Fracking?

[Laurie4b]

This board is always a good place to get informed and alternate views on issues. I am wondering about the pros and cons of fracking, just as a citizen who must vote for candidates who are for or against. 

 

Back in the day when my kids were studying environmental science in high school, they used a standard text (Miller, IIRC) which was very much for taking care of the environment. The year the text was published predated actual fracking technology I think, or at least they spoke of gas and oil extraction from shale as a potential new area in which technology might help solve some energy problems. (If there is something wrong with that statement, chalk it up to my memory, not to the book. It's been a few years and it wasn't a hot topic yet so I didn't cue in particularly.) 

 

Now, it seems like there is a lot of opposition to fracking. Can anyone fill me in on the current science? 

[chiguirre]

Here's a recent New Yorker article about how fracking has caused the emergence of earthquakes in Oklahoma. It's very scary and not a typical environmental issue.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/13/weather-underground

[livetoread]

My general understanding, after admittedly superficial research, is that it might be better than coal, but it still has concerns, especially the earthquakes. So to me, the question is, is it good or bad compared to what? It doesn't seem to be the worst option, but it has its own problems.

[Happy]

I live in fracking country...

 

The Barnett shale has been a hot property for oil and gas people for the last...oh 8 years or so....give or take. I'm going on my recollection of when all the gas well started popping up everywhere. In the last three or so years there have been a lot of little/meduim earthquakes in those same area.

 

All kinds of studies (funded in part by big gas companies) state that fracking has no impact--those earth quakes would have happened anyway. Hmmmmm it just sounds fishy to me. It's too much of a coincidence that the earthquakes started so soon after fracking became a wide spread practice.

 

Just last week a study revealed much more ground water contamination from fracking than first suspected. Oh joy. I have a well....

 

I'm also miffed that the Texas government made it impossible for a city to prevent fracking within their city limits.

 

Enough. I'm all for cheap energy, but I believe these companies are wrecking the environment--there is a need for more research and investigation. What's the harm in going a little bit slower on everything? Oh yeah...it's all about $$$$$.

 

 

[Slartibartfast]

My general understanding, after admittedly superficial research, is that it might be better than coal, but it still has concerns, especially the earthquakes. So to me, the question is, is it good or bad compared to what? It doesn't seem to be the worst option, but it has its own problems.

 

Neither are good. Coal is the second largest domestic contributor to CO2 emissions in the United States.  

 

While the earthquakes in Oklahoma are small there is going to be severe structural damage over a course of time. 

 

Of course, Oklahoma has now passed a state law preventing communities from restricting fracking in their area. 

[imagine.more]

I live in fracking country...

 

The Barnett shale has been a hot property for oil and gas people for the last...oh 8 years or so....give or take. I'm going on my recollection of when all the gas well started popping up everywhere. In the last three or so years there have been a lot of little/meduim earthquakes in those same area.

 

All kinds of studies (funded in part by big gas companies) state that fracking has no impact--those earth quakes would have happened anyway. Hmmmmm it just sounds fishy to me. It's too much of a coincidence that the earthquakes started so soon after fracking became a wide spread practice.

 

Just last week a study revealed much more ground water contamination from fracking than first suspected. Oh joy. I have a well....

 

 

When we lived in WV fracking came in and our well water became a mess. Super hard, orange rings everywhere, my hair could not get clean in the shower, it smelled off, and it ruined my entire cloth diaper stash beyond repair. We never drank the well water, I just could never trust it. It was very frustrating. Our neighbors were all old-fashioned country Republicans and not concerned with the environment much but they hated the impact fracking had on the area and started fighting it.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that fracking is kind of like strip mining.  It's such a radical attack on the environment that it has unintended consequences that are unforeseeable in addition to the predictable results.  I oppose it.  I think that we should be working much harder on renewable energy sources and making distributed systems affordable and easy to maintain.

[marbel]

I was surprised by this article in the Wall Street Journal: 

 

Fracking Has Had No ‘Widespread’ Impact on Drinking Water, EPA Finds

 

ETA:   I checked the link; I can't see the whole thing and it says to subscribe or sign in.  But I had been able to see the whole thing when I searched for it earlier.  I guess I am automatically subscribed since we started getting the print edition.  Anyway hope it is useful/helpful. 

[Slartibartfast]

I was surprised by this article in the Wall Street Journal: 

Fracking Has Had No ‘Widespread’ Impact on Drinking Water, EPA Finds

 

I checked the link; I can't see the whole thing and it says to subscribe or sign in. But I am not subscribed so don't know how I could see the whole thing... anyway hope it is useful/helpful.

 

Here is the actual report so people can read it.

 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf

[idnib]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0HL4L6Pa-4

 

One of my favorite clips on the topic. (Keep watching after the first little bit.)

[marbel]

Here is the actual report so people can read it.

 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf

 

Thanks.  I should/could have taken the time to look for that!

 

[Carrie12345]

I live along the Marcellus Shale, and fracking scares the bejeezus out of me.  I do not understand the science/evidence enough to confidently back my opinion in an academic manner, but I understand just enough to not want to be a test subject.

[Amy in NH]

Cons: ruins the ground water and causes earthquakes

Pros: puts money in rich peoples' pockets

[emzhengjiu]

"An SMU-led seismology team finds that high volumes of wastewater injection combined with saltwater (brine) extraction from natural gas wells is the most likely cause of earthquakes occurring near Azle, Texas, from late 2013 through spring 2014."

 

http://www.smu.edu/News/2015/earthquakes-azle-report-21april2015

 

Fracking scares me.  There are too many unknown factors for me to believe it's safe.

[Excelsior! Academy]

Interrupting this thread to showcase my immaturity.  I can't help but giggle every time I read or hear fracking.  It sounds like a bad word, albeit a "legal" one.  Hee, hee.  Carry on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On a side note, I live in OK so I know fracking is no laughing matter.

[Aelwydd]

 

Of course, Oklahoma has now passed a state law preventing communities from restricting fracking in their area.

Yet another proof that Texas and Oklahoma are two sides of the same dirty coin.

 

Texas just passed a similar bill.

 

Yay freedom!

[Lanny]

The E.P.A., which almost always sides with Environmentalists, a few weeks ago, released their report that  concluded that Fracking does not contaminate water supplies. They found that in  the rare cases where a water supply has been contaminated, it was because of faulty materials or technique, by the company involved, but that the technology normally doesn't contaminate water.  Fracking has helped the U.S. become much less dependent on the import of petroleum from overseas. In fact, for Oil & Gas combined, the U.S. is now the #1 producer in the world, ahead of Russia and other countries. This makes the U.S. much more stable,,from an economic viewpoint and also from a national security viewpoint. Those of us who are old enough to remember around 1979, remember waiting in line in a gas station, where we were able to buy a maximum of 8 gallons of gas when it was our turn at the pump.  The amount of exploration that will be done in the USA now, now that the price of petroleum on the world market has decreased substantially, will remain greatly reduced, as long as the world market price of petroleum is at/near the current levels, because at current market price of petroleum, the cost of producing additional supply won't cover the cost of production, so that it bad for the producers . Fracking has also helped the U.S. Dollar become much stronger than it has been for many years, which is a Godsend to those of us who are Overseas Americans with income in U.S. Dollars and for those in the USA who purchase imported goods (cars, TVs, Cell phones, etc.) Purchasing power is increased with a stronger U.S. Dollar.

[Carrie12345]

The E.P.A., which almost always sides with Environmentalists, a few weeks ago, released their report that  concluded that Fracking does not contaminate water supplies. They found that in  the rare cases where a water supply has been contaminated, it was because of faulty materials or technique, by the company involved, but that the technology normally doesn't contaminate water. 

 

And guns don't kill people, industrial farming doesn't necessitate pollution, cars don't crash themselves, and no child is left behind.

Plenty of things are safe in theory, yet horribly dangerous in human practice.

[Happy]

 It's not really all that "rare".  Fracking stinks. The heavy machinery/trucks ruin roadways, they cause pollution, and they make the land visually very ugly. Drive thru the Marshall, TX area and tell me how it smells and looks, it's crap. A huge problem, as Lanny quoted, is that there is too much faulty techniques, materials, and shady company activity. My brother worked for years for Chesapeake in Texas and Oklahoma. He had dozens of stories about cheating, unethical activities, and basically no one giving a crap. It makes very few people wealthy, but the companies love to go in to these tiny, poor communities and tell the people how rich they'll get from gas and mineral rights. I thank any god out there that NY had the balls to keep a fracking moratorium, now if we can just keep the gas storage facility from being built on Seneca Lake, that will be heavenly.

I think whatever regulations there are may not be enforced with the gusto they need to be.

 

I'm pretty anti-regulation on most days, but I'm tired of huge corporate entities running rough over individual rights...whether it's property owners and fracking or eminent domain or whatever....I'm tired of big business these days.

[Melissa in Australia]

My Dh's cousin is a geologist. She says that fracking is bad bad bad and if the general public only realized how bad it is on the environment they would rise up and stop it.

[livetoread]

I agree that there are known serious problems with it, and probably unknown serious problems with it. But again, compared to what?

 

How do we meet our energy needs? Is fracking worse than depending on other counties (Edited to add who might use methods even worse for our world.) Worse than coal production? Are other methods of energy production also prone to lax regulation and faulty equipment resulting in disastrous environmental consequences?

 

I wish our country was willing to get serious about energy methods that were better for the environment. I wish it was willing to more closely regulate the dirty ones we still have to rely on until the better ones can take over. I honestly don't know if fracking is the best alternative given the will of the country, but I'm willing to consider the notion (and I should add I'm a tree-hugging liberal who is also more realist than idealist). As ugly as it is, maybe it is still better to do it than not do it.

[JessReplanted]

I live in fracking country...

 

The Barnett shale has been a hot property for oil and gas people for the last...oh 8 years or so....give or take. I'm going on my recollection of when all the gas well started popping up everywhere. In the last three or so years there have been a lot of little/meduim earthquakes in those same area.

 

All kinds of studies (funded in part by big gas companies) state that fracking has no impact--those earth quakes would have happened anyway. Hmmmmm it just sounds fishy to me. It's too much of a coincidence that the earthquakes started so soon after fracking became a wide spread practice.

 

Just last week a study revealed much more ground water contamination from fracking than first suspected. Oh joy. I have a well....

 

I'm also miffed that the Texas government made it impossible for a city to prevent fracking within their city limits.

 

Enough. I'm all for cheap energy, but I believe these companies are wrecking the environment--there is a need for more research and investigation. What's the harm in going a little bit slower on everything? Oh yeah...it's all about $$$$$.

 

We must live in the same area. Yes, earthquakes, contaminated water, and a government that disregards the majority vote. It makes me sick.

 

[JessReplanted]

Here is an article about the water contamination: http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20150618-new-study-reveals-potential-contamination.ece

[Laurie4b]

I agree that there are known serious problems with it, and probably unknown serious problems with it. But again, compared to what?

 

How do we meet our energy needs? Is fracking worse than depending on other counties (Edited to add who might use methods even worse for our world.) Worse than coal production? Are other methods of energy production also prone to lax regulation and faulty equipment resulting in disastrous environmental consequences?

 

I wish our country was willing to get serious about energy methods that were better for the environment. I wish it was willing to more closely regulate the dirty ones we still have to rely on until the better ones can take over. I honestly don't know if fracking is the best alternative given the will of the country, but I'm willing to consider the notion (and I should add I'm a tree-hugging liberal who is also more realist than idealist). As ugly as it is, maybe it is still better to do it than not do it.

 

I wish I'd articulated my question in this way: is it better for the environment and us as a whole than oil and coal?  "Earthquakes" is a big objection to overcome, though, I must say.

[chiguirre]

 "Earthquakes" is a big objection to overcome, though, I must say.

I agree! The water pollution and extra truck traffic are more familiar environmental problems. There certainly serious but we know what we're discussing and what we've decided in similar situations.

 

Triggering earthquakes is a whole new level of danger for the whole population of a wide area. I don't know how we could address this level of risk. The companies that are causing the problem don't have the resources to pay for the consequences if they mess up the fault system enough to trigger a New Madrid size earthquake. What do we do then? Who is going to pay?

[Bluegoat]

I used to live in a rural area, and we had our well quit.  It had never been a great well, but we found out a few years later that when it quit there had been an experimental fracking well in the area.  That is totally anecdotal of course, but it makes one ponder - it cost us $10,000 to dig a new well, so not small change.

 

The big problem I have with these things is that even if they can theoretically be safe in some places if done with care, it is not like mining companies and their regulatory agencies have ever proved themselves in the least bit trustworthy.  The regulation is crap, they don't follow their own agreements, they don't do the clean-ups once they leave.  I'm not in the US and generally I consider our government more reliable than most Americans consider theirs, but in the case of the regulation of natural resources, they have a terrible history (and I am sorry to say it is even worse with Canadian mining companies in developing nations.) 

 

TBH I am not really for cheap energy though I know how big a problem it is when it gets expensive, it affects our lives and those who aren't as comfortable even more.  But it is only when energy gets expensive that it seems that we become serious about reducing our use and looking at alternate sources.  And cheap energy is what allows us to waste so many other resources as well, on things like stupid Happy Meal toys and new phones every year and so on.

[Happy]

I wish I'd articulated my question in this way: is it better for the environment and us as a whole than oil and coal?  "Earthquakes" is a big objection to overcome, though, I must say.

I worry about earthquakes because I know we don't build in quite the same way an earthquake prone area does... people are having foundation and structural issues in places where it's just not expected because of those quakes. We have our fair share of bad soil = bad foundations, plus summer storms that tear things up. One thing I've always depended on is my dirt staying put. Bothers me a lot when it doesn't.  

 

But the bigger fear to me is water contamination. When the ground water is gone--used up or spoiled with icky chemicals, how will we live here?

 

Not fun. I do not want to depend on other nations for our energy, but I also don't want to spoil our own nation either.

I've always been pro-oil/gas here, but not these days. I feel those industries have taken advantage of my support and trust over the years.

[Laurie4b]

 

 

TBH I am not really for cheap energy though I know how big a problem it is when it gets expensive, it affects our lives and those who aren't as comfortable even more.  But it is only when energy gets expensive that it seems that we become serious about reducing our use and looking at alternate sources.  And cheap energy is what allows us to waste so many other resources as well, on things like stupid Happy Meal toys and new phones every year and so on.

 

This is unfortunately, true. I know that when gas approached $4 per gallon, I seriously altered my driving patterns. Now that the price is down lower, I have retained the patterns, but I wonder if it stayed low or got lower, would those patterns begin to whittle away? 

 

If we were all middle class and higher, I'd be less ambivalent about higher energy prices. But as you said, there are people who already struggle, who have less ability to cut back and make choices, and less ability to pay more. 

[Happy]

We must live in the same area. Yes, earthquakes, contaminated water, and a government that disregards the majority vote. It makes me sick.

 

I'm near I-35 W in northern Tarrant county. Since I'm in real estate I work in Tarrant, Parker, Wise, Johnson, and Denton counties a lot, especially country properties. I see gas wells everywhere.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I wish our country was willing to get serious about energy methods that were better for the environment.

 

Limiting dangerous and damaging energy production methods and requiring strict monitoring of and compliance with safety and environmental practices will make energy costs in this country rise exponentially. Consumers will get angry about prices, and they'll change their consumption habits, thereby putting the squeeze on energy companies. THAT is the only thing that will make energy producers care about developing safe, alternative sources. There will have to be a painful mid-term period of limited resources and high prices before alternative methods will begin to provide what we need. The industry doesn't want to deal with that, consumers don't want to pay more or consume less voluntarily, and elected officials just want to keep their corporate cash rolling in and their voters voting for them no matter what the cost. 

 

 

Positive changes are going to hurt, and no one wants to deal with it. Eventually we'll be forced to, though :(

[Bluegoat]

This is unfortunately, true. I know that when gas approached $4 per gallon, I seriously altered my driving patterns. Now that the price is down lower, I have retained the patterns, but I wonder if it stayed low or got lower, would those patterns begin to whittle away? 

 

If we were all middle class and higher, I'd be less ambivalent about higher energy prices. But as you said, there are people who already struggle, who have less ability to cut back and make choices, and less ability to pay more. 

 

The thing is though, this will eventually happen one way or another.  Ideally we would make conscious choices to devolve our energy use over time and compensate in other ways, but there is no government will for that.  And that is honestly probably in part because they know it will lose them votes in the short term as well as lobby pressure.

 

So increasing prices over time seems at least better than a huge disaster all at once.  And even with no energy and going back to some sort of pre-industral lifestyle, that has to be better than contaminating our water so we can't drink or eat.

 

It drives me crazy that simple things like building communities and zoning and such so that people don't need to rely on cars much doesn't happen.  It makes sense for people to be able to walk or take public transport to where they work, to be able to walk to their local shops.  It is easy to build that way. Not only would it be more energy efficient, it would be healthier, cheaper, and most people enjoy communities built like that a lot more as well.  Thi sis what is driving a lot of the demographic shift to city centers, but there are still a lot of suburbs being built, and even the ones that try to give access to shops don't usually have employment mixed in.

[Truscifi]

I wish I'd articulated my question in this way: is it better for the environment and us as a whole than oil and coal?  "Earthquakes" is a big objection to overcome, though, I must say.

 

From what I've read about it, no. It just trades one set of problems for another. If you're looking for people to vote for based on this issue, look for someone who supports a move to renewable energy resources.

[Lady Florida.]

Interrupting this thread to showcase my immaturity.  I can't help but giggle every time I read or hear fracking.  It sounds like a bad word, albeit a "legal" one.  Hee, hee.  Carry on.

 

 

 

Well in your defense anyone familiar with Battlestar Galactica knows that frak and frakking were their versions of the F word. :)

 

The E.P.A., which almost always sides with Environmentalists, a few weeks ago, released their report that  concluded that Fracking does not contaminate water supplies. They found that in  the rare cases where a water supply has been contaminated, it was because of faulty materials or technique, by the company involved, but that the technology normally doesn't contaminate water. 

 

They also pointed out that in many cases there were not accurate water quality studies pre and post fracking, so they did not know the quality of the water before fracking came to a particular area. Therefore, they don't know if the current water quality is related to fracking. That was a small (in amount of words) qualifier in a large study, but it should not be ignored.

 

They also state that the focus was only on drinking water resources. They state that they did not examine water resources used by agriculture or industry nor did they examine the effect on ecosystems.

 

Many of the wells they studied were in Southern and Western Texas where drinking water depletion is a concern. In a section discussing depletion of drinking water (rather than possible contamination) they stated that there is a higher impact on drinking water quantity.

 

While the above might sound like cherry-picking, it's important to not discount those concerns.

 

I suggest anyone either pro or anti fracking read that study in full.

[Amy in NH]

I agree that there are known serious problems with it, and probably unknown serious problems with it. But again, compared to what?

 

How do we meet our energy needs? Is fracking worse than depending on other counties (Edited to add who might use methods even worse for our world.) Worse than coal production? Are other methods of energy production also prone to lax regulation and faulty equipment resulting in disastrous environmental consequences?

 

I wish our country was willing to get serious about energy methods that were better for the environment. I wish it was willing to more closely regulate the dirty ones we still have to rely on until the better ones can take over. I honestly don't know if fracking is the best alternative given the will of the country, but I'm willing to consider the notion (and I should add I'm a tree-hugging liberal who is also more realist than idealist). As ugly as it is, maybe it is still better to do it than not do it.

 

I would say it is worse in the sense that remediating groundwater is no joke, and all living things on Earth need water to continue living.

 

How about we go 100% with locally-sourced renewable resources?

 

[Katy]

I haven't read all the responses, but here's my thoughts.  I live in Oklahoma, and it can be controversial. We have several friends who work for major oil companies.  There have always been earthquakes, and no one knows if the increase is related or not.

 

One thing that concerns me is that I was initially against fracking- I saw videos on 20/20 or some news show like that about the water in Pennsylvania being contaminated with natural gas because of fracking.  But since then I saw an expose that proved gas in those wells long predated fracking.  There are court and real estate records that go back more than 20 years.  It turned out blaming the fracking was complete fraud.  So now I wonder if all the claims about fracking are just from people with their own agenda.  Color my cynical.

 

Also, generally it's better to get oil domestically.  It's not better for the environment to get oil from Asia, where there are much fewer safety regulations, and then ship it across the world (risking spills and wasting energy), when we could get oil here. It's safer, both environmentally and in terms of wars and foreign policy, to strive for energy independence.

 

ETA: also, the physics doesn't bear out for renewable resources yet.  Solar and wind aren't efficient enough to power everything, and they are very expensive in comparison, especially when you consider how often the panels must be replaced, and how much maintenance wind requires (not to mention eagle deaths, etc)..  Nuclear would be ideal from an economic perspective, but it's scary for people to accept, even if it's much safer than other options (including renewable options).

[chiguirre]

Nuclear would be ideal from an economic perspective, but it's scary for people to accept, even if it's much safer than other options (including renewable options).

 

This peeked my interest. Why do you think nuclear energy is much safer than other options given the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima? They left huge swathes of land uninhabitable for decades.

[Katy]

This peeked my interest. Why do you think nuclear energy is much safer than other options given the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima? They left huge swathes of land uninhabitable for decades.

 

Mmmm...  it's one of those things that are true even if not intuitive, like Freakonomics.  Here's a couple articles, though there are many books about this out, if you want to explore in more detail.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-make-electricity-according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/09/14/why-the-safest-form-of-power-is-also-the-most-fear.aspx

[chiguirre]

Mmmm...  it's one of those things that are true even if not intuitive, like Freakonomics.  Here's a couple articles, though there are many books about this out, if you want to explore in more detail.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-make-electricity-according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/09/14/why-the-safest-form-of-power-is-also-the-most-fear.aspx

Okay, but they're only considering excess deaths from accidents, not the economic impact of having to establish huge zones of exclusion for decades (maybe centuries for Chernobyl). That's a massive cost they're not including for nuclear energy.

 

And to bring this back to fracking, the increase in seismic activity that we've observed and that most reputable geologists tie to fracking (even if the OK Geologic Survey isn't allowed to say it publicly) isn't being included in the calculations of its externalities.

[Jane in NC]

Renewables at the moment cannot fill the American desire for cheap energy--and plenty of it.

 

Personally I think we need to change the paradigm, i.e. all consume less energy.  But that is not going to happen. 

 

So we need to pick and choose to find the least harmful energy sources.  And we need to consider that we have an antique grid that needs investment.

 

France's use of nuclear energy involves smaller reactors. Maybe that is the way to go.  I would certainly like to see more wind generators but coastal communities seem offended by the thought of a windmill in their visual space.  (The book Cape Wind demonstrates this well.)

 

Solar farms are popping up in the Carolinas--good news there.

 

My feeling about fracking is that companies should tell communities what they are pumping into the earth  They refuse and say this is proprietary information.  But how does a community react to potential contamination if they don't know what they are cleaning up?  Until the industry is more forthcoming, I don't want to consider fracking.

[Bluegoat]

  I would certainly like to see more wind generators but coastal communities seem offended by the thought of a windmill in their visual space.  (The book Cape Wind demonstrates this well.)

 

 

 

Maybe offer them either that of a nice little reactor....

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Nuclear energy use CREATES materials that have to be segregated from the public for safety reasons for hundreds of thousands of years.  That is longer than the time that people have been on the earth, and there is no way, NO SURE WAY to accomplish this.  Hence it is literally insane.

[wendy not in HI]

I don't know anything, really, about fracking, though this conversation has been really interesting to read.  I didn't realize that it can cause earthquakes.  That, in itself sounds like something out of a sci fi book... And should pretty much tell you that it's not really a great thing.  

 

Anyway, it's funny how when you guys start talking about something here at the hive, the topic seems to magically appear in other places.  

 

I read this article yesterday.  So strange:

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/fracking-whats-killing-the-babies-of-vernal-utah-20150622

[Tsuga]

I live along the Marcellus Shale, and fracking scares the bejeezus out of me.  I do not understand the science/evidence enough to confidently back my opinion in an academic manner, but I understand just enough to not want to be a test subject.

 

Honestly, I think we should be saying this about so many more things.

 

Scientifically, the evidence doesn't seem overwhelming either way, particularly considering the issues with global warming and other fuel sources.

 

Same with GMOs.

 

We don't know enough about it. I don't want to be a test subject. I'm very pro-science but this isn't science... it's industry, and science doesn't have an answer for it.

[Bluegoat]

Honestly, I think we should be saying this about so many more things.

 

Scientifically, the evidence doesn't seem overwhelming either way, particularly considering the issues with global warming and other fuel sources.

 

Same with GMOs.

 

We don't know enough about it. I don't want to be a test subject. I'm very pro-science but this isn't science... it's industry, and science doesn't have an answer for it.

 

It's kind of funny, the way choosing to accept/use a particular technology or power becomes conflated with being "pro-science".  People seem to think that we become powerless to make a decision one a technological capacity exists as if our role is totally passive.  So a group - like some Mennonites say - decide they don't want a particular technology because they think it is going to be detrimental to their lives in an important way, and the argument is that therefore they are anti-science or anti-progress.

 

There is a very strange leap there and I would be very interested to know where that line of thinking originated.  It seems quite clear who it benefits.