Please read these two papers.

The first describes emissions from oil and gas wells.

The second describes increased incidence of health problems among those living within 1km of oil or gas wells.

For the less technically inclined reviews are here and here .

Having read these papers, which of you fracking enthusiasts are willing to have a fracking well within 1km of your house and family?

Yes, fracking is safe.

The first report isn't even taken taken seriously by the authors themselves:

"Conclusion: While these results should be viewed as hypothesis generating..."

They should come back with larger, properly controlled, studies when they have finished flying alarmist kites.

The second:

"Name1, Name2, Name3, Name4, Name5, are employed by non-profit organizations whose mission is to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals."

At least they had the honesty to announce their confirmation bias early

I wasn't surprised to see that, as my initial thought was that the article read like it was written by a Greenpeace intern trying to raise alarm. I've no time for it right now. That is what the true purpose of peer review is, EM: It doesn't prove something right or wrong but helps people avoid wasting time.

We both know fracking and "traditional' drilling have been performed effectively now for many decades. A botched oil/gas well can leak in the same way as a cracked sewer. (Trace amounts of many of these chemicals can also come from other sources, and the samplers "Community-based monitoring" seem likely to be strongly biased in this instance. The language is certainly suggestive.) These are reasons for making sure that both are done properly, not a reason for banning the technology.

I've lived close to two nuclear power stations, and I would be just as happy to live just as close to oil/gas operations that were properly regulated. I would be much less willing to live near a windfarm development because of possible infrasound effects (and visual blight).

geoffchambers
I agree with you, it should be noted that no human endeavour is totally risk free.

If I had to, then given the choice, I think I'd rather have half a dozen modern well concealed gas well heads than half a dozen visible. audible 500ft wind turbines in the next field. I'd prefer them to a field full of PV panels as well. I'd probably be happier in the long term (with gas wells) than with the bypass currently being constructed within a kilometre on the D951 but most of the inhabitants in the commune will feel differently about the new road. It will make getting baguettes easier so even for me there is a positive. Solar and wind have none.

Fracking since 1949, 1 million fracking wells in the US, if there were actual health problems they'd, if you'll excuse the phrase, have been well and truly flushed out be now. It's just environmentalists doing what they do, telling lies.

Martin A
I spent 30 years happily living in Derby. Within a couple of miles we had

1. A rubbish incinerator, later including a recycling plant.
2. Rolls Royce and Associates Nuclear Reactor (Nuclear Subs for the use of) Facility
3. Severn Trent Sewage works
4. Albert Loom's scrap yard
5. British Celanese (Courtaulds)
6. An ambulance station.
7. A very large ASDA and not quite so large Sainsburys
8. A large gas storage facility
9. A bypass built about 10 years ago

We also had Elvaston Castle Park within walking distance. None of the above really caused be any issues or even impacted marginally on my life, occasional smells from 3 & 5 and noise from 9 was about it. Shortly after we left to live in France Severn-Trent built two wind turbines at the location of item 2. These can be seen for miles and certainly did have an impact visually. As they weren't working on our last visit to family I can't give you any other feedback.

In Entropic man's question from personal experience Shale Gas Extraction facilities aren't likely to cause any problems whereas Wind Turbines have an immediate impact.

Entropic Man

Have a read here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23756320

BBC story of a fracking site at Beckingham in Nottinghamshire - which is located next an RSPB site. The site has existed since the 1960's.

Martin A
I should have said I was agreeing with your basic point. These days the first 5 items in my list would have people on the streets protesting if there was any chance of them being built in their current locations.

The only popular demonstration in the 30 years I lived in Derby were by people protesting at NYNEX laying fibre optic infrastructure which involved digging up pavements and a few gardens. It delayed our getting fast internet for about 18 months. Not even the wind turbines created as much controversy before installation. They created a bit of a stir after they were built and for standing idle for months, but that's another story.

Geoff: "If the billions of euros currently channelled towards persuading governments to enact inapplicable laws to reduce carbon emissions were redirected to the reducing the health risks of the citizens of Washington County, we'd all be better off, wouldn't we?"

If I'm not mistaken, you and all here object strongly to subsidies being paid for wind and solar development. And yet, if I understand you correctly here, you are saying you'd like to use those billions to pay the very profitable oil and gas developers not to leak and spill their product, input chemicals and waste products on lands occupied by local people.

What did you have in mind? Paying them to do the job properly and cleanly - which they currently think is economically unjustifiable (else they'd be doing it)? Paying compensation to locals when the get sick (of course only if they can prove it was the oil & gas co.s fault)? Paying for the relocation of local populations away from the exploration?

So am I right that it is not subsidies you dislike per se, but the recipients? Oil and gas co.s are fine, eh?

Raff: There's no need for subsidies, the cost of proper health/safety/environment protections will simply come out of the extraction company's profits. Well, that's the theory, anyway.

Terry, so how do we "redirect" those billions into ensuring proper and safe practices? Do you mean with regulation? Do the regulations currently allow them to dump benzene in the air and frack fluid on the fields and roads etc and all we need is to write some rules? You know how the right loves rules and regulations. Or do you mean with enforcement, putting CEOs in jail if they break the rules? How does it work?

> If I'm not mistaken, you and all here object strongly to subsidies being paid for wind and solar development.

You _are_ mistaken.

What I object to isn't subsidy for wind and solar _development_ but the vastly overpriced continuous subsidy of the power _output_ that they are supposed to be generating.

Oil and gas companies might get tax breaks for oil field investigation, but they are taxed like buggery on their output, the complete opposite of solar and wind.

Robert Christopher

There was, until recently, an Army base 200 yards from my house, juat across the river at Lisnelly.

Which side were they on? Last I heard they were soldiers of the Queen.

Radical Rodent

Careful. Benzene in modern fuel mixes is carcinogenic.

I may disagree with what you say, but would prefer that you remain alive to say it.

Radical Rodent

Don't count on a linear dose response to benzene.
There is evidence that the response is nonlinear at low doses.

Stwgreen

Start digging here .