Letter to the editor: Facts refute fracking falsehoods |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Facts refute fracking falsehoods

Negative claims made by opponents of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, are false and here’s why.

Hospitalization rates for asthma have gone down substantially throughout Pennsylvania over the past decade due to increased use of natural gas for electricity generation, according to data provided by the state departments of Health and Environmental Protection (DEP).

Data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the DEP show that the air in Pennsylvania is the cleanest in decades. Carbon monoxide is down 40 percent, nitrogen oxides are down 28 percent, particulate matter is down 54 percent, volatile organic compounds are down 18 percent and sulfur dioxide is down 66 percent.

Measurements taken by an independent air-quality consultant at the Fort Cherry School District in Washington County near active natural gas operations found the air quality to be no different than the air quality at a distance from those operations.

Property values in Pennsylvania counties where fracking is taking place are going up, not down, and they are going up much faster than many counties without natural gas development, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Natural gas drilling is being done safely in Pennsylvania. Fracking is safe and more environmentally responsible than solar or wind energy and has jump-started our economy, ensuring that everyone will have cheap, clean energy to meet their heating, electricity and transportation needs for decades to come.

Dave Majernik


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.