals).

But as we've been cleaning our rivers, many other countries have been cleaning theirs even faster. Standards of health have evolved. It's no longer good enough that the water looks clean and doesn't stink. Pittsburgh still has raw sewage flowing into its rivers, some days. New chemicals are appearing in our water supply that didn't exist 100 years ago, in part due to the gas industry. Some of them are toxic even at "minute levels". Some of the chemicals are secret and undisclosed.

Contaminating our rivers with secret chemicals is not the way a civilized society should operate.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page