Groundbreaking Report Calculates Damage Done by Fracking
Published on by Puja Gupta in Technology
As federal policy makers decide on rules for fracking on public lands , a new report calculates the toll of this dirty drilling on our environment, including 280 billion gallons of toxic wastewater generated by fracking in 2012—enough to flood all of Washington, DC, in a 22-foot deep toxic lagoon. The Environment America Research & Policy Center report , Fracking by the Numbers , is the first to measure the damaging footprint of fracking to date.
"The numbers don't lie—fracking has taken a dirty and destructive toll on our environment,"said John Rumpler, senior attorney for Environment America. "If this dirty drilling continues unchecked, these numbers will only get worse."
"At health clinics, we're seeing nearby residents experiencing nausea, headaches and other symptoms linked to fracking pollution ," said David Brown, a toxicologist who has reviewed health data from Pennsylvania. "With billions of gallons of toxic waste coming each year, we're just seeing the ‘tip of the iceberg' in terms of health risks."
The report measured key indicators of fracking threats across the country, including:
- 280 billion gallons of toxic wastewater generated in 2012—enough to flood all of Washington, DC, in a 22-foot deep toxic lagoon
- 450,000 tons of air pollution produced in one year
- 250 billion gallons of fresh water used since 2005
- 360,000 acres of land degraded since 2005
- 100 million metric tons of global warming pollution since 2005
Fracking also inflicts other damage not quantified in the report—ranging from contamination of residential wells to ruined roads to earthquakes at disposal sites .
Read more : http://ecowatch.com/2013/report-calculates-damage-by-fracking/
1 Answer
-
I need to brush myself up on this subject. However, I deplore the use of negative statistical symbolism used in the article. I have seen this many times. Why should you compare washington city in a toxic well to give a practical idea to the layman? Why not something like 150% of Lake Michigan. This is a trivial issue but when you start your argumant with black logic, I find myself on the opposite side sub-consciously. I am not disputing the fact here but I am stating that examples of more positive events can be given. Moreover, how much is the area of Washington city? Is it as per municipal norms. Is the standard acceptable to all the people ? If yes, then no problem. However if no, then the toxic waste quantity is vague. You may say that this is irrelevant to the subject and I will agree with you. But sometimes, matters of zero significance need to be deflated back to the original size so that the irrelevance does not become relevant within a short time.