Talk:Fracking/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Radiation

The sources that have been provided do not support the statement added - "Workers on hydraulic fracturing sites are also exposed to radiation from flowback and spills". The first source refers to an accidental release of fluids with sand and small numbers of beads with radioactive tracers during a fracking operation, but goes on to explain that there were no risks from radiation exposure to the workers. The second source only mentions 'radioactive tracers' once saying "but their use poses additional environmental and safety concerns" - it says nothing about the exposure of workers. To get from these sources to the added text is pure synthesis - please remove it or find sources that actually cover this issue. Mikenorton (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Similarly none of the sources mention 'concerns' - that's just not true. Also the bromide stuff is classic synthesis - you take a source that mentions bromide in rivers (although only possibly from HF water disposal - not proven) and tack this onto something on health effects for people living near fracking sites and make it sound like cancers from exposure to THMs have been directly linked to HF operations - they haven't. So I've removed all this stuff again as it is not supported by the sources given. Mikenorton (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Safety" has nothing to do with workers? What? Give me a break. It is not synthesis, that is just yet another guise to remove material that might be in conflict with the business interests of a consulting firm providing services associated with hydraulic fracturing. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Which firm would that be? As I've said before, if you believe that editors are acting the way that they do because of a conflict of interest, either raise it with the appropriate notice board or stop the snide remarks. You have never shown any understanding of what constitutes synthesis, so your edits that use it will keep on being reverted. Mikenorton (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Radioactivity

I have deleted a number of sentences and phrases in individual edits, with comments showing why. Please discuss them individually on the talk page before reverting. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

MH, it is very unproductive and irresponsible of you to delete sections because you are not capable of or willing to read the sources. You are once again being destructive, as I have since learned you have been on other pages. It is also clear that you are engaging in POV editing by censoring sourced material that is inconsistent with your personal biases. Very disappointing and inadequate.You have no standing that qualifies you to serve as gatekeeper on this page. Smm201`0 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Smm I am no more gatekeeper than any other editors. Please read my edit comments about individual edits. I will explain again here and welcome your responses. Please bear in mind that this section is about radioactivity.

I removed the comment about salt because salt is not radioactive.

I removed reference to barium because barium is not radioactive but I left radium in because that is a radioactive substance.

I removed the bit about biological damage because, if you read and understand this, it refers to chemical not radioactivity effects. Also it also only applies if the waste is not disposed of properly.

I removed a section that was duplicated.

I removed the bit about radiotracers returning to the surface because nothing in the sources indicate concern about this. If you disagree then please show me the quote that refers to radiotracers returning to the surface. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the sources describes the nature of a clean up of radioactive material after a blowout in order to protect workers and others nearby and the other talks about environmental and safety concerns when using radioactive tracers in hydraulic fracturing. You are removing more than you note above. You are removing well-sourced material because it does not support the oil and gas industry's financial interests and your POV. Have you no reliable sources that support your perspective? I guess not or your sole approach would not be deletion of material that does not support your view.

To link them in the text that you added is synthesis. No-one here agrees with your view, so please do not keep on adding this. This amounts to slow motion edit warring. Also please do not constantly accuse other editors of acting to censor information. Find a source that actually supports the text and that would be fine. Mikenorton (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not synthesis. Uncontrolled releases, blowouts, flowback...whatever you call it, it returns to the surface, and radiotracers (which are used in various forms - bonded to sand, liquid, whatever...were one of the concerns mentioned. I doubt very much that you will allow any information that is related to radiation exposure regardless of how well sourced it is because of your COI. I thought that you were being even handed when you included the picture that included the seismic issue, then realized that was your business... Smm201`0 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)