from Ross Hermiston, Bluff Road
Last night(24/07/2014) I attended the Fracking Hydraulic Review meeting in Windsor. I was surprised that there was a packed hall and was looking forward to an open discussion as I knew that the goal of the committee was to “make sure that we take every possible impact of hydraulic fracturing into account from all perspectives.” I understood that this was an opportunity for the public to express their concerns. I had prepared my views and hoped to speak to the committee.
Dr. Wheeler asked for 20 minutes to review the procedure and he emphasized again and again and again that the committee was open-minded and that every person’s viewpoint was important and would be considered. I am sure he would have continued talking but someone called time and he finally allowed individuals to make their presentations.
I was disappointed in the Chairman’s defensive attitude and his attempt to monopolize the meeting. To my surprise, he not only did not thank the individuals for their views; he proceeded with everyone to explain that his committee had considered their points and he seemed endlessly to repeat what an open-minded group they were. It also seemed to me that he was minimizing the importance of their views.
By this time, I saw that there was a line-up of people stretching to the back of the hall waiting to speak and I would not have a chance to participate .I listened to about 6 participants but I was dependent on a ride and my driver decided to leave. She expressed the view that she didn’t think this Review Committee open-minded and would be able to make an objective report.
I moved to Nova Scotia seven years ago because of the beauty of the land – the clean air and water – and to get away from the congestion and business of Kingston, Ontario which during the 40 years I lived there had changed dramatically. Today, the noise and pollution is 24/7.
The real substantial resource of Nova Scotia is its environment.
My brief view, that I wanted to express to the committee, was on the same lines as one of the people who did get a chance to speak: he asked the committee to remember what was said about nuclear power – that it would provide cheap energy and protect the environment. Ask the people of Fukushima what they think about that. [i]
I remember camping in 1942 that we were so keen to spray our tent with DDT and the mosquitoes were gone. We were told it was safe and it was initially used with great effect to combat malaria, typhus, and the other insect-borne human diseases as well as for insect control in crop and livestock production, institutions, homes, and gardens. Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane was first registered as a pesticide under Pest Control Products Act in the 1940s
After two decades of use, i n 1962, the book Silent Spring by American biologist Rachel Carson was published. It catalogued the environmental impacts of indiscriminate DDT spraying . The book demonstrated that DDT and other pesticides had been shown to cause cancer and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds.
Another decade went by before most uses of DDT in Canada were phased out by the mid-1970s. Another decade, in 1985, and registration of all uses of DDT was discontinued. The existing stocks could still be sold until 1990 when they would have to be disposed of. The sale or use of DDT in Canada today constitutes a violation of the Pest Control Products Act .
It took decades before we were made aware of the deleterious consequences of DDT and decades before we took prohibitive action – similar to smoking – and similar to global warming (about which we have yet to do anything substationa l).
Dr. Wheeler stated that the Review Committee would take into consideration all evidence; my view is that the long term effects of intrusion into the natural world cannot be known in advance. I would recommend that the committee include in its final report that it is irresponsible and foolhardy to proceed with fracking – at least wait for a decade or two and study the effects of the fracking taking place elsewhere.
I also would make the recommendation that the committee does not have the resources to do an effective job – the $100,000 is not adequate – Dr.Wheeler said his committee members could not attend last night’s meeting because they didn’t have sufficient funding. Also to expect a full report after only six months on such a complicated and extensive issue is virtual impossible.[ii]
Consider the issue of cancer:
There were an estimated 14.1 million cancer cases around the world in 2012. This number is expected to increase to 24 million by 2035.[iii]
United States House of Representatives Committee on energy and Commerce
Chemicals Used In Hydraulic Fracturing. April 2011
Conclusion
This analysis is the most comprehensive national assessment to date of the types and volumes of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. It shows that between 2005 and 2009, the 14 leading companies in the United States used over 2500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 compounds. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act or listed as hazardous air pollutants[iv].
On the availability of existing evidence on this issue alone, I recommend that the matter of fracking be dropped and we save money by not doing any further investigation.
Ross Hermiston
977 Bluff Road rr#1, Hantsport, NS. B0P 1P0
rosshh@live.ca
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments. I will publish anonymous comments at my discretion.
-Heather