Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Study - Children born near fracking wells at higher risk for Leukemia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Something tells me that this will be like the various studies concerning cancer and Three Mile Island.
    I'm getting cynical in my old age. Every solution to environmental concerns that doesn't involve solar or wind is attacked as world ending. Geo, hydro and nuclear all accomplish the same (really silly) goal but California, literally sitting on the ring of fire puts billions into grid scale wind and solar (while burning down half the state with their neglected infrastructure). It's like they are little kids that just want their utopia and the unicorns have to be pink or they don't want it anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Something tells me that this will be like the various studies concerning cancer and Three Mile Island.
    Or mRNA jabs and myoca... um... never mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
    Between this and the earthquakes, and the EPA as well as University of Kentucky stjdies earlier this year, it's not looking so hot for the future of fracking.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...leukemia-study
    Something tells me that this will be like the various studies concerning cancer and Three Mile Island.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    What's weird is that earlier this year, I read that the fracking industry was in a tailspin. That existing shale locations were running dry and there wasn't funding and/or permission for exploration. But now I am reading both, that the industry is in trouble, and that the industry is growing.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/202...jobs-industry/

    https://www.globenewswire.com/news-r...-Analysis.html

    Beats me which way is up.
    They aren't contradictory that I can tell. Rising oil prices could set off higher profits even when jobs are being cut.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    National Groundwater Association

    IPAA (Scroll down for the list of studies and their links)

    The NGA is interesting because it finds that fracking isn't causing contamination in Northern Pennsylvania where the article in the OP claims a link to wells near fracking sites.

    The trouble is, that's way too vague. I can't find the study itself so I don't know how they were controlling for other variables. But since Pennsylvania has methane in its water, I kinda want a pretty rigorous control so we figure out what is actually happening and fix it rather than just guess, put people out of work and let kids continue to get sick.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    What's weird is that earlier this year, I read that the fracking industry was in a tailspin. That existing shale locations were running dry and there wasn't funding and/or permission for exploration. But now I am reading both, that the industry is in trouble, and that the industry is growing.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/202...jobs-industry/

    https://www.globenewswire.com/news-r...-Analysis.html

    Beats me which way is up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    This passage is slightly confusing:

    About half the residents in the predominantly rural study counties use wells to draw from groundwater, and residential wells are not subject to federal regulations or monitoring, leaving it up to the user to ensure they are not drinking contaminated water.

    Nearby residents also face exposure to chemicals via air pollution from the fracking process, heavy vehicle traffic and construction.

    The study found children’s risk markedly increases the closer they live to a well. While those within two kilometers face the highest risk, levels were elevated as much as 10km from a well.

    The data comes amid a debate over how far wells should be set from residences. Two kilometers is about 6,500ft, but Pennsylvania only requires a 500ft setback, while some states’ requirement is as low as 150ft. Colorado, one of the largest fracking producers, several years ago enacted a 2,000ft buffer in most cases. But the study’s authors say that’s not enough.


    I assume the "wells" in the last two paragraphs are fracking wells, not the "residential" wells in the first paragraph, but it's not completely clear.
    Yes, it's talking about fracking, not residential groundwater wells, bit of sloppy language there by the journalist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    So you want those affected to sue after the fact, when the damage is already done, rather than the government to mandate preventative rules?
    No, I want those affected to sue the moment such pollution begins to occur.


    I'm assuming that your thinking is that this will stop companies in future who are considering doing fracking from doing it, given they know they will be eventually sued by those affected?
    Hitting their bottom line tends to do more to inspire change in a business than government wrist-slapping for violations.

    It seems to me that is naive,
    It seems to me you are naive.

    because a lot of business decisions are far more short-term than that - there would be plenty of time for those who get rich from the fracking to leave the company and take their money with them, many years before the the damage the company did to children becomes apparent and the company is sued for it. The people making the decisions to frack are unlikely to care about financial consequences that far in the future which are highly likely to be borne by others and not themselves.

    If there's one thing selfish rich people are really good at, it's running out the back door with all the money and leaving others to face the consequences of their actions.
    They're good at it because the government aids and abets them, and then bails them out as 'too big to fail' when they screw up.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    This passage is slightly confusing:

    About half the residents in the predominantly rural study counties use wells to draw from groundwater, and residential wells are not subject to federal regulations or monitoring, leaving it up to the user to ensure they are not drinking contaminated water.

    Nearby residents also face exposure to chemicals via air pollution from the fracking process, heavy vehicle traffic and construction.

    The study found children’s risk markedly increases the closer they live to a well. While those within two kilometers face the highest risk, levels were elevated as much as 10km from a well.

    The data comes amid a debate over how far wells should be set from residences. Two kilometers is about 6,500ft, but Pennsylvania only requires a 500ft setback, while some states’ requirement is as low as 150ft. Colorado, one of the largest fracking producers, several years ago enacted a 2,000ft buffer in most cases. But the study’s authors say that’s not enough.


    I assume the "wells" in the last two paragraphs are fracking wells, not the "residential" wells in the first paragraph, but it's not completely clear.

    Leave a comment:


  • Starlight
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
    Removing that government monopoly and allowing those harmed by such pollution would see a swifft change in business behaviors because it would seriously affect their bottom line.
    So you want those affected to sue after the fact, when the damage is already done, rather than the government to mandate preventative rules?

    I'm assuming that your thinking is that this will stop companies in future who are considering doing fracking from doing it, given they know they will be eventually sued by those affected? It seems to me that is naive, because a lot of business decisions are far more short-term than that - there would be plenty of time for those who get rich from the fracking to leave the company and take their money with them, many years before the the damage the company did to children becomes apparent and the company is sued for it. The people making the decisions to frack are unlikely to care about financial consequences that far in the future which are highly likely to be borne by others and not themselves.

    If there's one thing selfish rich people are really good at, it's running out the back door with all the money and leaving others to face the consequences of their actions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    I hope they can find some viable workaround. States like mine (PA) need the jobs and revenue, and the country needs the oil and gas.

    But sick and dead kids is not an acceptable price.
    Yeah, right now it's sounding not great for fracking. Even here in Colorado we pushed some serious setback requirements for fracking operations but now it sounds as if we'd need to triple those at the very least to be remotely safe.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    I hope they can find some viable workaround. States like mine (PA) need the jobs and revenue, and the country needs the oil and gas.

    But sick and dead kids is not an acceptable price.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Seems like a stereotypical example of where government rules and regulations are needed to prevent private enterprises having these negative social impacts. That doesn't seem a very libertarian thing to want, so I'm surprised to see you posting this thread Gondwanaland.
    Nope. The government's sole job is to protect its citizens from malicious harm. There's nothing wrong with allowing citizens recourse against companies that are harming them and their children. Libertarians fully believe in the protection of persons and property from invasion by other parties. This would be such a case (a very clear violation of NAP). That's about as libertarian as you can get. Sounds like yet again the New Zealander has no clue what libertarianism is, as usual.

    Indeed, under the current system, the inept EPA is basically the only party that can effectively and universally sue for air and water pollution. Removing that government monopoly and allowing those harmed by such pollution would see a swifft change in business behaviors because it would seriously affect their bottom line.
    Last edited by Gondwanaland; 08-18-2022, 08:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Starlight
    replied
    Seems like a stereotypical example of where government rules and regulations are needed to prevent private enterprises having these negative social impacts. That doesn't seem a very libertarian thing to want, so I'm surprised to see you posting this thread Gondwanaland.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
    Between this and the earthquakes, and the EPA as well as University of Kentucky stjdies earlier this year, it's not looking so hot for the future of fracking.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...leukemia-study
    I doubt that research into the increased incidences of childhood leukaemia will have much effect on those who advocate fracking.

    As has been shown over and over again [and not just in the USA] when money speaks the law and, in this instance, ethical concerns are invariably silenced.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:40 PM
6 responses
43 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by Gondwanaland, 11-26-2022, 03:06 PM
9 responses
89 views
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2022, 01:46 PM
163 responses
905 views
0 likes
Last Post oxmixmudd  
Started by Gondwanaland, 11-25-2022, 02:56 PM
22 responses
181 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by Diogenes, 11-23-2022, 12:22 PM
73 responses
443 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Working...
X