Isn't that special...

and do you think our new gov is going to do anything about it? we are being sold out, simple as that.
 
The title of the article is misleading. The change was to NOT allow further dumping in waterways. i.e., currently, treatment plants HAVE been dumping treated water into waterways. The new law states that those who currently do will continue to be allowed, but any new treatment facilities will have to dispose of the water elsewhere. i.e., they will not allow greater amounts of "dumping" than we currently see.

Further, its also a bit misleading, in that this is treated water being dumped, not raw water from the operations.

I still don't like that. They should be able to take out most impurities in treatment, like they do with sewage. But the big one thats tough to control are the salts. In my mind its A$$ backwards. If new treatment plants are built with better technology which better handles the salts, those are the ones you can allow to dispose of the treated water in waterways. The old plants which can't handle salts, those are the ones you cut back on. You want to encourage new plants where you can have some control over their processes and effectiveness, not give a break to the old plants that aren't designed for this stuff!
 
It all stinks no matter how you look at it. Fish while you can!
 
I say treat it then send it to texas for drinking water
 
pcray1231 wrote:
The title of the article is misleading.

Are the waters from Fracking? Are they tainted by that process? Are they dumped into waterways? Does the State allow it? From the article (quick review), the answers: yes, yes, yes and yes. Verdict: nothing misleading.
 
When I read it, I was at first under the impression that a law had changed to allow dumping of frackwater directly into rivers, and it had me quite alarmed. If thats not what others first think when they read the headline, I apologize, and stand corrected.

Upon further investigation, I realized that the status quo was that TREATED water can be discharged into waterways, and the change was to DISALLOW an increased use of this practice. These existing treatment plants have been treating frack fluid to full capacity and discharging it for at least 30 years. What the new law does is prevent the volume being discharged from increasing due to Marcellus Shale and the building of new treatment plants, thus hopefully saving us from increasing the level of contaminants already present in our water supply.

A more accurate and less alarmist headline would read something like the following:

"PA prohibits increased discharges of treated frack fluid into waterways."
 
The Industry thanks you for your euphemisms.
 
Just calling it treated water as though it's now clean is also misleading. That "treated water" still contains toxic substances as the plants' treatment systems can't remove certain toxins in the frackwater. It is absolutely shameful that all of our legislators, our governor, and our governor-elect have abandoned their citizens and are ruining the futures of our children and grandchildren in Pennsylvania.

I include them all because not one of them has given the fracking issue the level of critical importance it required, regardless of whether they were for or against a severance tax and more oversight and regulation. They all have dropped the ball.
 
Well, Ryan, I think you are wrong that "they all" dropped the ball. Collectively they dropped the ball, but many individuals want to proceed carefully with heavy oversight and contribution from the industry to the cost of that oversight. It is our job to find out who they are and support them and to find out who opposes this and remove them. I can say with certainty the chances have not improved over the last few months.
 
The one thing that really stuck out was that Bromide reacts with Chlorine to form Halomethanes which are carcinogens , that part is really scary. I wonder how many other combinations are deadly AFTER the mixin? and then there's Barium? "Drink the water and shut the #OOPS# up ya bunch of Wussies" ED RENDELL
 
The one thing that really stuck out was that Bromide reacts with Chlorine to form Halomethanes which are carcinogens , that part is really scary.

Why? This happens in the ocean as a natural cycle all the time, as well as in your body if you eat much salt. It's typical of any salt water environment, as bromine and chlorine are both nearly universally present in salts. There are at least a dozen, probably more halomethanes, including freon, chloroform, halon (the stuff in fire extinguishers, I think), etc. I'm sure some are more carcinogenic than others.

We live in a soup of carcinogens. Everything causes cancer. The important thing to know is which ones are the worst, and what concentrations are too much?

and then there's Barium?

Barium is never found free like other heavy metals, it's usually in compound form, almost always salts. Barium salts don't bioaccumulate like other heavy metals, so repeated light exposure is not as dangerous as lead, mercury, etc. However, there are many varieties of barium salts. Some, the soluble ones, are poisonous in high doses, and can cause serious complications indeed. Others, like barium sulfate, are insoluble and thus non-toxic, even used commonly in drugs.

I don't know enough details about the treatment process to comment intelligently. The proper questions are what specific barium compounds are present and what are their concentrations?
 
When we had a polution insident where I worked, they always said the answer to polution was dilution. They never considered how long and how far it had to travel and who was affected down stream.

On Jan 9th at 10pm the the Science Channel will replay an episode of Cold Diggers. This episode will show how a well is fracked and give you a good idea of what happens at a fracking site.
 
When we had a polution insident where I worked, they always said the answer to polution was dilution.

There's no single answer. It depends on what type of pollution. There are some types that cannot be tolerated even in small amounts. Others can be tolerated in small amounts, and dilution may be fine, but often these are the types of pollution where there are many sources. For instance, a stream may be able to safely dilute runoff from a single farm, maybe even a dozen farms, but when it's recieving runoff from thousands you got a problem, there's just not enough water to dilute it. So which one do you go after, as each is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back?

Today, most of the "death nail" types of pollution have been controlled. We still get accidental spills of some pretty nasty stuff, and we still have problems left over from days of old, such as AMD and seepage of various substances from soil below industrial plants. But we've largely done away with the institutionalized new sources of complete ruinization for waterways. However, we still struggle with the gradual problems. Sewage, treated frackwater, agricultural runoff, acid rain, storm runoff from developed areas, taking away groundwater recharge sites, etc. A little of any of them aren't going to render a stream dead, and unfortunately, to live our way of life we have to put up with some of it. But we have to understand that every little bit degrades water quality a little bit. We have to monitor levels of all of them, and take all reasonable measures to limit the damage as much as we can.

We don't always do a good job of that. It's too easy for someone to say, "this little bit ain't gonna do much in all that water, it'll be diluted to the point it doesn't matter." And they're right, but their little bit is beind added to everyone else's little bit, and collectively, its a problem.
 
JackM wrote:
Well, Ryan, I think you are wrong that "they all" dropped the ball. Collectively they dropped the ball, but many individuals want to proceed carefully with heavy oversight and contribution from the industry to the cost of that oversight. It is our job to find out who they are and support them and to find out who opposes this and remove them. I can say with certainty the chances have not improved over the last few months.

Ah I had a feeling you'd come to the defense. I'm not saying some of them don't want to proceed cautiously, etc. However none of them made it the priority it needed to be (ie. refusing to let the issue lie or be tabled, etc.) That is my opinion as a voter and conservationist after following the issue for a few years.
 
I think it is appropriate to come to the defense of people you lumped in with others despite the fact that they care as much or more than you do that we get it right on this issue. Hopefully, you aren't part of the problem by helping elect representatives that are hostile to environmental concerns.
 
JackM wrote:
I think it is appropriate to come to the defense of people you lumped in with others despite the fact that they care as much or more than you do that we get it right on this issue. Hopefully, you aren't part of the problem by helping elect representatives that are hostile to environmental concerns.

I didn't lump anyone in together other than to say that even those that are for a more cautious approach with adequate regulation and oversight failed to make it the priority it demands to be. Then others failed to even care to put even a modicum of regualtion or severance tax planning on them. Together they have all combined to fail the citizens of PA. Not being a party hack, I'm not beholden to the whole partisan politics game. Hopefuly you aren't part of the problem either by failing to level any criticism when the ball is dropped, even by your own.
 
I didn't vote wrong, but I suspect you did and I'm still going to pay for that mistake.
 
Insinuate all you want, I know I contacted my legislators numerous times and told them exactly what was needed regarding the drilling. I did what I could do to let them know what I supported How exactly do you vote wrong when both sides take money from the gas industry? Also I'm unaware that there was a citizens vote on a severance tax? That opportunity was pissed away by all of our legislators because it wasn't much of a priority to those that were for it which allowed those that were against to easily stifle it.
 
pcray..........where does chlorine occur naturally in the ocean? i don't know what you do for a living but you'd make a great lobbyist for the gas companies , you seem to try and debunk every statement the folks on here make if it's negative towards the marcellus project. would you be so kind as to explain why?
 
Back
Top