hobkyl wrote:I've seen clips of it. Josh Fox isn't the most reliable source of information.
hobkyl wrote:The Examiner is just one of many sources that refute the claims made in the movie. I just picked the first thing that came up and linked it. There are many sources to include enviornmentalists who say that the "facts" portrayed in the movie are false and/or misleading.
Brenda wrote:I'm with you Matt. Many of the towns around me are passing bans, but I fear that my own may not. There are a number of people out here who would be easily lured by the promise of big money. I've already told Mike that I'd move to Skaneateles if that happened--even though we'd only be able to afford a refrigerator box there.
hobkyl wrote:Guess I'm a moron then. I took the time to review both sides of the argument, and this has already been discussed extensively in the Fracking thread, no sense in rehashing it. There are always two sides to the story. While there may be negative enviornmental impacts, (which hard evidence is scarce for) my point in my reply was that I wouldn't promote Gasland as gospel on the subject.
champy1013 wrote:Vermont is awesome for a lot of reasons. Nice place too. Good they actually have the foresight to not destroy their own ****ing backyard.
champy1013 wrote:Guess so. Quit repeating that there is no hard evidence of environmental impacts. Outright lie. EPA and big business happily in bed together.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/09/news/ec ... /index.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 46232.html
..Yet the article says that the EPA is questioning the possibility of contaminents in the drinking water supply.EPA and big business happily in bed together.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest