Essay 2.1-Fracking: The Truth Behind the "Facts and Science"

Dear Mr. Kurth,

            In your article, “In support of fracking: the facts and the science,” published on February 15 on chron.com, you address hydraulic fracturing and claim to be in support of it.  However I find you argument extremely weak, and fails to live up to it’s title of “the facts and the science.”  You barely provide any scientific evidence suggesting that fracking is a beneficial process and does not cause environmental hazards.  Instead you provide basic information about the fracking process and cite a few EPA studies and their inaction regarding fracking, leaving your readers, or at least me, very unconvinced of your claim.  I believe that fracking is very detrimental to the environment, and has the possibility to create many safety issues in regions where it is utilized.  Also, I contend that “the facts and science” point to the same conclusion, and shed a completely different light than you propose, on the hydraulic fracturing process.  While this new technology has opened up a wealth of new resources, fracking poses many dangers to the environment, to the safety of people in affected areas, and breaks down local infrastructure. 

            While you contend that fracking poses little dangers to the environment, there is research out there that points otherwise.  In a recent New York Times article, “Regulation lax as gas wells’ tainted water hits rivers: Dangers to environment and health are greater than previously understood,” published on February 27, author Ian Urbina reports that dangers associated with fracking are greater than people previously thought, and that fracking chemicals are being dealt with in irresponsible and potentially harmful ways.   Urbina tells us that much of the wastewater that is wrought with chemicals is taken to sewage treatment plants that are not capable of removing the substances from the water.  After being only partially treated, this water is then discharged into rivers and streams, many of which supply drinking water to large populations of people.  The ensuing environmental problem stems from the fact that sewage treatments facilities cannot remove the radioactive components from the fracking fluids before discharge.  Once in the environment, these materials cause defects in organisms and could enter the food chain, which in the long run could make it’s way onto your plate (Urbina).   On top of that, the prevalence at which this presumably clean wastewater is discharged into waterways is remarkable.  Urbina cites that, “Greater amounts of the wastewater went to the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to more than 800,000 people…, including Pittsburgh, and to the Susquehanna River, which feeds into Chesapeake Bay and provides drinking water to more than six million people, including some in Harrisburg and Baltimore. (Urbina).  On a local level, the Times article also states that in New York state wastewater was sent to two treatment plants that discharge their water into Southern Cayuga Lake, right in my backyard.  This is more than sufficient evidence to determine that these fluids do pose harm to the environment and more so to ourselves as human beings, who utilize our environment.

            I believe that fracking poses many safety concerns to humans.  By addressing a 2004 EPA study, you say that there have been no confirmed cases of drinking water contamination due to fracking.  Following with that this is not very surprising because the tapped shale formations are way further below ground than aquifers used for drinking water.  More recent and updated science proves that this is simply not the case.  In a August 2009 journal article from ProPublica, entitled “EPA: chemicals found in Wyo. Drinking Water Might Be From Fracking,” author Abrahm Lustgarten tells us about how suspicious chemicals and compounds have been showing up in residents of Pavillion, WY drinking water.  Local rancher Louis Meeks had water from his well tested by the EPA, with the results showing some alarming findings.  His water contained methane gas, hydrocarbons, and lead and copper.  When he drilled a new well, and tested this water, contaminants were still present.  Lustgarten also presents information that in further testing throughout the area, 11 out of 39 tested wells also exhibited evidence of contaminants (Lustgarten).  Is this just a coincidence that these water wells are supplied by the drilling company Encana, I think not.

            Moving back to Urbina’s article in the Times, he cites further evidence of health hazards caused by fracking wells.  Quoting Bartonville, Texas resident Kelly Grant, she says that “(Fracking) is ruining us,” as both her 14-year-old daughter, and 11-year old son have had severe asthma attacks and spells of dizziness since a well was installed two years ago near her home (Urbina).  Furthermore, Urbina also tells us that in heavily drilled areas of Texas where statewide well numbers have rose to 93,000 from 58,000 twelve years ago, hospital systems have observed a 25% asthma rate in these children, compared with a seven percent statewide figure (Urbina).  These are alarming statistics considering the widespread use of fracking in these areas, and I insist on a correlation between the two.  Mr. Kurth, here is direct scientific evidence that fracking has both contaminated drinking water sources, and caused health problems in children. 

            The facts and the science do tell us otherwise Mr. Kurth.   While I understand that the vast majority of the fluids used in then fracking process is water and sand, the other small portion of harmful chemicals do have potentially devastating effects.  Because of the huge amounts of fluid used, the amount of these hazardous chemicals used adds up, in the end conglomerating in significant levels.  It is scary to me to think that much of this wastewater is discharged back into our waterways with radioactive materials in it, that could one day reach the dinner tables of Americans.  I therefore ask you to reconsider your claim Mr. Kurth, and revisit the “facts and science” regarding hydraulic fracturing.  Recent evidence tells us otherwise and I strongly urge you think about how devastating fracking can truly be.

Works Cited

Lustgarten, Abrahm. “EPA: chemicals found in Wyo. Drinking Water Might Be From Fracking.” ProPublica Online Journal. (Aug 2009). n. page. Feb 28 2008.

 

Urbina, Ian. “Regulation lax as gas wells’ tainted water hits rivers

Dangers to environment and health are greater than previously understood.” New York Times. (27 Feb 2011).  27 Feb 2011).