Comments: John Zeiger

No Fracking Way: Ban Hydrofracking in NY

Thanks for the insightful comment, Snizzle. However, I disagree with your point that the radiation is safe because it is natural. In fact, when the DEC tested 12 vertical wells in Marcellus Shale in 2008 and 2009, they found that "the wastewater at 10 of them also contained a radioactive derivative of uranium at levels hundreds of times as high as the federal limit for people to drink safely."( Is New York’s Marcellus Shale Too Hot to Handle?). As well, I agree that in a perfect world, hydrofracking would be "relatively safe." However, because of human error, spills can happen. Because of the hazardous chemicals and the volume of water used, even one spill could be extremely harmful to the aquifer.

On the other hand, I argee that the disposal of the wastewater is a huge problem. In PA, wastewater has been dumped into streams after minimal treatment, causing levels of total dissolved solids (TDS)to increase. Although mostly harmless to people, TDS can increase stream salinity, and negatively affect the color, odor and taste of the water. Radium and other harmful chemicals are often also not removed during processing. Unfortunately, drilling in NYS could release about 3 billion gallons of wastewater annually, and the state right now would be unable to treat or store it properly.

http://www.propublica.org/feature/drill-wastewater-disposal-options-in-n...
http://www.propublica.org/feature/is-the-marcellus-shale-too-hot-to-hand...

No Fracking Way: Ban Hydrofracking in NY

10,000 dead fish can't be wrong.
http://catskillmountainkeeper.org/node/993

And Now, Pachaurigate

Thanks for the great article.

No Fracking Way: Ban Hydrofracking in NY

I am sorry but you are misinformed. Everything I wrote in this essay is completely factual; I challenge you to expose anything more than a typo. Please don't insult my credibility unless you can back up your statements.

Fracking does release radioactivity. Normally occurring radioactive material (NORM) deep underground often can be brought to the surface on drilling equipment and fracking fluid. This toxic substance has been known to accumulate as sediments in holding tanks and ponds used by drilling companies.
http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/node/290
http://wri.eas.cornell.edu/gas_wells_waste.html
(Notice that I can back up my statements).

Secondly, why is it ok if fracking fluid is only .5% or even .05% harmful chemicals? Many of these chemicals are poisonous at extremely low concentrations, and are often regulated as parts per million.

Thirdly, your statement about common kitchen chemicals isn't completely truthful. Some of the chemicals used in fracking (like formaldehyde or benzene--a carcinogen) are rarely if ever used by the average cook or cleaner. And even if your statement was true, would you want high volumes of toxic kitchen chemicals leaking into your groundwater?

Lastly, there are many recorded incidents of toxic fracking fluids polluting wells or contaminating groundwater or streams. Many of these instances were self-recorded by gas drilling companies. Therefore, please don't try to tell me groundwater won't be contaminated.

Social Technologies and the Environment: Has Big Coal Met Its Match?

With the economic recession hurting green businesses and alternate power, Senate Republicans blocking renewable energy in the stimulus bill, and all-powerful Big Coal, it's easy to be pessemistic. Thank you Mr. Walker for reminding us that we are winning: using the Internet and other social networking technology, Americans are gaining the upper hand over the coal lobby. And by the way, I watched clean coal carolers on youtube, and it was hilarious(in its blatant fakeness).

Deer vs. the Environment

Firstly, I never said hunting stops sprawl. In fact, although I am aware that sprawl is seriously detrimental to rural environments, I didn't promote a solution to sprawl. Instead, I believe that, in Westchester, the overpopulation of deer is decimating the local environment, so, to control the deer population, it is necesary to permit bowhunting of deer.

Deer vs. the Environment

I think your point is valid; people are causing a lot of environmental destruction in Westchester. However, complaining about mall contruction doesn't solve our overpopulation of deer. Anyway, before we protect more open space, we should preserve what we already have. Why should we spend millions of dollars to buy more land if we let our current propertiess be compeletely overrun? And condemning sprawl doesn't solve the problem, but hunting does. Anyway, humane methods of solving the problem, like birth control, would be too costly, and would need to be readministered anually, and conservation funds are limited as it is. Hunting, on the other hand, would be free.

The De-Malling of America

I think this article is overly optumistic. Even if covered malls are losing ground, strip malls, which are worse for the environment, definately are not. The solution is not to hope that the economic situation will make everything better;instead, we need new regulations, incentives, and mass transport to decrease sprawl and car exhaust and encourage downtowns.