DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


So, in the six references you diligently dug out

One web search, took a few minutes. You should try it some time.

we have NONE with unequivocal proof, such as an admission on the
part of the oil/gas company,

LOL, even if they end up settling out of court and paying millions in
compensation they'll insist on the proverbial no admission of
wrongdoing, SOP with corporations caught doing something they aren't
supposed to do. Goldman Sachs just repeated that old formula, paid
umpteen millions in fines (a fraction of their profits on the illegal
activity) but without admitting they did anything wrong.

I said "such as." Sometimes the culprit admits things didn't go as planned.
For example, the recent Department of Justice mea culpa on the "Fast &
Furious" gun-running program.

No, wait. Never mind.


chemical tests, or any other form of physical evidence.

Obviously the labs that found and documented the presence of
chemicals at levels vastly above govt. standards found physical
evidence.
You may point to #6 where the EPA found contaminants, but we do not
know when the contaminants were introduced. They could have been in
place for the last fifty years. All we can tell from the study is
that contaminants exist now.

And since the companies doing the fracking are allowed to keep their
formulas secret, it will be kind of tough to prove they did it, won't
it.

Yep. Don't forget, money is involved. The oil companies want to keep their
process confidential so their competitors remain at a disadvantage. The
homeowners see a big payday if they can get a sympathetic jury. But when the
homeowners sue, discovery will flush out (no pun intended) the chemicals
used.


If we could arrange for water from one of those areas where their
drinking water now has to be brought in by tanker trucks to be piped
into your home, would you use it?

No, I wouldn't. But I wouldn't buy property in an area where all sorts of
nastiness comes out of my well either. Presumably, the homeowner's don't
care for if they did, they would have tested the water before they moved in
and we'd have something to compare against. As it is, if they grow extra
toes, they didn't do their due diligence in the first place.