<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Busted, Part Deux! Fracking Chemicals Found in Wyoming Water Supply</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/28/usgs-finds-fracking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/28/usgs-finds-fracking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 10:40:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: MRUGeol</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/28/usgs-finds-fracking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/#comment-219115</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MRUGeol]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=43285#comment-219115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tina, did you even read the report or did you just quick read the abstract, look on page 28 (or 38 of the pdf) of the report in the summary &quot;eochemical data 
presented a well-defined pattern of geochemical evolution 
based on natural rock-water and microbially mediated 
processes, strongly suggesting that the resulting water quality 
is derived from these natural processes with no effects from gas-production activities&quot;  - http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5273/sir2012-5273.pdf

This is more like 

Busted, Part Trois: Tina Casey did not read the USGS report]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tina, did you even read the report or did you just quick read the abstract, look on page 28 (or 38 of the pdf) of the report in the summary &#8220;eochemical data<br />
presented a well-defined pattern of geochemical evolution<br />
based on natural rock-water and microbially mediated<br />
processes, strongly suggesting that the resulting water quality<br />
is derived from these natural processes with no effects from gas-production activities&#8221;  &#8211; <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5273/sir2012-5273.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5273/sir2012-5273.pdf</a></p>
<p>This is more like </p>
<p>Busted, Part Trois: Tina Casey did not read the USGS report</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: San Diego Loves Green &#8211; New Mobile Methane Surveyor Could Put An End To The Fracking Debate</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/28/usgs-finds-fracking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/#comment-153751</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[San Diego Loves Green &#8211; New Mobile Methane Surveyor Could Put An End To The Fracking Debate]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 17:23:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=43285#comment-153751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] have included EPA and United States Geological Survey (USGS) studies that found evidence of fracking chemicals in drinking water supplies in Pavilion Wyoming. Fracking was also linked to the December, 2011 earthquake around Youngstown, [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] have included EPA and United States Geological Survey (USGS) studies that found evidence of fracking chemicals in drinking water supplies in Pavilion Wyoming. Fracking was also linked to the December, 2011 earthquake around Youngstown, [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: New Matt Damon Film Promised Land Explores Fracking Hazards</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/28/usgs-finds-fracking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/#comment-135340</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[New Matt Damon Film Promised Land Explores Fracking Hazards]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:12:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=43285#comment-135340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] budget documentary Gasland. Both are set in Pennsylvania, and both make a connection between fracking and pollution that has eluded investigators for decades. Public awareness about the risks of fracking has also [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] budget documentary Gasland. Both are set in Pennsylvania, and both make a connection between fracking and pollution that has eluded investigators for decades. Public awareness about the risks of fracking has also [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob_Wallace</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/28/usgs-finds-fracking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/#comment-134683</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bob_Wallace]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2012 04:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=43285#comment-134683</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, here&#039;s a fact for you.  If you pumped in a thimbfull you&#039;d fail. 
We do not know how much is getting into the ground water.

Estimates put the volume of the Ogallala aquifer at over one million billion gallons of water.  It would take some considerate amount of stuff pumped in before we hit a dangerous level.

I am not purposing we damage our water supply, I&#039;m just trying to understand whether this is a real problem or something more like the tinfoil hat panic we&#039;ve seen over floride and smart meters.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, here&#8217;s a fact for you.  If you pumped in a thimbfull you&#8217;d fail.<br />
We do not know how much is getting into the ground water.</p>
<p>Estimates put the volume of the Ogallala aquifer at over one million billion gallons of water.  It would take some considerate amount of stuff pumped in before we hit a dangerous level.</p>
<p>I am not purposing we damage our water supply, I&#8217;m just trying to understand whether this is a real problem or something more like the tinfoil hat panic we&#8217;ve seen over floride and smart meters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald Pollari</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/28/usgs-finds-fracking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/#comment-134681</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Donald Pollari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2012 03:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=43285#comment-134681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#039;s a fact for you. If I intentionally wanted to poison ground water I would pump toxic chemicals into the ground at high pressures.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s a fact for you. If I intentionally wanted to poison ground water I would pump toxic chemicals into the ground at high pressures.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob_Wallace</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/28/usgs-finds-fracking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/#comment-134636</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bob_Wallace]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=43285#comment-134636</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You would, but what actual data do we have?


&quot;Benzene is among the 20 most widely used chemicals in the United States. It is used mainly as a solvent (a substance that can dissolve or extract other substances) and as a starting material in making other chemicals. 

In the past it was also commonly used as a gasoline additive, but this use has been greatly reduced in recent decades.Benzene is also a natural part of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke.

Benzene is known to cause cancer, based on evidence from studies in both people and laboratory animals. The link between benzene and cancer has largely focused on leukemia and cancers of other blood cells.

The Occupational Safety &amp; Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency responsible for health and safety regulations in most workplaces, limits workplace exposure to benzene in the air to 1 ppm (part per million) during an average workday and a maximum of 5 ppm over any 15-minute period. 

When working at potentially higher exposure levels, OSHA requires employers to provide personal protective equipment such as respirators.

The EPA limited the percentage of benzene allowed in gasoline to an average of 1% (with a maximum of 5%) as of 1990. As of 2011, this limit is further reduced to an average of 0.62% (with a maximum of 1.3%)

.The EPA limits concentrations of benzene in drinking water to 5 ppb (parts per billion). Some states may have lower limits. 

Likewise, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set a limit of 5 ppb in bottled water.&quot;

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/IntheWorkplace/benzene

A &quot;drop&quot; of benzene in the Ogallala is not likely to hurt us.  

Millions of gallons would likely cause some problems.

We don&#039;t know the scale of the problem.  I tried to read through the report the claim is based on but my eyes glazed over...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1197/OF12-1197.pdf

If someone has a good chemistry background perhaps they could translate.  Does the report state &gt;5 ppb?  Or that trace amounts are staring to show?




]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You would, but what actual data do we have?</p>
<p>&#8220;Benzene is among the 20 most widely used chemicals in the United States. It is used mainly as a solvent (a substance that can dissolve or extract other substances) and as a starting material in making other chemicals. </p>
<p>In the past it was also commonly used as a gasoline additive, but this use has been greatly reduced in recent decades.Benzene is also a natural part of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke.</p>
<p>Benzene is known to cause cancer, based on evidence from studies in both people and laboratory animals. The link between benzene and cancer has largely focused on leukemia and cancers of other blood cells.</p>
<p>The Occupational Safety &amp; Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency responsible for health and safety regulations in most workplaces, limits workplace exposure to benzene in the air to 1 ppm (part per million) during an average workday and a maximum of 5 ppm over any 15-minute period. </p>
<p>When working at potentially higher exposure levels, OSHA requires employers to provide personal protective equipment such as respirators.</p>
<p>The EPA limited the percentage of benzene allowed in gasoline to an average of 1% (with a maximum of 5%) as of 1990. As of 2011, this limit is further reduced to an average of 0.62% (with a maximum of 1.3%)</p>
<p>.The EPA limits concentrations of benzene in drinking water to 5 ppb (parts per billion). Some states may have lower limits. </p>
<p>Likewise, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set a limit of 5 ppb in bottled water.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/IntheWorkplace/benzene" rel="nofollow">http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/IntheWorkplace/benzene</a></p>
<p>A &#8220;drop&#8221; of benzene in the Ogallala is not likely to hurt us.  </p>
<p>Millions of gallons would likely cause some problems.</p>
<p>We don&#8217;t know the scale of the problem.  I tried to read through the report the claim is based on but my eyes glazed over&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1197/OF12-1197.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1197/OF12-1197.pdf</a></p>
<p>If someone has a good chemistry background perhaps they could translate.  Does the report state &gt;5 ppb?  Or that trace amounts are staring to show?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jburt56</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/28/usgs-finds-fracking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/#comment-134635</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jburt56]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=43285#comment-134635</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You have a problem if the Ogallala aquifer is contaminated. . .]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You have a problem if the Ogallala aquifer is contaminated. . .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob_Wallace</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/28/usgs-finds-fracking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/#comment-134617</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bob_Wallace]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=43285#comment-134617</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The picture - it&#039;s art.  


Are you a credible source and how would we know?


That&#039;s not an attack, it&#039;s an honest question.  I&#039;m befuddled by the lack of a truly objective body who is tracking this problem, or possibly non-problem.  I&#039;d love to find a &quot;Consumer Reports&quot; that deals with what is know on a &quot;here&#039;s the facts&quot; basis.


There is hype on both sides of the issue.  The natural gas companies refuse to state what chemicals they are using and claim to do no evil.  People on the anti-fracking side seem to invent problems at times.  I&#039;d really like to know the facts.


I see natural gas as a mixed blessing/curse.  


It does release about half as much CO2 per unit electricity genrated as does coal.  And does so without the mercury and other pollutants of coal.  NG plants are relatively cheap and fast to build.  Utility companies are shutting down the worst coal plants (thank you, PBO and the EPA) and replacing with NG generation.


Additionaly, NG plants are highly dispatchable (and suffer a fuel cost).  If there&#039;s wind or solar available then the NG plant will get shut down, avoiding CO2 production.  Coal can&#039;t be turned on/off quickly and what happens at times is that the coal plant keeps on burning and the wind turbines get &#039;parked&#039;.


There&#039;s the leaked methane problem.  Possibly/probably fixable.  Or at least largely fixable.


Then there&#039;s fracking.


If fracking is screwing up a lot of our water then we&#039;ve got a problem.  We might need to put pressure on to stop fracking.


If fracking is screwing up very little of our water then we might want to live with that.  We can filter water and after a few years we should be able to remove those chemicals or at least dilute them below the dangerous level.


Best if we mess up no water at all, but if the choice is between a climate ruined for hundreds of years or a small fraction of our water supply contaminated for a decade or two I think we have to vote in favor of stoping runaway climate change.


Facts.  I need me some facts....






]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The picture &#8211; it&#8217;s art.  </p>
<p>Are you a credible source and how would we know?</p>
<p>That&#8217;s not an attack, it&#8217;s an honest question.  I&#8217;m befuddled by the lack of a truly objective body who is tracking this problem, or possibly non-problem.  I&#8217;d love to find a &#8220;Consumer Reports&#8221; that deals with what is know on a &#8220;here&#8217;s the facts&#8221; basis.</p>
<p>There is hype on both sides of the issue.  The natural gas companies refuse to state what chemicals they are using and claim to do no evil.  People on the anti-fracking side seem to invent problems at times.  I&#8217;d really like to know the facts.</p>
<p>I see natural gas as a mixed blessing/curse.  </p>
<p>It does release about half as much CO2 per unit electricity genrated as does coal.  And does so without the mercury and other pollutants of coal.  NG plants are relatively cheap and fast to build.  Utility companies are shutting down the worst coal plants (thank you, PBO and the EPA) and replacing with NG generation.</p>
<p>Additionaly, NG plants are highly dispatchable (and suffer a fuel cost).  If there&#8217;s wind or solar available then the NG plant will get shut down, avoiding CO2 production.  Coal can&#8217;t be turned on/off quickly and what happens at times is that the coal plant keeps on burning and the wind turbines get &#8216;parked&#8217;.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s the leaked methane problem.  Possibly/probably fixable.  Or at least largely fixable.</p>
<p>Then there&#8217;s fracking.</p>
<p>If fracking is screwing up a lot of our water then we&#8217;ve got a problem.  We might need to put pressure on to stop fracking.</p>
<p>If fracking is screwing up very little of our water then we might want to live with that.  We can filter water and after a few years we should be able to remove those chemicals or at least dilute them below the dangerous level.</p>
<p>Best if we mess up no water at all, but if the choice is between a climate ruined for hundreds of years or a small fraction of our water supply contaminated for a decade or two I think we have to vote in favor of stoping runaway climate change.</p>
<p>Facts.  I need me some facts&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Euripides</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/28/usgs-finds-fracking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/#comment-134591</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Euripides]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=43285#comment-134591</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can you tell me what you mean by &#039;contamination&#039; and WHAT checmicals are in the groundwater at unsafe levels for human health?
There is no hard evidence. And there is no evidence of fracking chemicals in the groundwater.
I mean, if you know more than me, who&#039;s actually read the reports, and have an idea of what I&#039;m looking at, then please enlighten me.
Stop being alarmist.
Oh, and good journalism would state that if you use a picture, a caption of what the picture is of, when it was taken, and who took it, should be provided.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you tell me what you mean by &#8216;contamination&#8217; and WHAT checmicals are in the groundwater at unsafe levels for human health?<br />
There is no hard evidence. And there is no evidence of fracking chemicals in the groundwater.<br />
I mean, if you know more than me, who&#8217;s actually read the reports, and have an idea of what I&#8217;m looking at, then please enlighten me.<br />
Stop being alarmist.<br />
Oh, and good journalism would state that if you use a picture, a caption of what the picture is of, when it was taken, and who took it, should be provided.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
