As if we didn't see through the effort to downplay the impact of fracking on drinking water

[bigtree]

Media Matters ?@mmfa 1h1 hour ago
Newsweek and The Washington Times publish false headlines about fracking and drinking water: http://mm4a.org/1H5Kw4p

UPDATE (6/5/15): Following the publication of this post, The Washington Times changed its headline from "EPA: Fracking doesn't harm drinking water" to "EPA finds fracking poses no direct threat to drinking water." However, the New York Post published an article on June 5 adopting The Washington Times' original language, headlined, "Fracking doesn't harm drinking water: EPA."

ORIGINAL POST:

Within hours of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) releasing a study on hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," Newsweek and The Washington Times published online articles with headlines that falsely claimed the EPA determined fracking does not pollute drinking water. However, while the EPA said it found no evidence that fracking has led to "widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States," the study also identified "specific instances" where fracking "led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells."

In its headline, Newsweek asserted: "Fracking Doesn't Pollute Drinking Water, EPA Says." The Washington Times' similar headline, "EPA: Fracking doesn't harm drinking water," was also adopted by The Drudge Report, a highly influential conservative news aggregator.

But the EPA study said none of those things. Rather, the EPA concluded (emphasis added):

From our assessment, we conclude there are above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources. These mechanisms include water withdrawals in times of, or in areas with, low water availability; spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water; fracturing directly into underground drinking water resources; below ground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.

We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.

A more accurate headline about the EPA's study would have resembled that of U.S. News & World Report, which stated: "EPA: Fracking Tainted Drinking Water, but Problems Not Widespread."

In addition to mischaracterizing the EPA study, Newsweek and The Washington Times also excluded EPA's explanation of why its findings don't necessarily indicate "a rarity of effects on drinking water resources." The agency identified several "limiting factors" in its analysis, including insufficient data, the lack of long-term studies, and inaccessible information, stating that these limitations "preclude a determination of the frequency of [drinking water] impacts with any certainty." As the Environmental Defense Fund stated in a press release about the EPA study, "Better and more accessible data on activities surrounding hydraulic fracturing operations is needed."


read more: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/04/newsweek-wash-times-publish-false-headlines-abo/203890

[malthaussen]

1. Of course, this would cause more people to buy bottled water.

The poor EPA is probably confused, as there are two opposing industries to answer to. This kind of report is probably best all-round, as it will encourage skeptics to give more money to Nestle and other companies while not causing any action to be taken against the fracking industry.

-- Mal

[Zorra]

2. The supply of money that energy companies have is massive and endless.

Not only do they manipulate the media, but they manipulate public officials and government regulatory agencies as well.

I cannot help but compare the fracking fiasco to mountaintop removal strip mining of coal in Appalachia. The coal companies are a powerful, institutionalized force in Appalachia, and have armies of high power attorneys at their beck and call.

This allows them to knowingly damage the health of individuals, entire communities, and ecosystems, almost with impunity. If they get slapped with a fine, they consider the fine to be simply a fixed cost of doing business, and the fine is pennies to them, a fraction of a fraction of the bottom line of their enormous profits.

So, with regard to fracking, not only am I wary of the media, but I am also very wary of the accuracy of EPA studies. Corporations own our government, this is a fact of life in the US; the business of America is business, and this cliche has never been more true than it is right now.

Unless we stop the wealthy private interests from controlling our government, we can never have faith that the reports of regulatory agencies like the EPA are comprehensively accurate.

The agency identified several "limiting factors" in its analysis, including insufficient data, the lack of long-term studies, and inaccessible information, stating that these limitations "preclude a determination of the frequency of impacts with any certainty."

Based on the above excerpt, it would behoove the EPA, as a regulatory agency charged with protecting the health of human beings and their environment, to shut down all fracking operations immediately, and begin a long term, unimpeded comprehensive study of the effects of fracking. Because what the excerpt above is saying is that they really don't have a clue about the extent of damage fracking is doing to people and the planet.

[bigtree]

5. right

...what they're saying with this study's conclusions is they're willing to wait until the damage to drinking water supplies gets widespread enough or consequential enough for them before they intervene in any overt and determinate way.

ipa- industry protection agency

[TheNutcracker]

3. The Tampa Bay Times carried this drivel too

[Rex]

4. Pathetic.

But expected. There is almost nothing but corporate propaganda from the M$M. Any real and accurate news is merely incidental.

[Kablooie]

6. The number was small compared to the number of wells.

The number of deaths from tainted food is small compared to the number of people who eat food.

The number of deaths from car accidents is small compared to the number of cars on the road.

The number of deaths from terrorist attacks is small compared to the number of people in the world.