Like
most of us, I have been trying to maintain a steep learning curve
regarding fracking, so when the time comes to make a decision in one
arena or another, I'll be working with enough facts to make a
knowledgeable choice. As I've been filling in the picture, two things
stand out – two things that seem not to be addressed, and that seem
to be central to the whole issue:
- What do people mean when they talk about finding out if fracking is 'safe?' For the most part, they mean that there is a high probability that wells will not fail and pollute the water table. That, it seems, is not the point – the 'high probability' part. 98%, for instance, is a high probability, but assurances that 98% of the wells in Otsego County, or New York State, or anywhere, will be safe, means that two of every one hundred wells will damage people's drinking water. With wells that will number in the tens of thousands, 98% isn't nearly good enough. Nothing short of a guaranteed 100% can even start the discussion.
- Pro-fracking activists are aiming in the wrong direction. If they really want to make a compelling case to the people of New York, they need to convince the guardians of the New York City and Syracuse water systems (and to NYC mayor Bloomberg) that drilling will pose no danger to their water, ever. If they can do that (and they obviously haven't), then perhaps we can start the discussion (the EPA insists that the exemption is because NYC and Syracuse use unfiltered water – but how can filtered water systems remain safe, if we don't know what's in the fluids, so we don't know what we need to filter out – or whether it's even possible to filter it all out?).
