tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post1831253613680113890..comments2024-02-13T02:20:03.350-08:00Comments on Shale Gas Review: Record shows EPA staff warned of Dimock water pollution Report exposes disconnect between results and action TOM WILBERhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16103105549852845055noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post-1075368719970117392013-08-01T11:13:35.207-07:002013-08-01T11:13:35.207-07:00Science is a tool for discovering the realities of...Science is a tool for discovering the realities of our universe. Deciding not to use that tool or using it in a biased manner will not change the realities of our universe. Reality has no political bias, it just is. <br /><br />So, when a scientist is presented with data indicating that there may be a problem with groundwater contamination due to shale gas extraction, ignoring that data or passing it off onto some other agency (which is likely to also ignore thae data) will not change the actual reality of the situation. If there is a problem with the groundwater, there is a problem with the groundwater whether anyone looks at the data or not. <br /><br />If in fact, shale gas extraction is damaging groundwater, refusing to examine that damage will not make the damage go away. I think it therefore follows that if, at some point in the future, some poor child is lying in the hospital in serious condition because of groundwater polluted by drilling and/or fracking, that will be partly due to the "scientists" who turned a blind eye on the data because of political expediency. Which makes me wonder how certain people sleep at night.....really, if there is any chance at all that damage to the groundwater is occurring due to drilling and/or fracking, then the scientists--and the industry itself--should be halting the drilling and fracking and studying the situation like mad. Sweeping evidence under the rug is just asking for a big mess (and possible human tragedy) later on.Mary Sweeneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878546420428414773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post-20181830776363014872013-08-01T08:07:39.567-07:002013-08-01T08:07:39.567-07:00And thanks, Sue, for bringing this up. And thanks, Sue, for bringing this up. TOM WILBERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16103105549852845055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post-50944392614592722122013-08-01T07:25:14.979-07:002013-08-01T07:25:14.979-07:00Michael, I take that to mean science that does not...Michael, I take that to mean science that does not square with their political objectives? Yes, this happens all the time, and I don't mean to be cynical. Political objectives are important aspect in the business of governing. But I agree that it is critically important that publically funded science done in the interest of public health be completed as scheduled rather than struck down by a special interest. Rather than science informing political decisions, here you have political decisions influencing the outcome of science. TOM WILBERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16103105549852845055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post-3845670954721347462013-07-31T18:14:00.189-07:002013-07-31T18:14:00.189-07:00Thanks for delving in deeper and clarifying this m...Thanks for delving in deeper and clarifying this murky situation. Why is it that politicians say "let's make our decisions based on the science" and then interfere with the science?Sue Heavenrichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00550259613381458435noreply@blogger.com