Fracking toxins may be as dangerous as tobacco, asbestos & thalidomide ? UK chief scientist
 

The effects of fracking could be as dangerous as asbestos, thalidomide, or tobacco toxins, the UK?s leading scientist has warned, claiming the government has adopted the process without considering the side effects.

In a flagship report produced by Professor Sir Mark Walport, the government?s chief advisor on science policy, it is warned that fracking could have serious negative impacts on health and the environment that could last for decades.

Sir Walport also said the government is putting too much faith in fracking, and that historical examples of cheap energy extraction often ended up causing more damage to the environment in the long-term.

Continued http://rt.com/uk/209827-fracking-chemical-toxic-report/

Interesting....

I bet they are

fracking is cheap energy extraction? this guy claims that and wants to be taken seriously?:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

fyi, all energy extraction has toxins as by-products, every. fucking. single. fucking. one.

the problem is regulation doesn't keep up with technology so rogue frackers skirt environmental issues.

leave it to the OP to link to a Russian "news" site to interpret a report from the UK.

reality-

the good scientist's conclusion on UK fracking directly from the actual report:


Fracking can be done safely in the United Kingdom, but
not without effective regulation, careful management, robust
environmental risk assessments and rigorous monitoring. It
is also essential to build public confidence: local communities
need to be involved and well informed, and to feel that their
concerns are being fully addressed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...k-evidence.pdf

the truly nutty part is the scientist is NOT comparing fracking to tobacco, asbestos, and thalidomide, he is using those as historical examples of the potential dangers of innovation.

I think I may be the only one who actually read the report

quote:
History presents plenty of examples of innovation
trajectories that later proved to be problematic ? for
instance involving asbestos, benzene, thalidomide, dioxins,
lead in petrol, tobacco, many pesticides (see case study),
mercury, chlorine and endocrine-disrupting compounds, as
well as CFCs, high-sulphur fuels and fossil fuels in general58,
59. In all these and many other cases, delayed recognition
of adverse effects incurred not only serious environmental
or health impacts, but massive expense and reductions
in competitiveness for firms and economies persisting in
the wrong path. As discussed in Chapter 1, innovations
reinforcing fossil fuel energy strategies43 ? such as hydraulic
fracturing59 ? arguably offer a contemporary prospective
example. And similar dilemmas are presented by the
exciting new possibilities of nanotechnology (see case study
later in this chapter)60 ? both internally within this field and
externally with respect to alternative ways to address the
same priority social needs61

Fracking is busting OPEC's and Russia's ass ... Your source is RT (Russia Today) LMAO. RT is usually full of shit -- a propaganda tool like any other government controlled media -- VOA, RT, BBC I would be very skeptical of what these people say.


http://sagar.se/images/sheeple.jpg

They don't skirt environmental issues..... They smash them. George Bush enacted exemptions specifically for them. They are not touchable and do not have to follow any laws or guidelines including EPA.

1. bush didn't enact any exemptions.

2. the loophole you are referring to (the halliburton loophole) has been addressed with new legislation.

3. thanks for repeating what I stated in my OP, regulations and oversight have not kept up with fracking technology, that's changing (see #2).

4. there are plenty of regulations for fracking. not enough, but there are many already in place

5. no energy extractor is an exemplary conservationist, by nature energy extraction has huge pollution issues. nuclear, petroleum, coal, etc et al. fracking is no worse, read the british scientist's report I linked.

may be
could be

Let's ask the people who can light the water on fire from their faucets.

The big problem with natural gas is the extraction, and then the delivery. Any benefits gained by using a clean energy source like natural gas are offset by those variables. The pollutants from all the trucks delivering it from the extraction sites is more than enough to fuck up the environment.

Just watch the movie Gasland and say that all of that evidence you see is false. You'll be bowing to your misplaced sense of political loyalty.

It's tough to see regulations when fracking lobbyists purchase local governments.

I think it is still open

Exemptions for hydraulic fracturing under United States federal law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia