Talk:Environmental impact of fracking in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Radioactive contamination

[Copied from main HF article]

MH, if you read through the sources linked to the statements in the main hydraulic fracturing article, you will find many of the answers to your questions. It is interesting stuff. The tracers are all used to map where fractures were created by the force of the fluid - since you can't tell from the surface. The equipment, etc. is described in the patents (and Halliburton ads). The NRC talks about ways to introduce the tracers and amounts that can be used. Toxicity can be found on CDC and other health pages. There is debate about whether the radiation and fracking fluid will be contained underground. If there are faults or fractures (man-made or natural) that cross layers, the fracking fluid could (and has in some cases) get into aquifers and groundwater sources. EPA said it was not possible/practical/financially feasible to remediate this type of contamination in the Pavillion incident. This has also been true for contamination by other industries in the Northeast US.

The Technology part of the hydraulic fracturing article has a different focus than the environment section. For the environmental section, we need sources to verify things like that there are concerns, what the risks are, whether there is contamination, and the likelihood of health problems now and as fracking activity increases. The info does not need to all be in one source. For the technology/fracking process section, we just need sources that say something is used in the process. We have that. Health info (effects of exposure) has typically been included in the process section; environmental contamination info (air, water, earthquakes, radiation, etc.) in the environment section. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It is an interesting and complicated subject but I think you are missing my point. I have started a discussion below on what should be included. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Things we should have in the article

Actual radioactive contamination events

By this I mean events in which radioactive substances from HF have fount their way into the human food and water supply or have had a significant impact on the environment. They will generally be exceedingly easy to prove since the tracers used have easily identifiable radioactive emissions profiles, which is the reason they are used.

These should be presented in some detail, as discussed.

Concerns expressed by reliable sources about possible radioactive contamination

These can be mentioned, but as concerns, not as facts, giving details of the exact concerns and the body showing the concern together with any responses.

Things we should not have in the article

Lists of radionuclides that might be used

These are meaningless to many people, scary to some and annoying to others, like me. If they are there to make a point we need to find an independent reliable source which makes that point

Things you or I think might be a problem

WP is written based on what is said in reliable sources not what you or I think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a request: Can someone add a list of fracking locations (cities/states, latitude/longitude) in the USA? This will help job seekers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.209.86 (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Neat idea but this is an encyclopedia not an employment bureau. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Valerie Brown

An paper by Valerie Brown is linked to in the opening paragraph of the article. I hope that she is a well established enough person to anchor an article on a topic as controversial as this. ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for adding the web link. Brown's credentials were noted in at least one article. I'll check on them. The article is on the NIH web site, which is considered a reliable source, so that is essentially enough. Reading further, "Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services."Smm201`0 (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Iodine-131

The second paragraph of the article contains this sentence:

“Despite concerns about the elevated levels of iodine-131 (a radioactive tracer frequently used in hydraulic fracturing according to Halliburton and other company patents of the process) in drinking water and milk in areas near hydraulic fracturing sites,[9][10][11] iodine-131 is not listed among the chemicals to be monitored in the draft plan for the study.”

The clear implication of the above is that hydraulic fracturing may be responsible for high concentrations of radioactive iodine observed in Pennsylvania drinking water, and that the EPA is ignoring this threat. But the cited references do not support this. References [9] and [10] concern EPA detection of temporary spikes in iodine-131 levels in Pennsylvania in early 2011 due to the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, but at levels which the EPA says "do not raise public health concerns" (ref [10]). Reference [11] describes spikes in iodine-131 concentrations in Wissahickon Creek, a small watershed in SE Pennsylvania far from any hydraulic fracturing; the high iodine-131 there was ascribed to urine from thyroid cancer patients being treated with iodine-131. None of the three cited references even mention hydraulic fracturing.

The sentence has the problems that it is misleading, POV, and WP:SYN. If the wiki article is going to beat up the EPA study for not including some substances, as is the intent of the above sentence, there should be a citation from a WP:RS noting that the study is deficient in leaving out iodine-131. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Clearly whoever wrote this is very passionate about this issue and has done some serious research. However, the language used in discussing the issue is not balanced or neutral, and sometimes in my opinion drives implications further than what the citations merit. The issue this article discusses is still a controversy, and it is certainly not appropriate for the article to one sided.

I will be editing this article a bit to try to make it more neutral, and possibly add in a few citations from counter points of view to show that there is not quite a consensus in the literature as far as this article makes it seem.

A few points I have issues with include the following: "One study suggests that hydraulic fracking is sickening and killing cows, horses, goats, llamas, chickens, dogs, cats, fish and other wildlife, as well as humans."

Secondly, the whole University of Texas section is a mess and reads like a research paper; this type of work does not belong in a wikipedia article, even though it contains citations galore.

Thirdly, many of the citations don't actually lead to the source in question; for example the citations in the earthquake section leads me to a search page on the USGS site. Also, there is a citation about an earthquake in 1967 in Colorado that is used in the article, and upon further search to find it, I see that it reads, "but more research is needed to establish if there is a connection for any of these recent cases."

This is not at all the point of view given by the author(s). If you want to assist me in making the article more neutral, please go ahead. However, substantial revisions need to be made before this article is acceptable.

Mandelbrony (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Issue concerning also this article

Issue concerning also this article is raised here. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Perma-tags removed

I've removed the tags. Unless there is something actionable other than "I don't like it", the tags don't belong here. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I restored clean-up tag as repetitions and wordiness are still issue. Beagel (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific, so I can address the problem you claim exists. Otherwise, the tag doesn't belong. Maintenance tags aren't used to brand an article or to hold articles hostage to demands. They are used to highlight precise problems that can be fixed, and they are used this way because the editor placing the tag can't fix it themselves. Wikipedia editors work to solve problems and improve the encyclopedia, not to brand articles as troublesome because someone doesn't like it. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Global warming

The 'Global warming' subsections deals with methane leakage from fracced wells. However, the current text is not US-specific but universal and duplicates information in Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing (actually, creating POV-fork as issues related to the Howarth studies have been discussed at the related article talk pages). To avoid POV-fork, at its present stage it should be removed from this article. However, I think it is an important topic also for this article and should include information how HF has influenced GHG emissions in the United States, its impact to the US international climate-related obligations etc. At the moment, no such information included. Beagel (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. The information was moved into Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Beagel (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Blown gas well in Clark, Wyoming

The source does not make it clear if the blow-out happened due to hydraulic fracturing or not. It seems that blow-out happened during drilling, that means before hydraulic fracturing? Beagel (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Repository for news items and speculation

This article should not be allowed to become a repository for news items and speculation. It must contain encyclopedic information on its subject. Some items (quite correctly removed from the main article Hydraulic fracturing)have recently been added here which are more in the nature of news items. These should be summarised and incoprorated into the main text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Martin, I fully agree. This article as also Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Hydraulic fracturing in the United States needs extensive cleaning-up. The problem you mentioned is not recent but dates back when this article was split-off from Hydraulic fracturing. I have moved some information here from other articles just to put the information in the right place first. However, that does not mean that there is no need for cleaning-up and rewriting. I have tried to do something but the workload is just little bit too much for me at the moment (and this topic is not my specific interest). Any volunteers taking up this task is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Reducing size

Both this article and Hydraulic fracturing in the United States are over 90kB in readable prose size, which according to SIZERULE means they are probably too big. A large part of the problem is duplication. I will be starting with crude measures - moving overly detailed info on the environment here (without prejudice against later removal) and merging /* Regulation */ into the corresponding section in Hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Then I'll try to replace a lot of the material from primary sources with summaries from secondary literature. I hope this meets with approval. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be right way forward. What concerns "Groundwater quality studies" moved from Hydraulic fracturing in the United States, this information is actually included in the water section. It needs a proper merger and cleanup to remove duplications. Beagel (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It's not going to be easy because the studies are so bloated with coverage of primary sources. There probably should not be a separate section on research, but I had to start somewhere. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tagging

Stoney1976 please articulate your concerns, based on what WP:NPOV actually says. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about massive POV edits

Believe fresh eyes could do this article some good, hence POV tag. Stoney1976 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What specific information do you feel is POV? If you believe fresh eyes could do some good, open a request for comment on specific areas of concern. VViking_TalkEdits 14:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Stoney1976 SEE ABOVE. You are not trying to talk, and this is not a valid reason for tagging. Please articulate a concrete concern under what WP:NPOV actually says. The way you are behaving is going to get attention, but not the kind you are seeking.Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think @Jytdog has reduced the POV and done this article a favor by cutting poorly sourced material and reports of primary studies that read like newspaper clippings. Since they catalogued problems without providing any context, they amounted to a POV. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Units?

"According to the EPA, approximately 144,000 such class II disposal wells in the US receive more than 2 billion US gallons (7.6 Gl) of wastewater each day.", US Gallons are unknown to people not from the USA. How many liters is that? What does "Gl" mean? -- Frap (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)