Solomon1 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Would you suggest that all activities which carry the risk of contaminating the water supply should be prohibited? Go on, tell me where you're goin with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Go on, tell me where you're goin with this Virtually all human activity can affect the safety of our water supply, including human waste. There are plenty of rules and regulations about safeguarding water supplies, without which industry, farming and our own bodily functions would have made clean water an impossibility. I see no reason to fear fracking for it's effect on the water supply than any of those other activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Virtually all human activity can affect the safety of our water supply, including human waste. There are plenty of rules and regulations about safeguarding water supplies, without which industry, farming and our own bodily functions would have made clean water an impossibility. I see no reason to fear fracking for it's effect on the water supply than any of those other activities. Water pollution from fracking confirmed in 4 US states http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Water pollution from fracking confirmed in 4 US states http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/ In 2012, 90% of water sources in East Anglia and Lincolnshire were affected by pollution. [source] While fracking isn't going to make things any better, it's not going to single handedly turn our pristine water into glowing death filled gloop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 In 2012, 90% of water sources in East Anglia and Lincolnshire were affected by pollution. [source] While fracking isn't going to make things any better, it's not going to single handedly turn our pristine water into glowing death filled gloop. That'll be agricultural run-off. Best stop growing food. ---------- Post added 22-01-2014 at 21:28 ---------- Water pollution from fracking confirmed in 4 US states http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/ Do you think that there is an element of hyperbole in that article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 In 2012, 90% of water sources in East Anglia and Lincolnshire were affected by pollution. [source] While fracking isn't going to make things any better, it's not going to single handedly turn our pristine water into glowing death filled gloop. Nobody said it would turn it into glowing death filled gloop. Bottom line is it is still early days. Nobody knows the level of risk specific to the UK. Very few shale gas wells have been fracked yet. ---------- Post added 22-01-2014 at 21:50 ---------- That'll be agricultural run-off. Best stop growing food. ---------- Post added 22-01-2014 at 21:28 ---------- Do you think that there is an element of hyperbole in that article? Not really no. You can't have it both ways by using fracking in the USA as justification for fracking here, whilst wilfully ignoring anything that challenges your complacency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Not really no. You can't have it both ways by using fracking in the USA as justification for fracking here, whilst wilfully ignoring anything that challenges your complacency. If you read the article, you'll see records of lots of complaints, but not a deal in the way of substantiation. As I said, hyperbole. Ohio had 37 complaints in 2010 and no confirmed contamination of water supplies; 54 complaints in 2011 and two confirmed cases of contamination; 59 complaints in 2012 and two confirmed contaminations; and 40 complaints for the first 11 months of 2013, with two confirmed contaminations and 14 still under investigation, Department of Natural Resources spokesman Mark Bruce said in an email. None of the six confirmed cases of contamination was related to fracking, Bruce said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 If you read the article, you'll see records of lots of complaints, but not a deal in the way of substantiation. As I said, hyperbole. Not really. You just quoted a part of the article with confirmed contamination. In the USA they were sampling private wells. In the UK the vast majority of us do not have private wells. We have mains water that comes from limited resources - well goes wrong in sparsely populated US state then numbers impacted are small. Well goes wrong here and hundreds of thousands could be impacted and the damage long lasting. The true level of risk here is unknown and really depends on how good the regulation and monitoring is. Inherent risks: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/utilities/10479027/Fracking-has-inherent-risks-to-water-supply-but-these-can-be-mitigated-says-Water-UK.html Do you know what inherent means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) Not really. You just quoted a part of the article with confirmed contamination. In the USA they were sampling private wells. In the UK the vast majority of us do not have private wells. We have mains water that comes from limited resources - well goes wrong in sparsely populated US state then numbers impacted are small. Well goes wrong here and hundreds of thousands could be impacted and the damage long lasting. The true level of risk here is unknown and really depends on how good the regulation and monitoring is. Inherent risks: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/utilities/10479027/Fracking-has-inherent-risks-to-water-supply-but-these-can-be-mitigated-says-Water-UK.html I quoted a representative part of the article. The article records loads of reports, many of which were clearly unfounded. It even states explicitly that better data is needed. I quoted a representative part of the article. The article records loads of reports, many of which were clearly unfounded. It even states explicitly that better data is needed. It also confirms that fracking was not to blame for that particular contamination. Do you know what inherent means? Have you any idea how badly that statement reflects upon you? Edited January 22, 2014 by SpikeMac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I quoted a representative part of the article. The article records loads of reports, many of which were clearly unfounded. It even states explicitly that better data is needed. It also confirms that fracking was not to blame for that particular contamination. Have you any idea how badly that statement reflects upon you? Why does it reflect badly? I'm reinforcing the point about risks to our water supply. More: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/17/fracking-increase-health-risks-hormone A good UK-specific overview: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/analysis/shale-and-water-there-risk-water-contamination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now