Naked Science Forum

Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: thedoc on 16/09/2013 14:32:38

Title: Could fracking lead to groundwater pollution?
Post by: thedoc on 16/09/2013 14:32:38

Could chemicals used in the fracking process seep into our drinking water?
Read a transcript of the interview by clicking here (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/1000399/)

or [chapter podcast=1000483 track=13.09.12/Naked_Scientists_Show_13.09.12_1001308.mp3](https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2FHTML%2Ftypo3conf%2Fext%2Fnaksci_podcast%2Fgnome-settings-sound.gif&hash=f2b0d108dc173aeaa367f8db2e2171bd) Listen to it now[/chapter] or [download as MP3] (http://nakeddiscovery.com/downloads/split_individual/13.09.12/Naked_Scientists_Show_13.09.12_1001308.mp3)

Title: Re: Could fracking lead to groundwater pollution?
Post by: yor_on on 26/12/2013 01:50:52

"A team of researchers from the University of Missouri found evidence of hormone-disrupting activity in water located near fracking sites – including samples taken from the Colorado River near a dense drilling region of western Colorado.

The Colorado River is a source of drinking water for more than 30 million people."

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/20/hormone-disrupting-chemicals-linked-to-fracking-found-in-colorado-river/

"“More than 700 chemicals are used in the fracking process, and many of them disturb hormone function,” said Dr. Susan Nagel, associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at the University of Missouri School of Medicine and a co-author of the study, in a news release.

“With fracking on the rise, populations may face greater health risks from increased endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure.”

Now, looking at http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used
I do not see 700 chemicals? So? What is right here?

Halliburton says itself using --- http://www.straterra.co.nz/Fracking%20chemicals

So, what information should we trust there?
=

I do find Sandra Postel making eminent sense in commenting "But, the fact that the oil and gas lobby worked so hard (with our former vice president) to get their production activities exempted from federal safe drinking water requirements says a great deal. If fracking is safe, and the chemicals used are safe, why does the industry seek these exemptions? When it comes to public trust resources like our drinking water, the burden of proof should be upon industry to show that their activities are not harmful to public health. This is a cost of doing business, and yes, setting monitoring and reporting requirements for fracking operations will increase the cost of the oil and gas produced, which it should. All the hidden – and no-so-hidden — subsidies given to fossil-fuel production merely delays the transition to safer renewable sources of energy and more energy efficient cars and transportation systems." though

Couldn't agree more to the idea of renewable's being the way to go.