Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Environment

The Science of Fracking

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

no-frack-small.jpg

I recently noted that the state of New York has imposed a moratorium--likely a costly one--on the procedure known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, used to remove shale oil embedded deep beneath the planet's surface. The chief concern seems to be that this technique can contribute to the contamination of groundwater supplies. Having not looked into the matter much, the complaint seems reasonable; but knowing how issues like this one play out, I'm sure there's a high level of uncertainty about precisely what the effects of fracking are. And indeed, it's a matter of study at the EPA right now. Meanwhile, right wingers are hurling the phrase "junk science" to attack the fracking moratorium (see this comments thread). But of course, being cautious in the face of uncertainty is hardly junk science. Unless "junk science" is code for "reasonableness," which is often the impression I'm left with. In any case, I'm interested in comments--is fracking going to be the next great environmental science controversy? Certainly there is a lot at stake, with shale oil expected to comprise a growing percentage of domestic gas supplies. And also....does the name come from Battlestar?

2 Free Articles Left

Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 70%

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In