Environmentalists blasted for 'underreporting' water toxins near fracking site

i did a quick search a didnt find anything so thought id post it.
basically tests showed toxins in the local drinking water in a 1 mile radius of a fracking site.

Environmental officials in Pennsylvania have come under fire for their tests on drinking water from a well near a natural gas drilling site. The site’s owners have been taken to court for allegedly poisoning residents. The documents were released this week, as part of a lawsuit that 7 plaintiffs who live near a hydraulic fracturing or fracking site, are serving on the gas industry. The residents claim that waste water from a nearby site has contaminated their drinking water. Toxicology tests on the seven claimants, who live within a mile of the drill and waste water site in Amwell Township, Pennsylvania, found toluene, benzene and arsenic in their bodies. Mr. Loren Kiskadden, one of the plaintiffs, says he has a number of health problems including nausea, bone pain, breathing difficulties and severe headaches. He says these symptoms are consistent with exposure to “hazardous chemicals and gasses through air and water”. The chemicals used in fracking, particularly those found in the waste water which is pumped back into the ground under high pressure, are thought by some to lead to serious health problems. A nurse who has firsthand experience of the health effects of the chemicals used in fracking, pointed to evidence linking the chemicals to cancer as well as liver, kidney and neurological damage in an article in the Baltimore Sun published in July 2012. However, she also argued that as fracking has only recently taken off in many parts of the US, there is insufficient data on the dangers of the chemicals used. There is also lack of statutory or regulatory processes to ensure health and environmental safety. There have been numerous reports in the US media about the dangerous health effects of fracking, including a case in Colorado last year, reported in Pro Publica – an independent, non-profit, investigative journalism organization – where Susan Wallace-babb suffered explosive diarrhea, vomiting, skin rashes, and lesions. All of her symptoms were linked to a nearby fracking site. Right across Colorado, where hydraulic fracturing has become extensive, millions of tons of hazardous waste are dumped into open air pits. The pits have been shown to leak into ground water and give off chemical emissions, as the fluids evaporate.

RT news link

Flagged, but no one really cares about water, apparently. It's dangerous to do so. You get on no fly lists and what's next...barrys executive order kill list? Even the guy's photoshoppers are being offed in broad daylight just so they can say everyone saw it happen, and there was no foul play.

The Washington Post Magazine did a wonderful, in-depth personal story on this just under a year ago. Companies would pay residents money to allow fracking on their lands. Then family and farm animals started dying, contracting disease and experiencing birth defects. Some people didn't agree, but that didn't stop the companies from making waste water ponds on neighbors' properties.

Documents from industry sources and the D.E.P. — now a matter of public record — support the suit’s allegations of a series of structural violations and hazardous incidents surrounding the pond. They include half a dozen tears in the pond’s plastic liner (at least one caused by a deer — its carcass had to be dragged out); at least four cracks in a temporary plastic transfer pipeline leading to an open field; two truck spills, one of which contaminated a cattle pasture; and a leak in an adjacent pond that held drill cuttings. Range admits that after this leak, the level of total dissolved solids, or salts, spiked in the water. Of all these violations, the D.E.P. issued a citation for only the last. The D.E.P. declined to comment, citing the ongoing case.

Then the human illnesses came. Anyone who's ever lived in the country knows that the animals will get signs and symptoms before people do. It was just beginning.

The families who agreed to fracking get paid though, right? They get royalties! Well, most of the checks go towards medical bills, paying for water testing, property taxes and the like. They are paid in the thousands. The companies who benefit make millions off the products they extract.

Read The Fracturing of Pennsylvania

Just realized that the piece was originally published by the NY Times. I had read the article when it was re-printed in the WaPo Magazine, which is why I made the error above.

reply to post by jerseychannelislands

Environmental officials are "environmentalists"?

basically tests showed toxins in the local drinking water in a 1 mile radius of a fracking site.

Basically, no. Basically, the hassle is because not all of the materials tested for were reported to officials.

A scientist who carried out the tests, Tara Upadhyay, said in a deposition that her laboratory tested for a range of metals but reported on only some of them. She says that was because the Environmental Protection Department’s oil and gas division had not requested the results from the complete range of tests.

Because levels of some materials have no EPA standards or were below action levels it means there was underreporting?

“The battery of analyses we order during investigations are thorough and give us the results we need to make sound determinations, which we fully stand behind,” he said in a statement.

Mr. Sunday continued that officials only wanted to see the results that they deemed relevant to determining whether drinking water was being contaminated by shale gas drilling and production.

Anything prevent attorney Smith from doing her own independent report?

reply to post by Phage



hi phage dont think iv had the pleasure of having you grace 1 of my threads before

Because levels of some materials have no EPA standards or were below action levels it means there was underreporting?

what are EPA standards and also action levels?