Fracking Current Event

Arman Vranka                          2/4/14

Main, Douglas. "Fracking Wastewater Radioactive and Contaminated, Study Finds."LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 02 Oct. 2013. Web. 04 Feb. 2014. <http://www.livescience.com/40122-fracking-wastewaster-radioactive-contaminated.html>.

The name of the article I read was "Fracking wastewater radioactive and contaminated, study finds." This article focused on fracking, a way to get oil from the ground, and it's potential safety hazards for humans and the environment. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, "extracts oil and gas from deep underground by injecting water into the ground and breaking the rocks in which the valuable hydrocarbons are trapped". But the leftover water is then often absorbed into the soil and into natural wells, as well as flowing into nearby streams and rivers. In fact, researchers from the Environmental Science and Technology journal found radioactivity, salt and metal traces downstream from a fracking plant in west Pennsylvania. Another disturbing find from the investigation, which was led by Duke professor Avner Vengosh, was that large amounts of radium were found in the stream. Radium is radioactive and found naturally; but long term exposure can cause serious health problems, including cancer. The Vengosh's team also monitored waste discharged from the plant that was found downstream. What they found were high levels of chlorine, bromine and sulfate. They also found that the salinity, or saltiness, or the stream was way above the maximum amount allowed by the Clean Water Act - about 200 times higher than allowed. The stream was found to be 10 times saltier than the ocean, which is outrageous. The amounts of bromine are troubling; it can react with chlorine and form highly toxic byproducts. Vengosh can not say conclusively if the presence of bromine and radium will affect human health, but has not ruled it out as a possibility. On the other hand, Dr. William Schlesinger of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem studies says that the radium is "alarming" and that is poses "a significant radioactive health hazard for humans".  While there are plants that serve to dispose of this water and decontaminate it, Vengosh says that radium can still settle in large amounts. After the research had been done, Schlesinger believed that the evidence was clear: Flow back water is contaminating streams. Unfortunately, this is not limited to Pennsylvania. Similar contamination has occurred in Ohio and New York.

The debate about fracking could have a very large impact on our lives. There is a lot of oil in the rocks; if there is a way to get it out and use it, we will do it, especially with the growing demand of oil these days due to our overuse of it. Fracking is also a potentially billion dollar industry. Jobs will be made, and it will boost the economy tremendously, not to mention it could help our country's growing energy crisis. But there are aspects of fracking that could have a negative effect on us. Fracking, as seen in the article, is sometimes bad for the environment. And when things go wrong, the entire ecosystem is messed up. Streams are poisoned, then the all the animals that rely on the water are effected, including humans in some cases. If something bad were to happen in upstate New York, and the water supply was contaminated, that would affect the entire state negatively. So on one hand, it could make energy cheaper and make jobs, but on the other hand it could hurt wildlife.

There were some very good things in this article. It sites a reliable source, a Duke professor and other scientists, which makes the article credible and trusted. It also gave a lot of detail about the waste from fracking and how it affected the wildlife, which is important because the reader now knows how fracking could potentially hurt the environment. I also liked how the article gave specific examples of pollutants from the fracking. When a example is used, it adds credibility for me. What I didn't like about this article was how it was clearly anti-fracking. I understand that it is having a negative impact on the environment, and that the research done supports that theory. But I believe that in order for the article to support its claim, it should at least mention the other side of the argument. Fracking has some benefits too, and I would have liked it if the author had discussed those. But otherwise, this article was informative and made me more aware of fracking and it’s dangers.