FrackNation Page #7

- No, sir, I am not.

- You're not a geologist?

- No, sir.

You're not a geophysicist?

No, I would not consider

myself a geophysicist.

You're not a petroleum engineer?

I am not a petroleum engineer.

No.

- You're not a toxicologist?

- No, sir.

You're not a hydrogeologist?

No. No, I am not

a hydrogeologist, technically.

We deal a lot in hydrology,

just like we deal a lot in geology,

but I would not call myself

a hydrogeologist.

This wasn't the first time

I'd come across Alisa Rich.

She was also hired

by Calvin Tillman

to provide the damning

but completely inaccurate reports

on the air and water quality

in Dish, Texas.

Despite faking her qualifications,

and a judge finding that she was part

of a fraudulent conspiracy,

Josh Fox still relies

heavily on Alisa Rich

in his campaign against fracking.

But what about the chemicals

that are used in fracking?

I needed to speak to an expert.

So I went to the University

of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Bruce Ames is a professor of

biochemistry and molecular biology.

Because of his research

on the causes of cancer,

Dr. Ames has won many awards,

including the National Medal

of Science, the Japan Prize,

and the Tyler Prize for

Environmental Achievement.

He is one of the most cited

scientists in the world.

This is Gasland,

the film by Josh Fox,

and this is what he says

about chemicals and fracking

and public health, I suppose.

In order to frack,

you need some fracking fluid,

a mix of over 596 chemicals,

from the unpronounceable

to the unknown

to the too well-known.

The brew is full

of corrosion inhibitors,

gellants, drilling additives,

biocides, shale control inhibitors,

liquid breaker aids, viscosifiers,

liquid gel concentrates.

On the side of that frack fluid truck

it should say, "Just add water."

Well, you could say that about a cup

of coffee with more justification.

I mean, it doesn't tell you much.

What would you say

to people who saw Gasland

and are scared by that figure

of over 500 chemicals

and the scary names

of the chemicals?

Yeah, but it's only scary

if you've been...

don't know anything.

If I gave you all the long names

of chemicals in cabbage

that give cancer to rats

in high levels,

you could get scared. But there's

really no danger in eating cabbage.

But at least there's no

carcinogens in broccoli.

Oh, yeah, there are

carcinogens in broccoli.

- No!

- Yeah.

- No.

- Broccoli's good for you,

but there are carcinogens in it.

See, they define carcinogen

as giving the maximum tolerated

dose to a mouse or a rat,

and feeding it every day

for a lifetime.

And half the chemicals

they've ever tested,

whether it's natural or synthetic,

no difference,

give cancer to these

animals at this huge dose,

but it doesn't mean it's gonna

give cancer at a low dose.

And it's all a high-dose artifact.

What do you mean, "high-dose

artifact"? What does that mean?

It means it's the high dose

that's causing it,

and they're scaring you

about a low dose.

But scare stories sell newspapers.

The media loves scare stories.

Every time I see a story

about some new scare that's

gonna give cancer to people,

it's always completely implausible.

It's a minor hypothetical risk

at best.

If people say fracking's

causing cancer,

then they don't know what

they're talking about.

Josh Fox claims

that fracking in Texas

has caused a spike

in breast cancer.

In Texas, as throughout

the United States,

cancer rates fell, except in one

place, in the Barnett shale.

But the Associated Press

checked that claim

with several cancer experts

and found it to be false.

Professor Simon Lee from

the University of Texas,

David Riser, an epidemiologist

with the Texas Cancer Registry,

and Susan G. Komen For The Cure,

all said there was no spike

in cancer in the Barnett shale.

Scaring American families with untrue

claims about breast cancer

seemed unethical journalism

at best.

After I retired, I started

to spend essentially full-time

in Damascus, Pennsylvania.

I'm currently facing

a cancer situation.

Okay, that was one of the reasons

why I'm in New York right now.

Because I'm scheduled

for surgery in two weeks.

It has nothing to do

with drinking the water.

It has nothing to do

with the air I breathe.

I could be out there right now

carrying a sign saying,

"I've got cancer. I'm fighting

against this. You caused it.

Don't let this happen to you."

I couldn't look at myself

in the mirror in the morning

'cause that's nonsense.

But it would be very effective

as some political theater.

The scare du jour

from anti-fracking activists

is that fracking causes

dangerous earthquakes.

I spoke to Professor Ernest Majer

in the Department of

Earth Sciences at Berkeley.

He has spent a career

analyzing the role humans play

in causing earthquakes.

He says if you're scared

about seismic activity,

fracking should be the least

of your worries.

If I had a house where I had

every type of energy potential,

a river so I could dam up

and make a hydroelectric project,

geothermal, hot rock,

on the other side of the house,

and an oil/gas reservoir

on the other side,

I would probably, from a just strict

risk of induced seismicity,

I would choose the oil

and gas project, of course,

because it has the lowest

potential for induced seismicity

to cause any hazard or any risk

associated with the injection

of fluid into the ground.

Hydrofracture is very low-risk.

Very low hazard too.

Professor Majer says

if energy production

that causes earthquakes

needs to be banned,

then geothermal energy

should be first on the list.

He has been closely studying

the Geysers geothermal plant

- in Northern California.

- In terms of the Geysers,

which is north of

San Francisco, about 70 miles,

it's the world's largest

geothermal production area.

And there has been

seismicity there.

There has been quite a bit

of seismicity there.

We're actively recording there

with a very dense array.

We get about 100 magnitude

ones per day,

up to 10 magnitude

twos per week,

and at least two or three

magnitude threes per month.

And several magnitude fours per year.

It's interesting that while

Josh Fox and anti-fracking activists

are trying to make an issue

about fracking and earthquakes,

they are silent about the hundreds

of earthquakes caused every month

by geothermal energy.

In Gasland, Josh Fox asks,

why can't we power

the world with solar panels?

But you need huge amounts of rare

earth metals to make one solar panel.

95 % of these minerals

are mined in China.

It doesn't look very green.

Rare earth processing in China

is a messy, dangerous,

polluting business.

It uses toxic chemicals,

acids, sulfates, ammonia.

The workers have little

or no protection.

Green campaigners

love wind turbines,

but the permanent

magnets used to

manufacture a three-megawatt

turbine,

contain some two tons

of rare earth.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes