Hydrolic Fracturing Causes Earthquakes?

Picture- Natural Gas Trucks in Youngstown

In Youngstown, Ohio, there had not been any seismic activity since the 18th century when the land was being settled. On March 17, there were two minor earthquakes. In the following eight months, there were several more. Nine earthquakes in a previously dormant area is very unusual. The epicenters were calculated to be at a natural gas disposal well.They claim that the waste water went too far down, unlocking ancient faults, which caused the earthquakes.

I think this is ridiculous. When coroporations dig wells for Natural Gas, they have to research the area thoroughly, so something like this doesn't happen. Maybe if they could get 100% confidence that it is the Gas companies' fault, the company could have some consequences. The companies are causing trouble everywhere, and the government isn't doing anything to stop it.

Question 1: Do you think it is the gas companies fault?

Question 2: Is there an equally effective alternative to natural gas mining?

Question 3: What can we do to help with problems like these?

By: Jarrett Hershman

A New Energy Source?

This picture is a diagram of how to get shale natural gas.


I read an article about a new type of fracking. Fracking for shale natural gas is a relatively new way to get energy. It has some benefits, some problems, and many question marks! Fracking for shale can make the United States completely on their own for getting energy. We have enough shale reserves to become independent from other countries. It is estimated that we have about 1.8 trillion barrels of shale gas, while Saudi Arabia has about 2.6 trillion of oil. Some major problems are water pollution, because it requires a lot of water, a high amount of emissions, and shale fracking is linked to earthquakes. Some important benefits are the jobs it will create, and that it is cleaner than most other fossil fuels.

I think it should be explored a little bit more, but it should not be relied on entirely. We can still use foreign natural gas, but shale should be used more to help reduce the pollution, and to create jobs for the economy.


Questions!!!!
1. Should we start using this method??
2. Why/why not?
3. Are there any other methods we should use??

Biofuels Worse Than Fossil Fuels

Ethanol, which comes from corn, can reduce toxic emissions by 50%... But Is it worth it?

"Biofuels worse than fossil fuels, says expert" by Ethan A. Huff http://www.naturalnews.com/030549_biofuels_fossil_fuels.html

Biofuels are becoming more and more popular in the race to stop foreign oil dependency. However, Andreas Spath, PhD, an expert in the field of geochemistry, says that biofuel is worse for the environment than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be depleted eventually, so it is important that renewable resources are used as much as possible. Biofuel simply relies on plants. So how, you ask, dis it worse for the environment? Well, to make the biofuel, you need crops. The get the crops, you need to use fertilizer, and when it's time to harvest the crops, what does farmer Brown use? His big green tractor, of course, powered by none other than Mr. Fossil Fuel. Using crops for fuel actually increases food prices, too. U.S. corn production has been shifted away from food to ethanol fuel. A 2007 study showed that biofuel production releases twice as much
greenhouse gas as fossil fuels do.

Biofuel production should not stop, because fossil fuels will run out. The corn used for biofuels should be organic, so there is no fertilizer pollution, and should be harvested using the fuel itself to reduce emissions.

Should biofuel be invested in?

Can this problem be solved?

What do you think the deciscion will be?

FOSSIL FUELS AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Title of article: Fossil Fuels: How Do They Negatively Affect the Environment?

Author: not listed

Pulication: 2011

Picture/Article Link: http://www.greenenergychoice.com/green-guide/fossil-fuels.html



The question is, do fossil fuels have a negative or positive impact on the environment? The answer is that fossils fuels mainly have a negative impact. Fossil fuels are the largest gas emitters in the whole world and they give out 3/4 of all methane, carbon, and other greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels (coal and petroleum) at extremely high temperatures, but there is a major problem with that. When fossil fuels are burned, large amounts of pollutants are introduced into the air and even the water. The burning of fossil fuels has a huge impact on the environment because it causes an excessive amount of pollution which is horrible for the environment and for the organisms that live there. The major problem with this situation is that the atmosphere already naturally takes in a huge amount of greenhouse gases, but it holds up to 25% more of the sun's radiation. This all happens because of the yearly increases in greenhouse gas emissions.



Overall, I strongly believe that something should be done to limit the amount of fossil fuels being burned/used so then less amounts of pollutants will be distributed into the air and water. Even though the burning of fossil fuels is helpful because it produces electricity, it also distributes huge amounts of pollutants into the air and water. These pollutants affect everyone and everything in the environment in a harmful way. I know that if I lived in a community nearby where fossil fuels were burned, I would want to find a way to limit the usage of them because I would be the one that is getting harmfully afftected by the pollutannts in the air. In conclusion, fossil fuels have a negative impact on the environment.

Questions:

1. Do you think people truly know how much of an impact fossil fuels have on the environment?





2. What are some ways that YOU can come up with to limit the amount of fossil fuels being burned/used?





3. Do you think this problem (involving the fossil fuels) will ever get better?

BY: TAYLOR SOLTYS

Lead in Drinking Water?

Title of Article: Lead in DRinking Water
Author: United States Environmental Protection Agency
Date Last Updated: October 4, 2011
Link to the Article: http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/lead/index.cfm
Link to Picture:http://www.freshwatersystems.com/s-289-lead-in-water.aspx





Lead is a substance that is commonly used in household plumbing and water service lines. Lead is barely ever found in source water, but it does enter tap water through corrosion of plumbing materials. All homes are at risk of having lead in their water, but houses that were built before 1986 are the houses that are most likely to have lead pipes. The new houses are also at risk of having lead in their pipes. Even though these new houses are said to have "lead-free" plumbing, they still can have up to eight percent of lead in their plumbing. The most common way that lead is exposed to our drinking water is by the brass or chrome-plated brass faucets that allow an abundant amount of lead into the water. The problem with having lead in our water is that lead can cause many health effects. The health effects for babies and children that drink above the action level of lead are having delays in their mental and physical development. The effects for adults that drink above the action level of lead are having an increse in blood pressure. Adults that drink the water for many years can accumulate kidney problems.

I do not have a strong opinion on this topic. Since that there is only up to 8 percent of lead in house pipes, it should not be a big concern for people. If the percentage of lead in house pipes increases rapidly, then we should have a concern. I have been drinking my tap water for 14 years and I have never experienced life threatening effects. Also, my house is a newer house, therefore the percentage of lead in my tap water is lower than the percentage of tap water in a house that was built before 1986.

Questions:

1. Do you think the percentage of lead in the pipes will increase over the years to come?


2. Are you concerned if the pipes in your house contain lead?


3. Do you think there is anything we can do to limit the amount of lead in our tap water?

By: TAYLOR SOLTYS

Clean Water At a High Price!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-schwab/air-and-water-a-right-or_b_264733.html

The pictue on the right shows an African Child trying to get drinking water.

I found out in this article that there are some water companies in small, developing countries like Bolivia, Honduras, and Nicaragua that are charging high sums of money for clean drinking water. Drinking water can be hard to get in these countries, but at least it was free. Now, these companies are making it even harder for people without a lot of money to get drinking water.

I am shocked that companies would do this to such poor countries. They ar taking advantage of countries that already need more water, and are making it harder to get. These companies say that they are trying to help these countries. But it is obvious that it is just for a big profit.

1. Do you think it is right for these companies to charge for clean water?? why??

2.What would you do to prevent these companies from charging such high fees?

3.Why do you think these companies are doing what they are doing??

By: Jordan Murray :D

P.S. The picture wont post so the URL is http://www.gracededieu.org/water.html

Groundwater!

The image to the right shows the results of aquifer depletion in India. The loss of groundwater is threatening their agriculture.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128314.700-groundwater-greed-driving-sea-level-rises.html

The sea level is slowly rising. The melting of glaciers and other ice caps are increasing the level of the ocean. It is virtually impossible to notice, but the pumping of water from underground aquifers to the surface is also contributing to this problem. Few scientists believe in groundwater affecting the level of the ocean, but Leonard Konikow of the United States Geological Survey has evidence to prove it. Konikow measured how much water had ended up in the oceans by studying aquifers, and he estimated that about 4500 cubic kilometres of water was originally groundwater from the years 1900 and 2008. That means it only contributed about 1.26 centimeters to the overall rise in sea level. Nobody is sure what the future holds when it comes to groundwater, but some countries are cutting back on aquifer use.

I don't believe it is necessary to cut back on aquifer use. The amount of groundwater that contributes to rising of the sea level is little enough that if we use the groundwater carefully, and it doesn't end up in oceans, we can decline the rapidly increasing water level. We don't need to go to extreme measures such as using your own rain collecting source... Simple things like taking shorter showers and not leaving the sink running can help. We don't need to work harder, we need to work smarter!

Do you think the water level will increase or decrease in the next 5 years?
What can you and your family do to conserve groundwater?
What would happen if our groundwater comes near depletion in the future?
-John