Oh the joys of a good cocktail.

If fracking fluid were a drink, it’ll be the highlight of many restaurant bars. However, actual fracking fluid is neither tasty nor potable, and the formula is probably better hidden than the recipe for Dr. Pepper.

If you click on this link, you’ll be taken to a chart that shows the basic components of the fluid used during hydraulic fracturing.

For those who need a reminder, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is (simply put) the process of injecting tons of fluid underground to break up shale, which releases natural gas that can be collected and used. The issue is, the fluid often cannot be retrieved, and the chemicals it carries often leach into the earth and fresh water supply.

Recently, California has been experiencing a long drought, and this article reports that the officials in the state have decided to shut off several injection sites in order to protect the water that was originally deemed unsuitable for human consumption. The article states that the aquifers which were exempt from protection weren’t polluted to begin with, but rather just of “poor quality” or difficult to reach. This makes me question how much scientific knowledge was applied when the decision to exempt the aquifers was made. Only about 2 percent of the earth’s water is drinkable, and yet, the state of California allowed fresh water sources to be polluted? As a state highly prone to drought, one would think that they would protect whatever precious amount of water they had.  I wonder how much of that decision was based on projected usage, and whether or not the political economy, instead of science, played a role.

Another glaring example of whether or not something is science is the statement made by the state gas and oil supervisor of CA, Steve Bohlen, “We do not have any direct evidence any drinking water has been affected,”. Already, I can sense some bias in the statement. Bohlen says that there is no direct evidence, but what about indirect evidence? As you may know, many scientific theories are proven by examining how variables are affected instead of trying to look for the cause. For example, we cannot “see” gravity, but we know it is there because things fall when thrown in the air. Likewise, fracking fluid may not be coming out of the taps, but there can certainly be a high amount of pollution surrounding a major source of drinking water. We know that the EPA has already deemed California irresponsible when it comes to checking conditions around an injection site “to ensure that fluids pumped into it would not leak underground and contaminate drinking water”, so it is rather unprofessional to demand solid proof of pollution before agreeing that the aquifers are put in danger simply by being close to the dumping grounds.