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benefit-cost analysis has been one of the greatest threats to wise decisions in water development."—Gilbert F. White, unpublished paper, Columbia University, March 21, 1971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?

Sweating the Small Stuff

Are you playing footsies with nanosilver? 

Photo is courtesy of Nanotechnology Citizen Engagement Organization which is located at 

http://www.nanoceo.net/nanoproducts_antibacterial.

I just read about a strange, new science. It’s called nanotechnology. Maybe it isn't so new to you, but I tend to lag behind the curve when it comes to new technologies.

Just what is nanotechnology? Well, it involves altering or building new materials from atoms. Researchers are working mostly with carbon and metals. These particles are smaller than a human hair and not visible to the eye. They can only be seen with powerful microscopes. Because these particles are so small, they often have unique properties that differ from the properties of the larger-scaled versions of, say, carbon or silver. So nanocarbon and nanosilver do not behave the same way as regular carbon or silver.

Why should we care? Like most things in science, nanomaterials have the potential to do great things or to do not-so-great things. They are currently being used in electronics, medicine, personal care products (like sunscreen and cosmetics) and clothing. Every day, new uses are being found for them. What is not fully understood is how well the particles stay in these products or whether exposure to nanoparticles is safe for the environment which, by the way, includes people.

Over the past 11 years, clothing manufacturers, mostly from China, South Korea and other Asian countries, have marketed a long list of clothing containing antimicrobial nanosilver, according to AOL News. What type of clothing? Bras, panties, men's underwear, jogging outfits and camping clothing have them. These products are sold as "odor-free" or "germ-proof" because of the properties of nanosilver.

Fullerenes, also known as bucky balls, are a type of nanoscale carbon. They have been used in cosmetics sold in Australia, Europe and the United States. Cosmetics with fullerenes have been removed from shelves in the European Union and Australia over safety concerns. Are they still sold in the U.S.? According to the Friends of the Earth, they are. Unfortunately, manufacturers may not list them as ingredients, so it is difficult to know to what extent they are used.

Who cares? Apparently, some pesky public health activists do. These party-poopers have concerns about the safety and health effects of exposure to these antimicrobial nanoparticles. Why? Because nanoparticles have not yet been thoroughly tested. Hmmmm. I guess that makes us all nano test pilots. Pretty cool, eh? And not just people, but plants and animals, too!

Silver is known to be toxic to aquatic life and plants. A recent study found that when socks impregnated with nanosilver are washed, silver particles end up in the drain water. Another found that nanosilver inhibits the growth of beneficial bacteria that help break down harmful chemicals in wastewater treatment plants. So why is that important? Let's track this: Nanoparticles wash out of clothing. Then they end up in our wastewater. They pass through water treatment plants. Finally, they end up in our waterways and oceans. Once that happens, nanosilver may affect organisms that live there. Nanoparticles may also affect people who drink and cook with the water. Basically, these little guys are slowly easing their way into our natural environments.

First, let’s talk aquatic life.

Nanosilver can affect the stuff we like to eat, and the stuff that our food likes to eat. Silver is more toxic than most other metals to many fresh- and salt-water organisms, ranging from phytoplankton and marine invertebrates (such as oysters and snails) to different types of fish. Apparently, it can affect these creatures in their immature stages.

Nanosilver can also affect plant life. At Duke University, biologist Ben Colman and his team of researchers exposed pond weeds to the same level of nanosilver that EPA studies had found in various water treatment facilities. What happened? Some of the species of plants were 22 percent smaller than identical plants that weren't subjected to the antibacterial agents. I guess you could call nanosilver anti-fertilizer.

Now let’s talk about people.

A Japanese study in 2009 found that nanoparticles of titanium oxide could be transferred from pregnant mice to their offspring, resulting in brain and nervous system damage as well as reduced sperm in male offspring. This is of concern because titanium dioxide is one of the most widely used nanoparticles, found in cosmetics, sunscreens, food packaging, paints, wall coatings, dirt repellant coatings for windows and car coatings.

Factories that use this technology expose people to a greater amount of nanoparticles than one would typically encounter in the use of a product. It stands to reason, however, that if these particles are safe then that should not pose a problem, right?

Well, word of advice, if you plan to work in a manufacturing facility that uses nanoparticles, consider holding your breath. Nanoparticles in a paint factory in China were linked to the deaths of two women, and another five were left with permanent lung damage according to a Reuters report. The women had worked in the factory for 5 to 13 months. English biophysicist Dr. Mae-Wan Ho wrote in an Institute of Science in Society report that these first cases of "suspected nanotoxicity" reinforced concerns that nanotechnology is racing ahead in an unregulated market despite mounting evidence that many nanoingredients are toxic. What! Corporate profits ahead of public safety? Nooooooooooo! 

So in a world filled with all sorts of things that make it hard to relax, we now have a new army of tiny invaders that could do great things for society—or not. This should make any responsible citizen want to spring into action.

But popular literature tells us not to sweat the small stuff, so I think I’ll just go take a nap.

Postscript: To see a small sample of products made with nanosilver, go to: http://howardhughes.trinity.duke.edu/blogs/2009/06/21/nanosilver-research-baby-products.  For a more complete list, go to http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/search/?keywords=silver&company=0&country_origin=0&categories=0&subcategories=0&search=1. Not all products listed are available in the U.S.