No fighting the fear movement when it comes to fraction or spraying "chemicals." I'm no fan of fracking, but when I see people throwing around chemical names and quantities (context excluded) I have to step up and spray a dose of reality.
Let's first remove all doubt that whoever wrote that BS is mixing EPA recommendations of limitations for human ingestion with concentrations in a contain solution. That's like saying this: " FDA recommends people stay indoors when the temperature outside reaches 42 degrees, but the sun is over a million degrees centigrade."
So right then and there, that source is completely misleading and with a malformed argument. It would be thrown out of any peer-reviewed forum based on that, within seconds. In other words, it holds no scientific reason.
No science or reasoning is going to fight a 5 second google and a half-assed anti-fracking article written up with no sources. But I will. Because what I read is bullshit fear mongering with some trace elements of "throw some chemical names out to confuse people into thinking they are bad."
First of all, the fact it was sprayed gives it a negative view right off the bat. Road salt it sprayed is a lot of regions of the world. Usually mixed in with sand or gravel. We have it lucky here. We are living on top of oceans of rock salt. We use Rock salt here and that's really all we know. Salt solution is more expensive, but more effective than solid salt. Rock salt is cheap and better for large quantities.
While I'm not for spraying any shit anywhere, not only are the numbers you posted simply blown out of proportion, it completely ignores that fact that those "toxins" dilute extraordinarily in the environment. Guess where the radium (among other radioactive isotopes that were not mentioned in your quote that are certainly found in brine) comes from? Plants, animals, rock, Limestone! Where do they get trapped when they go back into the environment? Back into those things. anyways.. the radium issue is laughable and alarmist. I would love to see the credible source behind those numbers. Anyways... here some real facts about radium
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/radium.html
It's naturally occurring and found in high levels in a lot of rock around here, and in some things we eat, such as leafy green vegetables and kale. Maybe we should ban that too.
High concentrations of sodium? No! Not in SALT? Will someone please think of the children?!
I'm sorry, but the scientist in me can't take the fear mongering seriously with bullshit claims of "High sodium on our roads" argument.
"sodium, magnesium, iron, barium, strontium, manganese, chloride, sulfate" Those are all sea salts. I would expect them to be found in high concentrations in Finger Lakes rock, salt, mud, plants, and water. This is what collects around your faucets and in your pipes over the years. Better ban those things before it's too late.
We should all get on to banning
Dihydrogen monoxide while we are at it.
The Dihydrogen monoxide argument applies here. Just because people say <insert chemical name here> is found in such-and-such concentrations... people tent to not know the context, the science, the pathology of such things, and they just assume its a bad thing.
Also the claim that fracking brine dumping not being regulated is simply false. ANY dumping of organic solvents is regulated, not only by the EPA, but also the DEC. That's just simply an incorrect statement. It is just that there are no regulations on brine mixes themselves, but the toxic components, specifically the organic solvents (which is the only thing you should be concerned about here). All fall under the clean air and water acts.
So instead of getting angry at XXX for having XXX in concentrations of XXX on XXX, let me put it in perspective:
Is dumping fracking brine over the roads a good thing? No. BUT spreading of chemicals does drastically help to dilute it. It's much better than storing large quantities of it in one place (see Onondaga Lake).
Is dumping rock salt all over the roads better? a little better. But where were the complaints then?
Is fracking brine worse that existing point pollution (companies legally dumping their wastes into the air, water, and on land)? Not even close. In fact its a drop in the bucket.
If fracking brine worse than non-point pollution (Normal people dumping bleach, detergents, motor oil, gasoline, solvents worse than those described above; pumping pesticides, and fertilizers onto our soil and into our drains) any better than fracking brine? No. Non-point source pollution is the number one source of toxic pollution and the number #1 threat to air and water quality in the world. Yep, you using soap and bleach, your car leaking motor oil, your car and home exhaust, your tires leaving tread on the road, that bucket of "pine sol" (an organic solvent) dumped down the drain, all contribute to the #1 one pollution source in the world, in New York State, and most likely, your county. And that's the reason why beaches close. Why streams choke up. Why our biodiversity is abysmal. If you plot the total of potentially toxic chemicals in fracking brine (over a period of time) next to this, you won't be able to detect a "trace" of it.
Fracking brine isn't new. Fraction has been around for decades, as is the re-purposing of fracking brine. Calm down about fracking brine and get back to dumping bleach (hypochlorites) down the drain to make your socks whiter; check your messages on a phone (for which the smelting of 40 different elements used methods so environmentally destructive, that the regions there were mined will not be inhabitable for thousands of years); and enjoy the smell of those benzine-family organics in the "pine" scented candles and "fresh cotton" air fresheners. There's a lot more to worry about.
Mikell! I know that it probably goes without saying, but I totally agree with you and Kelly. I'm just an old hippie tree-hugger. 
