Aa
Fracking and a Radioactive Silvery-White Monster: Radium
Fracking and a Radioactive Silvery-White Monster: Radium Must be Left in the Earth
by Karl Grossman
Fracking for gas not only uses toxic chemicals that can contaminate drinking and groundwater -- it also releases substantial quantities of radioactive poison from the ground that will remain hot and deadly for thousands of years.Image:
Issuing a report yesterday exposing major radioactive impacts of hydraulic fracturing known as fracking -- was Grassroots Environmental Education, an organization in New York, where extensive fracking is proposed.
The Marcellus Shale region which covers much of upstate New York is seen as loaded with gas that can be released through the fracking process. It involves injecting fluid and chemicals under high pressure to fracture shale formations and release the gas captured in them.
But also released, notes the report, is radioactive material in the shale including Radium-226 with a half-life of 1,600 years. A half-life is how long it takes for a radioactive substance to lose half its radiation. It is multiplied by between 10 and 20 to determine the “hazardous lifetime” of a radioactive material, how long it takes for it to lose its radioactivity. Thus Radium-226 remains radioactive for between 16,000 and 32,000 years.
“Horizontal hydrofracking for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region of New York State has the potential to result in the production of large amounts of waste materials containing Radium-226 and Radium-228 in both solid and liquid mediums,” states the report by E. Ivan White. For 30 years he was a staff scientist for the Congressionally-chartered National Council on Radiation Protection.
“Importantly, the type of radioactive material found in the Marcellus Shale and brought to the surface by horizontal hydrofracking is the type that is particularly long-lived, and could easily bio-accumulate over time and deliver a dangerous radiation dose to potentially millions of people long after the drilling is over,” the report goes on.
“Radioactivity in the environment, especially the presence of the known carcinogen radium, poses a potentially significant threat to human health,” it says. “Therefore, any activity that has the potential to increase that exposure must be carefully analyzed prior to its commencement so that the risks can be fully understood.”
The report lays out “potential pathways of the radiation” through the air, water and soil. Through soil it would get into crops and animals eaten by people.
Examined in the report are a 1999 study done by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation “assisted by representatives from 16 oil and gas companies” on hydrofracking and radioactivity and a 2011 Environmental Impact Statement the agency did on the issue. It says both present a “cavalier attitude toward human exposure to radioactive material.”
Radium causes cancer in people largely because it is treated as calcium by the body and becomes deposited in bones. It can mutate bones cells causing cancer and also impact on bone marrow. It can cause aplastic anemia an inability of bone marrow to produce sufficient new cells to replenish blood cells. Marie Curie, who discovered radium in 1893 and felt comfortable physically handling it, died of aplastic anemia.
Once radium was used in self-luminous paint for watch dials and even as an additive in products such as toothpaste and hair creams for purported “curative powers.”
There are “no specific treatments for radium poisoning,” advises the Delaware Health and Social Services Division of Public Health in its information sheet on radium. When first discovered, “no one knew that it was dangerous,” it mentions.
White’s report, entitled “Consideration of Radiation in Hazardous Waste Produced from Horizontal Hydrofracking,” notes that “radioactive materials and chemical wastes do not just go away when they are released into the environment. They remain active and potentially lethal, and can show up years later in unexpected places. They bio-accumulate in the food chain, eventually reaching humans.”
Under the fracking plan for New York State, “there are insufficient precautions for monitoring potential pathways or to even know what is being released into the environment,” it states.
The Department of Environmental Conservation “has not proposed sufficient regulations for tracking radioactive waste from horizontal hydrofracking,” it says. “Neither New York State nor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would permit a nuclear power plant to handle radioactive material in this manner.”
Doug Wood, associate director of Grassroots Environmental Education, which is based in Port Washington, New York, and also editor of the report, commented as it was issued: “Once radioactive material comes out of the ground along with the gas, the problem is what to do with it. The radioactivity lasts for thousands of years, and it is virtually impossible to eliminate or mitigate. Sooner or later, it’s going to end up in our environment and eventually our food chain. It’s a problem with no good solution - and the DEC is unequipped to handle it.”
As for “various disposal methods…contemplated” by the agency “for the thousands of tons of radioactive waste expected to be produced by fracking,” Wood said that “none…adequately protect New Yorkers from eventual exposure to this radioactive material. Spread it on the ground and it will become airborne with dust or wash off into surface waters; dilute it before discharge into rivers and it will raise radiation levels in those rivers for everyone downstream; bury it underground and it will eventually find its way into someone’s drinking water. No matter how hard you try, you can’t put the radioactive genie back into the bottle.”
Furthermore, said Wood in an interview, in releasing radioactive radium from the ground, “a terrible burden would be placed on everybody that comes after us. As a moral issue, we must not burden future generations with this. We must say no to fracking -- and implement the use of sustainable forms of energy that don’t kill.”
The prospects of unleashing, through fracking, radium, a silvery-white metal, has a parallel in the mining of uranium on the Navajo Nation.
The mining began on the Navajo Nation, which encompasses parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, during World War II as the Manhattan Project, the American crash program to build atomic weapons, sought uranium to fuel them. The Navajos weren’t told that mining the uranium, yellow in color, could lead to lung cancer. And lung cancer became epidemic among the miners and then spread across the Navajo Nation from piles of contaminated uranium tailings and other remnants of the mining.
The Navajos gave the uranium a name: Leetso or yellow monster.
Left in the ground, it would do no harm. But taken from the earth, it has caused disease. That is why the Navajo Nation outlawed uranium mining in 2005. “This legislation just chopped the legs off the uranium monster,” said Norman Brown, a Navajo leader.
Similarly, radium, a silvery-white monster, must be left in the earth, not unleashed, with fracking, to inflict disease on people today and many, many generations into the future.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/09-3
by Karl Grossman
Fracking for gas not only uses toxic chemicals that can contaminate drinking and groundwater -- it also releases substantial quantities of radioactive poison from the ground that will remain hot and deadly for thousands of years.Image:
Issuing a report yesterday exposing major radioactive impacts of hydraulic fracturing known as fracking -- was Grassroots Environmental Education, an organization in New York, where extensive fracking is proposed.
The Marcellus Shale region which covers much of upstate New York is seen as loaded with gas that can be released through the fracking process. It involves injecting fluid and chemicals under high pressure to fracture shale formations and release the gas captured in them.
But also released, notes the report, is radioactive material in the shale including Radium-226 with a half-life of 1,600 years. A half-life is how long it takes for a radioactive substance to lose half its radiation. It is multiplied by between 10 and 20 to determine the “hazardous lifetime” of a radioactive material, how long it takes for it to lose its radioactivity. Thus Radium-226 remains radioactive for between 16,000 and 32,000 years.
“Horizontal hydrofracking for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region of New York State has the potential to result in the production of large amounts of waste materials containing Radium-226 and Radium-228 in both solid and liquid mediums,” states the report by E. Ivan White. For 30 years he was a staff scientist for the Congressionally-chartered National Council on Radiation Protection.
“Importantly, the type of radioactive material found in the Marcellus Shale and brought to the surface by horizontal hydrofracking is the type that is particularly long-lived, and could easily bio-accumulate over time and deliver a dangerous radiation dose to potentially millions of people long after the drilling is over,” the report goes on.
“Radioactivity in the environment, especially the presence of the known carcinogen radium, poses a potentially significant threat to human health,” it says. “Therefore, any activity that has the potential to increase that exposure must be carefully analyzed prior to its commencement so that the risks can be fully understood.”
The report lays out “potential pathways of the radiation” through the air, water and soil. Through soil it would get into crops and animals eaten by people.
Examined in the report are a 1999 study done by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation “assisted by representatives from 16 oil and gas companies” on hydrofracking and radioactivity and a 2011 Environmental Impact Statement the agency did on the issue. It says both present a “cavalier attitude toward human exposure to radioactive material.”
Radium causes cancer in people largely because it is treated as calcium by the body and becomes deposited in bones. It can mutate bones cells causing cancer and also impact on bone marrow. It can cause aplastic anemia an inability of bone marrow to produce sufficient new cells to replenish blood cells. Marie Curie, who discovered radium in 1893 and felt comfortable physically handling it, died of aplastic anemia.
Once radium was used in self-luminous paint for watch dials and even as an additive in products such as toothpaste and hair creams for purported “curative powers.”
There are “no specific treatments for radium poisoning,” advises the Delaware Health and Social Services Division of Public Health in its information sheet on radium. When first discovered, “no one knew that it was dangerous,” it mentions.
White’s report, entitled “Consideration of Radiation in Hazardous Waste Produced from Horizontal Hydrofracking,” notes that “radioactive materials and chemical wastes do not just go away when they are released into the environment. They remain active and potentially lethal, and can show up years later in unexpected places. They bio-accumulate in the food chain, eventually reaching humans.”
Under the fracking plan for New York State, “there are insufficient precautions for monitoring potential pathways or to even know what is being released into the environment,” it states.
The Department of Environmental Conservation “has not proposed sufficient regulations for tracking radioactive waste from horizontal hydrofracking,” it says. “Neither New York State nor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would permit a nuclear power plant to handle radioactive material in this manner.”
Doug Wood, associate director of Grassroots Environmental Education, which is based in Port Washington, New York, and also editor of the report, commented as it was issued: “Once radioactive material comes out of the ground along with the gas, the problem is what to do with it. The radioactivity lasts for thousands of years, and it is virtually impossible to eliminate or mitigate. Sooner or later, it’s going to end up in our environment and eventually our food chain. It’s a problem with no good solution - and the DEC is unequipped to handle it.”
As for “various disposal methods…contemplated” by the agency “for the thousands of tons of radioactive waste expected to be produced by fracking,” Wood said that “none…adequately protect New Yorkers from eventual exposure to this radioactive material. Spread it on the ground and it will become airborne with dust or wash off into surface waters; dilute it before discharge into rivers and it will raise radiation levels in those rivers for everyone downstream; bury it underground and it will eventually find its way into someone’s drinking water. No matter how hard you try, you can’t put the radioactive genie back into the bottle.”
Furthermore, said Wood in an interview, in releasing radioactive radium from the ground, “a terrible burden would be placed on everybody that comes after us. As a moral issue, we must not burden future generations with this. We must say no to fracking -- and implement the use of sustainable forms of energy that don’t kill.”
The prospects of unleashing, through fracking, radium, a silvery-white metal, has a parallel in the mining of uranium on the Navajo Nation.
The mining began on the Navajo Nation, which encompasses parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, during World War II as the Manhattan Project, the American crash program to build atomic weapons, sought uranium to fuel them. The Navajos weren’t told that mining the uranium, yellow in color, could lead to lung cancer. And lung cancer became epidemic among the miners and then spread across the Navajo Nation from piles of contaminated uranium tailings and other remnants of the mining.
The Navajos gave the uranium a name: Leetso or yellow monster.
Left in the ground, it would do no harm. But taken from the earth, it has caused disease. That is why the Navajo Nation outlawed uranium mining in 2005. “This legislation just chopped the legs off the uranium monster,” said Norman Brown, a Navajo leader.
Similarly, radium, a silvery-white monster, must be left in the earth, not unleashed, with fracking, to inflict disease on people today and many, many generations into the future.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/09-3
The problem of course, with dumping this toxic stuff into our water is that when or if people start getting odd diseases or cancer years from now, it may be hard to prove it was because of the toxic water and too late to reverse the situation.
Fracking should be shut down in my opinion. There are other simpler, cleaner alternatives.
Fracking should be shut down in my opinion. There are other simpler, cleaner alternatives.
One link:
http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/story11/01-05-2011-PA-GasDrilling-Frackwater
LOL...I'm rapid fire posting. Tee hee
http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/story11/01-05-2011-PA-GasDrilling-Frackwater
LOL...I'm rapid fire posting. Tee hee
This is a great article, outlining how great the drilling has been economically...job creation, infrastructure, donating to charitable organizations...homeowners and business owners have profited HUGELY. I was not real thrilled about the idea in the beginning, but it's definitely been good for our region, no doubt.
Environmentally, there are all kinds of new watch dog type groups which have really increased the pressure on MS to maintain and improve standards.
Environmentally, there are all kinds of new watch dog type groups which have really increased the pressure on MS to maintain and improve standards.
Actually, it's funny too, PA tends to be on the more strict side when it comes to alot of regulations in general, and laws.
PA is the ONLY state that has OK'd the dumping of frack water into rivers and streams. SO far, so good, though, with the tight regulations per the local townships, the top advisor of our state run "EPA" type agency has been keeping a very close eye on the drinking water, and so far, it has not been affected.
PA is the ONLY state that has OK'd the dumping of frack water into rivers and streams. SO far, so good, though, with the tight regulations per the local townships, the top advisor of our state run "EPA" type agency has been keeping a very close eye on the drinking water, and so far, it has not been affected.
Marcellus Shale has infiltrated our region BIGTIME. The local townships got very tough of them, they had to increase their standards, especially when it comes to fracking, or there were no contracts going to be signed.
They stepped up, and the EPA has actually said they have been more than compliant. With something like this, of course there's always going to be some envrionmental impact, but the impact on obtaining such huge amounts of natural gas cannot be ignored either.
They are drilling all over, and they are actually getting ready to put in the state's second largest compressor state in the township where I live, like a few miles away.
I'll have to find some articles about how tough our local townships were on MS trying to improve their pratices. It was really something,
They stepped up, and the EPA has actually said they have been more than compliant. With something like this, of course there's always going to be some envrionmental impact, but the impact on obtaining such huge amounts of natural gas cannot be ignored either.
They are drilling all over, and they are actually getting ready to put in the state's second largest compressor state in the township where I live, like a few miles away.
I'll have to find some articles about how tough our local townships were on MS trying to improve their pratices. It was really something,
Yes, the oil companies are investing heavily in alternative energy as pointed out by brice, in west TX where desrt is refering to are some of the largest wind mill farms I have ever seen.
As far as the fracking process effecting ground water IMO it would fall back to faulty cement and casing, since the entire well bore is presurred up during the process, if it were just from the fracking process it would mean there were cracks in the earth 1000's of feet long running through all the formations from the production zones to the fresh water zones, I admit that it would only take 1 faulty well to contaminate the fresh water and IMO there. Needs to be tighter regulations on making the oil companies run cement bond logs (checking the cement and casing seal) which is not standard practice at this time, unless the oil company has reason to believe there might be a problem
As far as the fracking process effecting ground water IMO it would fall back to faulty cement and casing, since the entire well bore is presurred up during the process, if it were just from the fracking process it would mean there were cracks in the earth 1000's of feet long running through all the formations from the production zones to the fresh water zones, I admit that it would only take 1 faulty well to contaminate the fresh water and IMO there. Needs to be tighter regulations on making the oil companies run cement bond logs (checking the cement and casing seal) which is not standard practice at this time, unless the oil company has reason to believe there might be a problem
Really??
That is good news. Okay when I get back, I have some people to look up.
Thanks Brice.
That is good news. Okay when I get back, I have some people to look up.
Thanks Brice.
Oil and gas companies and magnates are investing in all alternatives of energy. Solar, wind, you name it and they are investing in it..... T. Boone Pickens? Heard of him? He is promoting wind farms these days and he's made a billion dollars in oil.....
There has been oil and gas exploration in the area for quite some time. It wasn't until the "fracking" began in the region that the wells began to foul. Call it coincidence of anything else that may make you feel better, but it is very real....
It is nice to "meet" someone who drills for oil. You put a human face on something that I have extreme views on. I trust your judgement so somehow it makes me feel a bit better drilling (not fracking, of course)
One question-if you feel it is political and don't want to publicly open a can of worms, I understand.
The question is since it is not a renewable resource, is the oil industry looking in to shifting to other means of energy. I understand if they go for example, solar -they are no longer an oil industry- but eventually it will run out so how does the industry propose to continue being a leading source for public consumption or will they just shut down, eventually?
One question-if you feel it is political and don't want to publicly open a can of worms, I understand.
The question is since it is not a renewable resource, is the oil industry looking in to shifting to other means of energy. I understand if they go for example, solar -they are no longer an oil industry- but eventually it will run out so how does the industry propose to continue being a leading source for public consumption or will they just shut down, eventually?
If you want to read something interesting look up the govt's project plowshare 1969 and early 70's where they set nuke's off under ground in CO to open up the existing fractures to better produce the gas, I would post the links but I am on my phone and can't copy and paste
One thing that needs to be understood is the fracking process takes place at depths well below the fresh water table (1000's of feet) so for the fracking process to direcly effect the ground there would have to be a migration of the chemicals through the formations of the ground, in my expirience the more likely scenario of ground water contamination would come directly from the drilling process through those zones or through faulty cementing jobs on surface casing, federal regulations require the oil companies to case and cement the fresh water zones to protect them, yes I am pro oilfield as I do work in the industry, do I believe polluting the ground water, no, who in their right mind would.
In the above artical it would seem their main complaint is the chemicals the earth is producing that is being brought by the gas coming to surface
In the above artical it would seem their main complaint is the chemicals the earth is producing that is being brought by the gas coming to surface
I don't know if there is anything to stop it. We speak of morals and morality around here quite often.... one would think that morality would step in and do something about poisoning people.
This process is far more effective than traditional drilling techniques, so more profits and less of an expense getting those profits. In the mean time, Americans are being poisoned by Americans. It really is a tragedy.
Look up Pavillion, Wyoming and fracking..... look at what the people are saying, not the gas exploration companies.
This process is far more effective than traditional drilling techniques, so more profits and less of an expense getting those profits. In the mean time, Americans are being poisoned by Americans. It really is a tragedy.
Look up Pavillion, Wyoming and fracking..... look at what the people are saying, not the gas exploration companies.
That's terrible. Is there nothing that can be done to stop it?
Seems mighty short-sighted to cause so much destruction for a temporary solution to energy needs.
"You're (not you personally) "-LOL
Seems mighty short-sighted to cause so much destruction for a temporary solution to energy needs.
"You're (not you personally) "-LOL
It does pollute the ground water. You're (not you personally) injecting this stuff into the ground water under high pressure and this stuff is left behind. Even the residual effects of this stuff would be catastrophic.....
Some people will tell you that there is no effect on the ground water. One of the ranchers whose water was affected in Pavillion, Wyoming was having government officials and representitives from some of the outfits doing the fracking come to his property, telling him that "everything is okay".
In true Wyoming fashion, the rancher said.... "If everything is okay, why won't you drink water from my well?'.
Some people will tell you that there is no effect on the ground water. One of the ranchers whose water was affected in Pavillion, Wyoming was having government officials and representitives from some of the outfits doing the fracking come to his property, telling him that "everything is okay".
In true Wyoming fashion, the rancher said.... "If everything is okay, why won't you drink water from my well?'.
The Bay area is always nice-
Sadly there really is nowhere to go though. Won;t these practices have consequences for everyone in the long term? It won't just be the local folks.
Sadly there really is nowhere to go though. Won;t these practices have consequences for everyone in the long term? It won't just be the local folks.
Sorry-dumb question I didn't read the article first!!!!
Does it indeed pollute the ground water?
Fracking is a process they use in both oil and gas production, they go to the zones where the product is located and pump out the materials they are using to open up the fractures (cracks) in the zone to let in more product into the well bore
Oh yes, I love the cookie analogy! And we Republicans came up with this??
This need of energy thing is a major pain!!
This need of energy thing is a major pain!!
Think of Oreo cookies. Chocolate cookie, frosting, cookie.... now stack about 20 of them on top of each other. Your trying to get the frosting, so you'd have to drill to a frosting layer and stop to extract the frosting before moving to the next layer of frosting.
Fracking allows you to "fracture" or pulverize the different cookie layers, and there for concentrate the frosting so you can extract all at once instead of multiple stops....
Better? Maybe?
Fracking allows you to "fracture" or pulverize the different cookie layers, and there for concentrate the frosting so you can extract all at once instead of multiple stops....
Better? Maybe?
It's a "relatively new process" for extracting natural gas. In this region, natural gas is abundant but the traditional "drilling process" is less effective at extracting this gas than "fracking" is.
The gas lies in pockets between layers of rock. Drilling goes into these pockets and then through them essentially, making the extraction less efficient. Fracking injects water and chemicals under high pressure and the gas is easier and more effectively extracted....
Did any of that make sense? I can try again if necessary.
The gas lies in pockets between layers of rock. Drilling goes into these pockets and then through them essentially, making the extraction less efficient. Fracking injects water and chemicals under high pressure and the gas is easier and more effectively extracted....
Did any of that make sense? I can try again if necessary.
Call me dumb (or silly I guess)---- what are they fracking for?? I don't really get the concept.
We've got a small ranching/farming community here whose ground water is completely polluted. Tap water can be lit afire... the water that cannot be lit smells like an oil slick. These people are getting completely blown off by the federal government.... "it's not from oil and gas exploration" is their common reply, even though water wells that have been operational for decades only recently became polluted. The only new addition to the mix is "fracking".
Do the math.... its a horrible practice.
Do the math.... its a horrible practice.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
