Silica

This is a very interesting article by, Julian Bulman, and it explains several aspects of the fracking non-debate. It is reproduced with his permission. Human ingenuity and technological advances have given us the ability to interact with our environment as no other animal or plant has been able to do through the whole of our planets 4.54 billion year evolution in such a small and inconsequential geological timescale. This includes the ability to produce significant earthquakes and other seismic activities using these technological advancements. As we have developed our technical abilities we have also inadvertently caused earthquakes and other seismic events. The simplest example of this is our conventional and nuclear weapons capability where various conventional explosions and nuclear tests have registered on the ML scale (Richter Scale).Going so far as to produce upwards of magnitude 5 quakes for some underground nuclear tests in the late 1950's and also possibly leading to further quakes in otherwise quiet seismic areas. However weapons are not the only way humans have induced earthquakes and other seismic events.These other inducements include fluid injection into the earth technologies,large earthworks and dam projects, mining and geothermal technologies. Here are several examples of how these technologies interact with seismicity: Reservoirs- The mass of water in a reservoir alters the pressure in the rock below and through fissures in the rocks, lubricates the faults on which they may sit, which can trigger earthquakes (possibly extremely large magnitude quakes).Reservoir-induced seismic events can be relatively large compared to other forms of induced seismicity. The first case of reservoir induced seismicity occurred in 1932 in Algeria's Oued Fodda Dam. There have been similar incidents including the 6.3 magnitude 1967 Koynanagar Earthquake attributed to the Koyna Dam reservoir. During early construction of the Vajont Dam in Italy, there were seismic shocks recorded during its initial fill. After a landslide almost certainly triggered by this increased seismicity filled the reservoir in 1963, the local tsunami in the lake behind the dam caused by the landslide over topped the dam causing a massive 250m high megatsunami and subsequent flooding with around 2,000 deaths, it was drained and consequently seismic activity has become almost completely non-existent. On August 1, 1975, a magnitude 6.1 earthquake at Oroville,California, was attributed to seismicity from a massive earth-fill dam and reservoir recently constructed and filled there. In Zambia, Kariba Lake may have provoked similar effects. More recently, the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which caused approximately 68,000 deaths, is another possible example of a large dam project inducing seismicity. An article in Science suggested that the construction and filling of the Zipingpu Dam may have triggered the earthquake. However, researchers have been denied access to seismological and geological data to examine the cause of the quake further. Some experts worry that because of this apparent link with the 2008 Sichuan event the Three Gorges Dam in China may cause an increase in the frequency and intensity of earthquakes. Mining - Mining leaves voids that generally alter the balance of forces in the rock. These voids may collapse producing seismic waves and in some cases reactivate existing faults causing minor or even large earthquakes. Natural cavern collapses that form sinkholes would produce an essentially identical local seismic event. We have also been responsible for several volcanic inducements by drilling into seismically active areas such as the Sidoarjo mud flow in Porong, Sidoarjo in East Java,Indonesia, which was caused by the company PT Lapindo Brantas sinking a natural gas well and then over pressurising the system by fracking (see below). Geothermal energy - Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), a new type of geothermal power technologies that do not require natural convective hydrothermal resources, are known to be associated with induced seismicity. EGS involves pumping fluids at pressure to enhance or create permeability through the use of hydraulic fracturing techniques. Induced seismicity in Basel led to suspension of its HDR project. A seismic hazard evaluation was then conducted, which resulted in the total cancellation of the project in December 2009. HydraulicFracturing -This is particularly pertinent at the current time with the non-debate (scientifically at least) over fracking technologies in the United States (no it's not a swearword from Battlestar Galactica). Hydraulic fracturing, to give fracking its correct term, is a technology used to induce or propagate fractures in rocks by injecting pressurised fluids into those fractures and thereby releasing held oil or gas allowing those fossil fuels to migrate either to existing reservoirs or to come directly to the surface. For simplicity, using fracking technologies, we are rapidly increasing and decreasing the pressure on natural faults within the earth's crust to release hydrocarbons and actually lubricating and extending these natural fracture zones. Anyone therefore who cannot see the link between increased seismicity and fracking is not only delusional but does not understand the basic premise that fracking is all about creating minor earthquakes to release the held hydrocarbons. If you listened to opinion and editorial nonsense from the media you would assume that fracking is a safe, wholesome technology that is helping America become less dependent on foreign oil so three cheers for the good ol' US of A. Unfortunately this is not the case and factual studies have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that these fracking technologies can and have produced substantial earthquakes and increase seismicity wherever the technology is used. As a more pertinent warning; there are many fracking techniques currently being undertaken close by or actually on the New Madrid Rift faulting system and, due to not understanding how that fault zone may be activated, we could conceivably activate and therefore induce a magnitude 8 + earthquake in the region. That is why it is vitally important that any person understands that opinion is not fact. To cut to the chase any media source that promotes fracking as a safe technology are lying to the general public and are part of the scams and frauds perpetrated by business interests that could and will likely lead to an extreme event in more seismically active areas of the continental US. Fracking causes seismic activity as the pressures are released, this is a fact backed up by years of research and evidential support. Fracking also causes many other potential environmental impacts including; contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the various health effects of these. For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny internationally, with some countries suspending or even outright banning its use. That is not the case in the United States and for exactly the same reasons that there is a non-debate on human induced climate change between scientists but public opion seems to think there is. Namely this is because corporate America (and all large global producers affecting the environment) have far more money to spend on disinformation campaigns than scientists have on promoting their real and proven, and therefore, factual research. Thus these corporates spend huge amounts of cash seeding junk science, disinformation campaigns, pressure groups and opinion to the mass media and this directly affects the vast majority of people's views and opinions who believe that scientists are debating whether Human Induced Climate Change or Human Induced Seismicity is actually a real thing. The reality is far different. To put it bluntly 97% of scientists agree that the earth has been heating up over the last 300 years due to the proliferation of carbon we humans have been putting in to our atmosphere with a particularly strong spike in the last 50 years or so. The other 3% of scientists, who are either on the fence or against these theories, are likely to be either financially supported by big business or are dependent on them in some way for funding (it pains me to say that most scientific dissenters are geologists who rely on the energy companies for work). This is the same for Human Induced Seismicity, seismographs are impossible to fake so any earthquakes that are in the vicinity of these various fracking technologies a link can be made using evidence support systems which is why there is no debate in the scientific community about fracking causing earthquakes, the science is proven and the earthquakes caused cannot be faked, especially in areas with little to no known previous seismic activity. My advice is to not listen to opinion but to seek out the actual scientific studies for yourselves, if you don't understand them listen to someone that does like a scientist and not a journalist, politician, religious leader or someone else in the pay of big business or who has something to gain by being a denier. Remember opinions are not facts. 'Nullius in Verba' ("Take nobody's word for it") the motto of the Royal Society.

While I dont mean to be pedantic - well not too much anyway I think you need to understand the actual philosophy behind what constitutes a theory before using that word. My friend Julian Bulman in his lectures to other geophysicists gives out this note on how theories develop and perhaps this will help explain how you should phrase your thoughts: A theory develops in the following manner: 1. Conjecture (that is questioning the accepted understanding), 2. Develop a base hypothesis (this is to explain your conjecture), 3. Study the hypothesis and define any "truths" within the study,4. Publish results and allow others to test your study results, 5. If the ideas stand up to providing testable and provable evidence then this becomes or adds to a theory at which point the study continues to uncover more "truths" and"facts" associated with the study area. Contrary to some uses of the word theory, it is not a belief system it is backed up solely by testable scientific fact,evidence and therefore proof as otherwise, if the results cannot be replicated,then it can be dismissed as it cannot support its own conjecture and hypothesis. Plate tectonics is a fascinating ride through conjecture, hypothesis and theory from its very early roots in the 19th century to today and the level of understanding that we now have of the titanic forces that go on beneath our feet that only manifest themselves in seismic or volcanic activity. This is why we can all safely dismiss the scams, frauds and hoaxes such as Creationist theory, Intelligent Design theory, Conspiracy theories as they cannot be called a theory under logic or philosophy as they do not have any corroborating empirical evidence or fact associated with them. It is this evidential support mechanism, commonly called the Scientific Method, which allows truth and facts to be determined, without proof and evidence you cannot have any truths or facts. Hope this helps you to define your philosophical thought processes and I would like to see you develop your conjecture a little further.

Julian Bulman responded to this a couple of days ago, I have asked him for permission to post this elsewhere and he has agreed. Six scientists and one government official have been sentenced to six years in prison for manslaughter, for making "falsely reassuring" comments before the 2009 L'Aquila, Italy earthquake. Let that just sink in for a moment to reflect on the various repercussions this absolutely ridiculous, illogical and obnoxious ruling has on factual studies.Also view this ruling in context of knowing that the L'Aquila region of the Apennines is prone to many earthquakes as can be seen throughout history. Periodicity of earthquakes is a major branch of earthquake science and is used to offer an element of predicting when and where an earthquake may take place, but at no point does it offer to do this with any amount of precision or certainty. Because of these historic studies and understanding the plate movements with ever greater detail we can to some extent say when an earthquake will likely hit and within what sort of time period. There is a large earthquake on this faultzone every 100 years or so. So as time and therefore the build up of fault stress increases away from the last event the risk of another event occurring is increasing. However what should be noted here is that these are 100 year events, so therefore the risk of an event and therefore the predictability of an event is 1 in 100 years. In L'Aquila, itself on a periodicity of 100 years or so for major quakes on this fault, the area was hit by a small seismic swarm of various intensities and magnitudes, which while these swarms do sometimes show a large event may take place, they are more likely to show that an area calms back down and are not really warnings of a major earthquake. What one might ascertain from a swarm is that the risk of an event is getting higher to say 1/99 years, however even that is an extremely unlikely risk scenario as earthquake swarms show that a major quake or event is coming in perhaps less than 1 out of 100 swarms. In L'Aquila this was explained to the general populace as the area has had several swarms over the last 50 years or so, usually in these swarms residents have slept in their cars or outside of their buildings, however because the media reported what the scientists and local government officials had stated, thus providing a "calming" effect, and in our era of receiving news from every possible source, many people chose to stay in their homes and of course a major quake struck and demolished those buildings already weakened by the preceding swarm leading to a loss of life. Let's make this absolutely clear this court case has not been about scientific ability to predict an earthquake it has been about their statements communicating the risk of an earthquake and apparently falsely reassuring the populace at large. You can lead a horse to water.......... That is what makes this case so obnoxious and ignorant; the risk is still 1 major quake every 100 years and none of the scientists convicted has said any different at any time yet they have been convicted of increasing the death toll of an entirely natural event by reassuring the public. The risk in living in these areas is every single persons who live there, they are aware of earthquakes, they were party to the swarms, they were party to the scientific analysis, therefore reasonably under logic it is your own risk to live in those areas. What actually happened is the scientists would have met to assess the risk of the swarm generating a larger event, they would have concluded that the risk was higher but would not have had any confidence in predicting a major event occurring (this is fully borne out by the scientific reports undertaken). Who is to blame here? The scientists for doing their job, the government for warning people (although admittedly the government officer in charge did say some rather stupid and unscientific things, however his job is to report and look at the evidence before him and try to reassure the local populace) or the people themselves who were seemingly coaxed in to their homes by calming media reports? The simple answer is no-one as this is a geologic process that no-one can predict with any amount of accuracy to the time, date or even year with any certainty. There are clues of course such as swarms but even these only increase risk by a factor of 1 in 100. To put actual figures to this quake to give you some example of how little risk there is on a day to day basis; the risk as stated above is of 1 major quake every 100 years or so (that in itself will have a plus or minus figure attached to it but let's try and keep it simple), that is the risk of a quake on any given day is therefore 1 in 36,500, that is then a risk of 1 in 876,000 hours.Most quakes rarely last longer than one minute so the actual prediction is 1 in 52,560,000 minutes, which then lowers accordingly as time passes since the last major quake occurred. One must accept that risk should be communicated to areas prone to hazards; however a ruling of this nature will mean that scientists may not willingly offer independent risk advice for fear of being accused of manslaughter. The risk here is that scientists are forced to reduce their own exposure due to lack of indemnity and will only offer the most basic and bland explanations, thus not only contributing to a downward spiral of reporting and educating the public but being afraid to consider different ways of prediction in case they are wrong, setting back scientific discovery and actually, at worst increasing, or at best, maintaining current death tolls. What next? Do we now prosecute our priests and churches also as our prayers have not been answered and therefore we have been offered false hopes and reassurances by our religious leaders? There are not just scientific repercussions in a ruling of this nature. While I have no love for religion and its various doctrines, as is apparent from my writings, in this case offering a prayer to a deity is exactly the same false reassurances that has been prosecuted here;does any religious person not see that prosecuting "false reassurance" should lead directly to the banning of religious hope and faith which is exactly the same thing? This being Italy and the home of the Catholic Church, I have no doubt that there isa religious and/or political motivation or business influence/corruption underlying this frivolous prosecution, however this logic seems to have bypassed the prosecution as now under the law even prayers and religious ceremonies are surely deemed to give "false reassurance". Personally I would like to see any Italian scientists (or atheists, or both) take this on by issuing a frivolous court case against the Catholic Church under the L'Aquila ruling for providing constant false reassurance by the issuance of prayer and other religious ceremonies which are, by design, aimed at providing the same level of personal comfort and reassurance and which cannot be held up to providing evidence of being answered. This would either take a group with cash to burn or, even better, lets all chip in to a kickstarter account to pay the legal costs, I for one would support and donate. This would seem to be only the most recent example of attacking the sciences by groups who have something to gain by making wildly illogical and irrational arguments thus setting public opinion and doing this with the use of either their wealth or ideology. Again I will restate opinions are not facts and cannot be held up as such.

Thisis a very interesting article by Julian Bulman, andit explains several aspects of the climate change non-debate. Humaningenuity and technological advances have given us the ability to interact withour environment as no other animal or plant has been able to do through thewhole of our planets 4.54 billion year evolution in such a small andinconsequential geological timescale. This includes the ability to producesignificant earthquakes and other seismic activities using these technologicaladvancements. Aswe have developed our technical abilities we have also inadvertently causedearthquakes and other seismic events. The simplest example of this is ourconventional and nuclear weapons capability where various conventionalexplosions and nuclear tests have registered on the ML scale (Richter Scale).Going so far as to produce upwards of magnitude 5 quakes for some undergroundnuclear tests in the late 1950’s and also possibly leading to further quakes inotherwise quiet seismic areas. Howeverweapons are not the only way humans have induced earthquakes and other seismic events.These other inducements include fluid injection into the earth technologies,large earthworks and dam projects, mining and geothermal technologies. Here areseveral examples of how these technologies interact with seismicity: Reservoirs- Themass of water in a reservoir alters the pressure in the rock below and throughfissures in the rocks, lubricates the faults on which they may sit, which cantrigger earthquakes (possibly extremely large magnitude quakes).Reservoir-induced seismic events can be relatively large compared to otherforms of induced seismicity. Thefirst case of reservoir induced seismicity occurred in 1932 in Algeria’s OuedFodda Dam. There have been similar incidents including the 6.3 magnitude 1967Koynanagar Earthquake attributed to the Koyna Dam reservoir. During earlyconstruction of the Vajont Dam in Italy, there were seismic shocks recordedduring its initial fill. After a landslide almost certainly triggered by thisincreased seismicity filled the reservoir in 1963, the local tsunami in thelake behind the dam caused by the landslide overtopped the dam causing massivea 250m high megatsunami and subsequent flooding with around 2,000 deaths, itwas drained and consequently seismic activity has become almost completelynon-existent. On August 1, 1975, a magnitude 6.1 earthquake at Oroville,California, was attributed to seismicity from a massive earth-fill dam andreservoir recently constructed and filled there. In Zambia, Kariba Lake mayhave provoked similar effects. Morerecently, the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which caused approximately 68,000deaths, is another possible example of a large dam project inducing seismicity.An article in Science suggested that the construction and filling of theZipingpu Dam may have triggered the earthquake. However, researchers have beendenied access to seismological and geological data to examine the cause of thequake further. Some experts worry that because of this apparent link with the2008 Sichuan event the Three Gorges Dam in China may cause an increase in thefrequency and intensity of earthquakes. Mining - Mining leaves voidsthat generally alter the balance of forces in the rock. These voids may collapseproducing seismic waves and in some cases reactivate existing faults causingminor or even large earthquakes. Natural cavern collapses that form sinkholeswould produce an essentially identical local seismic event. We have also beenresponsible for several volcanic inducements by drilling into seismicallyactive areas such as the Sidoarjo mud flow in Porong, Sidoarjo in East Java,Indonesia, which was caused by the company PT Lapindo Brantas sinking a naturalgas well and then over pressurising the system by fracking (see below). Geothermal energy - Enhancedgeothermal systems (EGS), a new type of geothermal power technologies that donot require natural convective hydrothermal resources, are known to beassociated with induced seismicity. EGS involves pumping fluids at pressure toenhance or create permeability through the use of hydraulic fracturingtechniques. Induced seismicity in Basel led to suspension of its HDR project. Aseismic hazard evaluation was then conducted, which resulted in the total cancellationof the project in December 2009. HydraulicFracturing -This is particularly pertinent at the current time with the non-debate (scientificallyat least) over fracking technologies in the United States (no it’s not aswearword from Battlestar Galactica). Hydraulicfracturing, to give fracking its correct term, is a technology used to induceor propagate fractures in rocks by injecting pressurised fluids into those fracturesand thereby releasing held oil or gas allowing those fossil fuels to migrateeither to existing reservoirs or to come directly to the surface. Forsimplicity, using fracking technologies, we are rapidly increasing anddecreasing the pressure on natural faults within the earth’s crust to releasehydrocarbons and actually lubricating and extending these natural fracturezones. Ifyou listened to opinion and editorial nonsense from the media you would assumethat fracking is a safe, wholesome technology that is helping America becomeless dependent on foreign oil so three cheers for the good ol’ US of A. Unfortunatelythis is not the case and factual studies have proved beyond a shadow of a doubtthat these fracking technologies can and have produced substantial earthquakesand increase seismicity wherever the technology is used. Asa more pertinent warning; there are many fracking techniques currently beingundertaken close by or actually on the New Madrid Rift faulting system and, due to not understanding how that faultzone may be activated, we could conceivably activate and therefore induce amagnitude 8 earthquake in the region. Thatis why it is vitally important that any person understands that opinion is notfact. To cut to the chase any media source that promotes fracking as a safetechnology are lying to the general public and are part of the scams and fraudsperpetrated by business interests that could and will likely lead to an extremeevent in more seismically active areas of the continental US. Frackingcauses seismic activity as the pressures are released, this is a fact backed upby years of research and evidential support. Fracking also causes many other potentialenvironmental impacts including; contamination of ground water, risks to airquality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to thesurface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the various healtheffects of these. For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutinyinternationally, with some countries suspending or even outright banning itsuse. Thatis not the case in the United States and for exactly the same reasons thatthere is a non-debate on human induced climate change. Namely this is becausecorporate America (and all large global producers affecting the environment) havefar more money to spend on disinformation campaigns than scientists have onpromoting their real and proven, and therefore, factual research. Thusthese corporates spend huge amounts of cash seeding junk science,disinformation campaigns, pressure groups and opinion to the mass media andthis directly affects the vast majority of people’s views and opinions whobelieve that scientists are debating whether Human Induced Climate Change orHuman Induced Seismicity is actually a real thing. The reality is fardifferent. Toput it bluntly 97% of scientists agree that the earth has been heating up overthe last 300 years due to the proliferation of carbon we humans have beenputting in to our atmosphere with a particularly strong spike in the last 50years or so. The other 3% of scientists, who are either on the fence or againstthese theories, are likely to be either financially supported by big businessor are dependent on them in some way for funding (it pains me to say that mostdissenters are geologists who rely on the energy companies for work). Thisis the same for Human Induced Seismicity, seismographs are impossible to fakeso any earthquakes that are in the vicinity of these various fracking technologiesa link can be made using evidence support systems which is why there is nodebate in the scientific community about fracking causing earthquakes, the scienceis proven and the earthquakes caused cannot be faked, especially in areas withlittle to no known previous seismic activity. Myadvice is to not listen to opinion but to seek out the actual scientificstudies for yourselves, if you don't understand them listen to someone thatdoes like a scientist and not a journalist, politician, religious leader orsomeone else in the pay of big business or who has something to gain by being adenier. Rememberopinions are not facts. ‘Nullius in Verba' (“Take nobody's word forit”) the motto of the Royal Society. This is a very interesting article by Julian Bulman, and it explains several aspects of the climate change non-debate. Human ingenuity and technological advances have given us the ability to interact with our environment as no other animal or plant has been able to do through the whole of our planets 4.54 billion year evolution in such a small and inconsequential geological timescale. This includes the ability to produce significant earthquakes and other seismic activities using these technological advancements. Aswe have developed our technical abilities we have also inadvertently causedearthquakes and other seismic events. The simplest example of this is ourconventional and nuclear weapons capability where various conventionalexplosions and nuclear tests have registered on the ML scale (Richter Scale).Going so far as to produce upwards of magnitude 5 quakes for some undergroundnuclear tests in the late 1950's and also possibly leading to further quakes inotherwise quiet seismic areas. However weapons are not the only way humans have induced earthquakes and other seismic events.These other inducements include fluid injection into the earth technologies,large earthworks and dam projects, mining and geothermal technologies. Here are several examples of how these technologies interact with seismicity: Reservoirs- The mass of water in a reservoir alters the pressure in the rock below and through fissures in the rocks, lubricates the faults on which they may sit, which can trigger earthquakes (possibly extremely large magnitude quakes).Reservoir-induced seismic events can be relatively large compared to other forms of induced seismicity. The first case of reservoir induced seismicity occurred in 1932 in Algeria's Oued Fodda Dam. There have been similar incidents including the 6.3 magnitude 1967 Koynanagar Earthquake attributed to the Koyna Dam reservoir. During early construction of the Vajont Dam in Italy, there were seismic shocks recorded during its initial fill. After a landslide almost certainly triggered by this increased seismicity filled the reservoir in 1963, the local tsunami in thelake behind the dam caused by the landslide overtopped the dam causing a massive 250m high megatsunami and subsequent flooding with around 2,000 deaths, it was drained and consequently seismic activity has become almost completely non-existent. On August 1, 1975, a magnitude 6.1 earthquake at Oroville,California, was attributed to seismicity from a massive earth-fill dam andreservoir recently constructed and filled there. In Zambia, Kariba Lake may have provoked similar effects. Morerecently, the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which caused approximately 68,000deaths, is another possible example of a large dam project inducing seismicity.An article in Science suggested that the construction and filling of theZipingpu Dam may have triggered the earthquake. However, researchers have beendenied access to seismological and geological data to examine the cause of thequake further. Some experts worry that because of this apparent link with the2008 Sichuan event the Three Gorges Dam in China may cause an increase in thefrequency and intensity of earthquakes. Mining - Mining leaves voidsthat generally alter the balance of forces in the rock. These voids may collapseproducing seismic waves and in some cases reactivate existing faults causingminor or even large earthquakes. Natural cavern collapses that form sinkholeswould produce an essentially identical local seismic event. We have also beenresponsible for several volcanic inducements by drilling into seismicallyactive areas such as the Sidoarjo mud flow in Porong, Sidoarjo in East Java,Indonesia, which was caused by the company PT Lapindo Brantas sinking a naturalgas well and then over pressurising the system by fracking (see below). Geothermal energy - Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), a new type of geothermal power technologies that do not require natural convective hydrothermal resources, are known to be associated with induced seismicity. EGS involves pumping fluids at pressure to enhance or create permeability through the use of hydraulic fracturing techniques. Induced seismicity in Basel led to suspension of its HDR project. A seismic hazard evaluation was then conducted, which resulted in the total cancellation of the project in December 2009. Hydraulic Fracturing -This is particularly pertinent at the current time with the non-debate (scientifically at least) over fracking technologies in the United States (no it's not a swearword from Battlestar Galactica). Hydraulic Fracturing, to give fracking its correct term, is a technology used to induce or propagate fractures in rocks by injecting pressurised fluids into those fractures and thereby releasing held oil or gas allowing those fossil fuels to migrate either to existing reservoirs or to come directly to the surface. For simplicity, using fracking technologies, we are rapidly increasing and decreasing the pressure on natural faults within the earth's crust to release hydrocarbons and actually lubricating and extending these natural fracture zones. Ifyou listened to opinion and editorial nonsense from the media you would assumethat fracking is a safe, wholesome technology that is helping America becomeless dependent on foreign oil so three cheers for the good ol' US of A. Unfortunatelythis is not the case and factual studies have proved beyond a shadow of a doubtthat these fracking technologies can and have produced substantial earthquakesand increase seismicity wherever the technology is used. As a more pertinent warning; there are many fracking techniques currently being undertaken close by or actually on the New Madrid Rift faulting system and, due to not understanding how that faultzone may be activated, we could conceivably activate and therefore induce a magnitude 8 earthquake in the region. That is why it is vitally important that any person understands that opinion is not fact. To cut to the chase any media source that promotes fracking as a safe technology are lying to the general public and are part of the scams and frauds perpetrated by business interests that could and will likely lead to an extreme event in more seismically active areas of the continental US. Fracking causes seismic activity as the pressures are released, this is a fact backed up by years of research and evidential support. Fracking also causes many other potential environmental impacts including; contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the various health effects of these. For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny internationally, with some countries suspending or even outright banning its use. That is not the case in the United States and for exactly the same reasons that there is a non-debate on human induced climate change. Namely this is because corporate America (and all large global producers affecting the environment) have far more money to spend on disinformation campaigns than scientists have on promoting their real and proven, and therefore, factual research. Thus these corporates spend huge amounts of cash seeding junk science,disinformation campaigns, pressure groups and opinion to the mass media and this directly affects the vast majority of people's views and opinions who believe that scientists are debating whether Human Induced Climate Change or Human Induced Seismicity is actually a real thing. The reality is far different. To put it bluntly 97% of scientists agree that the earth has been heating up over the last 300 years due to the proliferation of carbon we humans have been putting in to our atmosphere with a particularly strong spike in the last 50 years or so. The other 3% of scientists, who are either on the fence or against these theories, are likely to be either financially supported by big business or are dependent on them in some way for funding (it pains me to say that most dissenters are geologists who rely on the energy companies for work). This is the same for Human Induced Seismicity, seismographs are impossible to fake so any earthquakes that are in the vicinity of these various fracking technologies a link can be made using evidence support systems which is why there is no debate in the scientific community about fracking causing earthquakes, the science is proven and the earthquakes caused cannot be faked, especially in areas with little to no known previous seismic activity. My advice is to not listen to opinion but to seek out the actual scientific studies for yourselves, if you don't understand them listen to someone that does like a scientist and not a journalist, politician, religious leader or someone else in the pay of big business or who has something to gain by being a denier. Remember opinions are not facts. 'Nullius in Verba' ("Take nobody's word for it") the motto of the Royal Society.