AW updates, fracking and asbestos
admin | Aug 28, 2009 | Comments 5
Anyone who’s visited the site lately has probably noticed that it’s been a little quiet around here. I’ve been working on a couple stories that involve complex Freedom of Information Act requests, lots of interviews and research. As I am currently the site’s only writer, that has slowed the pace of stories on our front page.
So, to keep things from getting moldy, I’m changing the Breaking News section to the Breaking News Blog. It will essentially be a regularly updated short blog, like this one, linking out to stories concerning asbestos, public health, and the agencies, companies and people involved in these issues.
This week, I’ve been interested in this story published by nonprofit news source Pro Publica, and written by Abrahm Lustgarten. On it’s surface, it would appear to have nothing to do with asbestos issues. The story covers the practice of “fracking” in Wyoming. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves injecting millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals thousands of feet below the earth’s surface to force natural gas to come up. Large natural gas drilling companies, especially Canada-based EnCana, have been doing a lot of fracking in over the last few years in Wyoming, where large amount of gas below the surface have brought about a natural gas boom.
For at least 15 years, according to the Pro Publica article, Wyoming residents have been complaining about strange illnesses in humans and animals, and have been wondering if this could be connected to the chemicals used by companies like EnCana in natural gas drilling. The companies have refused to name the chemicals used in the fracking process, partially because the federal government never asked them to. Furthermore, fracking has been exempted from the Safe Water Drinking Act since 2005. This is where the issue gets interesting to anyone who has followed asbestos issues. According to Pro Publica:
Before hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005, the EPA assessed the process and concluded it did not pose a threat to drinking water. That study, however, did not involve field research or water testing and has been criticized as incomplete.
So, no list of the chemicals used to determine this, no field research, no water testing. Yet somehow, the EPA’s 2004 study of drilling determined that there was no danger. This seems to be a pattern with the federal government. I the 1980s the EPA studied Libby, Montana, and issued no warning. Years later, it has become the deadliest Superfund site in the nation. The same type of asbestos found in Libby can also be found in El Dorado, California, yet the EPA allows people to live on it. Same thing with popular beaches near Chicago. Stepping away from asbestos again, take a look at what happened when the Centers for Disease Control studied trailers provided to the public after hurricane Katrina were contaminated with formaldehyde.
You can find example after example of cases where federal agencies, entrusted with protecting public health, have instead made it easy for the public to be endangered. What gives? Is it the nature of the institutions? Politics? Outside pressure? Someday, I hope to be able to provide an answer.
Paul Peters
PrintFiled Under: Breaking News Blog
Greetings Paul and all.I watched a show on the very same thing about all these homes who showed them lighting their faucets on fire from where they drink.The show was about how drilling for oil/gas where these folks woke up one morning to all this equipment going through their property/front yard as they made a road to haul their stuff.When they left, 3 to 4 ft ruts were left,ground contaminated with whatever they dumped and the home owned is stuck with the mess and has to file a lawsuit for them to pay for his yard.They tell him they own the mineral rights and have access to their property by any means they can.Not to mention destroying their water supply.Another example of big guy little guy and to hell with you all.I was hoping to see a law to stop this destruction for the search for oil/gas.May have to protect yourself and land by what means you have/landmines/machine gun nests,etc etc.Yah, fire coming out of their sink.Take care.
I believe these Govt. agency’s NEED to be gutted and replaced by people who care about people.(John Wardell,one down)Kinda like selling Libby Mt as safe place to live and raise a family when THEY know those people/families will suffer till death from Tremolite asbestos exposure that the EPA says is safe.Like I said” When Govt can knowingly allow Corporations to knowingly kill we the People and do nothing to stop it.THEN WE the People have a Govt just as guilty as the Corporations…for killing us.HELLOOOO LIBBY MT.Stay the hell away is what I say.EVERYDAY.
What gives? First, all these studies showing such-and-such process is allegedly environmentally safe are usually performed by the industry in question itself, where EPA just reviews it, not having the funds to do any independent assessment.
Second, federal employees are not going to come forward to challenge the politically-driven dependent findings or assessments. It is very uncomfortable to do so, and the so-called whistleblower protections only kick in long after some adverse action has been taken against you. Management knows that. They make you fight your way back, expensive and time consuming.
Yes, you see my name out there, but you don’t know what it takes. The latest assault (I said only the latest) was when I distributed a Washington Post cartoon by Tom Toles to my division. My management (presumably, have FOIA’d to make sure) turned me in to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), charging that I had violated the Hatch Act which prohibits political activity by Federal employees. But the Hatch Act only prohibits supporting a particular candidate or political employee. After somebody is elected, they are the President.
I cannot seem to pull up the particular political cartoon from the Washington Post archive, but search their site with the key words “Toles cartoon archive” and try the date 1/28/09 to find it. This is the link to the page that did not work:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_archive.html
The OSC cleared me of the charges. This is how the OSC described the cartoon, and you will understand how it had such an incredibly strong appeal to me. Also, I have given some of the language OSC used when it cleared me.
“This letter responds to a complaint the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) received concerning allegations that you violated the Hatch Act when you forwarded a political cartoon from your government e-mail account on February 2,2009. The cartoon depicted what appeared to be President Obama pulling another figure from a box identified as “Science” in which the figure had been trapped while the Presidential figure said “We’ve ended the torture policy.”
…
“Based on the definition of political activity, the cartoon at issue did not violate the Hatch Act. Political activity is limited to those activities that are directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group. In this case, you sent the political cartoon about President Obama via e-mail on February 2, 2009. At the time you sent the political cartoon e-mail, President Obama was no longer a candidate. “
I found the link to the Toles cartoon I mentioned in the above comment. It is 1/25/09 at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_01252009_520.gif
Enjoy.
Paul, Democracy Now did a story(your story) about the water contamination in Wyoming from drilling and using chemicals that are secret under some frickin law,this morning.Again this EPA needs gutted or Obama needs to take hold of this. Someone has to do something as I do not believe it is too late for all of us…