Conflict goes on over facts on fracking

From: Lorraine Allanson, Rains Farm Holidays, Allerston, Pickering.

FRACK Free Ryedale, in conjunction with Friends of the Earth, clearly now find themselves in a very difficult position.

FoE produced a leaflet which was distributed nationally with claims that fracking could cause cancer, water contamination, air pollution and higher asthma risk, plummeting house prices and higher insurance costs.

After complaints were made to the Advertising Standards Authority, FoE spent 14 months trying to substantiate their claims but could not. Finally, they conceded and agreed to withdraw their leaflet and not repeat the claims without sound evidence. These are many of the very issues that Frack Free Ryedale, supported by Friends of the Earth, have used to create fear, stress and anxiety in our local communities.

Now Frack Free Ryedale and FoE are in a dilemma; the basis of their whole campaign against fracking has been exposed as a sham. What can they now use as a weapon against the gas industry and anyone who supports it? They are now trying to scare people into thinking this whole region will become covered in gas well pads, compressor stations, pipelines and processing plants.

From: Michael Farman, Willow Grove, Beverley.

ON December 13 last year, the Environmental Protection Agency, the USA’s Government body for regulating fracking, released its “Final Report on the Impacts from Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water”.

It examined the scientific evidence, and identified “cases of impacts on drinking water at each stage in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle”. It went on to conclude that “it was not possible to fully characterise the severity of the impacts, nor was it possible to calculate or estimate the frequency of impacts”.

This report comes after nearly 60 years of inland fracking in the USA, using evolving technologies.

Here in the UK, the Government and the fracking companies are determined to go ahead with wide-scale fracking at sites occupying a huge area of the country, despite the different nature of UK geology and our reliance on aquifers immediately below many of these sites.

Our Environment Agency has very limited experience to date of high volume hydraulic fracturing, has had its funding cut to the bone, and admits it will rely heavily on signing off on paperwork by the companies.

Considering these circumstances, I ask readers to decide for themselves whether it is safe to go ahead with this new and invasive technology that would spread across and beneath our vulnerable countryside.