I just wanted to write about this new water softener that is put out by a company called Water Tech located in Carrollton Texas. They have a water softener like no other. It is called the Reionator and it does something that I have never seen before and has a warranty that others do not provide. Here are some benefits;
1. No scale build up; Prevents scale build up in pipes, water fixtures and water using appliances
2. Atleast 10% energy savings; Conditioned water ensures efficient operation and long life of water appliances
3. State of the Art Control Valve; 1" electronic metered, fully programmable valve
4. Save on soap products; Soft water produces more intense cleaning. You will use up to 50% less soap.
5. WQA gold seal certified; Certified to NSF standards 42 and 44
6. So slippery feel; Leaves no slippery residue on the skin
7. Limited life time warranty; Best warranty in the industry, Lifetime warranty on the tank, media and PC board.
This is perfect for city water as it will remove up to 3 ppm of chlorine taste and odor. It still uses salt or potassium to regenerate but what water softener can remove chlorine.
I have spoken to many water filtration guys and they love it, there is one company in Houston TX that sells at least 15 a month. We have just begun to sell them and have installed one in Frisco Texas and have another install this week. This is what I have been looking for as far as for city water. I don't have to sell and install a carbon prefilter because this gets rid of chlorine that is bad for you, dries your skin as well as softens water, plus you get a lifetime warranty on top of that. The great thing is that the price is under $2,500.00 I have not seen anyone else do that.
You can check it out at http://www.watertech.com/our_products/classic.htm
Information on water softeners, water filters, reverse osmosis systems, water wells, water well equipment, soft water, low cost water softeners, water softener reviews, the best water softener
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Fluoride, is it really safe?
For decades, fluoride has been marketed and heralded as essential for good dental hygiene and used in most toothpastes and mouthwashes. In addition, parents have been routinely encouraged to give their kids cavity-fighting fluoride treatments when they visit the dentist.
Beginning in the late 1940s, aided by mass industry lead lobbying campaigns, the government encouraged municipal water authorities to add fluoride to their community’s drinking water. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), approximately 70 percent of the U.S. population ingests fluoride through their community drinking water today and they want this percentage to continue to climb. This is in stark contrast to other developed European nations were fluoride is rarely added to drinking water – Britain provides only about 10 percent of their population with fluoridated water.
The “experts” and the government told us fluoride would strengthen tooth enamel, help prevent tooth decay and is, of course, perfectly safe.
“Community water fluoridation is an equitable, cost-effective, and cost-saving method of delivering fluoride to most people,” noted Dr. William Maas, director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health.
But that was then and this is now.
In a surprising reversal, last month EPA’s announced that it intends to lower the maximum amount of fluoride in drinking water because of growing evidence supporting the chemical’s possible deleterious effects to children’s health.
In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences report that found dental fluorosis – caused by too much fluoride – capable of putting children at risk of developing other dental problems including the breakdown of tooth enamel, discoloration and pitting.
January’s EPA recommendation reversal was made following a revised risk assessment study that found 2 out of 5 adolescents had tooth streaking or spottiness and some pitting as a result of excessive fluoride. In addition, other studies have found excessive ingestion of fluoride capable of increasing the risk of brittle bones leading to fractures and debilitating bone abnormalities.
There have always been fluoride critics who questioned the chemical’s safety and challenged the decision to use fluoride in municipal drinking water. According to the Los Angeles Times, back in 2005, “the heads of 11 EPA unions, including those representing the agency’s scientists, demanded that EPA reduce the permissible level of added fluoride in water to zero, citing research suggesting it can cause cancer. Other studies have pointed to neurotoxicity and hormone disruption from excessive fluoride”.
It has taken the government more than 60 years to recognize – some would argue admit – that American children have been overexposed to this toxic, potentially harmful chemical.
In response to the EPA’s sudden announcement, Jane Houlihan, senior vice-president of the Washington based non-profit Environmental Working Group, said, “this decision is another signal to the public to take care when it comes to exposures to industrial chemicals. What is considered safe today won’t necessarily be thought safe tomorrow.”
Our government has a pretty abysmal track record when it comes acknowledging the potential health risks associated with certain chemicals, particularly when its agencies have already determined these products as “safe”, encouraged, and in some cases mandated their use. So it is somewhat encouraging to see the EPA acknowledging the need to revise their position on fluoride and should be commended for it.
Nonetheless, here is yet another example of why consumers, especially parents, need to be vigilant, do their own research and understand that sometimes the “experts” and the government can be wrong.
NOTE: A reverse osmosis system is needed to remove fluoride from drinking water
Fluoride, is it really safe?
For decades, fluoride has been marketed and heralded as essential for good dental hygiene and used in most toothpastes and mouthwashes. In addition, parents have been routinely encouraged to give their kids cavity-fighting fluoride treatments when they visit the dentist.
Beginning in the late 1940s, aided by mass industry lead lobbying campaigns, the government encouraged municipal water authorities to add fluoride to their community’s drinking water. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), approximately 70 percent of the U.S. population ingests fluoride through their community drinking water today and they want this percentage to continue to climb. This is in stark contrast to other developed European nations were fluoride is rarely added to drinking water – Britain provides only about 10 percent of their population with fluoridated water.
The “experts” and the government told us fluoride would strengthen tooth enamel, help prevent tooth decay and is, of course, perfectly safe.
“Community water fluoridation is an equitable, cost-effective, and cost-saving method of delivering fluoride to most people,” noted Dr. William Maas, director of CDC’s Division of Oral Health.
But that was then and this is now.
In a surprising reversal, last month EPA’s announced that it intends to lower the maximum amount of fluoride in drinking water because of growing evidence supporting the chemical’s possible deleterious effects to children’s health.
In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences report that found dental fluorosis – caused by too much fluoride – capable of putting children at risk of developing other dental problems including the breakdown of tooth enamel, discoloration and pitting.
January’s EPA recommendation reversal was made following a revised risk assessment study that found 2 out of 5 adolescents had tooth streaking or spottiness and some pitting as a result of excessive fluoride. In addition, other studies have found excessive ingestion of fluoride capable of increasing the risk of brittle bones leading to fractures and debilitating bone abnormalities.
There have always been fluoride critics who questioned the chemical’s safety and challenged the decision to use fluoride in municipal drinking water. According to the Los Angeles Times, back in 2005, “the heads of 11 EPA unions, including those representing the agency’s scientists, demanded that EPA reduce the permissible level of added fluoride in water to zero, citing research suggesting it can cause cancer. Other studies have pointed to neurotoxicity and hormone disruption from excessive fluoride”.
It has taken the government more than 60 years to recognize – some would argue admit – that American children have been overexposed to this toxic, potentially harmful chemical.
In response to the EPA’s sudden announcement, Jane Houlihan, senior vice-president of the Washington based non-profit Environmental Working Group, said, “this decision is another signal to the public to take care when it comes to exposures to industrial chemicals. What is considered safe today won’t necessarily be thought safe tomorrow.”
Our government has a pretty abysmal track record when it comes acknowledging the potential health risks associated with certain chemicals, particularly when its agencies have already determined these products as “safe”, encouraged, and in some cases mandated their use. So it is somewhat encouraging to see the EPA acknowledging the need to revise their position on fluoride and should be commended for it.
Nonetheless, here is yet another example of why consumers, especially parents, need to be vigilant, do their own research and understand that sometimes the “experts” and the government can be wrong.
NOTE: A reverse osmosis system is needed to remove fluoride from drinking water
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Bad Smelling Water
The other day I was installing a water softener and 5 stage reverse osmosis system in Frisco Tx. I could not believe the smell of the water in that city. It smelled just like freshly turned soil. Yes that is correct, freshly turned soil. I brought some home and let my daughter smell it and she told me the same thing, it smelled like freshly turned soil. I live on a water well and have a water softener and a carbon filter because I have a little iron, hard water and some sulphur. But to smell water that has the odor of soil is something I have never run across. It makes me wonder what exactly is in the water. I do not blame the municipality but it is odd to me to have such an odor. I am glad they got a reverse osmosis drinking water system so I can know for sure that their water is not only soft but they also have purified drinking water as well. If your water has an odor I would suggest you stop wasting money on buying bottled water and get yourself a Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water System, that way you know that your water is clean because you saw it get cleaned and don't have to take the word of someone you don't know. Check out the pic of what we installed below.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Get safe drinking water
I'm writing this really to link you to the comments from a PH.D on water quality. http://www.wcponline.com/pdf/1101On%20Tap.pdf We often times take our water quality for granted. We trust our municipalities with the way our water is treated and what's in it. They are not perfect because they are people just like you and I. So I am not coming down on them because they have a huge responsibility to keep our municipal water treated for the safety of a whole community, what a huge burden. We need to take our own actions to protect ourselves and our families in any case that our public servants have over looked something or just made a mistake. That is why recommend a Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water System. Most people would rather have bottled water and that is my point. Bottled water is made from Reverse Osmosis Systems, so you can get bottled water at your sink for little to nothing in comparison to what you are paying for bottled water on a yearly basis. Consider a Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water System. This is our system and is sold for $300.00 to include shipping.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
What's with all the fracking
The drinking water in some 19 states may have been rendered less than safe for, well, drinking due to a controversial oil drilling technique called fracking. A recent Congressional investigation reveals that no oil and gas companies have gotten permits for using diesel fuel for fracking in an apparent violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974, and with unknown effects on public health.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemical additives including diesel fuel (which helps to dissolve other chemicals into the fluid) into a well, far below the earth's surface. Fissures are created and propped up in the rock formations so that natural gas and oil can more readily flow out of the well. But environmentalists and regulators have become increasingly concerned that the fracking chemicals---including toluene, xylene and benzene, a carcinogen, which are all from diesel gas---are seeping out into underground sources of drinking water, in violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act.
In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, Congressional investigators charged that fracking violates the Safe Water Drinking Act, the January 31st New York Times reports. From 2005 to 2009, oil and gas service companies including Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services injected 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel into onshore wells, in 19 states, as Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), and Diana DeGette (D-CO) write in the letter:
The New York Times further notes that, while oil and gas companies have 'acknowledged using diesel fuel in their fracking fluids,' they have rejected the charge that doing so was illegal. The companies have instead sought to shift the blame onto the E.P.A. by contending that the agency never 'properly developed rules and procedures to regulate the use of diesel in fracking, despite a clear grant of authority from Congress over the issue.'
In 2003, three of the largest oil and gas services companies —Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services — signed an agreement with the E.P.A. that was to ' curtail the use of diesel in fracking in certain shallow formations.' A 2004 E.P.A. investigation in 2004 failed to find any threat to drinking water from fracking, but critics charged that this decision was 'politically motivated.'
And then, in 2005, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (sometimes referred to as the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill of 2005), Congress amended the Safe Water Drinking Act to exclude oil and gas producers from having to follow certain of its requirements. This act also created the "Halliburton Loophole' (so-called because former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was said to be instrumental in its passage) which exempts companies drilling for natural gas from disclosing the chemicals involved in fracking operations---a disclosure that, under laws such as the Safe Water Drinking Act, would normally be required. These exemptions would be removed under the proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, which was introduced to both houses of Congress in June of 2009.
The E.P.A. has again started to investigate the issue of fracking's impact on drinking water last year. Results are not expected until 2012 at the earliest. And in the mean time, who knows what is going on to our water supply, far beneath the earth?
You can get more info at http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/whats-with-all-this-fracking/
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemical additives including diesel fuel (which helps to dissolve other chemicals into the fluid) into a well, far below the earth's surface. Fissures are created and propped up in the rock formations so that natural gas and oil can more readily flow out of the well. But environmentalists and regulators have become increasingly concerned that the fracking chemicals---including toluene, xylene and benzene, a carcinogen, which are all from diesel gas---are seeping out into underground sources of drinking water, in violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act.
In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, Congressional investigators charged that fracking violates the Safe Water Drinking Act, the January 31st New York Times reports. From 2005 to 2009, oil and gas service companies including Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services injected 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel into onshore wells, in 19 states, as Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), and Diana DeGette (D-CO) write in the letter:
According to EPA, any company that performs hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuel must receive a permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act. We learned that no oil and gas service companies have sought—and no state and federal regulators have issued—permits for diesel fuel use in hydraulic fracturing. This appears to be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. It also means that the companies injecting diesel fuel have not performed the environmental reviews required by the law.
A key question is whether the unauthorized injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel is adversely affecting drinking water supplies. None of the oil and gas service companies could provide data on whether they performed hydraulic fracturing in or near underground sources of drinking water, telling us that the well operators, not the service companies, track that information. We also asked about diesel fuel use in coalbed methane formations, which tend to be shallower and closer to drinking water sources. The three largest companies—Halliburton, BJ Services, and Schlumberger—told us they have stopped using diesel fuel in coalbed methane formations located in underground sources of drinking water. Three smaller companies reported using a limited volume of products containing diesel in coalbed methane wells but did not provide information on the proximity of these wells to drinking water sources. [my emphases in italics]
The New York Times further notes that, while oil and gas companies have 'acknowledged using diesel fuel in their fracking fluids,' they have rejected the charge that doing so was illegal. The companies have instead sought to shift the blame onto the E.P.A. by contending that the agency never 'properly developed rules and procedures to regulate the use of diesel in fracking, despite a clear grant of authority from Congress over the issue.'
In 2003, three of the largest oil and gas services companies —Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services — signed an agreement with the E.P.A. that was to ' curtail the use of diesel in fracking in certain shallow formations.' A 2004 E.P.A. investigation in 2004 failed to find any threat to drinking water from fracking, but critics charged that this decision was 'politically motivated.'
And then, in 2005, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (sometimes referred to as the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill of 2005), Congress amended the Safe Water Drinking Act to exclude oil and gas producers from having to follow certain of its requirements. This act also created the "Halliburton Loophole' (so-called because former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was said to be instrumental in its passage) which exempts companies drilling for natural gas from disclosing the chemicals involved in fracking operations---a disclosure that, under laws such as the Safe Water Drinking Act, would normally be required. These exemptions would be removed under the proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, which was introduced to both houses of Congress in June of 2009.
The E.P.A. has again started to investigate the issue of fracking's impact on drinking water last year. Results are not expected until 2012 at the earliest. And in the mean time, who knows what is going on to our water supply, far beneath the earth?
You can get more info at http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/whats-with-all-this-fracking/
What's with all the fracking
The drinking water in some 19 states may have been rendered less than safe for, well, drinking due to a controversial oil drilling technique called fracking. A recent Congressional investigation reveals that no oil and gas companies have gotten permits for using diesel fuel for fracking in an apparent violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974, and with unknown effects on public health.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemical additives including diesel fuel (which helps to dissolve other chemicals into the fluid) into a well, far below the earth's surface. Fissures are created and propped up in the rock formations so that natural gas and oil can more readily flow out of the well. But environmentalists and regulators have become increasingly concerned that the fracking chemicals---including toluene, xylene and benzene, a carcinogen, which are all from diesel gas---are seeping out into underground sources of drinking water, in violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act.
In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, Congressional investigators charged that fracking violates the Safe Water Drinking Act, the January 31st New York Times reports. From 2005 to 2009, oil and gas service companies including Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services injected 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel into onshore wells, in 19 states, as Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), and Diana DeGette (D-CO) write in the letter:
The New York Times further notes that, while oil and gas companies have 'acknowledged using diesel fuel in their fracking fluids,' they have rejected the charge that doing so was illegal. The companies have instead sought to shift the blame onto the E.P.A. by contending that the agency never 'properly developed rules and procedures to regulate the use of diesel in fracking, despite a clear grant of authority from Congress over the issue.'
In 2003, three of the largest oil and gas services companies —Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services — signed an agreement with the E.P.A. that was to ' curtail the use of diesel in fracking in certain shallow formations.' A 2004 E.P.A. investigation in 2004 failed to find any threat to drinking water from fracking, but critics charged that this decision was 'politically motivated.'
And then, in 2005, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (sometimes referred to as the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill of 2005), Congress amended the Safe Water Drinking Act to exclude oil and gas producers from having to follow certain of its requirements. This act also created the "Halliburton Loophole' (so-called because former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was said to be instrumental in its passage) which exempts companies drilling for natural gas from disclosing the chemicals involved in fracking operations---a disclosure that, under laws such as the Safe Water Drinking Act, would normally be required. These exemptions would be removed under the proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, which was introduced to both houses of Congress in June of 2009.
The E.P.A. has again started to investigate the issue of fracking's impact on drinking water last year. Results are not expected until 2012 at the earliest. And in the mean time, who knows what is going on to our water supply, far beneath the earth?
You can get more info at http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/whats-with-all-this-fracking/
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemical additives including diesel fuel (which helps to dissolve other chemicals into the fluid) into a well, far below the earth's surface. Fissures are created and propped up in the rock formations so that natural gas and oil can more readily flow out of the well. But environmentalists and regulators have become increasingly concerned that the fracking chemicals---including toluene, xylene and benzene, a carcinogen, which are all from diesel gas---are seeping out into underground sources of drinking water, in violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act.
In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, Congressional investigators charged that fracking violates the Safe Water Drinking Act, the January 31st New York Times reports. From 2005 to 2009, oil and gas service companies including Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services injected 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel into onshore wells, in 19 states, as Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), and Diana DeGette (D-CO) write in the letter:
According to EPA, any company that performs hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuel must receive a permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act. We learned that no oil and gas service companies have sought—and no state and federal regulators have issued—permits for diesel fuel use in hydraulic fracturing. This appears to be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. It also means that the companies injecting diesel fuel have not performed the environmental reviews required by the law.
A key question is whether the unauthorized injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel is adversely affecting drinking water supplies. None of the oil and gas service companies could provide data on whether they performed hydraulic fracturing in or near underground sources of drinking water, telling us that the well operators, not the service companies, track that information. We also asked about diesel fuel use in coalbed methane formations, which tend to be shallower and closer to drinking water sources. The three largest companies—Halliburton, BJ Services, and Schlumberger—told us they have stopped using diesel fuel in coalbed methane formations located in underground sources of drinking water. Three smaller companies reported using a limited volume of products containing diesel in coalbed methane wells but did not provide information on the proximity of these wells to drinking water sources. [my emphases in italics]
The New York Times further notes that, while oil and gas companies have 'acknowledged using diesel fuel in their fracking fluids,' they have rejected the charge that doing so was illegal. The companies have instead sought to shift the blame onto the E.P.A. by contending that the agency never 'properly developed rules and procedures to regulate the use of diesel in fracking, despite a clear grant of authority from Congress over the issue.'
In 2003, three of the largest oil and gas services companies —Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services — signed an agreement with the E.P.A. that was to ' curtail the use of diesel in fracking in certain shallow formations.' A 2004 E.P.A. investigation in 2004 failed to find any threat to drinking water from fracking, but critics charged that this decision was 'politically motivated.'
And then, in 2005, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (sometimes referred to as the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill of 2005), Congress amended the Safe Water Drinking Act to exclude oil and gas producers from having to follow certain of its requirements. This act also created the "Halliburton Loophole' (so-called because former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was said to be instrumental in its passage) which exempts companies drilling for natural gas from disclosing the chemicals involved in fracking operations---a disclosure that, under laws such as the Safe Water Drinking Act, would normally be required. These exemptions would be removed under the proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, which was introduced to both houses of Congress in June of 2009.
The E.P.A. has again started to investigate the issue of fracking's impact on drinking water last year. Results are not expected until 2012 at the earliest. And in the mean time, who knows what is going on to our water supply, far beneath the earth?
You can get more info at http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/whats-with-all-this-fracking/
What's with all the fracking
The drinking water in some 19 states may have been rendered less than safe for, well, drinking due to a controversial oil drilling technique called fracking. A recent Congressional investigation reveals that no oil and gas companies have gotten permits for using diesel fuel for fracking in an apparent violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974, and with unknown effects on public health.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemical additives including diesel fuel (which helps to dissolve other chemicals into the fluid) into a well, far below the earth's surface. Fissures are created and propped up in the rock formations so that natural gas and oil can more readily flow out of the well. But environmentalists and regulators have become increasingly concerned that the fracking chemicals---including toluene, xylene and benzene, a carcinogen, which are all from diesel gas---are seeping out into underground sources of drinking water, in violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act.
In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, Congressional investigators charged that fracking violates the Safe Water Drinking Act, the January 31st New York Times reports. From 2005 to 2009, oil and gas service companies including Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services injected 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel into onshore wells, in 19 states, as Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), and Diana DeGette (D-CO) write in the letter:
The New York Times further notes that, while oil and gas companies have 'acknowledged using diesel fuel in their fracking fluids,' they have rejected the charge that doing so was illegal. The companies have instead sought to shift the blame onto the E.P.A. by contending that the agency never 'properly developed rules and procedures to regulate the use of diesel in fracking, despite a clear grant of authority from Congress over the issue.'
In 2003, three of the largest oil and gas services companies —Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services — signed an agreement with the E.P.A. that was to ' curtail the use of diesel in fracking in certain shallow formations.' A 2004 E.P.A. investigation in 2004 failed to find any threat to drinking water from fracking, but critics charged that this decision was 'politically motivated.'
And then, in 2005, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (sometimes referred to as the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill of 2005), Congress amended the Safe Water Drinking Act to exclude oil and gas producers from having to follow certain of its requirements. This act also created the "Halliburton Loophole' (so-called because former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was said to be instrumental in its passage) which exempts companies drilling for natural gas from disclosing the chemicals involved in fracking operations---a disclosure that, under laws such as the Safe Water Drinking Act, would normally be required. These exemptions would be removed under the proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, which was introduced to both houses of Congress in June of 2009.
The E.P.A. has again started to investigate the issue of fracking's impact on drinking water last year. Results are not expected until 2012 at the earliest. And in the mean time, who knows what is going on to our water supply, far beneath the earth?
You can get more info at http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/whats-with-all-this-fracking/
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemical additives including diesel fuel (which helps to dissolve other chemicals into the fluid) into a well, far below the earth's surface. Fissures are created and propped up in the rock formations so that natural gas and oil can more readily flow out of the well. But environmentalists and regulators have become increasingly concerned that the fracking chemicals---including toluene, xylene and benzene, a carcinogen, which are all from diesel gas---are seeping out into underground sources of drinking water, in violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act.
In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, Congressional investigators charged that fracking violates the Safe Water Drinking Act, the January 31st New York Times reports. From 2005 to 2009, oil and gas service companies including Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services injected 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel into onshore wells, in 19 states, as Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), and Diana DeGette (D-CO) write in the letter:
According to EPA, any company that performs hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuel must receive a permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act. We learned that no oil and gas service companies have sought—and no state and federal regulators have issued—permits for diesel fuel use in hydraulic fracturing. This appears to be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. It also means that the companies injecting diesel fuel have not performed the environmental reviews required by the law.
A key question is whether the unauthorized injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel is adversely affecting drinking water supplies. None of the oil and gas service companies could provide data on whether they performed hydraulic fracturing in or near underground sources of drinking water, telling us that the well operators, not the service companies, track that information. We also asked about diesel fuel use in coalbed methane formations, which tend to be shallower and closer to drinking water sources. The three largest companies—Halliburton, BJ Services, and Schlumberger—told us they have stopped using diesel fuel in coalbed methane formations located in underground sources of drinking water. Three smaller companies reported using a limited volume of products containing diesel in coalbed methane wells but did not provide information on the proximity of these wells to drinking water sources. [my emphases in italics]
The New York Times further notes that, while oil and gas companies have 'acknowledged using diesel fuel in their fracking fluids,' they have rejected the charge that doing so was illegal. The companies have instead sought to shift the blame onto the E.P.A. by contending that the agency never 'properly developed rules and procedures to regulate the use of diesel in fracking, despite a clear grant of authority from Congress over the issue.'
In 2003, three of the largest oil and gas services companies —Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services — signed an agreement with the E.P.A. that was to ' curtail the use of diesel in fracking in certain shallow formations.' A 2004 E.P.A. investigation in 2004 failed to find any threat to drinking water from fracking, but critics charged that this decision was 'politically motivated.'
And then, in 2005, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (sometimes referred to as the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill of 2005), Congress amended the Safe Water Drinking Act to exclude oil and gas producers from having to follow certain of its requirements. This act also created the "Halliburton Loophole' (so-called because former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was said to be instrumental in its passage) which exempts companies drilling for natural gas from disclosing the chemicals involved in fracking operations---a disclosure that, under laws such as the Safe Water Drinking Act, would normally be required. These exemptions would be removed under the proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, which was introduced to both houses of Congress in June of 2009.
The E.P.A. has again started to investigate the issue of fracking's impact on drinking water last year. Results are not expected until 2012 at the earliest. And in the mean time, who knows what is going on to our water supply, far beneath the earth?
You can get more info at http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/whats-with-all-this-fracking/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)