Don’t Be Fooled by Yesterday’s Headlines, EPA Finds Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water

Get a Most Important EcoNews Right in Your Inbox

Don’t be fooled. Headlines in a New York Times and other news media about a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) long-awaited study on a impacts of fracking on celebration water are another comfortless box of not looking over a shy agency’s spin. Despite a miss of new concrete information and a singular range of a study, the EPA did find instances of H2O contamination and summarized a areas where this could occur in a fracking process.

Rather than severely endeavour a mission, a U.S. EPA’s title and conclusions in a investigate simulate a agency’s on-going narrative about a reserve of fracking. The organisation asserted in a news on a investigate that there were no “widespread, systemic impacts on celebration H2O resources.” They formed this vast end on a singular attention tranquil information and investigate that was enclosed in a feeble designed investigate project.

The multi-million dollar investigate did not answer a elemental questions about a wickedness of H2O from hydraulic fracturing. The oil and gas attention pressured a organisation in a pattern of a study, squeezing a range and focusing it on fanciful displaying conducted by researchers that mostly control investigate auspicious to a industry.

In a intolerable arrangement of a energy of oil and gas interests, they successfully blocked the organisation from entertainment information from approach monitoring of fracking operations. Rather than perfectionist that companies like Exxon (the largest fracker in a U.S.) or Chesapeake concede them to guard H2O wells nearby fracking operations, a EPA caved to attention pressure. For a investigate to be meaningful, a organisation indispensable to control baseline H2O contrast during impending wells that would yield a image of H2O peculiarity before fracking and that would be retested after a year or some-more after oil or gas prolongation began.

Geoffrey Thyne, a geochemist and a member of a EPA’s 2011 Science Advisory Board, a organisation of eccentric scientists who reviewed a devise for a study, remarked on a disaster of a design: “This was ostensible to be a bullion standard. But they went by a prolonged official routine of perplexing to rise a investigate that is not going to furnish a suggestive result.”

Pages: 1 • 2