A question for anti-frackers: Im against fracking because I think we, as a species, need to move away from carbon-based fuels. However, I dont oppose fracking for the reasons that many of its opponents do. In my research, I have found that there have been cases where groundwater has had increased in methane levels near fracking zones. In many of the zones it was determined this was the case due to faulty equipment, and after the methods and equipment were corrected the levels returned to normal. The studies also tended to suffer from small sample sizes, and thus conclusive evidence of fracking causing damage has not yet been established. I often hear claims from fracking opponents that fracking causes all sorts of damage, up to and including earthquakes, but Ive yet to see peer reviewed work corroborating this, much less any sort of scientific consensus on the matter. So, other than increased carbon emissions, are there other scientifically based reasons to oppose fracking? I should add that, while there is definitely evidence that proper safety, methods, and techniques should be used, that in itself is not a reason to oppose something. We have similar restrictions and safety measures for automobiles, but that doesnt mean we should ban their production.
Posted on: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:05:30 +0000