Let's make it a nice "three for three" for the EPA.  They have withdrawn a report they issued 2 years ago finding that fracking chemicals had migrated into the water table in Wyoming.  This is the identical pattern that they have followed in Texas and Pennsylvania.  Oooops.  Our tax dollars paid for studies in all 3 states that, subsequently, turned out to be defective.  Assuming one wants to get the truth in a matter, it isn't rocket science to design a study that will get you there.  Universities and laboratories do that routinely.  But sometimes one charters a study not to find the truth, but to try and prove a point. 

 

 

Views: 238

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Do you have a specific link?

I am a real bug for decent studies and have also noticed stupid stuff - like a pro-frack study from UT that failed to disclose it's researcher's ties to oil companies or the flaming faucet bs in Gasland.

I do not expect perfection from researchers and everyone is human and has a bias. However, good methodology and disclosures is what gets my respect. Besides, good science is the only way to learn and improve things ...

Anyone who thinks fracking can be banned or stopped is fooling themselves. It's now a world wide technology that is changing energy thinking around the globe. Of course, research needs to go into making the technology as modern and safe as possible - which is a continuous process.

I'm having a hard time copying and pasting since I'm away from home.  Just google EPA Fracking and Wyoming.  several articles, one short one on The Hill, one in the on-line version of WSJ.  EPA made its announcement this past Thursday.

The UT study was a debacle, not in its methods or approach, but because the professor failed to disclose his obvious conflict of interest through a relationship with industry. 

  

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service