[roc]

The relevant question isn't whether fracking can be safe. It's whether fracking is safe, as practiced.

And that's what's purportedly being studied. And what the article alleges is likely being perverted by corporate contributions.

After all, we know that drilling for oil can be acceptably safe. And we also know that in the absence of effective oversight, some drillers will lean as far from safety and caution as is economically feasible, to the point of running decidedly unsafe operations.

This research is meant to answer the question of whether fracking companies are sufficiently safe on their own, or whether the public interest can only be protected with increased oversight. [1]

[1] There is no serious policy argument that we stop fracking altogether. Natural gas has become the cornerstone of the United States' energy independence strategy. The only policy question is whether we consider natural gas "good enough" or we view it as a transitory step toward renewable sources. In every case, it will continue. The debate here is merely about oversight vs profits.

[sageikosa]

I agree that the science behind any analysis is what is important, and not the nationality of the researcher, nor the paternity of the researcher, nor the existence of money that the researcher may have had direct or indirect connections to.

The original article was focused on scientists having a pathway to corporate funds, and the original poster in this thread began what I can only see as a rant against scientists akin to creating a strawman, then burning in effigy.

My points were made to hopefully paint a "rebuttal" image that scientists may come to conclusions different than a prevailing crusade without being soul-less foreigners taking money so they can afford to eat other people's children.

As a minarchist, my environmental stance is confined by individual rights infringement; and that does not excuse air and water contamination. One's rights to dump crap in their water-table ends where my aquifer begins; and these types of laws do exist, if they are not being enforced, shame on the hooligans we elected and appointed.

I do not assume a broad conspiracy, if there is malfeasance, it is a non-confederacy of petty malfeasers.

[roc]

> "My points were made to hopefully paint a "rebuttal" image that scientists may come to conclusions different than a prevailing crusade"

Absolutely; we don't disagree on that point.

I was just taking the opportunity to illuminate a common misconception. (That we're still talking about whether it's-inherently-unsafe or not.)