Ark Ground-Water Pollution is Recession Proof

[L.Wood]

.

Many thanks for former Ark Governor's candidate Rod Bryan for this fantastic short film.

If a picture's worth a thousand words, here's a few million...

It shows us graphically what actually happens in the Fayetteville Shale when gases, and poisonous metals are released.

.

[Savonarola]

I took a look at the list of "chemicals" that are used for hydrofracture.

Sodium hydroxide (listed twice) is regularly poured down drains. It will neutralize hydrochloric acid (also listed twice).
Propan-2-01 is really propan-2-ol, but the author is chemically illiterate. It is another name for isopropanol, which is another name for isopropyl alcohol, meaning that this substance, which is often used directly on skin, has been triplicated on the list.
Sucrose and polysaccharides are sugars, which people regularly eat.
Acetic acid is concentrated vinegar, which people regularly eat.
Sodium chloride is required for life.
People don't typically eat sodium bicarbonate or potassium carbonate, but we could (and sometimes do), and it would be not only fine but possibly beneficial, as the body uses both sodium ion and potassium ion as well as bicarbonate and carbonate.

I'm not saying that the gist of the information is wrong, or that the creator of the video is being purposely misleading, but I think it's important not to let the word "chemicals" become a scary word. When you drink water, you're drinking a chemical. When you drink ethyl alcohol, you probably enjoy the short-term effects. When you drink methyl alcohol, you don't live to enjoy the other effects. The identity of the chemicals is what matters. While some of those on the list aren't too friendly, and that should be the main thrust of the argument, we should be careful of making our arguments look weak by including less-than-stellar information.

[L.Wood]

we should be careful of making our arguments look weak by including less-than-stellar information.

But less-than-stellar info will will still carry a stellar price tag in subsequent years.

Could you elaborate upon this sentence in the presentation ? :

"The 2004 study used to exempt Hydro-Fracturing says that these chemicals: migrated unpredictably --through different rock layers, and to greater distances than previously thought--in as many as half
the cases studied in the United States."

Thanks.

[Savonarola]

But less-than-stellar info will will still carry a stellar price tag in subsequent years.

You're completely right. My main points here are twofold:
(a) As a chemist and a teacher, it irks me when people use the word "chemicals" in an alarmist fashion. Call it a pet peeve. It shouldn't be done.
(b) This is an issue that is worth being discussed, so it is worth discussing efficiently and effectively. I'm not disagreeing with any of their (or your) main points; rather, I'm disagreeing with the specifics of their method of doing so.

Could you elaborate upon this sentence in the presentation ? :

"The 2004 study used to exempt Hydro-Fracturing says that these chemicals: migrated unpredictably --through different rock layers, and to greater distances than previously thought--in as many as half
the cases studied in the United States."

Without the actual study, I'm not sure I could give an accurate elaboration. The best I can probably do is a mere robotic rewording that actually expresses no understanding of what the study really determined.

[Dardedar]

When you drink water, you're drinking a chemical.

DAR
Is the word "chemical" sometimes defined or used so broadly that it can applied to anything considered "matter"?

D.

[Savonarola]

Is the word "chemical" sometimes defined or used so broadly that it can applied to anything considered "matter"?

No, but almost. Anything consisting of atoms can reasonably be called a chemical, but subatomic particles (electrons, neutrons, quarks, etc.) can't.
Regardless, you've identified the problem: Part of the folly of using the word "chemical" is that it is so broadly defined. It's akin to saying, "Oh my gosh, there's stuff in that!"

[Doug]

Is the word "chemical" sometimes defined or used so broadly that it can applied to anything considered "matter"? D.

DOUG
I hope not. An atom is matter, but it is not a chemical. Chemicals are groups of like molecules that share certain interactive properties. (Sav can be more exact, I'm sure.)

In other words, once you get matter that is smaller than the molecular level, you still have matter but you don't have a chemical.

How'd I do, Sav?

[Savonarola]

I hope not. An atom is matter, but it is not a chemical. Chemicals are groups of like molecules that share certain interactive properties. (Sav can be more exact, I'm sure.)

In other words, once you get matter that is smaller than the molecular level, you still have matter but you don't have a chemical.

How'd I do, Sav?

Why shouldn't a very small piece of iron in your corn flakes be considered a chemical? Why shouldn't an individual atom of iron be considered a chemical? Iron has "certain interactive properties," like that property which allows it to interact with globins in the blood to make breathing possible.

If mercury (in the elemental state) was found in tuna, alarmists would go nuts about "chemicals" in the tuna. Thus, iron (in the elemental state) that is added to your corn flakes would qualify as "chemicals." The difference is that the former isn't good for you, while the latter is.

[Doug]

Why shouldn't a very small piece of iron in your corn flakes be considered a chemical? Why shouldn't an individual atom of iron be considered a chemical? Iron has "certain interactive properties," like that property which allows it to interact with globins in the blood to make breathing possible.

OK, what is the working definition of "chemical" most often used by professional chemists?

[Savonarola]

OK, what is the working definition of "chemical" most often used by professional chemists?

The word "chemical" isn't used much by professionals because it is unspecific, but it is essentially interchangeable with substance, which is any matter that has a constant chemical composition, regardless of the source. (For example, sodium chloride is always NaCl and is a substance, but orange juices will have different amounts of water, sugars, and flavorings.) Your phrase, "certain interactive properties," could apply to matter that can't be classified as substances, such as electrons or orange juice.

Hydro-frac stage #1 fluid would be composed of substances (chemicals), but the fluid itself would not be a substance. Still, it would be accurate to say that "chemicals" are used, just as it would be accurate to say that eating organically grown vegetables puts "chemicals" into your system.

Here's a note on wikipedia:

While the term chemical substance is a somewhat technical term used most often by professional chemists, the word chemical is more widely used in the pharmaceutical industry, government and society in general. Thus the word chemical includes a much wider class of substances that includes many mixtures of chemical substances that often find application in many vocations; and is most commonly used only for artificial or processed substances, such as the products of the chemical industry. [underline added]

It should be noted that "mixtures" by definition are not substances, further confusing the issue. Perhaps that should read, "the word chemical includes a much broader classification of matter that includes mixtures of substances." I also find it ironic that the posted attempted clarification refers to "the chemical industry" where "chemical" can mean anything.

[L.Wood]

.


Presently there is NOTHING a city or county in the state of Arkansas can do about shale drilling waste disposal.

Hopefully help is on the way. Presently all counties can do is mandate truck weights on county roads.

The Arkansas Leader
By JOHN HOFHEIMER
Leader senior staff writer

A month after Department of Environmental Quality Director Teresa Marks closed down two area shale gas waste-disposal sites, state Sen. Bobby Glover, D-Carlisle, has drafted legislation that would give towns, cities and counties a say for the first time in the permitting process.

Glover says he will introduce his bill when the General Assembly convenes Jan. 12.


Marks issued an emergency order Dec. 3 requiring Central Arkansas Disposal site, just outside Searcy, and Fayetteville Shale Land Farms near Carlisle to stop accepting fluids for disposal until further notice, citing numerous violations.

“They do have a truck-washing operation there,” Marks said, but were dumping the drilling wastes at approved landfills for now.

“There have been instances where the permitting rules have not been followed,” Marks said. “That gives us cause for concern.

We’re seeing if permit parameters are tight enough, (or if we need to) put in new language.”

Not far from Carlisle, Prairie County Land Farms LLC has applied for a permit. That site is literally across the road from Lonoke County on a road that has school bus and other traffic and is too close to a bayou, say area opponents of that operation.

At full operation, there would be a truck arriving on that road every 12 minutes to unload the waste.

entire story here


Here drilling fluids are pooled under a sprinkler irrigation system. This is an unapproved application of waste.


For more thorough and current news on Ark. shale operations the Arkansas Times has a special section and reports.


.

[Doug]

The word "chemical" isn't used much by professionals because it is unspecific, but it is essentially interchangeable with substance, which is any matter that has a constant chemical composition, regardless of the source.

DOUG
OK, I'd say that if you have only one atom of an element, that would be called an "element" as opposed to a "substance," in most contexts. For something to be a "substance," one usually implies by that term that there is more than just one atom of it.

Dictionary.com has:
1. a substance produced by or used in a chemical process.
2. chemicals, Slang. narcotic or mind-altering drugs or substances.
–adjective 3. of, used in, produced by, or concerned with chemistry or chemicals: a chemical formula; chemical agents.
4. used in chemical warfare: chemical weapons.

The intent or use figures predominantly is what is meant by "chemical," so minute, trace amounts or single atoms would typically not be identified as "chemicals."

[Savonarola]

OK, I'd say that if you have only one atom of an element, that would be called an "element" as opposed to a "substance," in most contexts.

Technically, "elements" is a subset of "substances." Whether the uneducated masses realize this is a different issue.
What do you call one molecule (or trace amounts) composed of atoms of different elements (like H2O)?
An iron bar is composed of many atoms of the same element. Would you consider it a substance or an element?

For something to be a "substance," one usually implies by that term that there is more than just one atom of it.

It's hard to argue against such an interpretation because the real world virtually never deals with single atoms or molecules individually. In fact, one could argue that the definition of "substance" implies comparison, which requires multiple entities. That said, all substances proper are either elements or compounds, which have an identity regardless of comparison.

The intent or use figures predominantly [in] what is meant by "chemical," so minute, trace amounts or single atoms would typically not be identified as "chemicals."

So by the time that the "chemicals" have dispersed to minute concentrations within the groundwater, they're no longer "chemicals"? When your tuna contains only trace amounts of mercury, is it now "chemical-free?" is it now perfectly healthy? Not only does the conclusion not follow from the first clause, it's completely asinine.

The issue here is the intent/use. Doug still didn't address my main point, which is that tame, benign substances can be called "chemicals" regardless of their abundance or concentration. There should be no alarmism in sodium chloride being added to groundwater. Unless I'm mistaken, Doug is arguing that "chemicals" is being used with the intent of conveying danger. It's a lousy strategy, except that the uneducated dumb masses have allowed themselves to become convinced that "chemicals" is supposed to be a scary word.
If anyone so desires, I can plan to bring acetic acid to the next meeting, and I'll drink some in front of everyone. I'll also bring sodium bicarbonate and eat some in front of everyone. Then I'll take acetic acid and sodium bicarbonate, mix them in water (another "chemical"!) and drink the mixture.

[Doug]

So by the time that the "chemicals" have dispersed to minute concentrations within the groundwater, they're no longer "chemicals"? When your tuna contains only trace amounts of mercury, is it now "chemical-free?"[sic]

Yes, but the tuna is not mercury-free. You might say that a group of fish you have caught contains "a chemical, mercury," but you would say of an individual fish that it "contains mercury." But you would be stretching the language to say that the individual fish contains "chemicals" because here the word "chemical" is used in the same sense as "a contaminant." Maybe that is part of the confusion of the initial letter that was quoted. Someone took the synonyms "chemical" and "contaminant" that is true in one context and mistakenly thought that it applied in all contexts, that all chemicals are contaminants.

If you would say that the fish does not have enough mercury to be dangerous, you might say that it is "chemical-free" in the sense that it does not have contaminants that would be harmful in the amounts found.

The issue here is the intent/use. Doug still didn't address my main point, which is that tame, benign substances can be called "chemicals" regardless of their abundance or concentration.

I agree with you on that. Only sometimes is "chemical" a synonym (among non-chemists and especially journalists) for "contaminant." But there are certainly harmless and also beneficial chemicals. We use them every day.

[Savonarola]

Yes, but the tuna is not mercury-free. You might say that a group of fish you have caught contains "a chemical, mercury," but you would say of an individual fish that it "contains mercury." But you would be stretching the language to say that the individual fish contains "chemicals" because here the word "chemical" is used in the same sense as "a contaminant."

Doug, I'm hoping that either I can't read or that you have mistyped, otherwise one of us has gone insane. It sounds like you're saying that they both contain mercury -- which by any standard can be called a contaminant -- but only one contains a "chemical," by which you mean "contaminant."

Maybe that is part of the confusion of the initial letter that was quoted. Someone took the synonyms "chemical" and "contaminant" that is true in one context and mistakenly thought that it applied in all contexts, that all chemicals are contaminants.

Then use the word "contaminants," I say. Or use some other word or phrase that is accurate. This nonsense is how we get dumbfucks afraid of table salt and other dumbfucks making more dumbfucks afraid of table salt.

If you would say that the fish does not have enough mercury to be dangerous, you might say that it is "chemical-free" in the sense that it does not have contaminants that would be harmful in the amounts found.

Your distinction seems entirely arbitrary; what is "chemical-free" for an adult would not be "chemical-free" for a child, and that -- again -- is asinine.
It is unlikely that any one fish (or individual can of tuna) contains enough mercury to cause any problems, but eating significant amounts of said food certainly might. Does it not strike you as nothing short of questionable that a "chemical-free" product could then be the sole source of dangerous levels of "chemicals" present in the body?

Only sometimes is "chemical" a synonym (among non-chemists and especially journalists) for "contaminant."

In my classes, I give a list of the top ten reasons to be a chemist. On this list is the reason: people who aren't chemists think you're really smart. This wouldn't be the case if non-chemists had even a high-school level chemistry education. Chemists may be smart, but they seem even smarter to idiots. We're not here to pander to the lowest common denominator, we're here to increase it.

[Dardedar]

I agree with you on that. Only sometimes is "chemical" a synonym (among non-chemists and especially journalists) for "contaminant."

DAR
Oh I would say it is more than sometimes. This is why I thought SAV's original point was so useful. It's common to use chemical as a synonym for contaminant but when a non specialist (Larry's article) tries to get specific they should get busted. How many times have we seen a news report saying something like: "chemicals are leaching into our drinking water." This is just the way the word chemical is commonly used. A lot. On SAV's strict definition of chemical this could be like saying "water is leaching into our drinking water." So it depends on context. The word has a very different meaning in different contexts. Like the word "theory" in science and a million other examples. I appreciate SAV and the chemical companies trying their best to work against this bad reputation that has attached itself to the word chemical but I don't expect much success in battling against this common usage.

D.

[Savonarola]

... I don't expect much success in battling against this common usage.

Nor do I. But this is just like when an advertisement says that a "study" shows that the product is great. These people either are being intentionally misleading or -- more likely -- don't actually know how bad or not bad the effects of these "chemicals" are.

[Doug]

Yes, but the tuna is not mercury-free. You might say that a group of fish you have caught contains "a chemical, mercury," but you would say of an individual fish that it "contains mercury." But you would be stretching the language to say that the individual fish contains "chemicals" because here the word "chemical" is used in the same sense as "a contaminant."

Doug, I'm hoping that either I can't read or that you have mistyped, otherwise one of us has gone insane. It sounds like you're saying that they both contain mercury -- which by any standard can be called a contaminant -- but only one contains a "chemical," by which you mean "contaminant."

DOUG
It's like the "sugar-free" products that contain saccharose, corn syrup, dextrose, fructose, glucose, molasses, and so on. In some form of layman's terms it has no "sugar," but for the chemist or at least savvy buyer, it does.

In the same way, we might identify something with a little mercury as "mercury-free" if it does not have a certain amount of mercury even though it does have some small amount of mercury. That's just the way we use language.

[Savonarola]

It's like the "sugar-free" products that contain saccharose, corn syrup, dextrose, fructose, glucose, molasses, and so on. In some form of layman's terms it has no "sugar," but for the chemist or at least savvy buyer, it does.

There are several points that should be made here:
(a) Saccharose is table sugar. (Dextrose and glucose are different names for the same sugar, and fructose is yet another sugar. Corn syrup is glucose.)
(b) You're saying that it is like these examples of blatant dishonesty implemented to mislead consumers. The irony is that I fully believe that most of the "chemical" terminology is due to ignorance rather than malice.
(c) The FDA has made it slightly harder to lie like this. Companies are allowed to advertise a product as "sugar free" only if the amount of sugar of any type in one serving rounded to the nearest gram is zero.

That's just the way we use language.

No it's not. When I say that my residence is leprechaun-free, that doesn't mean that there's a leprechaun living in the corner of my attic minding his own business so that I am unaffected. Instead, that is a hack, an exploitation of a mathematical loophole. It's the way that these people have hijacked the language.

[Betsy]

It's not right, but it is what "we" do - "caffeine free" really has SOME caffeine;etc.