Still more concerns about fracking

Sue Sturgis at the Institute for Southern Studies has still more news about the worrisome impacts of fracking:

“North Carolina regulators will hold the second of two planned public hearings in Chapel Hill today to gather comments on a recently released draft report that calls for lifting the state’s ban on the controversial gas drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.”

The first hearing, held last week in Sanford, N.C., brought out many opponents of fracking who focused on the documented threat such drilling presents to local water quality. Fracking opponents who attend tonight’s hearing plan to wear blue to show support for clean water.

But a growing body of science also raises concerns about fracking’s public-health impacts from air pollution.

A recent study by scientists with the Colorado School of Public Health found that air pollution from gas-drilling operations may cause acute and chronic health problems for nearby residents…”

Read the entire post by clicking here.

 

10 Comments

  1. Frank Burns

    March 27, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    It looks like people are looking for ways to be against fracking. It reminds me of the global warming alarmism. They blame every malady imaginable on CO2 emissions. It looks like all of that alarm was for nothing. We’ve seen that climate goes in cycles and this same trend happened in the middle ages when there were no CO2 emissions.

    Fracking can be safely done with the safeguards in place. New horizontal drilling technology has made this possible and will be great for our economy. I think we should be more progressive with our technologies and not be afraid of them.

  2. gregflynn

    March 27, 2012 at 5:03 pm

  3. Frank Burns

    March 27, 2012 at 7:57 pm

  4. Ricky Leung

    March 28, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Quoting an opinion article from a conservative news source is not really that strong of a case. That’s like saying I’m right because I said I’m right.

    Dr. Happer is an expert in optics and spectroscopy, not climatology. He was part of the leadership that sought to change the American Physical Society’s position on climate change, a proposal that was overwhelmingly rejected by the APS council.

    And what do physicists know about climate change anyway? Would you trust your optometrist’s opinion on your heart murmur?

    Why physicists think they know everything:
    http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/why-my-fellow-physicists-think-they-know-everything-and-why-theyre-wrong.ars

  5. Frank Burns

    March 28, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Ricky, The public can see for themselves what is b.s. and what is not. When we see the artic ice growing back, global temperatures remaining flat since 1998, Jim Hanson of NASA “adjusting” data of the past to appear lower than they were, the fact that temperatures were this high in the Medieval warming period with no CO2, the fact that the polar bear study was a fraud, the fact that CO2 is such a minute portion of the atmosphere and water vapor is a much larger greenhouse gas, the fact that most of the authors of the UN IPCC were just college students or members of an environmental group, the conspiracy of the climate gate emails, the absurdity of blaming everything on CO2 (even when it gets colder), the fact that the sea level is going down, that we can all conclude that somebody is pulling the wool over our eyes and has a different agenda.

  6. gregflynn

    March 28, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    1998 was a temperature anomaly “warmed by the strongest El Niño of the past century”. When you account for the Southern Oscillation (El Nino-La Nina cycle) the underlying global warming trend continues unabated.

  7. Frank Burns

    March 28, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Greg, it’s a flat line.

  8. gregflynn

    March 28, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Maybe since 2003 but not since 1998. The 5 year mean fluctuates but still trends up.

  9. Ricky Leung

    March 29, 2012 at 9:50 am

    Unfortunately, Mr. Burns, the public cannot see for themselves what is b.s. A recent study on public opinion on climate change found that neither accurate scientific information nor actual extreme events accounts for much of the sway on public opinion. What mattered the most was political ideology and influence of the political elite.

    http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/03/06/what-really-sways-public-opinion-on-climate-change/

    http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/americans-listening-to-politicians-more-than-climate-scientists.ars

  10. Ricky Leung

    March 29, 2012 at 9:50 am

    *actual extreme weather events