Citation:
"Hydraulic Fracturing Should Be Banned." Fracking. Ed. Tamara Thompson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracturing." Vol. iv. 2012. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article starts out as a basic overview of what fracking is. It explains the process of drilling into shale formations beneath the earth and using water and chemicals under high pressure to expose the natural gas that is trapped within it. However, it goes on to get into the authors opinion that fracking should be banned by going into detail about how fracking has been proven to pollute the earth and the aquifer beneath the earth that supplies water to nearby neighborhoods.
My opinion is similar to that of the author because I believe that the amount of pollution that fracking causes is unacceptable and isn't worth the potential profits that could be made from exposing the natural gas. I think having fresh water is more important than a little bit of money.
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&zid=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010861204
Monday, October 21, 2013
Source Write Up #9
Citation:
Gang, Duane W. "Friction over 'fracking' grows across South." USA Today 2 Oct. 2013: 06A. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article is talking about how the practice of fracking is starting to move to the south, and the hesitance of residence in the areas. Recently in Tennessee, a proposal to provide funding for fracking was denied by the government, providing a small victory for environmentalists in the south. However, there are more proposals in southern states such as Alabama where national parks are up on the auction block for oil companies to buy and use as they want (which will most likely be fracking).
My opinion still stands that fracking should not occur anywhere, and especially in national parks. The whole point of national parks is to preserve nature and the natural beauty of the area. If they were to conduct fracking in the area, that would effectively destroy the nature in the area.
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA344520751
Gang, Duane W. "Friction over 'fracking' grows across South." USA Today 2 Oct. 2013: 06A. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article is talking about how the practice of fracking is starting to move to the south, and the hesitance of residence in the areas. Recently in Tennessee, a proposal to provide funding for fracking was denied by the government, providing a small victory for environmentalists in the south. However, there are more proposals in southern states such as Alabama where national parks are up on the auction block for oil companies to buy and use as they want (which will most likely be fracking).
My opinion still stands that fracking should not occur anywhere, and especially in national parks. The whole point of national parks is to preserve nature and the natural beauty of the area. If they were to conduct fracking in the area, that would effectively destroy the nature in the area.
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA344520751
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
My Fracking Topic Proposal
In recent discussions of hydrofracking, a key issue is whether it can be conducted safely or if the risks to the environment are too high to attempt it. On the one hand, some argue that the rewards we could earn from conducting hydrofracking outweigh the risks and we should do it wherever there is a shale bed. From this perspective, being able to sell natural gas and other resources obtained from fracking is more important than the small potential of contaminating the aquifers where they are being worked on. On the other hand, others argue that the risks of hydrofracking far outweigh the potential rewards we could earn. From this perspective, damaging an entire communities water supply is not worth the potential financial rewards.
My own view is that the risks are way to high to consider fracking nationwide. Also, I don't believe that there have been enough tests done to determine if this process can be done safely in any way or not. While I do agree that the financial payoffs could be very helpful, especially to rising fuel prices, I still feel that it isn't worth the risks of losing all potential fresh water for a community. For example in Pennsylvania, where fracking is pretty widespread, there are some cases where entire towns have no way to get fresh water because it is all contaminated due to the fracking. The issue is important because oil companies want to start this process as soon as possible to try and make profits, but I think the government needs to put an end to it.
My own view is that the risks are way to high to consider fracking nationwide. Also, I don't believe that there have been enough tests done to determine if this process can be done safely in any way or not. While I do agree that the financial payoffs could be very helpful, especially to rising fuel prices, I still feel that it isn't worth the risks of losing all potential fresh water for a community. For example in Pennsylvania, where fracking is pretty widespread, there are some cases where entire towns have no way to get fresh water because it is all contaminated due to the fracking. The issue is important because oil companies want to start this process as soon as possible to try and make profits, but I think the government needs to put an end to it.
Rogarian Rhetoric
After reading the article "Rogerian Rhetoric" by Douglas Brent, I have a much better understanding of how to use this tool (and what it is). Rogerian Rhetoric to me seems like a much more passive way of arguing a topic. Instead of coming out with your opinion and why the other opinion is wrong, it is more of acknowledging the opposing viewpoint and with truthful facts and analysis, say why you have your own viewpoint. The author breaks it down into four things to be considered Rogerian Rhetoric.
- Introducing the problem and the opposing viewpoint
- Say when the opposing viewpoint may be valid or correct
- Introducing your own viewpoint
- How the opposing viewpoint would be made better by your own viewpoint.
Source Write Up #8
Citation:
Campbell, Jon. "Politics on the Hudson." Politics on the Hudson RSS. N.p., 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article touches on the political side of the fracking argument by talking about what governor Cuomo is deciding about what to do in the state of New York. However, the problem for Cuomo is that the facts aren't all straight for him, so it is difficult for him to make a decision about whether fracking will be beneficial or hurtful. He is getting information from both sides of the argument and doesn't know who to believe in this situation.
I think he needs to make a decision as soon as possible to put the debate to end at least in New York State. I think it's a pretty basic decision. He can take the profits and not care about the needs of the household, or he can give up a little money and help out the people who can't exactly help themselves.
Link: http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013/10/10/cuomo-on-fracking-i-think-were-doing-a-good-job-on-it/
Campbell, Jon. "Politics on the Hudson." Politics on the Hudson RSS. N.p., 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article touches on the political side of the fracking argument by talking about what governor Cuomo is deciding about what to do in the state of New York. However, the problem for Cuomo is that the facts aren't all straight for him, so it is difficult for him to make a decision about whether fracking will be beneficial or hurtful. He is getting information from both sides of the argument and doesn't know who to believe in this situation.
I think he needs to make a decision as soon as possible to put the debate to end at least in New York State. I think it's a pretty basic decision. He can take the profits and not care about the needs of the household, or he can give up a little money and help out the people who can't exactly help themselves.
Link: http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013/10/10/cuomo-on-fracking-i-think-were-doing-a-good-job-on-it/
Source Write Up #7
Citation:
Spotts, Pete. "Fracking wastewater contaminated Pennsylvania streambeds, study finds." Christian Science Monitor 2 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article talks about how contaminated water is being discovered all across Pennsylvania. In some spots, the water is so contaminated that the radium 226 is water (not good) is 200 percent more than it should be. This is happening because the companies that are fracking in the area aren't taking the time to do it safely and it ends up causing harm to the community.
Again, this is just an example of the negative effects of fracking. I don't know about you, but I'll take fresh water flowing to my house then 30 cents off of gas prices. I just don't see how the rewards add up here.
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA344528600
Spotts, Pete. "Fracking wastewater contaminated Pennsylvania streambeds, study finds." Christian Science Monitor 2 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
This article talks about how contaminated water is being discovered all across Pennsylvania. In some spots, the water is so contaminated that the radium 226 is water (not good) is 200 percent more than it should be. This is happening because the companies that are fracking in the area aren't taking the time to do it safely and it ends up causing harm to the community.
Again, this is just an example of the negative effects of fracking. I don't know about you, but I'll take fresh water flowing to my house then 30 cents off of gas prices. I just don't see how the rewards add up here.
Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA344528600
Source Write Up #6
Citation:
"Radioactive discharges from Marcellus shale fracking observed in Indiana County." Pittsburgh Tribune-Review [Pittsburgh, PA] 3 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
In this article, state environmental regulators found that water in Indiana county had an alarming level of radiation in it. This is thought to be because of the fracking on the nearby shale formation called Marcellus. The chemicals used for fracking are thought to have leaked out during the fracking process and contaminated the aquifer nearby that supplies water to the nearby households.
This is just an example to support my opinion on fracking. If it gets any bigger, this will start to happen in more towns which will cause major problems for a ton of people in the northeast. Considering that is where I live, I have an issue with this.
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA344524426
"Radioactive discharges from Marcellus shale fracking observed in Indiana County." Pittsburgh Tribune-Review [Pittsburgh, PA] 3 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Summary:
In this article, state environmental regulators found that water in Indiana county had an alarming level of radiation in it. This is thought to be because of the fracking on the nearby shale formation called Marcellus. The chemicals used for fracking are thought to have leaked out during the fracking process and contaminated the aquifer nearby that supplies water to the nearby households.
This is just an example to support my opinion on fracking. If it gets any bigger, this will start to happen in more towns which will cause major problems for a ton of people in the northeast. Considering that is where I live, I have an issue with this.
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA344524426
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)