![]() | 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 |
Kennywpara about your tag, please see Talk:Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing/Archive_1#Expansion_of_lead and let me know your thoughts. Jytdog ( talk) 21:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes Jytdog ( talk) I can see its been a bone of contention, but this really needs to follow Wiki protocol. I am happy you changed the tag, just as long as this gets sorted! What about this.
The potential risks associated with hydraulic fracturing include water contamination, noise pollution, air emissions, water consumption, well leaks, flaring, and long term health effects.
There is also public concern over transport issues, development of the countryside, and climate change.
The potential risk effects in different countries are heavily dependant on the regulatory regime in force, local planning laws, and the chemicals permitted for hydraulic fracturing.
Different regulatory approaches have thus emerged. In France and Vermont for instance, a precautionary approach has been favored and hydraulic fracturing has been banned.[19][20] Some countries such as the U.S. have adopted the approach of clearly identifying risks before regulating. In the UK, the regulatory framework is largely being shaped by a report commissioned by the UK Government in 2012, which found that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are manageable if carried out under effective regulation and if operational best practices are implemented.[15]
Short, sweet, and more importantly, leading you on to look further. The body of the article looks a lot better than it did a few months ago. I have done some editing, as have others. Kennywpara ( talk) 09:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please could other editors comment? Beagel ( talk) Alexbrn talk EllenCT ( talk) Lfrankbalm ( talk) RockMagnetist( talk) Kennywpara ( talk) 10:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"The environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing includes". THERE ARE RISKS, eg. there is POTENTIAL impact. There are risks that a wing will fall off a 747, but that risk is mitigated by engineering. Beagel ( talk). This is basic stuff. Kennywpara ( talk) 20:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed the sentence about the Oxford study, as it is in the main body, and is not highly relevant anyway in the EU, which is not an area that experiences drought. Water use by fracking is very small anywhere, in comparison to farming and industry.
I reinstalled the phrase 'and are required to be non hazardous in their application' as this does seem to rather crucial and is highly relevant. I do not understand why this was removed. This is under developement by the EU,(which sets minimum standards) but the UK is ahead of that in regulation. The EU stuff on chemicals is still at the investigation stage, under JAGDAG, and will be released soon.
I removed the sentence about contamination by old wells. This is only relevant in places like NE Pennsylvania, which is riddled with old wells, and with shallow frack wells so is hardly a general point. All UK and EU stuff is recommending minimum separations of at least 1000m. In the stated reference "The weight of evidence is that fracture propagation ‘ out of zone ’ to shallow groundwater is unlikely from deep (1000m or 3000ft) shale gas reservoirs; however, this may not be true at shallower depths and consideration is needed of cross connections between wells, including abandoned wells, in neighbouring areas which could provide migratory pathways"
I added an EU link about the developing regime of regulations. This is is currently a recommendation, but if you look at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/unconventional_en.htmyou will see this is evolving. These principles are not optional. Again, its short, basic, and is crucial information.
I do not understand why the last two paras are there. Its nothing to do with the environmental effects of HF.
Will await other comments but please do not revert these until there has been discussion. If other editors are reluctant to come forward it may be that they do not wish to put their heads above the parapet. However, the intro as it started was unacceptable and not NPOV Kennywpara ( talk) 10:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Good, we seem to be getting somewhere. Thankyou for working on my comments Beagel ( talk Its better that way than to have an edit war. I am very happy with 1,2,4, and 5. They are balanced, exclude meaningless words like 'secondary accidents' and identify risks, rather than describing them as effects, one of my major issues.
Number 3 is more problematic. Firstly, all of the water use material seems accurate, but in the context of national production, the unit 'billions of metres cubed'(tonnes), is more appropriate, rather than gallons. The data that water to frack one well for 10 plus years is the same as a 1 GigaWatt coal power station (1 million homes) for 12 hours puts the amount in context. In non desert areas it is insignificant. 0.01% of nationally abstracted amount in the UK for example. Surely something like 'Water usage by fracking can be a problem in areas that experience water shortage' would cover it. This is an often repeated theme by people who are against fracking, yet it is not supported by science in most areas, as I keep saying, agriculture and industry are the big users. Fracking is minor.
Secondly, for I think the second time, you have removed the comments about the EU or UK policy to the body of the article. This leaves the lead saying 'Surface water may be contaminated through spillage and improperly built and maintained waste pits,[10] and ground water can be contaminated if the fluid is able to escape'. This is not balanced. The EU does not allow open pits, and in view that it contains 28 sovereign countries,many of whom have been debating using HF for shale gas, this must appear in the lead. I believe this originates from the 2006 groundwater directive mentioned in /info/en/?search=Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Chemicals_permitted_for_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_UK The comments on making a Wiki lead say that it should contain a summary of the key points. That fundamentally is a key point! Anti frack literature is full of pictures of open and leaking pits, yet in these are forbidden in the EU. Its fundamentally dishonest, or ignorant of them to do that but they still do. Leaving the article as it is would foster that falsehood. I will leave this for a day or so but I feel that the points I have raised above are crucial, and would give this article a balance, and a technical credibility it has been sorely missing. Kennywpara ( talk) 17:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I just found this. Interesting re health effects, as shale gas could be replacing the infinitely more polluting coal. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths In fact, in places like Pennsylvania, health has improved, as gas has displaced coal. Kennywpara ( talk) 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Different regulations and practises, if appropriate, could be discussed in the relevant section but for the lead this is too detailed (particularly taking account the overall length of the lead). And I also disagree that this is the key point in the context of this article's lead. It should be a key point included in the lead for articles like Hydraulic fracturing waste water management regulations in the European Union, but not for the general article dealing with all environmental impacts in more general level.
This could easily be sorted by adding the sentence. In the UK, regulations require that chemical proof pads and sealed steel containers are used to mitigate fluid and gas leaks risks with the appropriate link. Rememeber, the lead should stand on its own as a summary of the article. This is NOT a detail, its a fundamental point that is misunderstood by most. You have removed this 'detail' before. Kennywpara ( talk) 20:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I object to this revert by User:Alexbrn. The edit summary "Npov" is not sufficiently descriptive. "There is concern over the possible adverse public health implications" is poor writing in the passive voice and insufficiently representative of the most recent MEDRSs. The claim that "there is little evidence from which to draw a conclusion" has repeatedly been shown to be false, and no evidence to the contrary has been forthcoming. The scare quotes around "potential negative impact" in the context of several recent and well-cited MEDRSs showing proof of actual negative impact is indeed a violation of WP:NPOV as well as very poor quality writing. For these reasons I am adding a NPOV tag to the section. EllenCT ( talk) 05:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
article | biomedical journal? | indexed in pubmed? | primary or secondary | MEDRS-compliant? | sample statement | statement of risk, or statement on health effects? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Centner2013 | no | no | primary | no | "more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances" | risk |
Colborn2011 | somewhat | no | kind of | no | "more than X% "of the chemicals could affect" Y.... may have long-term health effects" | risk |
Saberi2013 | yes | yes | primary | no | "Some community residents, as well as employees of the natural gas industry, believe that their health has deteriorated as a result of these operations and have sought medical care from local practitioners" | risk |
eaton2013 | some | yes | secondary | yes | "regulatory framework... in inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply" | risk |
Vidic2013 | yes | yes | secondary | yes | "technologies are not free from environmental risks"; "controversy whether the methane detected in private groundwater wells ... was caused by well drilling or natural processes" | risk |
lauver2012 | yes | yes | secondary | yes | "effects of these agents on the water supply and subsequent human health are not well known and require further investigation" | risk |
So out of these 6, 3 are arguably compliant with MEDRS, and none of those three describe "conclusive" health effects; all three are conclusive in describing risks. Risks are not effects. Jytdog ( talk) 11:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does the "Health risks" section of 3 October or 4 October best represent the sources above? 23:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Why does this article have virtually no summaries of WP:MEDRS sources on the health effects of groundwater contamination, while Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States has plenty? I was intrigued by the nationality and affiliations of the authors of this primary peer reviewed paper that splitting the health effects off into a country-specific article is suspect at best. Are there any sources suggesting that the environmental impact of fracking is different in the US than the rest of the world?
In any, case, here are some recent MEDRS-grade reviews with representative excerpts:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)EllenCT ( talk) 07:50, 25 November 2019 (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 |
Kennywpara about your tag, please see Talk:Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing/Archive_1#Expansion_of_lead and let me know your thoughts. Jytdog ( talk) 21:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes Jytdog ( talk) I can see its been a bone of contention, but this really needs to follow Wiki protocol. I am happy you changed the tag, just as long as this gets sorted! What about this.
The potential risks associated with hydraulic fracturing include water contamination, noise pollution, air emissions, water consumption, well leaks, flaring, and long term health effects.
There is also public concern over transport issues, development of the countryside, and climate change.
The potential risk effects in different countries are heavily dependant on the regulatory regime in force, local planning laws, and the chemicals permitted for hydraulic fracturing.
Different regulatory approaches have thus emerged. In France and Vermont for instance, a precautionary approach has been favored and hydraulic fracturing has been banned.[19][20] Some countries such as the U.S. have adopted the approach of clearly identifying risks before regulating. In the UK, the regulatory framework is largely being shaped by a report commissioned by the UK Government in 2012, which found that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are manageable if carried out under effective regulation and if operational best practices are implemented.[15]
Short, sweet, and more importantly, leading you on to look further. The body of the article looks a lot better than it did a few months ago. I have done some editing, as have others. Kennywpara ( talk) 09:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please could other editors comment? Beagel ( talk) Alexbrn talk EllenCT ( talk) Lfrankbalm ( talk) RockMagnetist( talk) Kennywpara ( talk) 10:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"The environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing includes". THERE ARE RISKS, eg. there is POTENTIAL impact. There are risks that a wing will fall off a 747, but that risk is mitigated by engineering. Beagel ( talk). This is basic stuff. Kennywpara ( talk) 20:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed the sentence about the Oxford study, as it is in the main body, and is not highly relevant anyway in the EU, which is not an area that experiences drought. Water use by fracking is very small anywhere, in comparison to farming and industry.
I reinstalled the phrase 'and are required to be non hazardous in their application' as this does seem to rather crucial and is highly relevant. I do not understand why this was removed. This is under developement by the EU,(which sets minimum standards) but the UK is ahead of that in regulation. The EU stuff on chemicals is still at the investigation stage, under JAGDAG, and will be released soon.
I removed the sentence about contamination by old wells. This is only relevant in places like NE Pennsylvania, which is riddled with old wells, and with shallow frack wells so is hardly a general point. All UK and EU stuff is recommending minimum separations of at least 1000m. In the stated reference "The weight of evidence is that fracture propagation ‘ out of zone ’ to shallow groundwater is unlikely from deep (1000m or 3000ft) shale gas reservoirs; however, this may not be true at shallower depths and consideration is needed of cross connections between wells, including abandoned wells, in neighbouring areas which could provide migratory pathways"
I added an EU link about the developing regime of regulations. This is is currently a recommendation, but if you look at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/unconventional_en.htmyou will see this is evolving. These principles are not optional. Again, its short, basic, and is crucial information.
I do not understand why the last two paras are there. Its nothing to do with the environmental effects of HF.
Will await other comments but please do not revert these until there has been discussion. If other editors are reluctant to come forward it may be that they do not wish to put their heads above the parapet. However, the intro as it started was unacceptable and not NPOV Kennywpara ( talk) 10:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Good, we seem to be getting somewhere. Thankyou for working on my comments Beagel ( talk Its better that way than to have an edit war. I am very happy with 1,2,4, and 5. They are balanced, exclude meaningless words like 'secondary accidents' and identify risks, rather than describing them as effects, one of my major issues.
Number 3 is more problematic. Firstly, all of the water use material seems accurate, but in the context of national production, the unit 'billions of metres cubed'(tonnes), is more appropriate, rather than gallons. The data that water to frack one well for 10 plus years is the same as a 1 GigaWatt coal power station (1 million homes) for 12 hours puts the amount in context. In non desert areas it is insignificant. 0.01% of nationally abstracted amount in the UK for example. Surely something like 'Water usage by fracking can be a problem in areas that experience water shortage' would cover it. This is an often repeated theme by people who are against fracking, yet it is not supported by science in most areas, as I keep saying, agriculture and industry are the big users. Fracking is minor.
Secondly, for I think the second time, you have removed the comments about the EU or UK policy to the body of the article. This leaves the lead saying 'Surface water may be contaminated through spillage and improperly built and maintained waste pits,[10] and ground water can be contaminated if the fluid is able to escape'. This is not balanced. The EU does not allow open pits, and in view that it contains 28 sovereign countries,many of whom have been debating using HF for shale gas, this must appear in the lead. I believe this originates from the 2006 groundwater directive mentioned in /info/en/?search=Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Chemicals_permitted_for_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_UK The comments on making a Wiki lead say that it should contain a summary of the key points. That fundamentally is a key point! Anti frack literature is full of pictures of open and leaking pits, yet in these are forbidden in the EU. Its fundamentally dishonest, or ignorant of them to do that but they still do. Leaving the article as it is would foster that falsehood. I will leave this for a day or so but I feel that the points I have raised above are crucial, and would give this article a balance, and a technical credibility it has been sorely missing. Kennywpara ( talk) 17:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I just found this. Interesting re health effects, as shale gas could be replacing the infinitely more polluting coal. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths In fact, in places like Pennsylvania, health has improved, as gas has displaced coal. Kennywpara ( talk) 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Different regulations and practises, if appropriate, could be discussed in the relevant section but for the lead this is too detailed (particularly taking account the overall length of the lead). And I also disagree that this is the key point in the context of this article's lead. It should be a key point included in the lead for articles like Hydraulic fracturing waste water management regulations in the European Union, but not for the general article dealing with all environmental impacts in more general level.
This could easily be sorted by adding the sentence. In the UK, regulations require that chemical proof pads and sealed steel containers are used to mitigate fluid and gas leaks risks with the appropriate link. Rememeber, the lead should stand on its own as a summary of the article. This is NOT a detail, its a fundamental point that is misunderstood by most. You have removed this 'detail' before. Kennywpara ( talk) 20:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I object to this revert by User:Alexbrn. The edit summary "Npov" is not sufficiently descriptive. "There is concern over the possible adverse public health implications" is poor writing in the passive voice and insufficiently representative of the most recent MEDRSs. The claim that "there is little evidence from which to draw a conclusion" has repeatedly been shown to be false, and no evidence to the contrary has been forthcoming. The scare quotes around "potential negative impact" in the context of several recent and well-cited MEDRSs showing proof of actual negative impact is indeed a violation of WP:NPOV as well as very poor quality writing. For these reasons I am adding a NPOV tag to the section. EllenCT ( talk) 05:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
article | biomedical journal? | indexed in pubmed? | primary or secondary | MEDRS-compliant? | sample statement | statement of risk, or statement on health effects? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Centner2013 | no | no | primary | no | "more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances" | risk |
Colborn2011 | somewhat | no | kind of | no | "more than X% "of the chemicals could affect" Y.... may have long-term health effects" | risk |
Saberi2013 | yes | yes | primary | no | "Some community residents, as well as employees of the natural gas industry, believe that their health has deteriorated as a result of these operations and have sought medical care from local practitioners" | risk |
eaton2013 | some | yes | secondary | yes | "regulatory framework... in inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply" | risk |
Vidic2013 | yes | yes | secondary | yes | "technologies are not free from environmental risks"; "controversy whether the methane detected in private groundwater wells ... was caused by well drilling or natural processes" | risk |
lauver2012 | yes | yes | secondary | yes | "effects of these agents on the water supply and subsequent human health are not well known and require further investigation" | risk |
So out of these 6, 3 are arguably compliant with MEDRS, and none of those three describe "conclusive" health effects; all three are conclusive in describing risks. Risks are not effects. Jytdog ( talk) 11:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does the "Health risks" section of 3 October or 4 October best represent the sources above? 23:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Why does this article have virtually no summaries of WP:MEDRS sources on the health effects of groundwater contamination, while Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States has plenty? I was intrigued by the nationality and affiliations of the authors of this primary peer reviewed paper that splitting the health effects off into a country-specific article is suspect at best. Are there any sources suggesting that the environmental impact of fracking is different in the US than the rest of the world?
In any, case, here are some recent MEDRS-grade reviews with representative excerpts:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)EllenCT ( talk) 07:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)