Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Frack Water Plant Proposed in West Pa.

January 17, 2014

By SUMMER WALLACE-MINGER For The Intelligencer PARIS, Pa....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(11)

TrollSlayer

Jan-18-14 3:15 PM

WVUGEO “The shale was laid down at a time in the earth's history when the radioactivity levels were much higher than nowadays blah blah blah”

So that activity stopped until that radium was unearthed by drilling? No, GEO. That activity continued, too. So as the activity of the original rock decreased, the activity of the sediments it came from decreased proportionately.

Once again you’re babbling pseudoscience and disinformation, and making irrelevant comparisons of fracking flowback to drinking water standards, and fearmongering about materials that WON’T be ingested and AREN’T significant. And bringing nuclear weapons into the mix? Funniest of all.

But when you have no real world evidence to bring, I suppose fearmongering and disinformation is what you have to go with. LOL

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jan-18-14 8:20 AM

We noted that it has been known for a long time that the deep shales contain concentrations of radioactive elements; and, that the US Atomic Energy Commission contracted the US Geologic Survey in the 1950's to assess what is now known as the Marcellus, and other, related, deep shales, as sources of raw material for making atomic weapons. One of the series of reports that arose from that project is: "'Geology and Geochemistry of Uranium in Marine Black Shales'; 1961; Uranium In Carbonaceous Rocks; Geologic Survey Professional Paper 356-C; Prepared on behalf of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission".

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jan-18-14 7:37 AM

The real danger of the radioactivity in the shale and flowback water is this: Much of radioactivity arises from Radium, which, due to it's atomic structure and position in the Periodic Chart of Elements, enables/causes it to displace Calcium in the bones. Even if ingested in very small amounts, amounts even below established exposure limits, it will, over time, accumulate in the bones, and the amount of radiation it emits inside the body will thus increase. And, in a recent, fairly comprehensive study published in 2011: "Radium Content of Oil- and Gas-Field Produced Waters in the Northern Appalachian Basin (USA): Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5135'; the US Geologic Survey determined that frack flowback can contain radium in amounts that are, in fact, thousands of times higher than allowed by law in drinking water and hundreds of times higher than allowed by law in industrial effluent.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jan-18-14 7:25 AM

olds: You're right to a certain extent. The shale was laid down at a time in the earth's history when the radioactivity levels were much higher than nowadays and the surface was composed primarily of igneous rocks that contain a lot, relatively speaking, of radioactive elements. The processes of erosion, and particle transport and deposition, and of the chemistries of the supposed environments in which the now-deep shales were deposited, actually led to the heavier radioactive elements preferentially settling out in the mud which became the shale, and being concentrated there. That has long been known. In the late fifties and early sixties, the US Geologic Survey assessed the Marcellus and related shales for the Atomic Energy Commission as sources of material for making nuclear weapons.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Jan-17-14 8:27 PM

And then there's salt. This is old sea bottom. Wowee. What a surprise.

The spring runoff from road salt probably is just as dangerous as this stuff. And no, I wouldn't drink that either, but once it's diluted in the Ohio, and some chlorine or ozone added to get the bugs, yes I would drink it.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Jan-17-14 8:23 PM

Hoop, Anyone doing this will have the EPA on their doorstep from day one. Some of the inspectors are sane, but a significant part come from the Green movement and would love to find infractions that would let them shut down this blight on Mother Earth.

I have seen a lot of nonsense printed about frack water. About those poisons in there. Yes, there are toxic chemicals in there. Ever had a swimming pool? Shock and the other things you routinely add are also toxic. In fact, they primary additives in frack water ARE pool chemicals, added for the same reason. Algae, bacteria and other living things will clog up a well just tike a pool.

Radioactivity.

Really?

Basic Earth Science, I learned in freshman year high school. Shale is fossilized MUD. Mud is eroded granite and other igneous rock. Granite contains SOME radioisotopes. So shale does have some in it. How much? About as much as the bench outside some courthouse.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvhoopie2

Jan-17-14 11:57 AM

Hydro Recovery may be a good company but they are a young company cashing in on the gas boom so who will pay for the damage they might do if an accident should happen. Think ahead of time before waiting for things to happen will protect the area from spills and chemicals.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvhoopie2

Jan-17-14 11:52 AM

Hydro Recovery sounds like the old coal mine companies.. First they post the bond do the damage and next they file for bankruptcy and the taxpayer is stuck paying. Second where are these patty cakes being put in a landfill at or is it right there since they have the right to sell the site to another company accepting municipal waste which sound a lot like a landfill. I would be checking my well water right away to determine if these cakes or water will someday affect the well water. Trust but verify but limit the use to just the water operation no landfill operations if you do pass the motion.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Jan-17-14 11:16 AM

that place must be big.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-17-14 9:33 AM

mikeyd, the numbers from the NR's articles show the proposed PA facility has 20 times the capacity of the Warwood facility. 12 million gallons for PA vs about 600,000 gallons at Warwood. Hence far more trucks at the PA facility.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Jan-17-14 8:34 AM

220 trucks a day here vs. 30 a day in warwood?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 11 of 11 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: