News Article: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/e-p-a-subpoenas-halliburton-on-fracking/?src=twt&twt=nytenvironment
Related News Article: coto2.wordpress.com/.../fracking-pa-for-halliburton-exempt-from-clean- water-act/
After years of suffering the damage that fracking has caused, the EPA has finally stepped up to the plate. Before now, it was not required of natural gas drilling companies to release the names of and information on the chemicals they use to mix with water and shoot at the shale above natural gas deposits. But things are finally starting to change.
The EPA did make a VOLUNTARY request to all of the major gas drilling companies to release the information on the chemicals they use, but Halliburton remained steadfast in its efforts to keep it concealed. After compiling statistic on the damage being done to nearby towns' and cities' water supply, evident through youtube videos showing people catching their facet water on fire, the EPA issued a subpoena on Halliburton. This suspicion is amplified in that the other eight companies the EPA asked did release their information promptly before the EPA had to issue a subpoena.
For those of you that don't know, a subpoena is a demand for the release of something that could be used as evidence in the court of law, ranging from information even to witnesses.
This reluctance to share information by Halliburton has also led the EPA to conduct a more thorough investigation into the effects of natural gas drilling. This would have been done earlier, but a vote from Congress in 2005 exempted gas drilling companies from the Clean Water Act of 2004 from having their practices regulated, as drilling "posed little threat to human health". I guess they changed their minds.
This investigation comes as a critical blow to the new Republican governor of PA, Tom Corbett, who expresses that "Pennsylvannia is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas". But Tom Corbett, along with other Republican members of the government elected from PA, claim that natural gas should not be taxed, despite the effects drilling for it has on our drinking water.
In my other blog, I've covered just how dramatic the affects can be of fracking on the water. They could not only affect the biotic factors that rely on well water for life, being mostly the populations of humans, but the chemicals that are spread throughout the ecosystems could also disrupt the abiotic factors that organisms depend on. There are a lot of delicate chemical reactions that need to take place in nature for our survival, and while we may not know the full extent of said disruption, I'm sure we don't want to find out.
As you'll see in the video, there is a lot of activism surrounding the whole affair. To counteract this, Homeland Security has been MONITORING public viewings of the movie "Gasland" in which the main activist, Fox, explains the dangers of unregulated fracking companies. Why would Homeland Security be monitoring the viewings? apparently they don't like what people are finding out and doing about it. But is this activism enough to overthrow the new Republican regime, who have been "donated" money by fracking companies for their election campigns?
"We'll see..." said the Zen Master.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Laced With Drugs
Full Artucle: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/647929/i_am_drinking_drugged_water.html?cat=71
An article reports that is a few major cities, drinking water is highly contaminated with many different kinds of pharmecuticals. The author, along with a group of scientists and researchers, theorize that most of it comes from our own bodies.
When our toilet water is filtered and treated, our urine is separated from the water and recycled into drinking water. This is one thing our government seems to be doing right. However, with a large number of Americcans taking many different kinds of medications, which are elimnated through urine, it is nearly impossible to treat the water of the pharmecuticals without distillation, which can be very expensive on a large scale.
The scientists theorize the medicines are human waste products because they discovered, after testing samples of the water, that the medicine has already been metabolized, meaning there are chemicals found in the human bodies that have already broken it down to a degree.
However, the article also reports that there are pharmecutical byproducts also in the water, but doesn't report on where it may come from or even why those are there, despite its obviousness. Byproducts are waste products that are created in addition to the manufacturing of something using chemicals, in this case pharmecuticals. So, by the power of deduction, one could say that pharmecutical companies are dumping their waste into our water.
Just to give you perspective on how bad it is, in Philadelphia alone, they have found over 53 pharmecuticals, likely including medicines for pain, infection, epilepsy, and mental illnesses. They have also found 63 pharmecuticals in neraby watersheds.
This not mainly affects the population of humans in the ecosystem surrounding Phile because animals drink don't drink tap water. Good for them. They're already making healthier choices than most Americans. This is not likely to even cause a stasis in humans because many do not drink tap water, and even those that do probably already take medications on a regular basis that are much higher in dosage than what is in the tap water. If anything, the medications in full dosage would cause a stasis in terms of tolerance to the medication they take. It can, however, be very dangerous to children because of their lower BMI and the possbile reaction their bodies could have with the medications in the water.
An article reports that is a few major cities, drinking water is highly contaminated with many different kinds of pharmecuticals. The author, along with a group of scientists and researchers, theorize that most of it comes from our own bodies.
When our toilet water is filtered and treated, our urine is separated from the water and recycled into drinking water. This is one thing our government seems to be doing right. However, with a large number of Americcans taking many different kinds of medications, which are elimnated through urine, it is nearly impossible to treat the water of the pharmecuticals without distillation, which can be very expensive on a large scale.
The scientists theorize the medicines are human waste products because they discovered, after testing samples of the water, that the medicine has already been metabolized, meaning there are chemicals found in the human bodies that have already broken it down to a degree.
However, the article also reports that there are pharmecutical byproducts also in the water, but doesn't report on where it may come from or even why those are there, despite its obviousness. Byproducts are waste products that are created in addition to the manufacturing of something using chemicals, in this case pharmecuticals. So, by the power of deduction, one could say that pharmecutical companies are dumping their waste into our water.
Just to give you perspective on how bad it is, in Philadelphia alone, they have found over 53 pharmecuticals, likely including medicines for pain, infection, epilepsy, and mental illnesses. They have also found 63 pharmecuticals in neraby watersheds.
This not mainly affects the population of humans in the ecosystem surrounding Phile because animals drink don't drink tap water. Good for them. They're already making healthier choices than most Americans. This is not likely to even cause a stasis in humans because many do not drink tap water, and even those that do probably already take medications on a regular basis that are much higher in dosage than what is in the tap water. If anything, the medications in full dosage would cause a stasis in terms of tolerance to the medication they take. It can, however, be very dangerous to children because of their lower BMI and the possbile reaction their bodies could have with the medications in the water.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Got Gas? Try Fracking
Full Article: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/new-lawsuit-filed-in-fracking-country/?src=twt&twt=nytenvironment
Families in Susquehanna County do, and it's making them sick. Over a dozen of families have filed lawsuits againt Southwestern Energy Production Comapny ( SEPCO) claiming that “releases, spills, and discharges of combustible gases, hazardous chemicals, and industrial wastes” have contaminated their drikning water and have made it unsafe to drink. SEPCO has made no statements in its defense insofar, and is apparently sticking by their claim that their methods of garnering natural gas are safe and secure.
Environmentalists say otherwise.
Families in Susquehanna County do, and it's making them sick. Over a dozen of families have filed lawsuits againt Southwestern Energy Production Comapny ( SEPCO) claiming that “releases, spills, and discharges of combustible gases, hazardous chemicals, and industrial wastes” have contaminated their drikning water and have made it unsafe to drink. SEPCO has made no statements in its defense insofar, and is apparently sticking by their claim that their methods of garnering natural gas are safe and secure.
Environmentalists say otherwise.
This is a picture of a process called Hydraulic Fracturing, also called "Fracking". It is a method that has long been used for drilling for natural gas deposits, and some serious light is now being shed on it, as it is being used widely n newly available natural gas deposits in Pennsylvania, West Virgina, Ohio, and New York.
Basically, SEPCO uses high-pressure water to shoot at sand deposits to release the natural gas for collection. They have long claimed that Fracking is not harmful to the people's supply of drinking water, but there is evidence out there that suggests otherwise.
One such piece of evidence is a Youtube video that shows the effect of fracking on water.
This is the evidence that the families are using in the court, and it appears that the judges are buying it.
Are the companies truly evil? Or is this just another coax from the crazy hippies?
You decide.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Sorry. I Couldn't Think of a Title Really
I apologize for anyone that decides to read this. Yes, the title was funny, but unfirtunately the blog is not. Anyway, here it is.
I like to play guitar, and sometimes play drums and keyboard. I also sing, but mostly in the shower. Despite my being a man with long hair and the stereotypes that go with it, (most of which I've proven to be true) I do have a job. But seriously, I do care about the environment. I believe that the only barrier between Americans and alternative forms of energy and waste disposal is corporate greed. The corporations provide the convinience and the incentive for people to continue using their products and filling their land with trash. They utilize the fullest extent of their power to frustrate anyone seeking alternative energy for their own and others' use. Just like how tobacco companies denied even the potential that cigarettes can kill, oil companies have coaxed us into their fuel, claiming it has no harm on the environment and that we would never run out.
They have also put taboo on other sources of energy and products that are environment friendly that may put them out of business because of todays growing urgency to go green. A case and point example would be the prohibition of hemp, not marijuana, but hemp, as a result of the collaborative effort of textiles owner and yellow journalist, William Randolph Hearst, and racist federal officer, Terry J. Anslinger.
Honestly, the only reason I'm in Environmental Science is because I was placed there. I didn't even really choose to be. But I suppose it would be nice to actually know a thing or two about the environment before I start protesting and go on hunger strikes in front of oil companies. The more I stay in the class, the more I find it to be interesting, probably because MR. Suter rants about some pretty funny things in class. But, at least half the time he really does have a point, and that's why I haven't switched classes.
I like to play guitar, and sometimes play drums and keyboard. I also sing, but mostly in the shower. Despite my being a man with long hair and the stereotypes that go with it, (most of which I've proven to be true) I do have a job. But seriously, I do care about the environment. I believe that the only barrier between Americans and alternative forms of energy and waste disposal is corporate greed. The corporations provide the convinience and the incentive for people to continue using their products and filling their land with trash. They utilize the fullest extent of their power to frustrate anyone seeking alternative energy for their own and others' use. Just like how tobacco companies denied even the potential that cigarettes can kill, oil companies have coaxed us into their fuel, claiming it has no harm on the environment and that we would never run out.
They have also put taboo on other sources of energy and products that are environment friendly that may put them out of business because of todays growing urgency to go green. A case and point example would be the prohibition of hemp, not marijuana, but hemp, as a result of the collaborative effort of textiles owner and yellow journalist, William Randolph Hearst, and racist federal officer, Terry J. Anslinger.
Honestly, the only reason I'm in Environmental Science is because I was placed there. I didn't even really choose to be. But I suppose it would be nice to actually know a thing or two about the environment before I start protesting and go on hunger strikes in front of oil companies. The more I stay in the class, the more I find it to be interesting, probably because MR. Suter rants about some pretty funny things in class. But, at least half the time he really does have a point, and that's why I haven't switched classes.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Guns Don't Kill People: Corporations Kill People
Full News Article: (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/protest-shuts-down-oil-rig-off-greenland/?src=twt&twt=nytenvironment)
Classic scenario between stereotyped activists and profited oil corporations, this time in the Arctic. While commencing exploratory drilling 100 miles off the coast of Greenland, a group of apparent enironmental activists protested by scaling an offshore rig and remaining there for several days. They claim the drilling in the arctic will lead to a surge of oil profiteers digging up what was once forbidden ground. Sim McKenna, one of the Greenpeace protesters, claims that an oil rush would "...pose a huge threat to the climate and put [the] fragile climate at risk."
In the past, the area was largely left alone due to the abundance ice surrounding the area. Now that the vast majority of it has melted, supposedly because of global warming, drilling has become more profitable.
This comes in the mail as a Golden Ticket for Greenland, as last year it declared independence from Denmark, and it is also widely believed that there are billions of gallons of oil surrounding its coastline.
The majority of Greenland's leaders are all for the drilling and digging of their coastline. Sure, why not? It'll put money in our wallets, gas in the Americans' cars, and CO2 emissions in our atmosphere.
Their Prime Minister, Kuupik Kleist, denounced the oil protesters, claiming that their protests are "openly illegal acts".
Police and the Danish Navy claim that they will arrest the protesters of Greenpeace after they have run out of food and are forced to come down from the rig. Quite a future to look forward to. After all, Greenpeace is only wasting money from the oil companies that already take in billions of dollars for the good of the environment. No good deed goes unpunished.
So, despite their efforts, oil drilling will continue in order to add to our oil supply, allowing us as Americans to procrastinate our efforts to design and utilize alternative fuel sources, while simeltaneously destroying our atmosphere in the same way that the nuclear bomb allowed us to end WWII and kill almost 300,000 Japanese citizens at the same time. It just goes to show: Guns Don't Kill People, Corporations Kill People.
Classic scenario between stereotyped activists and profited oil corporations, this time in the Arctic. While commencing exploratory drilling 100 miles off the coast of Greenland, a group of apparent enironmental activists protested by scaling an offshore rig and remaining there for several days. They claim the drilling in the arctic will lead to a surge of oil profiteers digging up what was once forbidden ground. Sim McKenna, one of the Greenpeace protesters, claims that an oil rush would "...pose a huge threat to the climate and put [the] fragile climate at risk."
In the past, the area was largely left alone due to the abundance ice surrounding the area. Now that the vast majority of it has melted, supposedly because of global warming, drilling has become more profitable.
This comes in the mail as a Golden Ticket for Greenland, as last year it declared independence from Denmark, and it is also widely believed that there are billions of gallons of oil surrounding its coastline.
The majority of Greenland's leaders are all for the drilling and digging of their coastline. Sure, why not? It'll put money in our wallets, gas in the Americans' cars, and CO2 emissions in our atmosphere.
Their Prime Minister, Kuupik Kleist, denounced the oil protesters, claiming that their protests are "openly illegal acts".
So, despite their efforts, oil drilling will continue in order to add to our oil supply, allowing us as Americans to procrastinate our efforts to design and utilize alternative fuel sources, while simeltaneously destroying our atmosphere in the same way that the nuclear bomb allowed us to end WWII and kill almost 300,000 Japanese citizens at the same time. It just goes to show: Guns Don't Kill People, Corporations Kill People.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)