Apr
2
Blog Post #13 // Sheena Chin
April 2, 2015 | Leave a Comment
In my previous IDC class taken last semester, it focused entirely on environmental protection with a concentration on the environmental problems at hand. One such problem that was discussed heavily in class was hydraulic fracturing. From what we learned and discussed in class about hydraulic fracturing, we had all come to the conclusion that fracking is a problem and it should be stopped, considering all the negative consequences that follow such as water contamination and air pollution. As mentioned in both articles, while there are economical benefits that come out of fracking, at the end of the day, we would not choose to allow “our families to live in a community where fracking is taking place.”
In the first article from BBC, it mostly reported to readers why fracking is not so bad after all. After briefly discussing the negatives of fracking, the reporters argue that experts explain that the contamination of water by fracking is mostly due to “bad practice” rather than an inherently bad procedure. The truth is, as illustrated in the article, fracking helped “revolutionize” the economy by lowering gas prices and creating long reserves of fossil fuels to last another century.
My concern with these reports is that sure, fracking could sustain our current population of humans before we eventually die, but where is the concern for the future generations? My point is, this is a very short-sighted argument because it shows that fracking can benefit only in the short-term, but still carry the risk of creating long-term consequences following it. If, let’s say, water does get contaminated with carcinogens and the people within that community end up ill or developing cancers, is it really worth the risk? Even though fracking can solve some problems now, it cannot predict or anticipate that there are not going to be any health risks to the communities situated near fracking sites.
The second article from the Times shows Governor Cuomo’s stance on this issue. While he acknowledges that fracking could solve in the short-term many of New York’s problems, he stresses that it cannot be the only solution. One interesting thing he says in the article is how he’s never met anyone who loves hydraulic fracturing, but have met plenty of people who say “I have no alternative but fracking.”
The most notable thing that came from the Times article is the last part at the end when the acting state health commissioner announces that fracking does pose dangerous health concerns and that the act of fracking correlates with the health of the surrounding communities. Most of all, he points out that there is insufficient evidence however, to affirm the safety of fracking regardless of its economic benefits. I agree with Dr. Zucker’s enthusiasm against fracking.
