http://grist.org/list/epa-this-water-is-fine-apart-from-all-the-methane/
This article reports that high levels of methane were found in water samples tested in Dimock, PA – levels that one study literally described as “explosive”. However, according to the EPA, the water is still safe to drink, since methane isn’t actually harmful when ingested. However, the water still poses a huge safety risk for the people of Dimock, as it could potentially cause explosions or pose other dangers. It is likely that the water was contaminated as a result of fracking.
I think the someone indignant tone of this article is a fair reaction. To be honest, the attitude of the EPA in this situation angers me somewhat as well. Doesn’t the EPA exist specifically for the purpose of ensuring that environmental conditions are safe for everyone? The idea of a community’s water quality being deemed as merely acceptable passable by the EPA and therefore not requiring further attention doesn’t sit right with me. Sure, methane is technically safe to drink; however, it seems absurd to me that the EPA would leave things at that. After all, there is still methane in the water.
I live about an hour away from Dimock, so this article hit home for me. Honestly, it’s scary to imagine that this could easily happen in my own community, or communities close by where my friends and family live. And personally, if it were my community, I would be furious that the EPA is not doing more to ensure the quality of my drinking water and my safety.
I think that this issue also demonstrates the importance of independent testing to corroborate the findings of the EPA. Honestly, I really don’t feel at all qualified to make any judgment claims about the trustworthiness of the EPA, although some of the discussions we’ve had in class have made me question it. However, I think in any case where scientific research is being collected, and especially in cases where it leads to the establishment of policies or decisions that can affect health and safety, several different groups should independently collect data to ensure that the conclusions reached are correct.
As a sidenote, one of the things that occurred to me when reading this article is the relationship between pollution and contamination, and the popular trend to be I think it’s important for anyone who targets the issue of overconsumption of bottled water to remember that in many parts of the world, including the United States, the water isn’t actually safe to drink. I worry what the effects of an initiative to eliminate bottled water on Notre Dame’s campus would be if a similar problem were to occur here and our own water supply was contaminated.
I also am not completely advised on the EPA's testing procedures, but it seems here, as the article said, that there is a disconnect from what is in the EPA reports and what was found by independent testing (although it also makes me wonder what are the procedures of the independent testers as well.)
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the fact that the EPA seems to have made hurried efforts to declare the water as acceptable possibly indicates pressure from fracking companies to calm any allegations of water contamination. If the EPA is really answering to the demands of the energy industry, then I agree they are not really doing their job. I also thought that it is possible they were hurried to claim the water is safe, because if it is unsafe, what exactly are they supposed to do about it? The tragic thing about water contamination is that once groundwater is contaminated, it is difficult to remedy. I think blueivy sort of touched on this that there are many places where this contamination has occurred and it could be an increasing problem in the US. However, I'm a bit confused about blueivy's last sentence. I'm sure if our water was contaminated we would be allowed to have bottled water. However, the argument to eliminate bottled water is because our water is not contaminated, but instead we are choosing to drink bottled water that causes water problems in other parts of the world. It is also not just about the water itself, but the plastic bottles it comes in and the unnecessary waste and pollution that comes from their production.
Regardless of whether or not the consumption of methane is harmful to the human body, why is there methane in the water!? Why is it so difficult to get access to pure, clean water? It was mentioned in the article that ethylene glycol, a chemical associated with fracking, was also found in the water. The article and blueivy could have expanded on the highly contested issue of fracking as a root cause of this water contamination. The act of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) by energy companies has spurred great criticism in the past and was even highlighted in the film "Gasland". The use of fracking by energy companies has also been the cause of large methane explosions in the past. Although the inaccuracy of data by the EPA is an issue in this case, in a world where energy companies are economically and even politically dominant, perhaps they are the ones we should target.
ReplyDeleteIt definitely seems like the water isn't the real issue here, but the presence of the methane. The EPA's focus should be on determining the source of the methane and then figuring out how to prevent it from spreading. The water study is important; after all, "contaminated water" sounds more pressing and immediate to many than "a methane leak" or something that doesn't seem to directly affect peoples' quality of life. Perhaps the EPA is investigating the source of the methane? Or perhaps, as dharmabum notes, the truth of the situation is that the EPA is responding to pressure from the fracking companies. Either way, this situation is alarming and has the potential to get much worse. The article also noted other toxic chemicals in the water. If the groundwater is contaminated, this will lead to health and financial problems. People shouldn't have to worry about being forced to buy bottled water because their water is toxic, but that might be the case if this situation is left alone to get worse.
ReplyDelete