Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.
For those who wish to get rid of the EPA, maybe they should go ahead and have a glass of water from one of these wells.
Drink up, taste what everyone will be drinking without any water regulation.
For those who wish to get rid of the EPA, maybe they should go ahead and have a glass of water from one of these wells.
Drink up, taste what everyone will be drinking without any water regulation.
But this has happened with the EPA. Maybe making companies liable would be better than a bunch of crony lawyers who work at the EPA and corporations coming up with acceptable levels of risk?
When government fails (which is inevitable), the response is more government along with the theft of more taxpayer money.
If only business could reward their failure with more profits.
Oh wait GM and the banks were able to do it..thanks to our government and our confiscated money.
For those who wish to get rid of the EPA, maybe they should go ahead and have a glass of water from one of these wells.
Drink up, taste what everyone will be drinking without any water regulation.
Maybe it's mind over matter. Some people are so stupid and ignorant, that ingesting a pollutant or toxic substance, would not register in their brain and therefore, have zero negative affect on them...or...they are reptilian life forms from an alien place that has no regard for planet Earth and its inhabitants.
I don't know if this is the same report but I was stunned by this section:
The risks are particularly severe in Pennsylvania, which has seen a sharp increase in drilling, with roughly 71,000 active gas wells, up from about 36,000 in 2000. The level of radioactivity in the wastewater has sometimes been hundreds or even thousands of times the maximum allowed by the federal standard for drinking water.
And as the Times report notes, waste water treatment plants that receive this tainted water are not capable of removing such high levels of toxic radioactive elements. Waste treatment plant operators openly admit that they cannot remove enough of these radioactive elements to meet the federal standards before the treated water is dumped into reservoirs, rivers and streams which provide the primary sources of drinking water for millions of people across the country. Water that men, women, children and even infants are drinking as we speak.
Maybe hyperbole and overly dramatic -- or maybe the whole truth. Sounds like the EPA is in bed with the fracking interests, gee, why am I not surprised...
If I lived in Pennsylvania, I'd be thinking about relocating if it were at all possible.
But this has happened with the EPA. Maybe making companies liable would be better than a bunch of crony lawyers who work at the EPA and corporations coming up with acceptable levels of risk?
It happened because the government neutered EPA for the purpose. My hometown (Flower Mound, TX) was one of the first ones hit by the idiocity.
Perhaps, the best way to reduce unemployment just might be to get rid of people.
This reporter today says he asked Governor Corbett's administration at DEP on January 21st, three days after Governor Rendell and I left office, to confirm the quotation that the reporter strung togehter from some other source. The words that I find myself saying in this piece were said by me somewhere at some time and in some context but they were not said in the context of an interview for this piece. The reporter never called me after January 18th for any purpose including to confirm the quotation that he put together for me.
He lists a whole lot of other things the NYT leaves out, that would be indicative of strong state regulation.
It happened because the government neutered EPA for the purpose. My hometown (Flower Mound, TX) was one of the first ones hit by the idiocity.
Perhaps, the best way to reduce unemployment just might be to get rid of people.
LOL that is true, everything was fine until those darn people showed up!
Did you see the special on Discovery or History channel about what would happen to the earth if humans all vanished? It was pretty fascinating.
That is what politicians and our crony corporatist system will always do. They decide on what is an acceptable amount of poison for us to ingest. Let bring back liability, that is the ultimate regulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdavid002
State EPA's can take care of this. We don't need a federal bureaucracy.
Good point. If corporate liability protection was reduced, the states jobs would be a lot easier also.
For those who wish to get rid of the EPA, maybe they should go ahead and have a glass of water from one of these wells.
Drink up, taste what everyone will be drinking without any water regulation.
i personally dont want to get rid of the EPA, but rather rein them in, and have them enforce regulations already on the books that are truly effective rather than just pile on more regulations that dont do anything but cost the country money to comply with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.