Yes, sadly, it does. Paid for by money, right into the politicians pockets.

What do they care if the land is ruined (and perhaps causing future earthquakes), when they have the money? :) As you can see...sore subject

for me.

Everyone wants - and needs - a cheap source of power. Yet there are very few that tolerate or even understand the implications involved in accessing that power. It doesn't really seem to make any difference in how that source of power or fuel is generated.........someone somewhere is going to find fault. And not unreasonably so. But it is always going to be some sort of trade-off between the need/want for cheap power/fuel sources and the environmental impact they may have.

trade off, for sure...just like everything, one way or the other. So many

ways and means that I am ashamed to see left for our children, grandchildren, etc. "Need adds up....Greed multiplies".

I read the entire article. Lots of slanted bull being produced in it.

Quote: “In other words, there's no evidence that fracking can operate without threatening public health directly or without imperiling climate stability, on which public health, of course, depends.”

Classic double negative. No evidence it can do X without causing Y, also means no evidence it does cause it!

The article then shows what they describe as "dead" sunflowers, supposedly caused by fracking. Balderdash. That is a picture of HARVESTED sunflowers, with a row responsibly left for wildlife.

Fracking is much more prevalent in ND, does not cause earthquakes there, and fracking with horizontal drilling puts only one set of wellhead per square mile- far less than the misleading picture of wellhead area shown. Those are old vertical wells from decades ago that have been converted to fracking.

Fracking is banned in at least five countries; France was first and Ireland most recent, AFAIK. It's happening in downstate Illinois. This isn't 'just water' being injected. Dangerous chemicals are involved.

Yes, my state does. Gas, coal, and oil are natural resources in the state.

I agree with GardenGal, think what your life would be like if gas cost over $6 a gallon and an average electricity bill was over $1,000 a month? Or would you rather walk everywhere and have no HVAC when it's over 100 degrees or under 32 degrees outside?

Good grief...you actually think your life is going to be made much better

and "sweet" just because of fracking? I know that you realize what is involved

in fracking...surely. But...hey...that's easy...why study and research for

a better way....we want our stuff now! We are the entitled generation after all.

alternate forms of energy must be found eventually but it’s not going to happen until someone feels the pinch financially.

I imagine that when gas gets to $6 a gallon other forms of energy will be “found”, people will use Less and bike walk more and stop using it frivolously.

I imagine that more easily than the world being destroyed for my kids and grandkids.

Many of the small earthquakes that are happening at 5km are apparently from fracking. In case you do not know fracking is inserting a slurry into cracks in the rocks to expand them so that natural gas/crude oils will flow to where they can be pumped out. Simplified version of this is that when the liquid portion of the slurry seeps into the surrounding area it will leave a cavity. This process creates a few difficulties/problems. It contaminates underground water. The cavity can collapse and depending on the depth that collapse can send shockwaves for hundreds of miles. The rock lens that is currently being fracked stretches from the rocky mountains to the east to the Appalachians.

Yes, sadly mine does. I live in the same state you do, Alisande. A very backwards place.

Yes definitely. Oklahoma has been an example of the many earthquakes due to the fracking.

Some acknowledge that eventually another way must be found. Meanwhile fracking needs to be done to tide us over. If the laws did not permit the fracking which is partially "tiding us over" there would be more motivation to find another way. Fracking is an expression of "I need it now, posterity be damned" -- and you know with the natural disasters caused by fracking comes a price to pay -- in pollution and in migration costs. It's very convenient to doctor the statistics so that those companies feel free to ruin the earth.

As far as I know, I think our state has banned it. South of us in Oregon too. I have to admit I've never seen it done or been in an area where its prevalent to know what it does or might do to the environment.

alisande. I don't find that article to be neutral and objective*. The sponsoring organizations whose work the article cites have well known political perspectives that are pretty consistently on the left side of the political divide. That's fine, and some of my views are similarly situated, but that FACT isn't mentioned.

I don't doubt that there are negative consequences of fracking and I also don't doubt that the full ramifications of the practice are probably not completely understood. Ultimately, more understanding could possibly tilt the conclusions either way but in the meantime, alarmist warnings aren't helpful.

* I consider my own political views as neutral/middle of road and from that perspective, I have trouble with the consistent biases shown by the likes of NPR, PRI, PBS. I don't mind listening to balanced reporting giving all opinions an airing but these organizations only seem to represent one side of the spectrum and it gets repetitive. This is a good example, I think the topic and the report being discussed should be identified as being "one of many points of view and there presently is no consensus".

PS - apparently fracking has been done in California but the situation has been fluid between the state and the feds.

I think someone's comment is missing ...? someone pointing out that fracking doesn't have the same impact everywhere on our continent. Which made sense to me, given the little bit I know about geology. Not that any of it is "good", but some of it is "less bad" depending on local conditions.

My-o-my, I just *wonder* how the people in the "No Fracking" countries manage! When fuel gets more expensive, people cut their use of it. A win/win for the earth on both ends.

morz8, fracking is prohibited in WA state....but only very recently, May 8th of this year. Kind of a moot point however, as WA state is not known to have any oil or natural gas reserves that might call for fracking. The prohibition was undertaken as an abundance of caution :-)

"The prohibition was undertaken as an abundance of caution :-)"

Or perhaps it was done as a feel-good political statement, irrelevant and pointless if Washington has no oil or gas in the ground.

I remember some decades back when cities with liberal constituencies (like Berkeley) declared themselves to be "Nuclear Free Zones" and posted signs to that effect. SImilarly just a political statement but otherwise pointless.

You are probably right, Elmer. This is the statement Gov. Inslee made at the time he signed the bill prohibiting fracking here:

"We’ve always leaned on science to guide our efforts on climate change and the science is increasingly clear. The accelerating threat of climate change and the emerging science on the damaging impacts of natural gas production and distribution mean we must focus our full efforts on developing clean, renewable and fossil-fuel free energy sources. Being committed now to 100 percent clean electricity and signing a bill prohibiting fracking in Washington state, we want to be consistent to that spirit of progress."

Sounds a lot like poli-speak to me :-))

Yes, I would agree he's doing a lot of poli-speak lately. If I were inclined to engage in political discussions, and I'm not unless within an intimate group of friends.

Fracking only works where there are sedimentary deposits such as limestone and shale, two most commonly recognized types. If you live in an area where there are none it is unlikely you will have any fracking.

I've never heard of it

We have it in the eastern part of the state. Not only did the legislature welcome it with wide open arms, to open the arms further it defied the Governor and declined to levy severance taxes comparable to other states -- in a way, subsidizing the industry. The industry also does not have to reveal what chemicals are involved in the process -- state agencies have no idea what chemicals are involved in the case of a spill until after the fact, if they can actually get to company involved to disclose them. Or the chemical remaining in the ground, which some fear may leach into groundwater resources (although the companies say they are doing this far below the levels where groundwater exists.)

There have been small earthquakes associated with fracking here (north eastern part of the state), as well

Yes, it's legal in Colorado....what isn't legal in Colorado. kidding...

raee_gw zone 5b-6a Ohio

We have it in the eastern part of the state. Not only did the legislature welcome it with wide open arms, to open the arms further it defied the Governor and declined to levy severance taxes comparable to other states -- in a way, subsidizing the industry. The industry also does not have to reveal what chemicals are involved in the process -- state agencies have no idea what chemicals are involved in the case of a spill until after the fact, if they can actually get to company involved to disclose them. Or the chemical remaining in the ground, which some fear may leach into groundwater resources (although the companies say they are doing this far below the levels where groundwater exists.)

There have been small earthquakes associated with fracking here (north eastern part of the state), as well

~~~~~

"Or the chemical remaining in the ground, which some fear may leach into groundwater resources"

They say what they want. They are permitted to play with the environment. It's predicted that future wars will be fought over water supplies -- look at India right now.

Oracle Elmer, I find your complaints about the article ridiculous. They might make some sense if you were critiquing an editorial, but this isn't an opinion piece; it's factual. It's science.

When Professor Steingraber and her group first started looking into fracking, they found nine studies on the subject. By 2014, they had compiled the results of 400 studies. This was enough to convince New York (a large and sophisticated state, in case you haven't heard of it in California) to ban fracking completely. The latest edition of the compendium "brings together the findings of more than 1,700 studies, articles, and reports tying fracking activities to a host of health problems including birth defects, cancer and asthma."

In my area, drilling companies pay megabucks to low-income property owners for the right to drill on their property. In many cases they say goodbye to clean drinking water. Our local news has covered cases where a homeowner's tap water can burst into flames if a match is held to it.

alisande, if you were to put on a Fox "news" program (which I'll bet you don't do and I rarely do myself), I'd guess that like me, you'd immediately find the programming slanted and with an unabashed political bias to one extreme side. I find the same to be too often true of news and topical programming of the so-called public radio and TV organizations, representing the other political persuasion that Fox opposes and demonizes.

When watching or reading pieces from these sources, how often do you find yourself disagreeing or feeling angry not about the stories reported but about the nature of the stories chosen or the positions you hear in the reporting being espoused? I'll guess rarely.

I've heard more than a few columnists, in the small group that tries to be objective, say that they consider their work to be relatively objective when they get as many complaints from those who identify themselves to be Republicans as from those who do the same as Democrats. That'a test neither Fox News nor the various public broadcast orgs would ever pass.

Are there any studies that have come to different conclusions than those mentioned in the article (you can bet there are)? Are they mentioned? Are there any organizations who have a different view (you can bet there are)? Are they mentioned? These are examples of the biases in the reporting.

To me, any article or media piece that presents only one side of any matter or question is biased and isn't trying to be objective. I dislike and ignore what's essentially propaganda, no matter what position or opinions are being advanced. You can have your own standards.

I don't know what the real stories and take-aways are about fracking. But these positions aren't credible to me, they aren't from objective organizations.

Are there any studies that have come to different conclusions than those mentioned in the article (you can bet there are)?

I would not bet there are--not if the studies were conducted honestly. Fracking is what it is. The process is rife with disaster potential.

Are they mentioned? Are there any organizations who have a different view (you can bet there are)?

Oh, yes, I bet there are. But they don't count because we're talking (again) about facts and science, not views and opinions or persuasive marketing.

Are they mentioned? These are examples of the biases in the reporting.

You may find this hard to believe, but I sort of knew what reporting bias is even before I read the examples you so generously shared. In fact, it was something I always endeavored to avoid during the years when I was a newspaper reporter.

Apparently Kentucky does. I just found a fracking and oil map of the state with "issues" dotted all over the state. Gotta go to bed, though, so can't look up anything else.

"But they don't count ....."

In an effort to be objective, I don't believe you would think that way when trying to consider different opinions and whatever exists to support each. Journalists should present what's available and let the readers (or viewers) decide for themselves.

That's the problem with these orgs - conflicting opinions are too often not even mentioned in passing. They've weighed what they consider relevant and have chosen what they want you to know. That's biased reporting.

As I tried to explain and won't repeat, it doesn't matter to me what political direction anyone's bias points to. When I sense bias, I move on. It's no better than spin doctors at political events - I don't want people telling me what I should think or how I should interpret things. I can do that myself. But not if only one point of view is presented.

Well, of course it's not just the fracking (though that is bad enough--Pennsylvania is seeing a surge in a rare cancer in children who live in the frack fields--but the entire infrastructure of pipelines. There have been over 100 pipeline explosions, the most recent was a 30 inch diameter pipeline in Kentucky which killed a number of people and destroyed homes in a trailer park. I live where a 42 inch pipeline is being rammed through steep, mountainous terrain, the largest pipeline ever attempted through such terrain. Two pipeline explosions a year or so ago in the northern part of WV and in PA, both in brand new pipelines were determined to have been caused by "subsidence on steep slopes." We have been fighting this pipeline for years now, and though most of it is already in the ground, we still hope to stop it. It passes very close to homes, schools, nursing homes.

And scientists have warned us that if we hope to have even a remotely liveable planet for our grandchildren, all the fossil fuel that is left MUST remain in the ground.

Our grandchildren will curse our names for our failure to act.

When I sense bias, I move on.

Ah, my favorite part of your post. Go for it, Elmer.

Oh come on, you're better than that. That was an unnecessary vacuous attempt at an insult.

I have biases, just as you do. We were talking about public media sources. not individuals. If you don't see the biases in NPR, PRI, CPB, you need to sharpen your wits a bit. Here's a hint for you - why do Republicans in Congress periodically threaten to reduce government funding spend on these activities? Because they see it with the same disdain as you see Fox but Fox doesn't receive public funds.

Keep your eyes open.

Absolutely, Laceyvail. My late husband, a lifelong Republican with an extensive education and the sharpest wits around, IMO, had a high opinion of NPR's "All Things Considered." It was one of his two favorite news sources, the other being the Wall Street Journal.

Fox News, on the other hand, was created to support the Republican party. I wish everyone would watch the excellent documentary "The Brainwashing of My Dad." It tells, among other things, the history of Fox News--and what can happen to people when they're overexposed to it and to what I call "hate radio."

One of the people featured in the film (available via Amazon Prime, for one) is a truck driver who spent most of his driving time listening to these extreme-right radio talkers until one day he happened upon "All Things Considered." He was amazed at the depth and balance of their coverage, something he'd never never been exposed to.

There's a simple test. When receiving "news" from a provider that attempts to offer it without bias (as the better papers do, for example, separating the editorial staffs from the news rooms), you should encounter pieces that you disagree with. Even with Op/Ed, the good papers like WaPo and NYTimes are careful to have columnists of both extremes of the political spectrum.

I live in an area that's the deepest blue, very politically liberal. I'm glad for that, I find the other side particularly galling to listen to. I share some but not all opinions common to liberal people.

But I most certainly know their standard dogma when I hear it, I recognize the attitudes because it's about all one encounters around here from friends and acquaintances. I'm okay with it, there no need to agree with everyone and everything you hear in a given day. Like the dogma of the other side, it's hard not to identify when it comes up.

If you think you're getting balanced reporting from NPR et al, you need to pay closer attention.

Michigan has it I'm sad to say. Fracking requires significantly more water than vertical drilling, up to 20 million gallons more! They approached a large area of land owners here in the northern area that had from 40 acres on up. At that time I had 280 acres and now have 160. I believe everyone turned them down ( gas company) , I know I did. Chemicals are involved though some chemicals can be hidden as " trade secrets." These wells have a " flowback" water that surface after fracking. I have heard of people losing their well water too. There was Michigan Fracking Ban Initiative that was hoped would be on the election ballot in 2018 but guess what....it wasn't and it wasn't for the lack of signatures.

Elmer said:

"If you think you're getting balanced reporting from NPR et al, you need to pay closer attention."

Why assume that those who listen to NPR et al are swallowing whole every item of news? It's not too far wrong to presuppose a "bias" in all news outlets including the great New York Times. And, yes, while NPR may lean left I have heard the far right callers to some of their call-in shows treated with respect -- not merely tolerated. And it says something that NPR does have listeners from all extremes.

Let's stick to the subject. The article that was linked had to do with a report by Physicians for Social Responsibility. This is not a scientific research organization, it's an organization with an unabashed political agenda. That's fine, but the article doesn't say so. The article also doesn't address whether there are or aren't opposing views.

The reporter whose work this link covers is Steve Curwood, a longtime contributor of regular programming to NPR. That's fine and good for him, I'm sure he has a following. He's available, for a fee, to speak at meetings to cover various environmental issues that are of interest to him. Also not mentioned in the article, that he's an advocate and activist for environmentalism.

I have no problem with the organization, nor with the obvious biases of the reporter, OTHER THAN the typical tactic of this media network to present material in a one-sided way. As I said before, I have no problem with anyone's opinion until they try to disguise it as being something other than their opinion. When the media is involved and people don't know they're being fed one side of a two sided issue, that's unforgivable. You can look at it however you wish.

This is not a new game for the PBS/Public Radio universe and it's why I never have nor ever will give them a cent from my otherwise generous (for me) charitable spending budget.

So yes, this is perhaps a good example of a PRI article being swallowed hook, line and sinker without realizing how subjective the reporting was.

There was an earlier 'counterpoint' comment, since deleted, that was more compelling than semi-attacking the writer & public radio ... did anyone except me catch it?

Nickel, yesterday I received an email notification that someone had posted on this thread, and when I clicked over to the thread I found nothing new there. So perhaps the writer deleted it. I hope that's what happened, because I'm not fond of the idea of self-appointed forum police.

Alisande, probably that's what happened. Oh well, sometimes I don't feel like swimming against the tide either.

eta: the deleted comment was enough to get me thinking, not enough for me to reach a conclusion but that's fine.

Was this the comment?

loonlakelaborcamp

Yesterday at 6:17AM

I read the entire article. Lots of slanted bull being produced in it.

Quote: “In other words, there's no evidence that fracking can operate without threatening public health directly or without imperiling climate stability, on which public health, of course, depends.”

Classic double negative. No evidence it can do X without causing Y, also means no evidence it does cause it!

The article then shows what they describe as "dead" sunflowers, supposedly caused by fracking. Balderdash. That is a picture of HARVESTED sunflowers, with a row responsibly left for wildlife.

Fracking is much more prevalent in ND, does not cause earthquakes there, and fracking with horizontal drilling puts only one set of wellhead per square mile- far less than the misleading picture of wellhead area shown. Those are old vertical wells from decades ago that have been converted to fracking.

Like Save

"Classic double negative. No evidence it can do X without causing Y, also means no evidence it does cause it!"

Of course. I couldn't stick with it to read it more closely but I'm glad someone did.

The way science works is that no one works to prove a negative. To say "there's no evidence suggesting....." means nothing is known, neither positive or negative. Things need to be proven in the affirmative or if there's a contradictory finding, a negative refutes the positive. The absence of a positive doesn't mean the negative is correct. It means there's nothing known. From a logic standpoint, "no evidence that something doesn't do something else" is not an argument, it's a statement of no knowledge.

A display of being disingenuous and using double-talk at their best.

loonlake, yes that was it -- thank you!

Elmer, I understand your points about logic and science, but for me, I don't always need perfection to get something of value from a communication. Sometimes my bar for precision and accuracy of communication is high, sometimes it can be lower. But I totally support your push to take everything with a grain of salt, even if it's from a source you naturally gravitate to. (My words expressing the take-away I got from you posts above.)

I live in Oklahoma.

Yes, we have fracking.

I hate it.