![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why were these removed? [1] [2] found in Hydraulic fracturing (view history)
Wells that pump natural gas from the ground in Colorado have leaked about twice as much gas into the atmosphere as previously thought, a new study finds.
Pétron and her colleagues monitored air quality near Denver using a 300-meter tower. NOAA maintains a network of such towers across the country. This one lies southwest of the Denver-Julesburg Basin, an area that feeds more than 20,000 natural gas wells.
Last year, Howarth found higher-than-expected levels of methane being released from wells that extract gas from shale — a process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. His estimates, reported in 2011 in Climatic Change, suggested that extracting shale gas is substantially worse for climate change than mining coal.
Excerpts from Natural gas wells leakier than believed; Measurements at Colorado site show methane release higher than previous estimates by Devin Powell in Science News March 24th, 2012; Vol.181 #6 (p. 16) 108.195.136.132 ( talk) 07:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which conducts much of the government’s climate science, then surprised nearly everyone in February when they revealed that air samples from an area of Colorado with a lot of fracking wells contained twice the amount of methane the EPA estimated came from that production method. NOAA’s finding was closer to Cornell’s numbers.
(od) No Synth needed, just quote the article directly and attribute that sentence to that source. 99.119.130.61 ( talk) 18:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
According to Business Week, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which conducts much of the government’s climate science, then surprised nearly everyone in February when they revealed that air samples from an area of Colorado with a lot of fracking wells contained twice the amount of methane the EPA estimated came from that production method.
Propane and other emissions cited in the NOAA study are associated with natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing --
108.195.136.132 ( talk) 08:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
This should probably be added somewhere. I just saw a new article in Mother Jones about it; if I can find others I'll add them here too. Sindinero ( talk) 16:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This page should cover well cementing as failures may be a potential cause for methane contmination of drinking water.
Robert Howarth interview in Gasland II, and http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors03/aut03/p62_76.pdf
Rebuttal: http://energyindepth.org/national/debunking-gasland-part-ii/
The third paragraph of the “Scientific debate” section starts with this statement:
The clear implication of the above is that hydraulic fracturing may be responsible for radioactive iodine observed in Philadelphia drinking water, and that the EPA is ignoring this threat. But the cited references do not support this. References [19] and [20] concern EPA detection of temporary spikes in iodine-131 levels in Pennsylvania in early 2011 due to the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, but at what the EPA says are "levels well below public-health concern.” (ref [20]). Reference [21] describes spikes in iodine-131 concentrations in Wissahickon Creek, a small watershed in SE Pennsylvania far from any hydraulic fracturing; the high iodine-131 there was ascribed to urine from thyroid cancer patients being treated with iodine-131. None of the three cited references even mention hydraulic fracturing.
The statement has the problems that it is misleading, POV, and WP:SYN. If the wiki article is going to beat up the EPA study for not including some substances such as iodine-131, as is the intent of the above sentence, there should be a citation from a WP:RS noting that the study is deficient in leaving it out. Thanks. Plazak ( talk) 03:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Issue concerning also this article is raised here. Beagel ( talk) 17:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
In discussing the impacts of hydraulic fracturing, and the means by which it can be safely carried out, it might be useful to reference the 2012 report by the Royal Society (Shale gas extraction in the UK), which dealt with the technical and environmental aspects of shale gas extraction. Significantly, the report contains 10 recommendations for operators and regulators that, if faithfully followed, will likely mitigate the dangers associated with fracking. As such, mention of the report would help to frame the issue in this section. Disclosure: I am a former intern at the Royal Society, the science academy for the UK. BeecherP ( talk) 10:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Tillman: I came here to add [1] but then I noticed your recent deletion. Could you please explain how WP:WEIGHT applies to the recency of peer-reviewed studies? The PNAS report was in BBC and on NPR today, and the EHP paper got similar widespread secondary media coverage a few days ago, as per Google News. EllenCT ( talk) 20:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
"Although potential benefits of Marcellus natural gas exploitation are large for transition to a clean energy economy, at present the regulatory framework in New York State is inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply. Major investments in state and federal regulatory enforcement will be required to avoid these environmental consequences, and a ban on drilling within the NYC water supply watersheds is appropriate." -- from the WP:MEDRS PMID 23722091.
http://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1016/j.pedn.2011.07.012 ( PMID 22703686) is also a MEDRS, and is very informative as to the specific details. EllenCT ( talk) 19:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't seem the article is written with a very neutral point of view, and seems to jump to conclusions, at least in the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kupiakos ( talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I just cleaned this up. I found inconsistent reference formatting, use of press releases and low quality sources for health content, other cherry-picked and misrepresented sources, and plagiarism. I almost fear to look elsewhere in the article, but notice from the reference list there appears to be a lot of press releases used. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
In this dif, EllenCT added: "Mandatory nondisclosure laws and confidentiality requirements of legal proceedings prevented earlier conclusive studies." Three sources provided:
So I deleted content, pending sources that WP:VERIFY the content. This sentence also is significant violation of WP:SYN - nothing in those sources says that a) the eaton source is "conclusive". Jytdog ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1=
(
help)
Who has the best sources on earthquakes? What does an initial fracking event usually measure on the Richter scale? EllenCT ( talk) 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
At WP:RSN#Health effects of fracking, I have proposed the following language as a compromise proposal for including Rabinowitz, P.M., et al. (2014) "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status: Results of a Household Survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania" Environmental Health Perspectives DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307732
Given that this is completely consistent with what I have now shown to be several highly-cited conclusive MEDRSs, what reasons remain for excluding this primary report?
Secondary news sources covering it include [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Would it be better to summarize any or all of those instead? Here are the first three paragraphs of that last Weather.com story:
(emphasis added.) EllenCT ( talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Might be useful:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)— Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Our best sources say that right now we don't know what the health impact is. The content and sources EllenCT have been adding all (appropriately) are subjuntive, and use verbs like "might" and "may" etc. I just made a Bold edit, and moved current health content into the Risk management debate section. Please take a second to really consider it - I think it is a good way to go, because it puts all the "may" and "might" into their proper context -- these are all potential risks that people are concerned about, and that we as a society need to figure out a way to manage. I will not object to this being reverted, but hope folks will consider it and discuss. thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 29 September 2014 21:38 (UTC)
It seems that information about shale gas life-cycle emissions and leakages during shale gas development is misplaced and belongs in Shale gas, not here. While HF is used for shale gas production, it is incorrect to assume that relevant information about shale gas or shale gas production is relevant also for HF. If the emission is not caused by HF, but by other stages of production, it does not belong here. Therefore I propose to move relevant paragraphs into the Shale gas article. Beagel ( talk) 12:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The conclusion of this government work is here; "Hydraulic fracturing has opened access to vast domestic reserves of natural gas that could provide an important stepping stone to a clean energy future. Yet questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. This analysis is the most comprehensive national assessment to date of the types and volumes of chemical used in the hydraulic fracturing process. It shows that between 2005 and 2009, the 14 leading hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States used over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 compounds. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants." [1]
Other than the question raised above, this source makes no conclusions whatsoever.
Even if it is highly probable that "chemicals that are known human carcinogens are present" nothing can be factually proven. You are likely to find sources denying any linkage to widespread impact, and you will find many sources acclaiming widespread impact.
The European fracking study was misquoted as well, it being a preplanning document to avoid risks and mitigate exposures through the implementation of standards and policies to be developed in the future.. [2]
Lfrankbalm ( talk) 08:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalm Lfrankbalm ( talk) 08:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The old "Scientific debate" and new "Risk management debate" section is a controversy section in violation of WP:CRITS, so unless good reasons for keeping it separate are forthcoming, I intend to re-integrate it. EllenCT ( talk) 21:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with these edits by User:Alexbrn because both the changed and removed texts were consistent with the conclusions of the MEDRS sources which express any conclusions stronger than "more research is needed." I propose "Health issues" and restoring the recent epidemiological measurement consistent with the firmly conclusive MEDRS sources:
EllenCT ( talk) 02:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
References
A study relaying the results of a small self-reporting telephone survey is primary research and not a WP:MEDRS. Even if it were, we are now overstating its tentative conclusions, which were: "these results should be viewed as hypothesis generating". Misuse of a poor source. Smells of POV-pushing to me. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
When is an inconclusive MEDRS ever superior to one which finds solid conclusions?← when it's a superior source. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I invite further comment at dispute resolution: WP:RSN#Health effects of fracking. EllenCT ( talk) 17:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Notice to everybody, EllenCT has opened a DR thread on this Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing. Jytdog ( talk) 12:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
In
this dif EllenCT introduced the following:
"A 2013 review of environmental exposure studies stated that, "introduction of natural gas drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing to Pennsylvania and neighboring states since 2004 has been accompanied by numerous reports of varied symptoms and illnesses by those living near these operations.""
the source is published by the "
New Solutions" journal, article is
here (website says it is free access).
This article is in their "movement solutions" series of articles, which are "Papers that describe progressive social movement activities and efforts, describing successes and the steps toward them, as well as challenges and barriers faced in efforts to promote environmental and occupational health, and prevent morbidities and mortality due to occupational and environmental exposures and conditions." (see
[10].
I am not at all sure this is MEDRS-compliant.
More importantly, the source is very similar to phone-survey study reported above.
Even more importantly, the article itself makes it clear that we don't know if those reports are related to fracking, and presenting that quote makes it seem like they are. This is not how we present health-related information in Wikipedia. I have removed this content pending discussion here of the source and the content presented. Jytdog ( talk) 21:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC) (note - corrected dif per ellenCT's note below. sorry for the error Jytdog ( talk) 21:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC))
EllenCT please make your edits more piecemeal. You added the following in this dif: A study conducted in Garfield County, Colorado and published in Endocrinology suggested that natural gas drilling operations may result in elevated endocrine-disrupting chemical activity in surface and ground water." Source: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/en.2013-1697 This is WP:PRIMARY and per MEDRS we do not use primary sources. Jytdog ( talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Investigation of Ground Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming" is a draft report not final report. It was issued for public comment and independent scientific peer review. However, due to critics the final report was never issued and investigation on the Pavillion case was conveyed to the state of Wyoming. Therefore we should be careful using this draft report. Beagel ( talk) 05:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Their findings were subjected to intensive review by career management and staff of our research organization. In addition, a technical review of the results was conducted by independent experts before the full draft report was made available to the public." So this is not some slop job. In that testimony, the administrator said that EPA intended to have an independent panel review that study. i found no discussion of that panel or its findings on othe EPA website (which just sucks to search). Beagel, I was going to ask for your source that EPA is not going to finalize the draft nor have it peer reviewed after all but I found one - an EPA press release from June 2013 - which says that; it also appears that the state of wyoming had plans to issue a report on Sept 30! (tomorrow) hm. Jytdog ( talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Should we summarize [12] and [13]? EllenCT ( talk) 00:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
i removed the following (removed ref formatting) : ref name="netldoe" cite report |url= http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Petroleum/projects/Environmental/Produced_Water/00975_MarcellusFlowback.html%7Ctitle= Sustainable Management of Flowback Water during Hydraulic Fracturing of Marcellus Shale for Natural Gas Production |author= Sandy McSurdy & Radisav Vidic |date= 25 June 2013|publisher=National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy |accessdate=29 June 2013|format = PDF/ref.
Currently the 'Water contamination' section was renamed 'Groundwater contamination'. While I agree that most of water contamination issues are related to groundwater, I see the new title as too limiting as HF (particularly mismanagement of its wastewater) may cause also contamination of the surface water, e.g. rivers and ponds. I think that the water section should cover both. Beagel ( talk) 13:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: it is good that you have tried to better summarize the article in the lead. The previous lead was pretty skimpy and not really a summary. However, now a lot of trimming is needed. Per LEADLENGTH, the lead should be limited to four paragraphs. RockMagnetist( talk) 01:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
please see discussion above. very open to discussion of how to solve the optimization-of-multiple-parameters problem we have. Jytdog ( talk) 16:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Believe fresh eyes could do this article some good, hence POV tag. Stoney1976 ( talk) 14:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I have put a lot of work into Hydraulic Fracturing in the UK, and have tried to keep it scientific and well resourced from research papers, and Govt regulation rather than speculation. There are so many factual errors in this I resent a link fro the UK site to this one. I can see why there have been 'edit wars', and I do not want to get involved. Also US practice is so different to what is being proposed in the UK, so many comments here are invalid for the UK site. Kennywpara ( talk) 21:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
matters of "where are the regulators" were of great concern to ellenct and i think (based on history) would be to the-temporarily-blocked Stoney1976 as well. when i made my edits over the weekend and thought about that, it seemed to me that it made sense to have a section dealing with pressure groups, generally, be they more lax or more strict regulation. since RockMagnetist removed the activists, I removed the lobbying as well; seems to me that they should both be in or both be out. in view there has been plenty of coverage of both wrt to environmental impact assessments and risk management, so i prefer leaving them in. i won't edit war over it for sure. Jytdog ( talk) 17:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
For my fivepennyworth, pressure groups, etc should NOT be in an article about environmental impacts Kennywpara ( talk) 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC) nor should regulation, which is country specific. Regarding the US centering I agree that most research originates from the US, but from here in the UK with the amount of press protesting and bs that is talked you would think it was a major industry! Kennywpara ( talk) 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The section Policy and science largely duplicates Regulation of hydraulic fracturing and, in my opinion, is not strictly part of this subject. There are also sections on regulations in Hydraulic fracturing and the country-specific pages. Shall I remove it? RockMagnetist( talk) 17:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a concensus that there should be harmonisation. Still not 100% keen but I can see the point to avoid NPOV.FORK (which I read up on). Problems I have with is that so many issues are country specific.eg, use of chemicals such as benzene. It will never be permitted in the UK or EU, so that them impinges on then on health effects etc. Also regulation, etc etc. I tried to make a 'one stop shop' for those with an open mind to be able to look at all the issues that have been raised in the UK, and have some form of reference. Kennywpara ( talk) 14:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I added some links here on the UN report on water stress. It was removed by Beagel The whole context of parts of this is not proper science. Fracking uses tiny amounts of water compared to industry and farming. Its maybe yet another problem in semi desert areas like Texas, but even there its only 1% and thats a fully operating industry. So why the removal of a recent UN report link on water stress? Does this fail NPOV? I think it does. This section should say that water is a concern in certain areas, but not in many others, and have links that reflect that Kennywpara ( talk) 17:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
From WP:SYNTH "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception." I am afraid the ball is in fact in your court. I do not accept the criticism that this contians WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Kennywpara ( talk) 08:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The 'Methane' section needs some cleanup and rewriting. At its current stage the second sentence makes statement that methane contamination is not caused by HF. If so, it raises question why in this case we need a three-paragraph subsection about something which is not caused by HF. Beagel ( talk) 21:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
You still have made no justification for the fine distinctions you are identifying. All shale gas wells involve HF. So do LTO, geothermal, and traditional frack wells. Why do you wish to separate them? To make it more difficult for the public to access the information? This article appears to be a one stop shop (much like I have tried to make the 'HF in the UK' page), The issues of methane etc are common to all of these, and some to traditional wells. The regulations for trad wells and unconventional are very similar, as the techniques and concerns are largely the same.
By the same logic, Beagel this article contains loads of totally irrelevant information relating to HF. Air emissions, water consumption, Surface spills, methane, land usage, induced seismicity, noise pollution, safety issues, health risks, policy and science, should all be deleted from this article as they are nothing to do with HF. They should be put in an article about drilling impact. Shall I delete them all? Kennywpara ( talk) 19:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why were these removed? [1] [2] found in Hydraulic fracturing (view history)
Wells that pump natural gas from the ground in Colorado have leaked about twice as much gas into the atmosphere as previously thought, a new study finds.
Pétron and her colleagues monitored air quality near Denver using a 300-meter tower. NOAA maintains a network of such towers across the country. This one lies southwest of the Denver-Julesburg Basin, an area that feeds more than 20,000 natural gas wells.
Last year, Howarth found higher-than-expected levels of methane being released from wells that extract gas from shale — a process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. His estimates, reported in 2011 in Climatic Change, suggested that extracting shale gas is substantially worse for climate change than mining coal.
Excerpts from Natural gas wells leakier than believed; Measurements at Colorado site show methane release higher than previous estimates by Devin Powell in Science News March 24th, 2012; Vol.181 #6 (p. 16) 108.195.136.132 ( talk) 07:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which conducts much of the government’s climate science, then surprised nearly everyone in February when they revealed that air samples from an area of Colorado with a lot of fracking wells contained twice the amount of methane the EPA estimated came from that production method. NOAA’s finding was closer to Cornell’s numbers.
(od) No Synth needed, just quote the article directly and attribute that sentence to that source. 99.119.130.61 ( talk) 18:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
According to Business Week, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which conducts much of the government’s climate science, then surprised nearly everyone in February when they revealed that air samples from an area of Colorado with a lot of fracking wells contained twice the amount of methane the EPA estimated came from that production method.
Propane and other emissions cited in the NOAA study are associated with natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing --
108.195.136.132 ( talk) 08:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
This should probably be added somewhere. I just saw a new article in Mother Jones about it; if I can find others I'll add them here too. Sindinero ( talk) 16:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This page should cover well cementing as failures may be a potential cause for methane contmination of drinking water.
Robert Howarth interview in Gasland II, and http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors03/aut03/p62_76.pdf
Rebuttal: http://energyindepth.org/national/debunking-gasland-part-ii/
The third paragraph of the “Scientific debate” section starts with this statement:
The clear implication of the above is that hydraulic fracturing may be responsible for radioactive iodine observed in Philadelphia drinking water, and that the EPA is ignoring this threat. But the cited references do not support this. References [19] and [20] concern EPA detection of temporary spikes in iodine-131 levels in Pennsylvania in early 2011 due to the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, but at what the EPA says are "levels well below public-health concern.” (ref [20]). Reference [21] describes spikes in iodine-131 concentrations in Wissahickon Creek, a small watershed in SE Pennsylvania far from any hydraulic fracturing; the high iodine-131 there was ascribed to urine from thyroid cancer patients being treated with iodine-131. None of the three cited references even mention hydraulic fracturing.
The statement has the problems that it is misleading, POV, and WP:SYN. If the wiki article is going to beat up the EPA study for not including some substances such as iodine-131, as is the intent of the above sentence, there should be a citation from a WP:RS noting that the study is deficient in leaving it out. Thanks. Plazak ( talk) 03:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Issue concerning also this article is raised here. Beagel ( talk) 17:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
In discussing the impacts of hydraulic fracturing, and the means by which it can be safely carried out, it might be useful to reference the 2012 report by the Royal Society (Shale gas extraction in the UK), which dealt with the technical and environmental aspects of shale gas extraction. Significantly, the report contains 10 recommendations for operators and regulators that, if faithfully followed, will likely mitigate the dangers associated with fracking. As such, mention of the report would help to frame the issue in this section. Disclosure: I am a former intern at the Royal Society, the science academy for the UK. BeecherP ( talk) 10:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Tillman: I came here to add [1] but then I noticed your recent deletion. Could you please explain how WP:WEIGHT applies to the recency of peer-reviewed studies? The PNAS report was in BBC and on NPR today, and the EHP paper got similar widespread secondary media coverage a few days ago, as per Google News. EllenCT ( talk) 20:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
"Although potential benefits of Marcellus natural gas exploitation are large for transition to a clean energy economy, at present the regulatory framework in New York State is inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply. Major investments in state and federal regulatory enforcement will be required to avoid these environmental consequences, and a ban on drilling within the NYC water supply watersheds is appropriate." -- from the WP:MEDRS PMID 23722091.
http://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1016/j.pedn.2011.07.012 ( PMID 22703686) is also a MEDRS, and is very informative as to the specific details. EllenCT ( talk) 19:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't seem the article is written with a very neutral point of view, and seems to jump to conclusions, at least in the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kupiakos ( talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I just cleaned this up. I found inconsistent reference formatting, use of press releases and low quality sources for health content, other cherry-picked and misrepresented sources, and plagiarism. I almost fear to look elsewhere in the article, but notice from the reference list there appears to be a lot of press releases used. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
In this dif, EllenCT added: "Mandatory nondisclosure laws and confidentiality requirements of legal proceedings prevented earlier conclusive studies." Three sources provided:
So I deleted content, pending sources that WP:VERIFY the content. This sentence also is significant violation of WP:SYN - nothing in those sources says that a) the eaton source is "conclusive". Jytdog ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1=
(
help)
Who has the best sources on earthquakes? What does an initial fracking event usually measure on the Richter scale? EllenCT ( talk) 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
At WP:RSN#Health effects of fracking, I have proposed the following language as a compromise proposal for including Rabinowitz, P.M., et al. (2014) "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status: Results of a Household Survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania" Environmental Health Perspectives DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307732
Given that this is completely consistent with what I have now shown to be several highly-cited conclusive MEDRSs, what reasons remain for excluding this primary report?
Secondary news sources covering it include [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Would it be better to summarize any or all of those instead? Here are the first three paragraphs of that last Weather.com story:
(emphasis added.) EllenCT ( talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Might be useful:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)— Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Our best sources say that right now we don't know what the health impact is. The content and sources EllenCT have been adding all (appropriately) are subjuntive, and use verbs like "might" and "may" etc. I just made a Bold edit, and moved current health content into the Risk management debate section. Please take a second to really consider it - I think it is a good way to go, because it puts all the "may" and "might" into their proper context -- these are all potential risks that people are concerned about, and that we as a society need to figure out a way to manage. I will not object to this being reverted, but hope folks will consider it and discuss. thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 29 September 2014 21:38 (UTC)
It seems that information about shale gas life-cycle emissions and leakages during shale gas development is misplaced and belongs in Shale gas, not here. While HF is used for shale gas production, it is incorrect to assume that relevant information about shale gas or shale gas production is relevant also for HF. If the emission is not caused by HF, but by other stages of production, it does not belong here. Therefore I propose to move relevant paragraphs into the Shale gas article. Beagel ( talk) 12:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The conclusion of this government work is here; "Hydraulic fracturing has opened access to vast domestic reserves of natural gas that could provide an important stepping stone to a clean energy future. Yet questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. This analysis is the most comprehensive national assessment to date of the types and volumes of chemical used in the hydraulic fracturing process. It shows that between 2005 and 2009, the 14 leading hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States used over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 compounds. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants." [1]
Other than the question raised above, this source makes no conclusions whatsoever.
Even if it is highly probable that "chemicals that are known human carcinogens are present" nothing can be factually proven. You are likely to find sources denying any linkage to widespread impact, and you will find many sources acclaiming widespread impact.
The European fracking study was misquoted as well, it being a preplanning document to avoid risks and mitigate exposures through the implementation of standards and policies to be developed in the future.. [2]
Lfrankbalm ( talk) 08:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalm Lfrankbalm ( talk) 08:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The old "Scientific debate" and new "Risk management debate" section is a controversy section in violation of WP:CRITS, so unless good reasons for keeping it separate are forthcoming, I intend to re-integrate it. EllenCT ( talk) 21:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with these edits by User:Alexbrn because both the changed and removed texts were consistent with the conclusions of the MEDRS sources which express any conclusions stronger than "more research is needed." I propose "Health issues" and restoring the recent epidemiological measurement consistent with the firmly conclusive MEDRS sources:
EllenCT ( talk) 02:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
References
A study relaying the results of a small self-reporting telephone survey is primary research and not a WP:MEDRS. Even if it were, we are now overstating its tentative conclusions, which were: "these results should be viewed as hypothesis generating". Misuse of a poor source. Smells of POV-pushing to me. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
When is an inconclusive MEDRS ever superior to one which finds solid conclusions?← when it's a superior source. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I invite further comment at dispute resolution: WP:RSN#Health effects of fracking. EllenCT ( talk) 17:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Notice to everybody, EllenCT has opened a DR thread on this Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing. Jytdog ( talk) 12:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
In
this dif EllenCT introduced the following:
"A 2013 review of environmental exposure studies stated that, "introduction of natural gas drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing to Pennsylvania and neighboring states since 2004 has been accompanied by numerous reports of varied symptoms and illnesses by those living near these operations.""
the source is published by the "
New Solutions" journal, article is
here (website says it is free access).
This article is in their "movement solutions" series of articles, which are "Papers that describe progressive social movement activities and efforts, describing successes and the steps toward them, as well as challenges and barriers faced in efforts to promote environmental and occupational health, and prevent morbidities and mortality due to occupational and environmental exposures and conditions." (see
[10].
I am not at all sure this is MEDRS-compliant.
More importantly, the source is very similar to phone-survey study reported above.
Even more importantly, the article itself makes it clear that we don't know if those reports are related to fracking, and presenting that quote makes it seem like they are. This is not how we present health-related information in Wikipedia. I have removed this content pending discussion here of the source and the content presented. Jytdog ( talk) 21:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC) (note - corrected dif per ellenCT's note below. sorry for the error Jytdog ( talk) 21:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC))
EllenCT please make your edits more piecemeal. You added the following in this dif: A study conducted in Garfield County, Colorado and published in Endocrinology suggested that natural gas drilling operations may result in elevated endocrine-disrupting chemical activity in surface and ground water." Source: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/en.2013-1697 This is WP:PRIMARY and per MEDRS we do not use primary sources. Jytdog ( talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Investigation of Ground Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming" is a draft report not final report. It was issued for public comment and independent scientific peer review. However, due to critics the final report was never issued and investigation on the Pavillion case was conveyed to the state of Wyoming. Therefore we should be careful using this draft report. Beagel ( talk) 05:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Their findings were subjected to intensive review by career management and staff of our research organization. In addition, a technical review of the results was conducted by independent experts before the full draft report was made available to the public." So this is not some slop job. In that testimony, the administrator said that EPA intended to have an independent panel review that study. i found no discussion of that panel or its findings on othe EPA website (which just sucks to search). Beagel, I was going to ask for your source that EPA is not going to finalize the draft nor have it peer reviewed after all but I found one - an EPA press release from June 2013 - which says that; it also appears that the state of wyoming had plans to issue a report on Sept 30! (tomorrow) hm. Jytdog ( talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Should we summarize [12] and [13]? EllenCT ( talk) 00:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
i removed the following (removed ref formatting) : ref name="netldoe" cite report |url= http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Petroleum/projects/Environmental/Produced_Water/00975_MarcellusFlowback.html%7Ctitle= Sustainable Management of Flowback Water during Hydraulic Fracturing of Marcellus Shale for Natural Gas Production |author= Sandy McSurdy & Radisav Vidic |date= 25 June 2013|publisher=National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy |accessdate=29 June 2013|format = PDF/ref.
Currently the 'Water contamination' section was renamed 'Groundwater contamination'. While I agree that most of water contamination issues are related to groundwater, I see the new title as too limiting as HF (particularly mismanagement of its wastewater) may cause also contamination of the surface water, e.g. rivers and ponds. I think that the water section should cover both. Beagel ( talk) 13:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: it is good that you have tried to better summarize the article in the lead. The previous lead was pretty skimpy and not really a summary. However, now a lot of trimming is needed. Per LEADLENGTH, the lead should be limited to four paragraphs. RockMagnetist( talk) 01:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
please see discussion above. very open to discussion of how to solve the optimization-of-multiple-parameters problem we have. Jytdog ( talk) 16:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Believe fresh eyes could do this article some good, hence POV tag. Stoney1976 ( talk) 14:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I have put a lot of work into Hydraulic Fracturing in the UK, and have tried to keep it scientific and well resourced from research papers, and Govt regulation rather than speculation. There are so many factual errors in this I resent a link fro the UK site to this one. I can see why there have been 'edit wars', and I do not want to get involved. Also US practice is so different to what is being proposed in the UK, so many comments here are invalid for the UK site. Kennywpara ( talk) 21:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
matters of "where are the regulators" were of great concern to ellenct and i think (based on history) would be to the-temporarily-blocked Stoney1976 as well. when i made my edits over the weekend and thought about that, it seemed to me that it made sense to have a section dealing with pressure groups, generally, be they more lax or more strict regulation. since RockMagnetist removed the activists, I removed the lobbying as well; seems to me that they should both be in or both be out. in view there has been plenty of coverage of both wrt to environmental impact assessments and risk management, so i prefer leaving them in. i won't edit war over it for sure. Jytdog ( talk) 17:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
For my fivepennyworth, pressure groups, etc should NOT be in an article about environmental impacts Kennywpara ( talk) 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC) nor should regulation, which is country specific. Regarding the US centering I agree that most research originates from the US, but from here in the UK with the amount of press protesting and bs that is talked you would think it was a major industry! Kennywpara ( talk) 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The section Policy and science largely duplicates Regulation of hydraulic fracturing and, in my opinion, is not strictly part of this subject. There are also sections on regulations in Hydraulic fracturing and the country-specific pages. Shall I remove it? RockMagnetist( talk) 17:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a concensus that there should be harmonisation. Still not 100% keen but I can see the point to avoid NPOV.FORK (which I read up on). Problems I have with is that so many issues are country specific.eg, use of chemicals such as benzene. It will never be permitted in the UK or EU, so that them impinges on then on health effects etc. Also regulation, etc etc. I tried to make a 'one stop shop' for those with an open mind to be able to look at all the issues that have been raised in the UK, and have some form of reference. Kennywpara ( talk) 14:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I added some links here on the UN report on water stress. It was removed by Beagel The whole context of parts of this is not proper science. Fracking uses tiny amounts of water compared to industry and farming. Its maybe yet another problem in semi desert areas like Texas, but even there its only 1% and thats a fully operating industry. So why the removal of a recent UN report link on water stress? Does this fail NPOV? I think it does. This section should say that water is a concern in certain areas, but not in many others, and have links that reflect that Kennywpara ( talk) 17:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
From WP:SYNTH "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception." I am afraid the ball is in fact in your court. I do not accept the criticism that this contians WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Kennywpara ( talk) 08:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The 'Methane' section needs some cleanup and rewriting. At its current stage the second sentence makes statement that methane contamination is not caused by HF. If so, it raises question why in this case we need a three-paragraph subsection about something which is not caused by HF. Beagel ( talk) 21:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
You still have made no justification for the fine distinctions you are identifying. All shale gas wells involve HF. So do LTO, geothermal, and traditional frack wells. Why do you wish to separate them? To make it more difficult for the public to access the information? This article appears to be a one stop shop (much like I have tried to make the 'HF in the UK' page), The issues of methane etc are common to all of these, and some to traditional wells. The regulations for trad wells and unconventional are very similar, as the techniques and concerns are largely the same.
By the same logic, Beagel this article contains loads of totally irrelevant information relating to HF. Air emissions, water consumption, Surface spills, methane, land usage, induced seismicity, noise pollution, safety issues, health risks, policy and science, should all be deleted from this article as they are nothing to do with HF. They should be put in an article about drilling impact. Shall I delete them all? Kennywpara ( talk) 19:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)