Water Pollution: please log in to view this image (EPA) and United States Geological Survey (USGS)have recently confirmed what residents of Pavillion, Wyoming had been claiming–that hydrofracking had contaminated their groundwater. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initially under an emergency administrative order forced three oil production companies operating on the Fort Peck Reservation, to reimburse the city of Poplar, MT for water infrastructure expenditures incurred as a result of drilling contamination. The oil companies appealed the EPA order, but were forced to rectify their violations by a federal judge. Another scenario for contamination to occur is by faulty design or construction of the cement well casings–something that happened in the BP Gulf blowout disaster. Storage of the waste water is currently under the regulatory jurisdiction of states, many of whom have weak to nonexistent policies protecting the environment. Soil and Oil Spill Contamination: please log in to view this image Resident Canada geese inhabit impacted portion of Yellowstone River July 9, 2011. please log in to view this image According to journalists at Pro Publica, oil companies reported over 1,000 oil spills in North Dakota, 2011, with many more going unreported, state officials admit. The Associated Press also recently reported that the amount of chemically tainted soil fromdrilling waste increased nearly 5,100 percent over the past decade, to more than 512,000 tons last year. Steve Tillotson, assistant director of the North Dakota Health Department's waste management division, told reporters that trucks are hauling oilfield waste to facilities "24 hours a day, seven days a week." An ExxonMobil pipeline rupture spilled 42,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River,near Billings, MT. In the aftermath of the spill, ExxonMobil has disclosed that the pipeline has been transporting tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, which is a low grade, more toxic and corrosive type of oil. Regulators had not been informed that the pipeline was carrying tar sands oil and the disclosure was a result of the spill. Tar sands oil was not in the pipeline at the time of the spill, though regulators are investigating whether or not it played a role in causing the pipeline to corrode. Earthquakes Earthquakes constitute another problem associated with deep-well oil and gas drilling. Scientists refer to the earthquakes caused by the injection of fracking wastewater underground as "induced seismic events." Although most of the earthquakes are small in magnitude (the strongest measured 5.2), their relationship with the storage of millions of gallons of toxic wastewater does little to ease the fears over fossil energy's long list of externalities. Health Effects of Fracking: A 2011 article in the journal, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, examined the potential health impacts of oil and gas drilling in relation to the chemicals used during drilling, fracking, processing,and delivery of natural gas. The paper compiled a list of 632 chemicals (an incomplete list due to trade secrecy exemptions) identified from drilling operations throughout the U.S. Their research found that 75% of the chemicals could affect the skin, eyes,and other sensory organs, and the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems. Approximately 40–50% could affect the brain/nervous system, immune and cardiovascular systems, and the kidneys; 37% could affect the endocrine system; and 25% could cause cancer and mutations. Health impacts from fracking are only now being examined by health experts, since such large-scale drilling is a recent phenomenon. Exposure to toxic chemicals even at low levels can cause tremendous harm to humans; the endocrine system is sensitive to chemical exposures measuring in parts-per-billions, or less. Nevertheless, many of the health risks from the toxins used during the fracking process do not express themselves immediately, and require studies looking into long-term health effects. Despite the complexities of the on-site mixtures of chemicals and their specific contributions to health and environmental problems involved in fracking–conventional drilling practices are more old school and do have known health consequences. Researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, analyzed existing research of exposure to conventional petroleum hydrocarbons in occupational settings, and residences near refineries, in conjunction with known pollutants associated with fracking (nonconventional), in order to assess health risks to those residents living near fracking operations. Their basic conclusions were: the closer you live to drilling operations, the greater your health risk. Sounds obvious, but if you were to sue an oil company for the suspected killing a loved one via cancer, you would need a little more legal ammunition than "it just makes common sense" against an army of corporate lawyers. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has yet to investigate the potential impacts of fracking, the director of CDC's National Center for Environmental Health and the agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Christopher J. Portier, PhD, has called for health studies to be published. A 2012 paper was published in the journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, examining the composition of state and federal advisory committees tasked to consider the potential environmental and health effects of fracking in the Marcellus shale region. The researchers found that there was not one health expert among the 52 people comprising the various state and federal commissions and boards, even though public health was specified in the executive orders creating the committees.
All fracking will do is enable a handful of rich people to become even richer, at the expense of our environment (global and local). It has to be prevented, especially under/in (which is exactly the same thing) our national parks. Anyone that defends fracking should offer up their land instead
Another great copy & paste - there have been oil wells onshore in Dorset and other locations around the country for donkeys years, why have there been no massive health issues during this time? Personally I would like to see many more nuclear power stations built as in the socialist paradise of France.
You wanted more information about fracking, I gave you some. How else did you want it? Printed out and posted to you? Stop being so desperate to point-score
Also, if you'd bothered to ever do any research on the subject, fracking is very different to conventional drilling for oil. Nuclear power will still be used for a while but will gradually be phased out. I'd rather we never built any more but as we haven't invested enough into renewable energy in my lifetime we're going to have to, as we don't have the current infrastructure to move towards 100% green energy. Wind farms can't destroy the UK, a nuclear meltdown could.
An American study said that extended exposure to unwanted noise can cause a number of symptoms, including “dizziness, eye strain, fatigue, feeling vibration, headache, insomnia, muscle spasm, nausea, nose bleeds, palpitations, pressure in the ears or head, skin burns, stress, and tension.” Across the world from New Zealand to Canada people are complaining of similar symptoms when turbines have been erected within 3kms of their homes. If the noise generated by wind turbines isn’t a health problem, why are so many people, in so many different countries, complaining about the noise in nearly identical terms and suffering from some of the symptoms listed above? And why are some of them going so far as to abandon their homes? Many governments around the world are now placing a two-kilometre distance between any building and the nearest wind turbine. In some countries this is because of law suits taken out by residents seeking compensation for damage to their health. Denmark has stopped new turbines being erected until the health problems have been better investigated. They are inefficient, because of lack of wind some days, and on days like today they would have to been shut down because of excess wind. Once again the the rich will profit by them and the population will have to pay through the nose to support the subsidies that are paid out because they never produce what is forecast. PS The American study was set up to prove there were no health issues.
From time to time the subject of using tidal power on the island comes up, usually when we have a power cut to there being a problem with our source from France. Jersey is a British Crown Dependency that is plugged in (almost literally) to France!
Contentious issue eh... and I am sure we all want what is best for our poor planet... There is loads of evidence that fracking pollutes.... so why not cut and paste it ... I dont see that is the point at all.... there are precious few counter-arguments..... hardly anybody of any political persuasion want it....
A lot of electricity to the UK comes from France, so you must be first in line. If you are getting cuts to the service maybe Jersey finance department should get and pay the bills.
If you had bothered to read what you simply copy and pasted, you may have realised that large chunks of it are actually irrelevant to the subject of Fracking. For instance:- An ExxonMobil pipeline rupture spilled 42,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River,near Billings, MT. In the aftermath of the spill, ExxonMobil has disclosed that the pipeline has been transporting tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, which is a low grade, more toxic and corrosive type of oil. Regulators had not been informed that the pipeline was carrying tar sands oil and the disclosure was a result of the spill. Tar sands oil was not in the pipeline at the time of the spill, though regulators are investigating whether or not it played a role in causing the pipeline to corrode. This is not caused by Fracking but poorly maintained existing infrastructure. Plus it is so vague as to the actual root cause, it's worthless. And again:- Another scenario for contamination to occur is by faulty design or construction of the cement well casings–something that happened in the BP Gulf blowout disaster. BP Deepwater Horizon disaster has nothing to do with onshore Fracking - the technology is very different for deep water drilling is very difficult. Clearly you have not done any research as we would understand that the start of a conventional Oil or Gas Well and the start of a Oil or Gas Well that will then be prepared by Fracking and follow on extraction processing is essentially the same - a well is drilled using mud (as described in your Copy & Paste) to lubricate and line the well. My point was these Wells have been drilled all over Britain for years without any issues, so the drilling of the wells is something that is well understood. Many of the points above are generic to the Oil & Gas industry, so if you object to these as well specifically the extraction of Oil & Gas by Fracking and extraction processing and you object to Nuclear energy - then there is little left to provide the power that is demanded by our growing population. So probably best ditch the lap-top, start growing your own veg and start witling wooden spoons for a living!
I posted the link in it's entirety to avoid people claiming I selected certain bits of it to prove a point. Hydrofracking (which is what the Tories are suggesting) involves pumping millions of litres of water mixed with noxious chemicals to attain gas/oil that would not be obtainable with conventional oil wells, as it's trapped in the ground. This water will then contaminate groundwater and pollute the surrounding area. Please stop with the cut and paste digs, or otherwise give me an alternative solution to providing you proof/source material available online?
I will cut the digs when your Copy & Pastes are relevant & factual to the subject being discussed and are not from a so biased source that are clearly inaccurate.
So what sources aren't biased? Please give me a list of acceptable sources and I'll happily stick to them Nice swerve on the fracking bit btw
I think this is the issue..... everyone has a view... I have worked in the mental health industry for many years... and there are papers, studies all of which argue and challenge based on so called hard science. Some practitioners still use ECT which to others, me included, is a barbaric questionable intervention which affects short term memory and concentration.... but you will find papers that indicate people who have had it reporting improvement..... Must say I would have thought that on a thread called the environment we could have had a serious discussion about something as contentious as fracking without choosing to point score If we are going to have a debate on fracking would be good for those who support it to present their views <Yorkie goes back to his veg and spoon whittling >
I know what Fracking is and I know that there is a potential risk of ground water contamination - as there is with conventional extraction wells, as there is with oil refinery's, as there is with chemical plants and fertilisers and pesticides sprayed onto fields. Best stop making all of those batteries....
I share all of the concerns about fracking, do not like nuclear power, very much dislike getting power from open caste lignite mining (as in Germany), am sceptical about windmills, solar panels and electric cars - because they are all products which have to be made somewhere (often China) and will eventually have to be scrapped somewhere. Surely the solution is to look at consumption and not production techniques. I long for the day when every person feels responsible for their own carbon footprint - how can I take people seriously who have solar panels on their roofs but fly several times per year ? I have not driven a car for over 25 years, have not flown for over 12 years, grow as much of my vegetables (and fruit) as possible, eat meat rarely, buy clothes very seldom, look at as many ways to reduce electricity consumption as possible, buy locally produced things whenever possible, and do not always have to have the latest electrical gadgets (which end their lives on toxic electrical rubbish tips in Africa). I live in a village where it is enough that one person has a tool, and several people can use it (yes, sharing is fun) and am now looking at ways in which I can move towards ethical banking. I would like to see people, and communities, rewarded for trying to increase their self sufficiency (or at least strengthening their resilience against global systems of energy and finances). Every person can calculate their own Co2 balance - every town can do this and can then act on the knowledge gained - so why wait for governments to take action, just start without them.
I applaud the fact that you wish to do whatever you can to protect the planet, but you are fortunate enough to choose your life-style when there are many more who do not have that choice. Since we no longer have any bread van, grocery mobile shop, fish van or butcher come to our villages you have to have a car as there is no public transport. I also grow vegetables etc, but there are all of those living in blocks of flats without that chance, apart maybe from a window box. Many people will try to keep their electricity usage as low as possible simply because of the cost, but unless they sit in an unheated flat, go to bed when the light goes, they will feel they are not going to have the means to cut back very much. Let everyone be aware of the problems, but because some of us can behave in a responsible way, let us not forget those who are trapped in their current way of living and have little way out of it.
I am not trying to be holier than thou Frenchie. People can make cuts to their own Co2 balance in ways which are possible for them - so, the Urban population can do it one way (ie. through public transport, less heating etc.) and the rural population through other means, but we can all do something. What you describe about your village is all too typical of many rural areas ie. a vicious circle - people drive cars because there is no public transport (and there is no public transport because.............?). At one time Germany had over twice as many railway stations as it has now - all closed because of their car industry. Besides which, if journeys are necessary, and only possible with the car, then there is also the possibility of car sharing or pooling.
Best close theatres, art galleries and even football clubs as well - they all use huge amounts of energy, create waste and people pollute the plant getting to them.
Welcome to use my land but nothing under it or near by! Much rather frack than have a wind turbine anywhere nearby.
