At first I was thinking that it was nice that an independent felt so positive toward fracking. Then I began to realize the "independent" meant something different than I thought. Some examples follow.
The representative from the Texas environmental agency stated that of the 50 air samples from Best, TX none of them exceeded the short-term exposure limits set by the EPA. This seems to sound good, but short-term exposure limits might be suitable for a worker only exposed a few hours a day. They aren't suitable for a general population exposure on an ongoing basis. So, what were the results from these 50 tests when measured against general air quality standards? Another example is citing the earthquakes from the Geysers Geothermic plant in California. The plant did not "cause" the earthquakes. The earthquakes are a natural occurring phenomenon that go hand-in-hand with the geysers.
They stated that it fracking was responsible for almost no earthquakes. While this may technically be true, it is extremely misleading. It is the disposal wells used for the chemicals used for fracking that cause the earthquakes. These have steadily been increasing. Now there are several 4.0 magnitude earthquakes month in the Oklahoma area. There is no responsible person denying the linkage with fracking. To state otherwise is like the tobacco industry saying that smoking does not cause lung cancer.
My concern is that the chemicals disposed into the earth may follow fracture lines created by the earthquakes and contaminate the aquifer. This aquifer covers 174,000 square miles under parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. Could we possibly make these regions uninhabitable? I know this is probably unlikely, but what if it happened? There would be no going back! The fracking industry was exempted from the Clean Water and Clean Drinking Water acts. The narrator explains that this was so the states could regulate them. This seems ludicrous to me. We all know why they might get such an exemption and it is not comforting.
They quoted a professor who was world-renowned in his expert testimony saying that chemicals that were listed as carcinogenic were listed that way because they were given in massive doses to rats. He stated that those findings did not mean they were carcinogenic to humans. How misleading is that? Perhaps we should totally ignore cancer research into carcinogenic pathogens.
I turned the movie off before the last 20 minutes finished. It fell far short of presenting the unbiased view I had hoped to find.
The representative from the Texas environmental agency stated that of the 50 air samples from Best, TX none of them exceeded the short-term exposure limits set by the EPA. This seems to sound good, but short-term exposure limits might be suitable for a worker only exposed a few hours a day. They aren't suitable for a general population exposure on an ongoing basis. So, what were the results from these 50 tests when measured against general air quality standards? Another example is citing the earthquakes from the Geysers Geothermic plant in California. The plant did not "cause" the earthquakes. The earthquakes are a natural occurring phenomenon that go hand-in-hand with the geysers.
They stated that it fracking was responsible for almost no earthquakes. While this may technically be true, it is extremely misleading. It is the disposal wells used for the chemicals used for fracking that cause the earthquakes. These have steadily been increasing. Now there are several 4.0 magnitude earthquakes month in the Oklahoma area. There is no responsible person denying the linkage with fracking. To state otherwise is like the tobacco industry saying that smoking does not cause lung cancer.
My concern is that the chemicals disposed into the earth may follow fracture lines created by the earthquakes and contaminate the aquifer. This aquifer covers 174,000 square miles under parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. Could we possibly make these regions uninhabitable? I know this is probably unlikely, but what if it happened? There would be no going back! The fracking industry was exempted from the Clean Water and Clean Drinking Water acts. The narrator explains that this was so the states could regulate them. This seems ludicrous to me. We all know why they might get such an exemption and it is not comforting.
They quoted a professor who was world-renowned in his expert testimony saying that chemicals that were listed as carcinogenic were listed that way because they were given in massive doses to rats. He stated that those findings did not mean they were carcinogenic to humans. How misleading is that? Perhaps we should totally ignore cancer research into carcinogenic pathogens.
I turned the movie off before the last 20 minutes finished. It fell far short of presenting the unbiased view I had hoped to find.