In article , DGDevin wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...

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.

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.

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?

Although I disagree with secrecy of indredients dumped or leaked into
the environment,

Were the specific bad contaminants found to have changed from
below-standards to above-standards as a result of fracking, or were they
only measured after?

I don't like cowboy mentality of Congress-lobbying businesses, but I
similarly dislike American-style chemophobia that likes to do post-hoc-
ergo-proptor-hoc, and to say that zero tolerance is necessary for
politically incorrect chemicals; even a picogram per gigaton is toxic
and needs to be eliminated.
--
- Don Klipstein )