"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Rather than provide healthcare

Rather than provide healthcare, the Obamacare website is being used to boost low-income Democrat voter registration. Election integrity activists have called it “The biggest voter registration fraud scheme in history.” The Soros-funded Demos has bragged that Obamacare exchanges will register “68 million people to vote.”

when i googled this leaked obama real agenda with american and recovery reinvestment act this is what came up

Veterans

"For their service and sacrifice, warm words of thanks from a grateful nation are more than warranted, but they aren't nearly enough. We also owe our veterans the care they were promised and the benefits that they have earned. We have a sacred trust with those who wear the uniform of the United States of America. It's a commitment that begins at enlistment, and it must never end. But we know that for too long, we've fallen short of meeting that commitment. Too many wounded warriors go without the care that they need. Too many veterans don't receive the support that they've earned. Too many who once wore our nation's uniform now sleep in our nation's streets."

-President Barack Obama, March 19, 2009

Read the Transcript | Download Video: mp4 (122MB) | mp3 (12MB)

Guiding Principles

A 21st Century VA

The President’s message to those who serve is this: when you come home to America, America will be there for you. This Administration is committed to ensuring that DoD and VA coordinate to provide a seamless transition from active duty to civilian life and help fix the benefit bureaucracy. This Administration has worked towards modernizing the way health care is delivered and benefits are administered for our nation's veterans.

Progress

On August 31, 2012 President Obama signed an Executive Order that strengthens suicide prevention efforts across the Force and in the veteran community and improves access to mental health services for veterans, service members, and military families members.
First Lady Michelle Obama announced on August 22, 2012 that more than 2,000 American companies had answered President Obama's challenge and had hired or trained 125,000 veterans and military spouses in the past year through Joining Forces. This effort, combined with policies and legislation put in place by the President, have resulted in a 20 percent decrease in veteran unemployment compared to the same time last year.
President Obama signed the Veterans Skills to Jobs Act on July 12, 2012. This legislation will make it easier for veterans to put their skills to work and complements the new partnership launched by the Obama Administration that will make it easier for manufacturing companies to hire thousands of returning servicemembers who have the skills our country needs.
On April 11, 2012, First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden announced a commitment from more than 150 state and national nursing organizations and over 500 nursing schools to further educate our nation’s 3 million nurses so they are prepared to meet the unique health needs of service members, veterans, and their families.
As part of President Obama's broader plan to help millions of Americans refinance and save thousands of dollars a year, support the communities hardest-hit by the housing crisis, and help families avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes, on March 6, 2012 he announced new measures major mortgage servicers will be taking to provide significant relief to thousands of servicemembers and veterans.
President Obama signed the "VOW to Hire Heroes Act" into law on November 21, 2011. The Returning Heroes Tax Credit provides businesses that hire unemployed veterans a maximum credit of $5,600 per veteran, and the Wounded Warriors Tax Credit offers businesses that hire veterans with service-connected disabilities a maximum credit of $9,600 per veteran.
On November 7, 2011 President Obama introduced new resources created to help veterans translate their military skills for the civilian workforce. These online tools were designed to aid their search for jobs and make it easier to connect our veterans with companies that want to hire them:

Veteran Gold Card Post-9/11 veterans can download the Veteran Gold Card, which entitles them to enhanced services including six months of personalized case management, assessments and counseling, at the roughly 3,000 One-Stop Career Centers located across the country. This could help serve the more than 200,000 unemployed Post-9/11 veterans. The President directed the Department of Labor to launch this initiative in his August 5, 2011 speech at the Navy Yard.
My Next Move for Veterans: The Department of Labor will launch My Next Move for Veterans, a new online resource that allows veterans to enter their military occupation code and discover civilian occupations for which they are well qualified. The site will also include information about salaries, apprenticeships, and other related education and training programs.
Creating a Veterans Job Bank: The Veterans Job Bank, at National Resource Directory, is an easy to use tool to help veterans find job postings from companies looking to hire them. It already searches over 500,000 job postings and is growing. In a few easy steps, companies can make sure the job postings on their own websites are part of this Veterans Job Bank.

On August 5, 2011 President Obama announced new commitments to servicemembers and veterans that will provide a comprehensive plan to lower veteran unemployment and ensure that servicemembers leave the military career-ready through hiring tax credits, private sector commitments, and reforms that improve the way we prepare, train, and educate servicemembers for life after the military. The commitment to America's veterans includes:

Returning Heroes and Wounded Warrior Tax Credits: A new Returning Heroes Tax Credit for firms that hire unemployed veterans (maximum credit of $2,400 for every short-term unemployed hire and $4,800 for every long-term unemployed hire) and a Wounded Warriors Tax Credit which will increase the existing tax credit for firms that hire veterans with service-connected disabilities who have been unemployed long-term (maximum credit of $9,600 per veteran) and continue the existing credit for all other veterans with a service-connected disability (maximum credit of $4,800).
A Challenge to the Private Sector to Hire or Train 100,000 Unemployed Veterans or Their Spouses by the End of 2013: The President will challenge businesses to commit to hire or provide training to unemployed veterans or their spouses. Joining Forces will lead this work with businesses and industry.
Presidential Call for a Career-Ready Military: The Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, working closely with other agencies and the President’s economic and domestic policy teams, will lead a new task force to develop reforms to ensure that every member of the service receives the training, education, and credentials they need to transition to the civilian workforce or to pursue higher education. These reforms will include the design of a “reverse bootcamp,” which will extend the transition period to give service members more counseling and guidance and leave them career-ready.
Transition to the Private Sector: The Department of Labor will establish a new initiative to deliver an enhanced career development and job search service package to transitioning veterans at their local One-Stop Career Centers. The Office of Personnel Management will create a “Best Practices” Manual for the private sector to help businesses identify and hire veterans.
Expand Ground Forces to Meet Military Needs and Improve Quality of Life: Increasing end strength in the Army and Marine Corps will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments, reduce the strain on military families, and help put an end to stop loss. We also plan to halt end strength reductions in the Air Force and Navy.

Lighten Burdens on Our Brave Troops and Their Families: Those in uniform are not the only ones who serve; military families are a top priority for this Administration. The President has announced plans to raise military pay and continue providing quality child-care, job-training for spouses, and expanded counseling and outreach to families that have known the separation and stress of war. First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden launched the Joining Forces initiative to mobilize all sectors of society to give our service members and their families the opportunities and support they have earned.

The Recovery Act provided the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America’s Veterans

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) enabled the VA to improve medical facilities and national cemeteries, provided grants to assist states in acquiring or constructing state nursing homes and extended care facilities, and to modify or alter existing facilities to care for Veterans.
VA dedicated ARRA funds to hire and train 1,500 temporary claims processors to speed benefits delivery to Veterans and pursue needed information technology initiatives for improved benefits and services. Funds were also used to oversee and audit programs, grants, and projects funded under ARRA.
As part of the President’s Recovery plan, VA made one-time payments of $250 to eligible Veterans and survivors to mitigate the effects of the economic downturn.
The President announced the Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Initiative. The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have worked together to define and build a system that will ultimately contain administrative and medical information from the day an individual enters military service throughout their military career, and into the Veteran phase of life.

VA Healthcare

With Secretary Shinseki, the President will make sure the VA provides veterans the best care possible. This means improved care for poly-trauma, vision impairment, prosthetics, spinal cord injury, aging, and women's health.
Because the nightmares of war don't always end when our loved ones return home, this Administration will work to meet the mental health needs of our veterans. Untold thousands of servicemen and women and veterans suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or other serious psychological injury. This Administration is determined to address the challenges of caring for those affected by PTSD when they return home.
Because thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have suffered from Traumatic Brain Injury, one of the signature injuries of these wars, this Administration will continue to improve services for cognitive injuries and ensure our veterans receive the on-going care they need. and the President supports advance appropriations for the VA budget so that healthcare for veterans is not hindered by budget delays.

VA Services

We all share the shame of well over one hundred thousand veterans going homeless on any given night. This Administration has worked on pilot programs with not-for-profit organizations to make sure that veterans at risk of losing their homes have a roof over their heads.
Finally, this Administration recognizes that our veterans deserve something more -- an equal chance to reach for the very dream they defend. This Administration is committed to providing the resources to effectively implement the Post-9/11 GI Bill – providing every returning service member with a real chance to afford a college education.

HHS.gov

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

HHS.gov/Recovery

Overview

The HHS.gov/Recovery website supported the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Approximately $160 billion was distributed to fund programs to improve and preserve health care, health information technology, children and community services, scientific research and facilities, and community health and prevention initiatives. The site launched in February, 2009, providing weekly and monthly reports to the nation about spending and accountability.

Notice of Archive

The HHS Recovery Act site was archived in 2013, but spending reports will continue until 2015. The archive site is available at:
http://wayback.archive-it.org/3909/20130927155638/http:/www.hhs.gov/recovery/

Financial Reports

See the monthly financial reports:

December 2013 [Excel] [CSV]
November 2013 [Excel] [CSV]
October 2013 [Excel] [CSV]
September 2013 [Excel] [CSV]
August 2013 [Excel] [CSV]

Implementation Summary

As of December 31, 2013
Total HHS Recovery Funds Obligated (through grants and contracts):
$137.4 Billion
Total Gross Outlays (spent by recipients):
$138.8 Billion

Outlays also include the $4.3 billion in savings to states contributions, which are not included in obligations.

CONTACTS

Research Questions:
Lynette Arias,
Sponsored Programs
&
Tami Sadusky,
Financial Management
uw-arra@uw.edu

Human Resource Questions:
Jessie Garcia
Human Resources
jgarcia@uw.edu

Non-Research Questions:
Jeff Follman
Financial Management
jfollman@uw.edu

GCA ARRA Compliance Analysts
Donna Parks 206.685.2960
Katherine Sidener 206.616.7664
uw-arra@uw.edu

ARRA Organization Chart

What Do We Know?

( click on headings below to see full details )

The Intent of the Bill

Special Reporting Requirements

Funds Distribution

Building/Renovation Funding

ARRA International Spending and Hiring

ARRA HOME

On February 17th, 2009 President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) or Stimulus Package to restart the economy. The package contains extensive funding for science, engineering research and infrastructure, and more limited funding for education, social sciences and the arts.
The University of Washington responded by setting up several ARRA project teams and work groups to coordinate a technical reporting solution and broad ranging communication. Representation is provided by management sponsors, central offices and campus. See organizational chart.

Important Announcements

02/03/2014: FederalReporting.gov Announcement.

04/1/2013: All NSF requests for a waiver from a requirement to spend Recovery Act funds by Sept. 30 granted by OMB.

06/27/2012: U.S. Department of Energy Message regarding Accelerating Spending of ARRA funds.

02/16/2012: Summary of OMB Guidance M-11-34:Acceleration of Conclusion of ARRA Awards.

02/16/2012: OMB Guidance M-11-34.

02/16/2012: NSF Notice re Acceleration of ARRA Awards.

ARRA Closeout

ARRA Closeout Instructions

Recipient reporting for Recovery Act awards has been repealed by Congress as of February 1, 2014. Therefore, the January 2014 reporting cycle was the last time you will be required to report on your ARRA award.

ARRA FAQS

ARRA Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

ARRA Training Sessions

ARRA Training Session Presentation Slides

Introduction to Post Award Research Administration

New Principal Investigator / Administrator ARRA Training Session

TBA

Recent Announcements

04/09/2010: Obama Tells Agencies to Be Aggressive With Noncompliant ARRA R.

03/04/2010: Federal Stimulus Funds for UW Create 2,000 Jobs Directly and Indirectly.

01/15/2010: RECIPIENT REPORTING PERIOD EXTENDED-Recovery.gov

• The change in calculating jobs -- The guidance on the new calculation was issued just two weeks prior to the start of the reporting period

• Hard Edit Checks -- Put in place to improve the quality of the data, the edit checks also resulted in recipients needing morel time to fill out each report.

• Timing -- There were only five business days to report between the first day on January 1 and the final reporting date on January 10.

NOTE: Reports filed after January 15, 2010 will be considered late reports.

ALERT FOR PRIME RECIPIENTS: The period for commenting on sub-recipient reports has been changed. It is now from 12:01 A.M. on January 23 to midnight P.S.T.

ALERT FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES: The period for reviewing recipients' reports has been changed. It now begins at 12:01 A.M. on January 24 and ends at midnight P.S.T. on January 29, 2010.

If you have not registered nor reported, see the information below.

FIRST TIME REPORTERS
If you received a Recovery Act grant or loan award of $25,000 or more – in the period of September 30, 2009 to December 31, 2009 – you are required to report on the expenditure of those funds. Even if you have not yet received the funds. If you received a federal contract award of any dollar amount, and have invoiced under that federal contract, you must report.

Register at FederalReporting.gov
If you need assistance in registering, the following are available at FederalReporting.gov in the Downloads section:

• Registration Guide

• Recipient Point of Contact Guide

• Registration Quick Reference Card

RETURNING REPORTERS
You may need to update your reports.
You do not have to re-register.

You Must Report If:

• You reported in October 2009 and the Recovery project is not yet complete.

• You reported in October 2009 and the Recovery project was completed after October 30, 2009

• You reported in October 2009 but still have not yet received the award funds

01/15/2010: HOW JOBS ARE CALCULATED-Recovery.gov

The initial guidance captured jobs for a period of time longer than a quarter (February through September). The new guidance captures jobs for a single quarter (e.g., October through December). In addition, the new guidance eliminates the distinction between a job created and a job retained. Jobs are now simply based on the number of hours worked in a quarter that were paid for by Recovery funds.

It does not matter if the hours were worked by a person who was newly hired, a person whose job was saved by the Recovery Act, or a person who is in an existing position that is now being funded by the Recovery Act.

In December 2009, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued the changes in guidance to align with the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office. OMB believes the new formula will help improve the overall quality of recipient reporting.

The Math

*	If a normal full-time schedule is 40 hours a week, multiply 40 hours x 52 weeks = 2,080 Total Hours per year
*	Divide 2,080 Total Hours by 4 to equal 520 regular quarterly hours.
*	If two full-time employees each worked 520 hours (1,040 hours) for the quarter and another half-time employee worked 260 hours, the Total Hours for the three employees is 1300 (520 + 520 + 260 = 1300).
*	Divide 1300 by 520 to equal 2.5 Recovery funded jobs during that quarter.

12/24/09: OMB Releases Additional ARRA Jobs Reporting Guidance

12/24/09: IGs 'Assess' Federal Agencies Processes for ARRA Data Quality Review

12/17/09: UW responds to heavy reporting requirements for economic stimulus money

11/12/2009: Recipient of stimulus funding aims to increase Native American enrollment in higher education

View Older Announcements

	Grant and Contract Accounting
	A Department of Financial Management
	uw-arra@uw.edu
	Modified: April 02, 2013	Webmaster: Brian Baldwin

Bill Text Versions 111th Congress (2009-2010) H.R.1

Bill Text Versions
111th Congress (2009-2010)
H.R.1

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           New Bills Search
Prev Hit        Back              HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Help
                Contents Display

There are 8 versions of Bill Number H.R.1 for the 111th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.
1 . American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Introduced in House - IH)[H.R.1.IH][PDF]
2 . American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)[H.R.1.EH][PDF]
3 . American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Received in Senate - RDS)[H.R.1.RDS][PDF]
4 . American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Amendment in Senate - AS)[H.R.1.AS][PDF]
5 . American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Amendment in Senate - AS)[H.R.1.AS2][PDF]
6 . American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)[H.R.1.EAS][PDF]
7 . American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Print - PP)[H.R.1.PP][PDF]
8 . American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)[H.R.1.ENR][PDF]

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           New Bills Search
Prev Hit        Back              HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Help
                Contents Display

California's transgender law allows male high schooler to make girls' softball team

By Perry Chiaramonte

Published February 14, 2014

FoxNews.com

Pat Cordova-Goff was recently allowed to try out for the girls' softball team at Azusa High School due to a recently passed law in California. (Watchara Phomicinda/ San Gabriel Valley Tribune)

A California high school student who believes he is a girl trapped in a boy's body just made the girls' softball team.
Pat Cordova-Goff, 17, a strapping senior at Azusa High School, in Azusa, an hour east of Los Angeles, can play with and against girls because of a September change in state law went into effect last month. The law requires that, “a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”
Goff, who is a cheerleader at the school, played freshman baseball when he considered himself a boy. He found out Friday that he made the cut.

“It is categorically unfair to biological girls to have to compete with a sexually-confused young man with stronger upper body strength."

- Randy Thomasson, SaveCalifornia.com

“We feel really confident about her ability,” Azusa Unified Superintendent Linda Kaminski told local newspaper San Gabriel Valley Tribune

. “No. 1 as a district, we want to ensure access to everyone, but we’re also committed to placing students on the team on their merits ...Based on her skills, Pat did make the team.”
The law was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown amid a gender debate that also included disagreement over which bathrooms students could use. Supporters have said that the law will help cut down on bullying against transgender students.
Officials for Azusa High School said parents of students and others have been supportive of Cordova-Goff trying out for the team.
“Parents had questions and we answered them as best we could,” Azusa High School principal Ramiro Rubalcaba told FoxNews.com. “My experience is that the parents have been pleased.
“Some students and players may feel uncomfortable but that only because this is something new to them but I believe they are all going to be accepting,” he added. “And I think the team is going to bring home a championship. That’s my prediction.”
Some feel that having Cordova-Goff play with young female athletes puts out an unfair advantage and sets a bad precedent.
“It’s intolerable of this young man to not accept an equal standing of girls playing girls,” Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, told FoxNews.com. “It is categorically unfair to biological girls to have to compete with a sexually-confused young man with stronger upper body strength, who makes the game board decidedly 'unequal.'"
“This mixed-up, in-your-face cross-dressing agenda is pushing more parents out of California public schools, which now have ten sexual indoctrination laws leading children astray," he added.
The team roster was to be originally posted on Wednesday, but unnamed sources at the school told the Valley Tribune it was held up because Cordova-Goff was not going to make the team, and he only did so after meetings involving an attorney and school district officials. School officials denied this was the case.

Obama science czar caught lying to peddle global warming hysteria

John Stossel - Chill Out About Global Warming: http://youtu.be/kTmoG0FcSKY via @youtube

Play

John Stossel discusses global warmingVideo: Fox News

February 15, 2014

Obama's illegal science czar, Dr. John Holdren, announced on Thursday that "climate change" (can't keep calling it 'global warming' when the world keeps not getting warmer) is causing droughts in California to become "more frequent, they’re getting longer and they’re getting dryer." Of course, as always with the tyrant-worshipping, anti-science left, this absurd claim flies blatantly in the face of all the facts and evidence.
As former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer and University of Colorado climate scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. explain, this "pseudo-science rambling" is wildly erroneous and completely irrational.
From Daily Caller:

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that there is 'not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought.' Pielke added that even a report from the U.S. government said that 'droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent and cover a smaller portion of the US over the last century.' A 2012 paper published in the journal Nature found '[l]ittle change in global drought over the past 60 years.'

As I have demonstrated, the left's hilariously un-scientific environmental scare-mongering is an embarrassment to modern academic standards that continues to humiliate and discredit alarmists on a regular basis.

Who is Ed Mezvinsky??? This will surprise you.

Who is Ed Mezvinsky??? This will surprise you.
Edward "Ed" Mezvinsky, born January 17, 1937, is a former Democrat congressman.
As a Democrat, he represented Iowa 's 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977.

In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Nearly $10 million was involved in the ponzi scheme.
After serving five years in federal prison, he was released in April 2008. He is expected to remain on federal probation until 2011, and still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims. So who is he???
He's Chelsea Clinton's father-in-law.........'SURPRISE'.

Chelsea Clinton's Father-In-Law is Edward Mezvinsky-Truth!

This is a forwarded email that alleges that Edward Mezvinsky is the father-in-law of Chelsea Clinton. The email says that Mezvinsky was convicted and sent to prison for fraud that bilked millions from victims.

truthorfiction.com

Chelsea Clinton's Father-In-Law is Edward Mezvinsky-Truth!

Summary of the eRumor:
This is a forwarded email that alleges that Edward Mezvinsky is the father-in-law of Chelsea Clinton. The email said that Mezvinsky was convicted and sent to prison for fraud that bilked millions from victims.

The Truth:
Edward "Ed" Mezvinsky is the father of Marc Mezvinsky, who married Chelsea Clinton in 2010. This according to a December 1, 2009 article by ABC News.

Ed Mezvinsky was a Congressman, representing Iowa's 1st congressional district, from 1973 to 1977. The article said that he was convicted of fraud in 2002 and sent to prison for five years. He was released in April 2008 and at the time of the wedding was on federal probation and still owed close to $9.4 million in restitution.

updated 03/11/2013

A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:

Who is Ed Mezvinsky??? This will surprise you.

Edward "Ed" Mezvinsky, born January 17, 1937, is a former Democrat congressman.

As a Democrat, he represented Iowa 's 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977.

In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Nearly $10 million was involved in the ponzi scheme.

After serving five years in federal prison, he was released in April 2008. He is expected to remain on federal probation until 2011, and still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims. So who is he???

He's Chelsea Clinton's father-in-law.........'SURPRISE'.

Have you heard any mention of this in any of the media? I thought not.

If this guy was Jenna or Barbara Bush's -- or better yet -- one of Sarah Palin's daughters father-in-law, the news would have replaced the oil spill.

Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner

UK: Muslims who terrorized non-Muslims in ‘Muslim Patrols’ can terrorize for Sharia again in 2019

Eurabia: Dhimmitude

1 Comments

Devout Muslims joined ‘Muslim Patrols’ in east London to impose Sharia Law, threatening to stab people they believed to be anti-Islamic and confiscating their alcohol. The British courts have ruled they can continue their sharia terror in 2019.
Muslim can torment and terrorize the streets of Britain imposing the sharia, but Robert Spencer and I cannot travel to the UK to speak. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the UK in 2014. Thank Gd Churchill didn’t live to see this.
UK: Muslims who terrorized non-Muslims in “Muslim Patrols” can agitate for Sharia again in 2019 (thanks to Robert Spencer)

This has to be one of the stupidest rulings a court has ever issued, even in Insane Britannia. These three Muslims who terrorized passersby into being Sharia-compliant cannot distribute material about Sharia in public, even outside a mosque (gasp!), for five years. That’s it! So apparently it is just fine if they start agitating to subvert British law and impose Sharia in 2019 — at that point they can do so apparently with the British government’s blessing. And by then it may not even be necessary: at the rate Britain is going, it could be fully Sharia-compliant by then, with Anjem Choudary as Prime Minister.
This story (indefatigably refusing to use these Muslim converts’ Muslim names, in accord with mainstream media practice whenever the Muslims’ activity is bad, but never ever when the Muslims’ activity is good) gives these Muslims’ ages: “Jordan Horner, 20, Royal Barnes, 23, and Ricardo MacFarlane, 26.” So in five years they will be 25, 28, and 31, in the prime of their lives and full of energy to push Sharia on a Britain even further weakened by five more years of appeasement and submission.
“Converts to Islam jailed for terrorising streets as ‘Muslim Patrol’ are banned from promoting Sharia law for FIVE YEARS,” from the Daily Mail, February 14:
Three religious vigilantes who terrorised innocent members of the public as the self-styled ‘Muslim Patrol’ have been banned from promoting Sharia Law in Britain.
Jordan Horner, 20, Royal Barnes, 23, and Ricardo MacFarlane, 26, were jailed for a total of two years and ten months for touring East London harassing people they deemed to be ‘non-believers’.
The three men were today also slapped with a five-year Asbo banning them from distributing material about Sharia Law to the public, or even meeting each other.
The trio are also banned from associating with controversial preacher Anjem Choudary.
Judge Timothy Pontius admitted the order was ‘drastic’ but added: ‘With the public interest in mind and the safety of individual members of the public in particular, it seems to me essential that these orders should be granted to run for that period of time.’
The leader of the gang, white Muslim convert Horner, who has declared he wants Sharia law in the UK, attacked people drinking in the street and demanded: ‘Remove yourselves now. Muslim Patrol.’
Barnes is a pal of Lee Rigby murderer Michael Adebolajo, and last week admitted making a string of sickening videos celebrating the deadly attack on the soldier in Woolwich.
The order comes in the wake of their convictions for the Muslim Patrol attacks carried out in January last year.
Prosecutor Kate Wilkinson said: ‘The order is designed to act as a much more effective and long-lasting way of making sure the streets of London are protected.’
Of Horner, she said: ‘This is a man with incredibly deep-rooted manifest beliefs with respect of this particular cause.
‘At every opportunity, he appears to manifest this in an unwelcome manner in terms of members of the public.’
She added: ‘They are affiliated with ALM, also known as Muslims Against Crusades, led by Anjem Choudary, underpinning rallies to introduce Sharia Law which they all manifestly participate in.’
Under the Asbo, the three men are banned from approaching people in public to promote Sharia Law, or distributing leaflets for their cause even if they are outside a mosque.
They are all banned from being meeting each other, as well as Mr Choudary and Dean Le Page, another leading ALM member.
Horner is additionally banned from having a loud hailer and going to an educational establishment unless he is a student or a relative of a student.
Barnes is also banned from distributing videos promoting Sharia Law.
The religious vigilante group’s activities were exposed in YouTube where they denigrated women as ‘slags’ and used a megaphone to scream ‘kill the non-believers’ at innocent bystanders.
Two victims, Joshua Bilton and Anna Reddiford, were told to stop holding hands by Horner and Barnes as they walked down the street in Bethnal Green, East London.
Horner yelled through a megaphone: ‘Let go of each other’s hands. This is a Muslim area!’
In a second incident, on January 6 last year Horner and MacFarlane attacked a group of men drinking in the streets of Shoreditch, east London.
They screamed ‘kill the non-believers’ as Horner punched James Forward in the jaw and knocked out Patrick Kavanagh with a sucker punch to the head.
A week later on January 13 Horner and Barnes confronted another couple, Clare Coyle and Robert Gray, walking in the street in Stepney, east London.
The 23 year-old accused Miss Coyle of dressing inappropriately in a Muslim area and that she would be punished in ‘hell fire’.
Horner then started filming the event on his mobile phone and branded Clare Coyle a ‘slag’, to which she countered: ‘This is Great Britain. I can dress how I wish.’
In the video, which was later uploaded on to YouTube, the group can be heard shouting: ‘You need to control this area and forbid people from exposing themselves outside the mosque.
‘Remove yourselves now. Muslim Patrol. Move away from the mosque. Don’t come back. We don’t respect those who disrespect God.’
The video also includes footage of an injured cyclist after an accident later the same morning.
A voice can be heard claiming the accident was a result of people drinking on a Saturday night, adding: ‘We call you to embrace Islam, become Muslim.’
Choudary today insisted that Horner, McFarlane and Barnes were ‘fine, upstanding members of the community’ and called the order banning them from speaking to him ‘unjust’.
‘I have not been convicted of any crimes, even though I do not believe in the law of this land,’ he said. ‘I am very proud of these people who study with me. I knew them all. They used to attend my lectures. They are fine, upstanding members of the community, of very good character.
‘They just wanted to speak out about the evils of alcohol, prostitution, gambling and drugs and support Sharia law.
‘The oppressors are being allowed to reign which is why we are suffering these floods. It is divine punishment from God. The government and judges are trying to curtail my influence.’
In December last year, Judge Rebecca Poulet QC jailed Horner for 68 weeks, MacFarlane for 12 months, and Barnes for 24 weeks.
She told them: ‘One of the many good things about living in Great Britain is the tolerance and respect members of the public generally show to one another’s religious beliefs, his dress or his chosen way of life.
‘When on occasions a person shows their intolerance of another individual whether by aggression or violence and in such a way as to cause real fear to the individual then the law can be invoked to protect that individual.
‘This law would protect you if someone treated you in this way. It is the very same law that now brings you before this court for your conduct.
‘My understanding is that Islam is a peaceful religion and this conduct was unfortunately anything but.
‘You were acting together and very late at night and that conduct in particular frightens people and it frightened them with your aggression.’
Despite receiving the longest sentence of the three, Horner, who has changed his name to Jamal Uddin, has already been released because of time spent in custody waiting for sentencing.
The court heard at sentencing that he has a wife and two young children, and has turned his back on drugs due to his ‘religious calling’.
Barnes is facing up to six-and-a-half years in prison for making the videos about Lee Rigby, including one where he laughed hysterically while driving past the scene of the murder.
The Asbo will take effect from today even though he is likely to remain prison for at least two years.
Horner, of Walthamstow, east London, pleaded guilty to two charges of assault and two charges of using threatening words and behaviour.
He was also jailed for six weeks in July last year for beating up a photographer and causing £3,000 of damage to a car in an attack in Walthamstow, east London.
McFarlane, also of Walthamstow, east London, whose real name is Ricardo Langaigne pleaded guilty to affray, and has previous convictions for criminal damage for painting over advertisements of women in the street.
Barnes, of Hackney, east London, admitted two counts of using threatening words and behaviour, and has previous convictions for theft and handling stolen goods prior his conversion to Islam and also for using threatening words and behaviour on April 2012.

Print This Post

Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: this is too US-centric and some of information presented in this article belongs better to the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States article. It also contains some original research which was discussed while cleaning-up the Hydraulic fracturing article.. Please help improve this article if you can. (August 2012)

Illustration of hydraulic fracturing and related activities

Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing includes the potential contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, the potential migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, the potential mishandling of waste, and the health effects of these, like cancer.^[1]^[2] Many cases of suspected groundwater contamination have been documented.^[3]^[4] The EPA has noted that "Ground water contamination with constituents such as those found at Pavillion is typically infeasible or too expensive to remediate or restore (GAO 1989)."^[5] A review of a University of Texas Austin study led by Charles G. Groat, reported no direct evidence that fracking's actual injection phase resulted in contamination of ground water.^[6]^[7]^[8] In the study "fracking" was defined as referring only to the injection of fluid under pressure and excluded the impact of equipment failure, spills, the nature of the fluids, preparations prior to injection, and events following the injection, such as disposal of wastewater.^[6] The review suggests that problems occur due to leaks in its fluid or waste storage apparatus which it does not consider part of fracking. The review also says that gaps remain in understanding fracking.^[7]^[8] Because hydraulic fracturing was invented in the United States,^[9] and therefore has a longer history there, most of the studies of the environmental impact have been conducted there.

Scientific debate

It has been reported that the industry and governmental pressure have made it difficult to conduct and report the results of comprehensive studies of hydraulic fracturing. EPA investigations into the oil and gas industry's environmental impact have been narrowed in scope and/or reportedly had negative findings removed due to this pressure.^[10]^[11]^[12] A 2012 Cornell University report noted that it was difficult to assess health impact because of legislation, proprietary secrecy, and non-disclosure agreements that allow hydraulic fracturing companies to keep the proprietary chemicals used in the fluid secret. Pre-drilling tests and other assessments have also found that water supplies—especially private water wells—often suffer from high levels of naturally occurring contaminants, as the US Geological Survey concluded in August 2011.^[13] Nonetheless, these particular Cornell researchers recommended requiring disclosure of all hydraulic fracturing fluids, that nondisclosure agreements not be allowed when public health is at risk, testing animals (and their products) raised near hydraulic fracturing sites against animals raised near hydraulic fracturing sites prior to selling them to market, monitoring of water, soil, and air more closely, and testing the air, water, soil, and animals prior to drilling and at regular intervals thereafter. Despite the lack of conclusive data, however, the researchers also wrote that "a ban on shale gas drilling is essential for the protection of public health."^[14] The co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for the United Nations Environment Program, Dr. Ian Rae, recently criticized the Cornell researchers' conclusions, saying, "It certainly does not qualify as a scientific paper but is, rather, an advocacy piece that does not involve deep analysis of the data gathered to support its case." Rae added that the Cornell researchers "cannot be regarded as experts" in this particular field. Others have pointed out that the study does still raise important questions, and it echoes similar concerns of some landowners and environmental groups.^[15] In addition, after court cases concerning contamination from hydraulic fracturing are settled, the documents are sealed. While the American Petroleum Institute denies that this practice has hidden problems with gas drilling, others believe it has and could lead to unnecessary risks to public safety and health.^[16]

New York State Assembly members Robert Castelli and Steve Katz call for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the Croton Watershed in October 2010.

The New York Times reported that the results of the 2004 EPA study were censored due to strong industry influence and political pressure (regulatory capture).^[10] An early draft of the study discussed the possibility of dangerous levels of fracking fluid contamination and mentioned "possible evidence" of aquifer contamination. The final report concluded simply that fracking "poses little or no threat to drinking water".^[10] The study's scope was narrowed so that it only focused on the injection of fracking fluids, ignoring other aspects of the process such as disposal of fluids and environmental concerns such as water quality, fish kills, and acid burns. The study was concluded before public complaints of contamination started emerging.^[17]^:780 The study's conclusion that the injection of fracking fluids into coalbed methane wells posed a minimal threat to underground drinking water sources^[18] may have influenced the 2005 Congressional decision that hydraulic fracturing should continue to be regulated by the states and not under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
The 2012 EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Draft Plan was also narrowed. It does not include studying the effects of iodine-131 (found in Philadelphia's drinking water)^[19]^[20]^[21] or other radioactive tracer isotopes used in hydraulic fracturing.^[22]^[23]^[24] Nor does the draft plan include evaluating the impact of wastewater. Christopher Portier, director of the US CDC's National Center for Environmental Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, argued that, in addition to the EPA's plans to investigate the impact of fracking on drinking water, additional studies should be carried out to determine whether wastewater from the wells can harm people or animals and vegetables they eat.^[25] A group of US doctors called for a moratorium on fracking in populated areas until such studies had been done.^[26]^[27]
Proponents of hydraulic fracturing have claimed in the press and other media that the recent University of Texas Study ("Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development") found that hydraulic fracturing caused no environmental contamination,^[28]^[29] although the study did note that other steps in the drilling process—excepting the actual injection of the fluid—have been sources of environmental contamination.^[6] Conflicting interpretations of this study are based on disagreement between industry and the environmental community about what "hydraulic fracturing" actually is: Industry notes that hydraulic fracturing is a specific process, which takes place after the well has been drilled and the drilling equipment has left the pad; the environmental community, however, uses hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," to describe the entire production phase. The radioactivity of the injected fluid itself was not assessed in the University of Texas study.^[6]
As of 2009, state regulators from across the country stated that they had seen no evidence of hydraulic fracturing contaminating water in their respective jurisdictions.^[30] In May 2011 EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson testified in a Senate Hearing Committee stating that she is not aware of any proof where the fracking process itself has contaminated water.^[31] EPA and other reports released since that time, however, have identified hydraulic fracturing as the likely source of water contamination.^[3]^[5]^[16]^[32]^[33]^[34]

Air emissions

The main hydraulic-fracturing-related air emissions are methane emissions from the wells during fracturing and emissions from hydraulic fracturing equipment, such as compressor stations. According to the study conducted by professor Robert W. Howarth et al. of Cornell University, "3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well." According to the study, this is at least 30% more, and perhaps even 100% more, than from conventional gas production. The study explains these higher emissions with hydraulic fracturing and drill out following the fracturing.^[35] Methane gradually breaks down in the atmosphere, forming carbon dioxide. It means its greenhouse-gas footprint is worse than coal or oil for timescales of less than fifty years.^[35]^[36] However, several studies have argued that the paper was flawed and/or come to completely different conclusions, including assessments by experts at the US Department of Energy,^[37] by Carnegie Mellon University^[38] and the University of Maryland,^[39] as well as by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which concluded that the Howarth et al. paper's use of a 20-year time horizon for global warming potential of methane is "too short a period to be appropriate for policy analysis."^[40] In January 2012, Howarth's colleagues at Cornell University responded with their assessment, arguing that the Howarth paper was "seriously flawed" because it "significantly overestimate[s] the fugitive emissions associated with unconventional gas extraction, undervalue[s] the contribution of 'green technologies' to reducing those emissions to a level approaching that of conventional gas, base[s] their comparison between gas and coal on heat rather than electricity generation (almost the sole use of coal), and assume[s] a time interval over which to compute the relative climate impact of gas compared to coal that does not capture the contrast between the long residence time of CO₂ and the short residence time of methane in the atmosphere."^[41] The authors of that response conclude that "shale gas has a GHG footprint that is half and perhaps a third that of coal," based upon "more reasonable leakage rates and bases of comparison." Howarth et al. responded to this criticism: "We stand by our approach and findings. The latest EPA estimate for methane emissions from shale gas falls within the range of our estimates but not those of Cathles et al, which are substantially lower."^[42]^[43]
In 2008, measured ambient concentrations near drilling sites in Sublette County, Wyoming were frequently above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) of 75ppb and have been recorded as high as 125 ppb.^[44] A 2011 study for the city of Fort Worth, Texas, examining air quality around natural gas sites "did not reveal any significant health threats."^[45]^[46] In DISH, Texas, elevated levels of disulfides, benzene, xylenes and naphthalene have been detected in the air, emitted from the compressor stations.^[47] People living near shale gas drilling sites often "complain of headaches, diarrhea, nosebleeds, dizziness, blackouts, muscle spasms, and other problems."^[48] Cause-and-effect relationships have not been established in all cases.^[48] In Garfield County, Colorado, another area with a high concentration of drilling rigs, volatile organic compound emissions increased 30% between 2004 and 2006; during the same period there was a rash of health complaints from local residents. Epidemiological studies that might confirm or rule out any connection between these complaints and fracking are virtually non-existent.^[2] In 2012, researchers from the Colorado School of Public Health showed that air pollution caused by fracking may contribute to "acute and chronic health problems" for those living near drilling sites.^[49]

Water consumption

The large volumes of water required have raised concerns about fracking in arid areas, such as Karoo in South Africa.^[9] During periods of low stream flow it may affect water supplies for municipalities and industries such as power generation, as well as recreation and aquatic life. It may also require water overland piping from distant sources.^[50] Over its lifetime an average well requires 3 to 5 million US gallons (11,000 to 19,000 m³) of water for the initial hydraulic fracturing operation and possible restimulation frac jobs.^[50]^[51] Using the case of the Marcellus Shale as an example, fracking accounted for 650 million US gallons per year (2,500,000 m³/a) or less than 0.8% of annual water use in the area overlying the Marcellus Shale as of 2010.^[50] To minimize water consumption, recycling is one possible option.^[52]

Groundwater contamination

The 2011 University of Texas study described the environmental impact of each of the separate parts of the overall hydraulic fracturing process, or "phases of the shale gas development life cycle."^[6] These parts include of (1) drill pad construction and operation, (2) the construction, integrity, and performance of the wellbores, (3) the injection of the fluid once it is underground (which proponents consider the actual "fracking"), (4) the flowback of the fluid back towards the surface, (5) blowouts, often unreported, which spew hydraulic fracturing fluid and other byproducts across surrounding area, (5) integrity of other pipelines involved and (6) the disposal of the flowback, including waste water and other waste products.^[28]^[29] Associated problems include (1) Groundwater Contamination, (2) Blowouts and House Explosions, (3) Water Consumption and Supply, (4) Spill Management and Surface Water Protection, (5) Atmospheric Emissions, (6) Health Effects^[6] All but the injection stage were reported to be sources of contamination in the University of Texas study.^[6] The study concluded that if hydraulic fracturing is to be conducted in an environmentally safe manner, these issues need to be addressed first.^[6] Proponents have reported that groundwater contamination doesn't come directly from the "fracking" part of the process (the injection of hydraulic fracturing chemicals into Shale rock formations) but from other parts of the hydraulic fracturing process. Injection cannot be accomplished, however, without the accompanying stages. Poorly constructed or damaged wellbores and pipelines can allow the fluid to flow into aquifers.^[6] Volatile chemicals held in waste water evaporation ponds can to evaporate into the atmosphere, or overflow. In one of the cases described by a 2012 Cornell University study (conducted in Colorado, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas) impounded wastewater was released into a field and pond, killing at least 70 animals.^[14] The runoff can also end up in groundwater systems. Groundwater may become contaminated by trucks carrying fracking chemicals and wastewater if they are involved in accidents on the way to fracking sites or disposal destinations. Disposal of fracking fluid by injection can cause earthquakes, and release of unprocessed or under-processed waste water into rivers can contaminate water supplies.^[6] Critics have noted that it is "difficult for researchers to be objective if their university receives a lot of grants and funds from the industry."^[53] An Energy Institute spokesperson said that the study was not funded by the industry. He said funds came from the university, which has a variety of funding sources.^[53] There are extensive links between UT and the oil & gas industry, with the giving of Royal Dutch Shell to the university currently standing at more than $24.8 million, $4m alone having been handed over for 2012.^[54]^[55] Since 2011, Shell has partnered Texas in a program called Shell-UT Unconventional Research, and the university has a similar research program in place with Exxon Mobil.^[56] Halliburton, the largest supplier of fracking services in the United States, has also given millions of dollars to the university.^[57] Statoil announced a $5m research agreement with UT's Bureau of Economic Geology in September 2011, whose program director, Ian Duncan, was the senior contributor for the parts of the Texas study to do with the environmental impacts of shale gas development.^[6]^[58]^[59]
In DISH, Texas, elevated levels of disulphides, benzene, xylenes and naphthalene have been detected in the air.^[47] According to an article in 'Environmental Health Perspectives,' people living near shale gas drilling sites often "complain of headaches, diarrhea, nosebleeds, dizziness, blackouts, muscle spasms, and other problems."^[48] Cause-and-effect relationships have not been established.^[48] Additionally, the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission has found some wells containing thermogenic methane due to oil and gas development upon investigating complaints from residents.^[60]
A 2011 report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology addressed groundwater contamination, noting "There has been concern that these fractures can also penetrate shallow freshwater zones and contaminate them with fracturing ﬂuid, but there is no evidence that this is occurring. There is, however, evidence of natural gas migration into freshwater zones in some areas, most likely as a result of substandard well completion practices by a few operators. There are additional environmental challenges in the area of water management, particularly the effective disposal of fracture fluids". This study encourages the use of industry best practices to prevent such events from recurring.^[61]
A review published in February 2012 found no direct evidence that fracking's actual injection phase resulted in contamination of ground water, and suggests that reported problems occur due to leaks in its fluid or waste storage apparatus; the review says that methane in water wells in some areas probably comes from natural resources.^[7]^[8]

Waste water management

As the fracturing fluid flows back through the well, it consists of spent fluids and may contain dissolved constituents such as minerals and brine waters. It may account for about 30–70% of the original fracture fluid volume. In addition, natural formation waters may flow to the well and need treatment. approaches to managing these fluids, commonly known as produced water, include underground injection, municipal and commercial wastewater treatment and discharge, self‐contained systems at well sites or fields, or recycling to fracture future wells.^[62] However, the quantity of waste water needing treatment and the improper configuration of sewage plants have become an issue in some regions of the United States. Much of the wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants, which are not equipped to remove radioactive material and are not required to test for it.^[63]^[64]

Health Risks Due to Environmental Contamination of Fracking Fluids

Fracking fluids have the potential to enter water sources, and air currents through chemical spills, through evaporation of wastewater, and through errors in the drilling process.^[64] Trace amounts of these chemicals may affect the health of those working on or living near the wells. In Colorado, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry sampled 14 sites, and found high levels of carcinogens such as benzene, tetrachloroethene, and 1-4 dichlorobenzene.^[65] In July 2011, the EPA released new emissions guidelinees stating that current standards could lead to an unacceptably high risk of cancers for those living near drilling operations.^[65] Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units(PEHSU) also found chemical contamination of drinking water near fracking operations in New York and Pennsylvania that involved detectable and harmful levels of benzene toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, ethylene glycol, glutaldehyde, and other biocides such as hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen treated light petroleum distillates.^[66] Human exposure to these chemicals can result in cancer, adverse effects of the reproductive, neurological, and endocrine systems.^[66] Exposure to specialized chemical solutions patented by energy service companies, such as Zetaflow, used by Weatherford International, may result in kidney and liver damage, irritated lung tissue, decreased blood pressure, dizziness, and vomiting according to their Meterial Safety Data Sheet.^[67]
PEHSU has linked higher vulnerability in children to health risks associated with chemical exposure to fracking fluids.^[66] This increased risk is due to a higher ratio of consumption pound for pound versus adults' rate of consumption, along with the inability to metabolize certain toxants that the body is able to metabolize as an adult.^[66] The same kind of vulnerability is also exhibited in development of the fetus during pregnancy, and health risks may involve neural tube defects, decreased birth perameters, and childhood leukemia.^[66]
The growing of oil and natural gas drilling employing fracking technology is steady around different regions of the United States, but the maintenance of wastewater gathered after the drilling process containing fracking fluids is lagging behind.^[68] In Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection reported that the resources to properly regulate wastewater-handling facilities were unavailable, inspecting facilities every 20 years rather than every 2 years as called for by regulation.^[68]

Public health benefits of shale gas from hydraulic fracturing

Richard A. Muller, a Principal of the China Shale Fund,^[69] argues that the benefits from shale gas made available by fracking, by displacing harmful air pollution from coal, far outweigh their combined environmental costs. In a 2013 report for the Centre for Policy Studies, Muller writes that air pollution, mostly from coal burning, kills over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world. The report does not reference any studies on air pollution associated with gas produced through hydraulic fracturing.^[70]

Radioactive contamination

The New York Times has reported radiation in hydraulic fracturing wastewater released into rivers in Pennsylvania.^[64] It collected data from more than 200 natural gas wells in Pennsylvania and has posted a map entitled Toxic Contamination from Natural Gas Wells in Pennsylvania. Sand containing gamma-emitting tracer isotopes is used to trace and measure fractures.^[22] The Water Research Foundation, Philadelphia Water Department, Water Environment Research Federation, and The American Water Works Association are currently investigating hydraulic fracturing as a potential source of the Iodine-131 found in Philadelphia's drinking water.^[71] Individuals exposed to high enough levels of radiation may experience symptoms of acute radiation syndrome, including fatigue, leukopenia, fever, diarrhea, vomiting, nose bleeds, dizziness, disorientation, low blood pressure, seizures, and tremors.^[72] The Times stated "never-reported studies" by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and a "confidential study by the drilling industry" concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.^[73] Despite this, as of early 2011 federal and state regulators did not require sewage treatment plants that accept drilling waste (which is mostly water) to test for radioactivity. In Pennsylvania, where the drilling boom began in 2008, most drinking-water intake plants downstream from those sewage treatment plants have not tested for radioactivity since before 2006.^[64] The New York Times reporting has been criticized by aggrieved parties,^[74] but one venerable science writer has taken issue with one instance of the newspaper's presentation and explanation of its calculations regarding dilution,^[75] charging that a lack of context made the article's analysis uninformative.^[76]
According to a Times report in February 2011, wastewater at 116 of 179 deep gas wells in Pennsylvania "contained high levels of radiation," but its effect on public drinking water supplies is unknown because water suppliers are required to conduct tests of radiation "only sporadically".^[77] The New York Post stated that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection reported that all samples it took from seven rivers in November and December 2010 "showed levels at or below the normal naturally occurring background levels of radioactivity", and "below the federal drinking water standard for Radium 226 and 228."^[78] However the samples taken by the state at at least one river, (the Monongahela, a source of drinking water for parts of Pittsburgh), were taken upstream from the sewage treatment plants accepting drilling waste water.^[79]
In Pennsylvania, much of this wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants. However, many sewage plants say that they are incapable of removing the radioactive components of this waste, which is often released into major rivers. Industry officials, though, claim that these levels are diluted enough that public health is not compromised.^[64] This is a major concern as it provides the possibility for radioactive waste to enter into public water supplies.
The New York Times has implicated the DEP in industry-friendly inactivity, requesting rather than requiring them to handle their own flowback waste rather than sending it to public water treatment facilities.^[80] However, former Pennsylvania DEP Secretary John Hanger, who served under Gov. Ed Rendell (D), has affirmed that municipal drinking water throughout the state is safe, but added that the environmentalists were accurate in stating that Pennsylvania's water treatment plants were not equipped to treat hydraulic fracturing water.^[81] Current Pennsylvania DEP Secretary Michael Krancer serving under Gov. Tom Corbett (R) has denied that untreated wastewater is being discharged into the state's waterways.^[82] It has been observed that Corbett received over a million dollars in gas industry contributions,^[83] more than all his competitors combined, during his election campaign.^[84] The New York Times reported that regulations are lax in Pennsylvania.^[64] The oil and gas industry is generally left to police itself in the case of accidents. Unannounced inspections are not made by regulators: the companies report their own spills, and create their own remediation plans.^[64] A recent review of the state-approved plans found them to appear to be in violation of the law.^[64] Treatment plants are still not equipped to remove radioactive material and are not required to test for it.^[64] Despite this, in 2009 the Ridgway Borough's public sewage treatment plant, in Elk County, PA, facility was sent wastewater containing radium and other types of radiation at at 275-780 times the drinking-water standard. The water being released from the plant was not tested for radiation levels.^[64] Part of the problem is that growth in waste produced by the industry has outpaced regulators and state resources.^[64] It should be noted that "safe drinking water standards" have not yet been set for many of the substances known to be in hydrofracturing fluids or their radioactivity levels,^[64] and their levels are not included in public drinking water quality reports.^[85]

Seismology

Hydraulic fracturing causes induced seismicity called microseismic events or microearthquakes. The magnitude of these events is usually too small to be detected at the surface, although the biggest micro-earthquakes may have the magnitude of about -1.6 (M_w). The injection of waste water from gas operations, including from hydraulic fracturing, into saltwater disposal wells may cause bigger low-magnitude tremors, being registered up to 3.3 (M_w).^[86]
A report in the UK concluded that fracking was the likely cause of some small earth tremors that happened during shale gas drilling.^[87]^[88]^[89] In addition, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports that, "Earthquakes induced by human activity have been documented in a few locations" in the United States, Japan, and Canada, "the cause [of which] was injection of fluids into deep wells for waste disposal and secondary recovery of oil, and the use of reservoirs for water supplies."^[90] The disposal and injection wells referenced are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and UIC laws and are not wells where hydraulic fracturing is generally performed.^{[citation needed]}
Several earthquakes—including a magnitude 4.0 one on New Year's Eve—that had hit Youngstown, Ohio, throughout 2011 are likely linked to a disposal well for injecting wastewater used in the hydraulic fracturing process, according to seismologists at Columbia University.^[91] Consequently, Ohio has since tightened its rules regarding the wells,^[92] increased fees, and is considering a moratorium on waste injection wells.^[92]

Anti-fracking movement

An anti-fracking movement has emerged both internationally with involvement of international environmental organizations and nation states such as France and locally in affected areas such as Balcombe in Sussex where the Balcombe drilling protest was in progress during summer 2013.^[93]

References

Jump up ^ (PDF) Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing (Report). Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives. April 18, 2011.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). "Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas". Environmental Health Perspectives (US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) 115 (2): A76. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a76. PMC 1817691. PMID 17384744. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Mall, Amy (19 December 2011). "Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination". Switchboard: NRDC Staff Blog. Natural Resources Defense Council. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Lustgarten, Abrahm (November 2008). "Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination". ProPublica. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b DiGiulio, Dominic C.; Wilkin, Richard T.; Miller, Carlyle; Oberley, Gregory (December 2011) (PDF). Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming. Draft (Report). EPA. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k Energy Institute (February 2012) (PDF). Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development (Report). University of Texas at Austin. p. ?. Retrieved 29 February 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b ^c "Fracking Acquitted of Contaminating Groundwater". Science 335: 898. 24 February 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b ^c Erik Stokstad (16 February 2012). "Mixed Verdict on Fracking". Science.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Urbina, Ian (30 December 2011). "Hunt for Gas Hits Fragile Soil, and South Africans Fear Risks". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 February 2012. "Covering much of the roughly 800 miles between Johannesburg and Cape Town, this arid expanse – its name [Karoo] means "thirsty land" – sees less rain in some parts than the Mojave Desert."
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b ^c Urbina, Ian (3 March 2011). "Pressure Limits Efforts to Police Drilling for Gas". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 February 2012. "More than a quarter-century of efforts by some lawmakers and regulators to force the federal government to police the industry better have been thwarted, as E.P.A. studies have been repeatedly narrowed in scope and important findings have been removed"
Jump up ^ "EPA's Study of Hydraulic Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources". EPA. Retrieved 24 February 2010.
Jump up ^ "Natural Gas Documents". The New York Times. 27 February 2011. Retrieved 5 May 2012. "The Times reviewed more than 30,000 pages of documents obtained through open records requests of state and federal agencies and by visiting various regional offices that oversee drilling in Pennsylvania. Some of the documents were leaked by state or federal officials."
Jump up ^ Joseph D. Ayotte et al. (August 2011). "Trace Elements and Radon in Groundwater Across the United States, 1992-2003". U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved 25 May 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Ramanuja, Krishna (7 Martch 2012). "Study suggests hydrofracking is killing farm animals, pets". Cornell Chronicle (Cornell University). Retrieved 9 March 2012.
Jump up ^ Helen Westerman (11 January 2012). "Gas drilling research highlights risk to animals, but more thorough work needed". The Conversation. Retrieved 25 May 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Urbina, Ian (3 August 2011). "A Tainted Water Well, and Concern There May be More". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Dammel, Joseph A. (2011). "Notes From Underground: Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale" (PDF). Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology (University of Minnesota Law School) 12 (2): 773–810. Retrieved 24 February 2012.
Jump up ^ (PDF) Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs; National Study Final Report (Report). EPA. June 2004. Retrieved 23 February 2011.
Jump up ^ Jeff McMahon (10 April 2011). "EPA: New Radiation Highs in Little Rock Milk, Philadelphia Drinking Water". Forbes. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
Jump up ^ "Japanese Nuclear Emergency: Radiation Monitoring". EPA. 30 June 2011. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Bauers, Sandy (21 July 2011). "Cancer patients’ urine suspected in Wissahickon iodine-131 levels". Philadelphia inquirer, Carbon County Groundwater Guardians. Retrieved 25 February 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b [1] Scott III, George L. (03-June-1997) US Patent No. 5635712: Method for monitoring the hydraulic fracturing of a subterranean formation. US Patent Publications.
Jump up ^ [2] Fertl; Walter H. (15-Nov-1983) US Patent No. US4415805: Method and apparatus for evaluating multiple stage fracturing or earth formations surrounding a borehole. US Patent Publications.
Jump up ^ [3] Scott III, George L. (15-Aug-1995) US Patent No. US5441110: System and method for monitoring fracture growth during hydraulic fracture treatment. US Patent Publications.
Jump up ^ Alex Wayne (4 January 2012). "Health Effects of Fracking Need Study, Says CDC Scientist". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 29 February 2012.
Jump up ^ David Wethe (19 January 2012). "Like Fracking? You'll Love 'Super Fracking'". Businessweek. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
Jump up ^ Mark Drajem (11 January 2012). "Fracking Political Support Unshaken by Doctors' Call for Ban". Bloomberg. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Vaughan, Vicki (16 February 2012). "Fracturing 'has no direct' link to water pollution, UT study finds". Retrieved 3 March 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Munro, Margaret (17 February 2012). "Fracking does not contaminate groundwater: study released in Vancouver". Vancouver Sun. Retrieved 3 March 2012.
Jump up ^ "Hydraulic Fracturing – 15 Statements from Regulatory Officials". New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Retrieved 25 May 2012.
Jump up ^ "Pathways To Energy Independence: Hydraulic Fracturing And Other New Technologies". U.S. Senate. May 6, 2011.
Jump up ^ Susan Phillips (8 December 2011). "EPA Blames Fracking for Wyoming Groundwater Contamination". StateImpact Pennsylvania. WITF, WHYY & NPR. Retrieved 6 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Fetzer, Richard M. (19 January 2012). Action Memorandum - Request for funding for a Removal Action at the Dimock Residential Groundwater Site (Report). Retrieved 27 May 2012.
Jump up ^ Mark Drajem (27 September 2012). "Diesel in Water Near Fracking Confirms EPA Tests Wyoming Disputes". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Howarth, Robert W.; Santoro, Renee; Ingraffea, Anthony (13 March 2011). "Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations" (PDF). Climatic Change (Springer) 106 (4): 679–690. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
Jump up ^ Howarth, Robert W.; Ingraffea, Anthony (15 September 2011). "Should Fracking Stop? Extracting gas from shale increases the availability of this resource, but the health and environmental risks may be too high. Point: Yes, it's too high risk". Nature (477): 271–275. doi:10.1038/477271a.
Jump up ^ Skone, Timothy J. (12 May 2011). "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction & Delivery in the United States" (PDF). National Energy Technology Laboratory. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Jiang, Mohan; Griffin, W Michael; Hendrickson, Chris; Jaramillo, Paulina; VanBriesen, Jeanne; Venkatesh, Aranya (2011). "Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Marcellus shale gas" (PDF). Environmental Research Letters (IOP Publishing) 6 (3). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034014. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Hultman, Nathan; Rebois, Dylan; Scholten, Michael; Ramig, Christopher (2011). "The greenhouse impact of unconventional gas for electricity generation" (PDF). Environmental Research Letters (IOP Publishing) 6 (4). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044008. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Lashof, Dan (12 April 2011). "Natural Gas Needs Tighter Production Practices to Reduce Global Warming Pollution". Natural Resources Defense Council. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Cathles, Lawrence M.; Brown, Larry; Taam, Milton; Hunter, Andrew (2011). "A commentary on "The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations"". Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0333-0. Retrieved 7 August 2013.
Jump up ^ Howarth, Robert W.; Santoro, Renee; Ingraffea, Anthony (1 February 2012). "Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development: Response to Cathles et al." (PDF). Climatic Change (Springer). doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0401-0. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Stephen Leahy (24 January 2012). "Shale Gas a Bridge to More Global Warming". IPS. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
Jump up ^ "Ozone mitigation efforts continue in Sublette County, Wyoming". Wyoming's Online News Source. March 2011.
Jump up ^ Eastern Research Group, Sage Environmental Consulting (July 13, 2011) (PDF). City of Fort Worth: Natural Gas Air Quality Study (Report). City of Fort Worth. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
Jump up ^ Hanna, Bill; Smith, Jack Z. (July 15, 2011). "Study: No 'significant health threats' from natural gas sites in Fort Worth". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Biello, David (30 March 2010). "Natural gas cracked out of shale deposits may mean the U.S. has a stable supply for a century – but at what cost to the environment and human health?". Scientific American. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b ^c ^d Schmidt, Charles (1 August 2011). "Blind Rush? Shale Gas Boom Proceeds Amid Human Health Questions". Environmental Health Perspectives 119: a348–a353. doi:10.1289/ehp.119-a348. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
Jump up ^ "Study shows air emissions near fracking sites may have serious health impacts". @theForefront. Colorado School of Public Health. 19 March 2012. Retrieved 25 April 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b ^c Arthur, J. Daniel; Uretsky, Mike; Wilson, Preston (May 5–6, 2010). "Water Resources and Use for Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale Region" (PDF). Meeting of the American Institute of Professional Geologists. Pittsburgh: ALL Consulting. p. 3. Retrieved 2012-05-09.
Jump up ^ Ground Water Protection Council; ALL Consulting (April 2009) (PDF). Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer (Report). DOE Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory. pp. 56–66. DE-FG26-04NT15455. Retrieved 24 February 2012.
Jump up ^ IEA (2011). World Energy Outlook 2011. OECD. pp. 91; 164. ISBN 978 92 64 12413 4.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b "Fracturing ‘has no direct’ link to water pollution, UT study finds". Fuel Fix. 17 February 2012. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
Jump up ^ "Shell Oil Company Invests Nearly $4 Million in The University of Texas at Austin". UT Austin website. 14 February 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
Jump up ^ Sandra Zaragoza (15 February 2012). "Shell Oil invests $3.9M in UT". Houston Business Journal. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
Jump up ^ Brett Clanton (13 September 2011). "Shell, UT to study better shale production methods". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 5 March 2011.
Jump up ^ "Halliburton Gives $90,000 in Grants to The University of Texas at Austin". UT Austin website. 28 February 2007. Retrieved 5 March 2012. "Energy services company Halliburton has contributed $90,000 to support academic programs at The University of Texas at Austin, bringing the company's total university giving to nearly $7 million."
Jump up ^ Scott, Mark (17 October 2011). "Norway’s Statoil to Acquire Brigham Exploration for $4.4 Billion". Dealb%k (New York Times). Retrieved 4 March 2012.
Jump up ^ Barry Harrell (19 September 2011). "Norway-based energy company, UT agree on $5 million research program". The Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
Jump up ^ "Gasland Correction Document". Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. Retrieved 7 August 2013.
Jump up ^ Moniz, Ernest J. et al. (June 2011) (PDF). The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study (Report). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
Jump up ^ Arthur, J. Daniel; Langhus, Bruce; Alleman, David (2008) (PDF). An overview of modern shale gas development in the United States (Report). ALL Consulting. p. 21. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
Jump up ^ David Caruso (2011-01-03). "44,000 Barrels of Tainted Water Dumped Into Neshaminy Creek. We're the only state allowing tainted water into our rivers". NBC Philadelphia. Associated Press. Retrieved 2012-04-28.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l Urbina, Ian (26 February 2011). "Regulation Lax as Gas Wells' Tainted Water Hits Rivers". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Abrahm Lustgarten and Nicholas Kusnetz (2011-09-16). "Science Lags as Health Problems Emerge Near Gas Fields". Propublica. Retrieved 2013-05-06.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e PEHSU (August 2011). PEHSU Information Concerning Effects on Children of Natural Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing (Report). Propublica. Retrieved 2013-05-06.
Jump up ^ "A Toxic Spew?". 19 August 2008. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b "With Natural Gas Drilling Boom, Pennsylvania Faces an Onslaught of Wastewater". Propublica. 3 October 2009. Retrieved 7 August 2013.
Jump up ^ http://www.chinashalefund.com/ China Shale Fund
Jump up ^ Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favour Fracking, 2013 report by Richard A. Muller and Elizabeth A. Muller of Berkeley Earth
Jump up ^ Timothy A. Bartrand and Jeffrey S. Rosen (October 2013). Potential Impacts and Significance of Elevated 131 I on Drinking Water Sources [Project #4486 ORDER NUMBER: 4486] (Report). Water Research Foundation. Retrieved 11 November 2013.
Jump up ^ Mayo clinic staff. "Radiation sickness". Mayo Clinic. Retrieved 31 March 2012.
Jump up ^ Staff (26 February 2011). "Drilling Down: Documents: Natural Gas's Toxic Waste". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
Jump up ^ "Natural Gas Drilling, the Spotlight". The New York Times. 5 March 2011. Retrieved 24 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Urbina, Ian (1 March 2011). "Drilling Down: Wastewater Recycling No Cure-All in Gas Process". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Petit, Charles (2 March 2011). "Part II of the fracking water problems in PA and other Marcellus Shale country". Knight Science Journalism Tracker. MIT. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
Jump up ^ Don Hopey (5 March 2011). "Radiation-fracking link sparks swift reactions". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Shocker: New York Times radioactive water report is false March 8, 2011 ι Abby Wisse Schachter. Report is from a Rupert Murdoch tabloid, The New York Post
Jump up ^ Urbina, Ian (7 March 2011). "E.P.A. Steps Up Scrutiny of Pollution in Pennsylvania Rivers". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Griswold, Eliza (17 November 2011). "The Fracturing of Pennsylvania". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 21 November 2011.
Jump up ^ "State Official: Pa. Water Meets Safe Drinking Standards". CBS Pittsburgh. January 4, 2011.
Jump up ^ "Pennsylvania DEP Secretary Defends States' Ability to Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing" (Press release). PR Newswire. November 17, 2011.
Jump up ^ Don Hopey (February 24, 2011). "Corbett repeals policy on gas drilling in parks". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved April 19, 2011.
Jump up ^ McKibben, Bill (8 March 2012). "Why Not Frack?". The New York Review of Books 59 (4). Retrieved 21 February 2012.
Jump up ^ (PDF) Annual Drinking Water Quality Report, 2010 (Report). Philadelphia Water Department. Spring 2011. Retrieved 7 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Zoback, Mark; Kitasei, Saya; Copithorne, Brad (July 2010) (PDF). Addressing the Environmental Risks from Shale Gas Development (Report). Worldwatch Institute. p. 9. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
Jump up ^ "Shale gas fracking: MPs call for safety inquiry after tremors". BBC News. 8 June 2011. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
Jump up ^ "Fracking tests near Blackpool 'likely cause' of tremors". BBC News. 2 November 2011. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
Jump up ^ de Pater, C.J.; Baisch, S. (2 November 2011) (PDF). Geomechanical Study of Bowland Shale Seismicity (Report). Cuadrilla Resources. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
Jump up ^ "FAQs – Earthquakes, Faults, Plate Tectonics, Earth Structure: Can we cause earthquakes? Is there any way to prevent earthquakes?". USGS. 27 October 2009. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
Jump up ^ "Ohio Quakes Probably Triggered by Waste Disposal Well, Say Seismologists" (Press release). Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
^ Jump up to: ^a ^b Niquette, Mark (22 March 2012). "Fracking Fluid Soaks Ohio". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 2 April 2012.
Jump up ^ Jan Goodey (Undated, but July, 2013). "The UK's anti fracking movement is growing". The Ecologist. Retrieved July 29, 2013.

Categories: