What the Frack?

"No one has the right to use America's rivers and America's Waterways that belong to all the people as a sewer. The banks of a river may belong to one man or one industry or one State, but the waters which flow between the banks should belong to all the people."—President Lyndon B. Johnson, signing the 1965 Clean Water Act

There's been a lot in the news lately about something called “fracking.” The natural gas industry and their customers benefit from it. But environmentalists and people who drink well water are fighting it. To understand why people love or hate it, let’s take a moment to explain just what it is.

Fracking is a slang term for hydro-fracturing, a process where water, sand and chemicals are injected into the earth at high pressure to fracture rock formations deep underground. This allows access to natural gas deposits that are playing hard to get.

Traditional drilling methods, used for over a century, brought gas to the surface simply by drilling vertically, with minimal environmental impact. (See "A," below.) However, most gas no longer resides in easily accessible reservoirs. Instead, it lies trapped within small fissures of rock. (See "B.") To extract the gas, vast amounts of water (with various chemicals added) are injected deep underground at extremely high pressure, thereby fracturing the rock (hence the term "fracking") and allowing the gas to escape. Sand injected along with the water helps to prop open the newly-created fissures (see "C.") and the gas can then rise to the surface through the fracking fluid.

Illustrations are from from "Hancock and the Marcellus Shale: Gas Extraction Along the Upper Delaware" by The Earth Institute Columbia University Urban Design Lab.

"One effect of benefit-cost analysis is to give any respectable engineer or economist a means for justifying almost any kind of project the national government wants to justify… Exclusive reliance on benefit-cost analysis has been one of the greatest threats to wise decisions in water development."—Gilbert F. White, unpublished paper, Columbia University, March 21, 1971

What are the advantages of fracking?

• An AARP Public Policy Institute analysis of heating costs for seniors found natural gas customers will average $542 to heat their homes this winter, fuel oil customers will average $2,675 and electric heat customers will average around $468, according to an article in the December 18, 2011 Star Ledger. (While oil prices rose in recent years, electric prices are tied to gas because of gas-fired power plants.) The increased supply—and therefore lower cost—of natural gas has come from fracking shale deposits in nearby states such as Pennsylvania
• The federal government projects that by 2035, 47 percent of gas produced in the U.S. will come from shale sources. That increased production is especially beneficial to New Jersey residents: 76 percent of New Jersey homes heat with gas, compared with 12 percent using fuel oil and kerosene and 11 percent that use electricity, according to Census Bureau data. (I, unfortunately, belong to the oil-poor group)

"Water and air, the two essential fluids on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans."—Jacques Cousteau (1910-1997) 

What are the disadvantages of fracking?

As opposed to traditional drilling, fracking requires:

• Vast amounts of water
• Various chemical lubricants, many of which are toxic. (Chemicals used in fracking are considered proprietary, and are therefore secret, ie, you're being poisoned on a need-to-know basis)

So why is the above important?

• The water used in fracking poses a major disposal problem. It ends up in reservoirs that can leak into groundwater
• There have been over a thousand instances of groundwater contamination in areas near fracking sites. Read all about it!
• Fracking has never been subject to an independent assessment of its environmental impact. (Although a study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] is currently being conducted in Washington, amid the objections from the oil and gas industries)
• Fracking isn't subject to federal regulation. (This was accomplished via an EPA exemption pushed through Congress by then Vice-President Dick Cheney in 2005)
• The full long-term environmental impact of fracking is unknown. (What better reason to go full-speed ahead!)

“We believe the natural gas industry should be subject to the same regulations as any other industry in the US. The natural gas in the ground isn't going anywhere. It's been there for millions of years and will remain there until disturbed. Groundwater, on the other hand, can take generations to recover once it's been contaminated. Once the damage is done, it cannot be undone. The safety of our groundwater supply is at risk.”—Frackaction.com

What is the stance of our altruistic Congress?

• In a hearing on Capitol Hill last May, Republican members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee struggled to make the case against an investigation by the EPA into fracking. The agency is already midway into its multi-year study
• Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) recently protested that the agency should not even be conducting the study. During the hearing, he seemed to suggest that the EPA study wasn’t needed because not enough people have died to warrant an investigation, according to earthjustice.org. So does that mean the Congressman from California is admitting that some people have died as a result of fracking’s impact on the environment—but not enough of them?
• Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) forced the Republicans’ star witness Michael J. Economides to admit that the oil and gas industry pays him about $1 million a year to testify on their behalf. So do you think he’d show up if the job were pro bono?
• A week before the May hearing, Duke University researchers unveiled a peer-reviewed study for publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that finds high methane levels in groundwater near where fracking has occurred. France’s conservative-controlled lower house of parliament took the first legislative step toward approving a nationwide ban on fracking. (So those pesky academics—and the French—are spoiling the fracking party due to some bothersome things called facts)

"You don't miss your drinking water until your well runs dry."—old country proverb

Is fracking being done in New Jersey?

Fracking has not yet been approved in New Jersey. It is currently being considered in Trenton, pending additional hearings. Environmentalists fighting the introduction of fracking into our small state have pointed to findings earlier this month by the EPA that fracking could cause groundwater pollution. The Delaware River Basin Commission is also looking into setting rules for fracking to safeguard the Delaware watershed.

State ratepayer advocate Stefanie Brand, describes cheap natural gas as a wonderful thing for ratepayers—but she wants savings to come with safety. "We have to see better (environmental) practices," Brand said in the Star Ledger, "Because we’re not solving any problem if the end result is contaminating our water supply."

Everything in life comes at a price. Are you willing to decrease the cost of your heating bills at the risk of contaminating your drinking water? If you go onto YouTube, you can see videos of people in other states lighting the water coming out of their faucets with a match. Not a pretty sight. This is a small state with a limited aquifer for drinking water. The question is: Are you feeling lucky?

Radioactive Postcards from Japan

"Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation… We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."—World Health Organization, 1956, before they signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on May 28, 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, not to issue statements on health and radioactivity without that IAEA’s approval.

Godzilla was borne of radiation; so was the IAEA.

When the nuclear plants in Japan began melting down and spewing out radiation, did you heave a sigh of relief that it was happening on the other side of the world and not in your own backyard? Think again. The weather patterns take the fallout from Japan across the Pacific and over the United States. Have you been reassured by news reports that by the time the radiation reaches our shores it is too dissipated to affect us? Really?

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to release new data showing that various milk and water supply samples from across the US are testing increasingly high for radioactive elements such as Iodine-131, Cesium-134, and Cesium-137, all of which are being emitted from the ongoing Fukushima Daiichia nuclear fallout. According to opendata.socrata.com, as of April 10, 2011, 23 US water supplies (including some in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey) have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131, and milk samples from at least three US locations have tested positive for Iodine-131 at levels exceeding EPA maximum containment levels (MCL).

But before going into details on this, let’s talk about radiation.

"There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period. Exposure to radionuclides, such as Iodine-131 and Cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water."—Jeff Patterson, DO, former President of Physicians for Social Responsibility

External radiation that we are exposed to includes everything from radiation leaking from the Japanese nuclear reactors to normal background radiation from space. It is external because it is outside of us. And as long as it remains outside of us, all is well. However, when it gets inside of us, it is called internal radiation and that is an entirely different story.

Internal radiation comes from radioactive elements that enter the body through inhalation, ingestion or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as Iodine-131, Cesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released into the sea and air around Fukushima increasingly concentrate along each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). After they enter the body, these elements—called internal emitters—migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone and brain, where they continuously irradiate small numbers of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation. Over many years, they can induce uncontrolled cell growth, better known as cancer. Many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, contributing to increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time. That's right, we're talking grandchildren here.

For instance, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurred in 1986. The World Health Organization in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. I guess they are still honoring their agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. In contrast, the 2009 report, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors, Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko and Alexey V. Nesterenko compiled and translated hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000. Somehow I missed that shocking statistic when it was announced as lead story on every news station in the US back in 2009—or was it?

"Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the 'affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl."—Professor Dimitro Godzinksy, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences

The grave effects of those internal emitters, mentioned earlier, are of great concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. Confusing the terms "external" and "internal," in terms of radiation, floods the news media with dangerous misinformation at a time when the public worldwide is seeking the truth about radiation's hazards. So let’s talk about that truth on a local level.

When it comes to water supplies, the EPA is only testing for radioactive Iodine-131. There are no readings or data available for cesium, uranium, or plutonium—all of which are being continuously emitted from Fukushima—even though these elements are all much more deadly than Iodine-131. However, we can only work with what they have collected, so I have presented what we know in the below Radiation in the US Water Supply chart.

Water is not the only problem. New EPA data just released on Sunday shows that at least three different milk samples from various parts of the US have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131 at levels that exceed the EPA maximum thresholds for safety, which is currently set at 3.0 pico Curies per Liter (pCi/l).

In Phoenix, Arizona, a milk sample taken on March 28, 2011, tested at 3.2 pCi/l. In Little Rock, Arkansas, a milk sample taken on March 30, 2011, tested at 8.9 pCi/l, which is almost three times the EPA limit. And, not surprisingly, in Hilo, Hawaii, a milk sample collected on April 4, 2011, tested at 18 pCi/l, a level six times the EPA maximum safety threshold. The same Hawaii sample also tested at 19 pCi/l for Cesium-137, which has a half life of 30 years, and 24 pCi/l for Cesium-134, which has a half life of just over two years.

Why is milk contamination significant? After all, not everyone drinks milk, anyway. Milk is considered a gauge of the overall condition of the food chain because cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as food crops and water supplies. So when cows' milk starts testing positive for high levels of radioactive elements, this is indicative of radioactive contamination of the entire food supply.

Radiation continues to leak from the Japanese nuclear plants, and those who advocate atomic energy interests will do their level best to silence or discredit any information that sounds negative about this energy source. Of course, we all know that our standard of living requires a never-ending supply of energy and it has to come from somewhere. That's on the assumption they we keep on living, business as usual.

What if... we began to question the real price we are paying to live in unsustainable homes with energy-devouring lifestyles? What if... we decided that as an investment in the future health of our families, it was essential to start lobbying for ways to decrease our need for the energy supplies that threaten our health and our national security? What if... everyone, on a grassroots level, began demanding affordable zero-energy homes, good public transportation and a fundamental rethinking of our consumption-based economy? If the late John Lennon could imagine a better world, then why not the rest of us?

"The rejection of consumerism arises out of the belief that the meaning of life does not and cannot consist in the consumption and accumulation of material things. The affirmation of simplicity arises out of the recognition that very little is needed to live well—that abundance is a state of mind, not a quantity of consumer products."—Samuel Alexander, lecturer, Melbourne Law School, and leader of Voluntary Simplicity movement (see www.simplicitycollective.com).