Against fracking

In first place, I still am against fracking, because the the chemicals used in the process to break up the soil and rock to remove the oil or gas from the ground.

If there were no danger of any water near or around, then I say it would be fine.

Here in northeastern Arizona, we have a huge aquifer of fresh water, and drilling for water or gas, of any kind should be against the law, and against polluting our water supply. Those chemicals they use to frack are highly poisonous to humans.

Those chemicals cannot be filtered out. What are you thinking, money over the lives of millions people? All who pass this should be put in prison for life.

Alan Brubaker,



(2) comments


I totally agree with you, Alan, and so does (Protect Our Water AZ). Check out our website for ideas on what can be done. We have had some successes as well as some defeats, but we're still at it.


Alan is right in so far as the tip of the iceberg that he mentioned. Like other matters, however, this issue is one of tradeoffs. It involves the weighing of the costs of hydraulic fracking versus the benefits to be gained. In this case, some of the costs are contamination of groundwater, methane pollution and its impact on climate change, air pollution impacts, exposure to toxic chemicals, blowouts due to gas explosion, waste disposal, large volume water use in water-deficient regions, increased truck traffic and crime, fracking-induced earthquakes, workplace safety infrastructure degradation, preterm births, high-risk pregnancies, asthma, migraine headaches; fatigue, nasal and sinus symptoms, and skin disorders over the last 10 years, according to a new study (Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Global Public Health, in February).

The benefits are an increase in production of an energy source which is destroying the planet earth as human habitat. This results in economic benefits denominated in increased corporate profits, which depend on the price of oil in the global market being reliably above the fracking break-even cost of about $50 per barrel, and, according to Forbes, an annual increase of about $2000 for those households nearest the fracking.

Is it just me, or is it beyond both logic and reason to continue to allow a process which entails such massive detriments and costs to humans, just for the sake of unreliable economic gain when that very process is organically dangerous, and the product is wrecking the only home we have in the universe? I favour a robust program of increased renewables, with nuclear backup, while tackling the underlying cause of the problem – overpopulation.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.