Today’s Oneonta Daily Star quotes Gastem’s CEO saying that a person could drink “gallons” of frac fluid before getting ill.
The notion behind this statement surmises that frac fluids are not as toxic “as” most people believe. The “as” implicates that toxicity or toxic levels are relative; some chemical are more toxic then others and will impart a greater effect at lower concentrations than others which can be consumed in larger quantities without any noticeable ill effects. The word noticeable is another key word in the discussion. Some effects are subtle and will not exert physical effects for decades or even possibly generations. However, because of the volume of water used in hydraulic fracturing many of the “toxic” chemicals compounds appear in miniscule concentrations; concentrations that are even below what chemical analysis can detect. At this level the human body may be able to “handle” and “deal” with the threat associated with the chemical.
The notion behind this statement surmises that frac fluids are not as toxic “as” most people believe. The “as” implicates that toxicity or toxic levels are relative; some chemical are more toxic then others and will impart a greater effect at lower concentrations than others which can be consumed in larger quantities without any noticeable ill effects. The word noticeable is another key word in the discussion. Some effects are subtle and will not exert physical effects for decades or even possibly generations. However, because of the volume of water used in hydraulic fracturing many of the “toxic” chemicals compounds appear in miniscule concentrations; concentrations that are even below what chemical analysis can detect. At this level the human body may be able to “handle” and “deal” with the threat associated with the chemical.
"the dose makes the poison" Paracelsus 1493-1541
The limiting factor in attempting to drink gallons of frac fluid would the salinity of the water. Even though initial flowback is lower in salt, it would still be extremely salty.
However, before you go out and toast with a glass of frac fluid, remember that frac fluid is also site-specific. This means that the combination of chemical additives may vary depending on the “job” being performed. Fluid from one job might be less or more “toxic” than the other.
Another way to look at how and where you would be “drinking” the frac fluid would be via secondary exposure source; drinking water well that was potentially contaminated. Then we would have to look and see how close to the contamination source, and what all the frac fluid had to travel through to get to the drinking water source. If the frac fluid had to travel a combined 1000 or 2000 feet to get to a drinking water well, we would have to consider the extra dilution that would occur when the frac fluid arrived in the aquifer, the biodegradation that would potentially take place (changing the chemistry of the “toxic” chemical), the different reactions that the chemical has the with the soil, microorganisms… etc. By the time the frac fluid travels and arrives in the drinking water source, its chemical composition would be different. So, theoretically drinking the frac fluid at this stage wouldn’t not elicit as an adverse response as drinking the frac fluid from a primary source.
The bottom line; let us continue working towards developing safer chemical additives and continue to developing and designing wells that do not allow any kind of migrations across the wellbore.
ub
edited for clarity
edited for clarity
No comments:
Post a Comment