Honor....

 

Honor… to view with respect and high esteem… to value, appreciate, treasure…

One of the values I hold dear is to honor Life… including other people, myself, the environment, plants and animals… All…

Honor and respect go hand in hand... Companion attitudes that acknowledge everything is part of the interconnected web of life… the Oneness and Wonder of it all…

Do I agree with the views and actions of others all the time? Of course not. Yet I can still respect and honor the person and being that is, even when it seems his or her actions are destructive toward others and the environment. I do not know all that has gone into their worldview or actions in the world… I may try to understand but may never have enough experience or information to get me there… In the meantime, I can respectfully disagree without judgment about the intrinsic worth of the actor…

When we see brutality going on in the form of acting out against others, unless we are totally desensitized to it, we know in our heart it is wrong… whether it is at a personal and individual level or in the scenario of group battles, killing, and defined all-out war.

I tend to be more of a mediator and peace-maker… and would hope to find more non-aggressive ways where communication about common interests can transcend differences. And I am not naïve enough to think that this will always have the outcomes we would like to see. An individual might be subdued and placed under control from outside forces when they cannot control their actions… from the temper tantrum of a child to the aggression of a "criminal"… and even to the level of senseless actions of those with extreme ideologies trying to eliminate their neighbors.

With a child having a temper tantrum, it may be necessary to restrain the child if he or she is out of control, for their own safety and the safety of others. Providing an external sense of control along with communication may help to break the trance of the tantrum and help the child to learn self-control in time… this can be done with a firm and loving hug… along with talking it out eventually if the child is old enough to understand. As important as it is for children to have the freedom to express their feelings, they will also learn, in one way or another, that there are appropriate ways to express our feelings that do not harm ourselves or others.

When it comes to adults acting out in harmful ways toward others, we can have the same approach… often the actions result in our law enforcement members being dispatched to handle the situation… It would be nice if we could first try non-lethal methods of subduing the grown up child who has lost control… sometimes this happens… sometimes it does not… Sometimes the quick solution the police use is to fire their weapons to stop a person… There is a part of us that seems to want justice and so we can say, “He or she got what they deserved.” While I understand that we cannot let people who are hurting others continue to do so, are there not alternatives to shooting with bullets to stop the person who is lost and “out of their mind?”

The same question remains in war and group conflicts. Somehow, war arises because some nations are considered to be the law enforcement being sent in to stop the “bad guys.” We are swayed by fear and the atrocities that are reported… usually including the rape of women and the murder of innocent children. We justify killing more people through these public relations tactics and sometime even through false flag operations that sway the emotions of many to go to war.

I do not have the illusion we will change our way of acting in the world anytime soon. As a veteran who served in the Vietnam era, I know what it is like to be trained by fear and taught to shoot and kill others, although fortunately I never had to shoot my weapon in combat. I honor all our service men and women who have served and do serve, along with those who serve as police, fire fighters, and other first responders in times of need.

It seems there can be more done to try alternatives, and often these things are done. Yet this also has to be a part of our way of thinking and included in the training of responders. Proactive actions such as using intelligence to identify trends and formations of aggressive potentials, not only for defense but also to try to communicate about the issues that they may have. There can be some actions taken to stop supplies of weapons and ammunition, money, and aid of different kinds... firm embargos and sanctions agreed upon by others to make it effective. 

One of the reasons many fighters turned against the US forces was due to the intrusion in their part of the world by US decisions and policies… we have learned to refer to this as “blowback.” And some of us can understand this reaction.

Ideology is the belief that we hold…our worldview and mental constructs. Fundamentalist thinking is usually “black and white” thinking… “wrong or right”… with no gray areas… we see it in some of the ways of thinking in any population and we see it in the extremes in any political party or persuasion. The issue that faces us in these times is how to deal with an extreme ideology that has no place for pluralism… no tolerance differing ideas and beliefs… The extremist in religious conflict “know” that they will only have peace when all people think exactly alike and agree. They need the security of having everyone believe the same way… therefore the demand and choice is either to convert to their belief system or be killed. What we see in genocide is the playing out of trying to eliminate difference… this is almost always accompanied by the notion that there is great honor in killing and dying for the cause… which is usually rooted in beliefs about some other world… and higher dimension…

I am not trying to argue for or against any set of beliefs, yet some are not very conducive to getting along in the social order of our planet.

I can honor the souls of all, yet I will not hesitate to distance my own views from those who seem to lack respect or honor for the inclusiveness of Life.

Part of our cultural naiveté may be that we do not fully understand cultures who operate out of extreme fundamentalist beliefs in addition to a history of constant sectarian strife as a way of dealing with differences… and mix into that complexity the mercenaries who will fight for the side who pays them the most… which was part of the success of the “surge” the US implemented during a previous war in Iraq… The military strategy of flooding money in to pay Iraqi fighters to fight for the coalition side rather against it was one of the turning points…

And so we come back to honoring all… which includes “what is” at any moment in time… for we must see as clearly as possible what the situation is in order to provide our best response as individuals and as a collective…

We honor the children and pray for them and guide them for will see the future emerge into the present…

We honor those who have gone before… they have dealt with their moments in time and did their best to bring us to today…

We honor and pray for all of us who are here as leaders and citizens of our world doing the best we can do live out our deepest values…

We encourage all to find our identity in the deepest values and human spirit that intrinsically bonds us together in the oneness that is Life…

 

John Hutchinson, September 29, 2014

The Human Spirit: A Path for Warriors

The following is from Margaret Wheatley's book (p. 163), "So Far From Home - lost and found in our brave new world"...

A PATH FOR WARRIORS...

"We are grateful to discover our right work

and happy to be engaged in it.

 

We embody values and practices that offer us meaningful

lives now. We let go of needing to impact the future.

 

We refrain from adding to the aggression,

fear, and confusion of this time.

 

We welcome every opportunity to practice our skills

of compassion and insight, even very challenging ones.

 

We resist seeking the illusory comfort of certainty

and stability.

 

We delight when our work achieves good results

yet let go of needing others to adopt our successes.

 

We know that all problems have complex causes.

We do not place blame on any one person or cause,

including ourselves and colleagues.

 

We are vigilant with our relationships, mindful to

counteract the polarizing dynamics of this time.

 

Our actions embody our confidence that humans can get

through anything as long as we're together.

 

We stay present to the world as it is with open minds and hearts,
knowing this cultivates our gentleness, decency, and bravery.

 

We care for ourselves as tenderly as we care for others,

taking time to rest, reflection, and renewal.

 

We are richly blessed with moments of delight, humor,

grace, and joy. We are grateful for these."

 

 

Serenity... the rest of the story...

Many of us have heard of “The Serenity Prayer.” We may even know the first two verses which say:

“God, grant me the serenity

to accept the things

I cannot change,

Courage to change the

things I can, and the

wisdom to know the difference…”

Whatever our spiritual path and values may be, these words provide a universal attitude and wisdom that transcends time and assists us in our daily lives.

In order to understand the depth of these words, we must first hear them… really hear them...

Accepting the things we cannot change brings a sense of peace… no sense feeling dejected or angry over things we cannot influence..

Acting on things over which we have some influence takes courage… respond to each situation with clarity, exploration, and understanding…

Knowing the difference requires a clarity and awareness that are detached from hope, fear, and expectations… and this is the nature of wisdom… knowing when and where and how to respond…

But how many of us have ever read the remainder of what the author, a Lutheran minister and theologian named Reinhold Niebuhr, wrote in 1926? While our theology might differ a bit, there is something to glean from the rest of the prayer…

“Living one day at a time;

 Enjoying one moment at a time;

Accepting hardship as the

pathway to peace.”

The preciousness of every moment reminds us we cannot live in the past or in the future… only in this present moment… and the path will contain some hardships as we walk in the world with our inner spirit and values as our guide.

“Taking, as He did, this

sinful world as it is,

not as I would have it.”

Pointing to the spiritual teacher in the Christian religion as an example and realizing the dysfunctional nature of many of the world’s interactions and ways of trying to control others… and not being attached to what we wished were so… not being attached to our own wants, hopes, fears, and desires…

“Trusting that He will make

all things right if I

surrender to His Will;”

These words are a bit different than what I think or believe, yet they point in the essence to a certain amount of faith and surrender to “what is.” As we walk our journey, there is a rather dual attitude for me that says, “It all depends on me and my choices… AND it is really beyond my control.” Surrender, is not a giving up in resignation, but rather a letting go and an appreciation for the complexity of life... an acknowledgement that Life has many causes and many results for various causes... which also points to the importance of the choices we make each moment... 

 

While the masculine ["He"] refers more to a paternal sky figure within the concepts of a specific religious teaching, I view the “Source of Life Energy” as inclusive of all energies that can best be described as “Oneness”… and the cohesive glue can be seen as a form of universal love… even as we acknowledge the dysfunction and aberrations of its expression through individuals and groups... the light comes in through stained glass windows... 

“That I may be reasonably happy

 in this life, and supremely

happy with Him forever in

the next… Amen”

Niebuhr suggests this attitude helps us to find a peace and happiness in our lives in the here and now… whatever our thoughts are beliefs are regarding the continuation of being and consciousness at an individual level, it has long been the teachings of religions that happiness and sometimes damnation goes on forever in another dimension… and this can be seen as the projected hope of a better life for those in misery now… While I understand these teachings, I tend to be open to the continuation of consciousness and being in some form without having a real sense of what that might be. I tend to see “heaven” and “hell” as something in the present of our individual and collective psyches. We do the work we feel called to do as servants and ambassadors of the “Oneness” of Life Energy.

Having said that, it seems the first two verses have “stuck” in our collective consciousness more easily since they perhaps point to a universal truth…

See clearly and accept what we have no influence over… Work to change what we can… and see clearly enough to know which is which… otherwise we will bang our heads against walls in acts akin to insanity.

As a fun point of interest, a Mother Goose rhyme from around 1695 says:

“For every ailment under the sun

There is a remedy, or there is none;

If there be one, try to find it;

If there be none, never mind it.”

John Hutchinson - September 28, 2014

Is our world going “to hell in a hand-basket?”

We live in a complex and interconnected world. It is a world that has become much smaller in a sense with the 24 hour bombardment of news from every part of our planet. Do we live in a world that is “going to hell in a hand-basket?” Perhaps we are in a period of deterioration. Actually the phrase “going to hell in a hand-basket” probably comes from the practice of catching heads from the guillotine during an execution and taking it away in that fashion… and of course many criminals who were executed were assumed to be “going to hell.” Today’s world sees ideological extremists beheading their neighbors who are identified as the enemy or infidels whose only “crime” is believing something different than their executioner. We have seen this same ideological extremism throughout history not only in the Muslim world but also within Christianity and Catholicism.

If we realistically look at much of the world and its systems these days, there is much dysfunction and not much motivation by those in power to make constructive changes. We have subtly and perhaps not so subtly succumbed to the power, greed, and self-interest of corporate captains, financial directors, and the wealthiest in our world who use money and manipulation to control and enslave the population in confusion, poverty, debt, and corruption in political systems.

There are some of us who wish to do what is right and help make the world a better place. Whatever our background and beliefs may be, we share some basic values which I would suggest include: respect for the interconnected web of life; care and kindness to others, ourselves, and the planet; equal rights and responsibilities; a common sense and decency toward others; cooperation rather than coercion; reasonable and critical thinking to problem-solving rather than extreme ideology and beliefs that divide into categories of “us” and “them.”

Some would prefer to emphasize “individual” rights and freedom while others place the emphasis more on the “collective” and social responsibilities we have as a community. This does not need to be an “either-or” question. We can espouse the rights of all equally, the freedoms we cherish, and the common good.

Yet if we are attached to make the world in our image, we are the same as the 1% who will use whatever it takes to gain control over the planet and its citizens. We can live out our values without being attached to the outcome. We do what we do… we say what we say… not because we think it will “save” or change the world… but because we choose to live out our values and do and say what we think is best and right… no matter what other say or do…

There are many things in life over which we have no control… and yet we always have a choice in how we respond… from the depth of our inner values and human spirit… from our heart and from our intuition and from our mind… And of course, if we have some influence to make changes, then we can choose that course of action.

The world has its own set of values, no matter what the leaders may say. Leaders are also pawns at times of those who hold the purse-strings, the power, and the influence…

Working in organizations and businesses can be frustrating, depending on the culture and principles by which an organization operates. We are prone to avoid real problem-solving by really looking carefully at issues. When the Federal Reserve brought experts in to analyze their process and procedures that led to the “crash” in 2007-8, it wasn’t long before they wanted to ignore the findings and even fired some who dared to tell the truth. Cultures, whether in society or with a business or organization tend to resist change…and wish to keep things as they are… the known, even if dysfunctional, is preferred to the unknown which calls for open creativity, growing, and some chaos in the process…

Margaret Wheatley, in her recent book, “So Far From Home,” suggests we look at what is emerging and be open to it… explore the complexity… and while it may not be going the way we would choose, we can be a positive influence within the process by maintaining our own centeredness and operate out of our identified person values… in the present.

Wheatley is a realist who might say, “Yes, it does seem like the world is going to hell in a hand-basket and we are not going to save the world… yet we continue to act and respond from our own shared values because we can do none other.”

What is our response?

Fight....flight... scream.... hide... deny... protest...  point out everything that is wrong... encourage one another... keep on keepin' on...

I think it needs to begin with detaching enough to identify our own values rather than just reacting. Reflection and clarifying our own internal values helps to provide that centeredness on which to act.  If we identify our values, we can act from a clarity that is not dependent on others or not attached to outcomes. If we are waiting to see the results or the change, then we are still operating out of attachment and will most likely do a fast or slow burn...

I am going to take more time each day to focus on a value or quality that I wish to share in the world on that particular day. And taking time to meditate or whatever you call becoming quiet within continue to be a useful and necessary activity... the busier we are, the more we need a time alone to center our selves for the work we have to do in the world...  It helps bring more clarity and present alertness to the moments of our lives.

John Hutchinson - September 27, 2014

Another Constitutional Convention?

I have personally heard at least 100 people, pundits, and politicians claim that certain actions or policies are “unconstitutional” in the past few decade. And I have thought the same thing a number of times.

We live in a republic that is ruled by a constitution, by laws legislated by representatives (representing who may be another story), by executive orders (which may limit or expand individual rights), and by Supreme Court decisions regarding different interpretations of the laws (which in some cases appear to be more like legislating).

In this year of 2014, some, including myself, are disgusted with the lack of ethics in politics and the actual lack of governing that is done. I would suggest that our country has become more of an oligarchy in which corporate wishes backed by bribes disguised as political campaign contributions affect legislation more than the will of the “people” of the various states. (…also known as “corporatism” in which the government is run by specific interest groups.) We may be called the “United States” but it seems that may only be true in form and not in substance. The various states seem quite un-united in many ways.

Is the “U.S.” an oligarchy? In order to answer this we must look at the definition of “oligarchy” and also the evidence. What is an oligarchy? It is defined as “a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.” I would suggest that the small group that influences or runs the U.S. government includes the influence of some of the 1% of the population who are financial and corporate leaders. This can be described by expanding Eisenhower’s phrase to include the “Military-Industrial-Financial Complex.”  The Defense Department is in reality a defense or military industry where public and borrowed funds are channeled to the corporations and companies who provide the hardware, arms, and ammunition for military action both for the US and for other countries as well. Would it not make sense for the government to reduce waste and nationalize the defense industry?

There are over 22 million results on Google when researching “corporate influence in politics” …
[ https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=corporate+influence+in+politics ]…
[ https://www.opensecrets.org/influence  ]
[ http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/12/lobbying-10-ways-corprations-influence-government ]
[  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24kirkpatrick.html?_r=0 ]

One thing that we can say with certainty is that the world in 2014 has changed constantly over time and more specifically since 1787. Of course there has always been money and greed around in politics and in society in general. But this does not justify it as an acceptable way of governing.

What was set up as a great experiment continues. I’m not looking for a new country to live in. For the most part, we continue to have a level of personal freedom that is unmatched in the world. One of the aspects of the original constitution is Article V of the U.S. Constitution which is to help deal with a need for modification because 1)our form of governing was intended as an experiment; and 2) change is constant … Most are familiar with the requirement for two-thirds vote in both houses of congress in order to call a Constitutional Convention or pass an amendment (also needing ratification by ¾ of the states.

The 2^nd method defined in Article V states that a Constitutional Convention must be called if 2/3 [34] of the states ask or apply for it. As of this writing, when Michigan asked for a Constitutional Convention in 2014, the threshold seemed to be met. There are questions that remain which must probably be decided by the Supreme Court, but the point is we are close to calling a Constitutional Convention even if it deemed that 2 or 3 more states are needed.

[see: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/rare-option-forcing-congress-to-meet-change-constitution-gains-momentum ]...

The total needed is not time sensitive, meaning the number continues to grow toward 2/3 as states over the past decades have ask for a constitutional convention for specific and varying reasons to propose amendments. Once a constitutional convention is called, any and all changes may be proposed, including an updating and rewriting of the constitution.

How delegates would be assigned is another question and of course politics would be involved as always. Larger questions remain about how the process and procedures would be defined. Whether it would be a convention open to all proposals or limited in subject matter is quite vague in the article and would most likely be decided by the Supreme Court.

The truth is that there are many people who would like to see changes made and yet the numbers are split it seems as in all political debates. If those who represent corporate interests were in the majority as delegates, then we would risk the possibility of the laws becoming more favorable toward corporatism and oligarchy. I’m sure there are many in the general population who would like to see more equitable measures included that would keep corporations and lobbyists representing special interests from using money to influence legislation. Because the language in Article is rather vague, especially with regard to process and procedures, there is perhaps too much room for interpretation and the Supreme Court, as it usually does, would most likely vote according to the political appointees on the sitting bench.

One way for each of us to help is resurrect campaign finance reform and also reverse “Citizens United” which allows corporations to inject any amount of money from anywhere in the world into the U.S. political process through campaign contributions, essentially legalizing bribery and corruption.

We, at some level, must remain aware of where we are in this process of interactive living, including politics. It perhaps is wise to realize that change continues and the new forms are emerging from the process. While we do ourselves no service by being attached to outcomes from our service and actions, we can, at best, do what we sense we must do according to our deepest and highest values.

John Hutchinson… September 23, 2014… john@sunhutch.com

Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UN]

Eleanor Roosevelt, UN Chair of Drafting Committee, 1948

 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UN, 1948]

Plain Language Version

 [Note: In 1948, the United Nations drafted and unanimously passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. The original version can be found at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml ... This “Plain Language Version” was written to make it easier for children and others to read and understand.]

1  When children are born, they are free and each should be treated in the same way. They have reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a friendly manner.

2   Everyone can claim the following rights, despite

 - a different sex

 - a different skin color

 - speaking a different language

 - thinking different things

 - believing in another religion

 - owning more or less

 - being born in another social group

 - coming from another country

 It also makes no difference whether the country you live in is independent or not.

3   You have the right to live, and to live in freedom and safety.

4   Nobody has the right to treat you as his or her slave and you should not make anyone your slave.

5   Nobody has the right to torture you.

6   You should be legally protected in the same way everywhere, and like everyone else.

7   The law is the same for everyone; it should be applied in the same way to all.

8   You should be able to ask for legal help when the rights your country grants you are not respected.

9   Nobody has the right to put you in prison, to keep you there, or to send you away from your country unjustly, or without good reason.

10   If you go on trial this should be done in public. The people who try you should not let themselves be influenced by others.

11   You should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you are guilty. If you are accused of a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done.

12   You have the right to ask to be protected if someone tries to harm your good name, enter your house, open your letters, or bother you or your family without a good reason.

13   You have the right to come and go as you wish within your country. You have the right to leave your country to go to another one; and you should be able to return to your country if you want.

14   If someone hurts you, you have the right to go to another country and ask it to protect you. You lose this right if you have killed someone and if you, yourself, do not respect what is written here.

15   You have the right to belong to a country and nobody can prevent you, without a good reason, from belonging to a country if you wish.

16   As soon as a person is legally entitled, he or she has the right to marry and have a family. In doing this, neither the colour of your skin, the country you come from nor your religion should be impediments. Men and women have the same rights when they are married and also when they are separated.

Nobody should force a person to marry.
The government of your country should protect you and the members of your family.

17   You have the right to own things and nobody has the right to take these from you without a good reason.

18   You have the right to profess your religion freely, to change it, and to practise it either on your own or with other people.

19   You have the right to think what you want, to say what you like, and nobody should forbid you from doing so. You should be able to share your ideas also—with people from any other country.

20   You have the right to organize peaceful meetings or to take part in meetings in a peaceful way. It is wrong to force someone to belong to a group.

21   You have the right to take part in your country's political affairs either by belonging to the government yourself or by choosing politicians who have the same ideas as you. Governments should be voted for regularly and voting should be secret. You should get a vote and all votes should be equal. You also have the same right to join the public service as anyone else.

22   The society in which you live should help you to develop and to make the most of all the advantages (culture, work, social welfare) which are offered to you and to all the men and women in your country.

23   You have the right to work, to be free to choose your work, to get a salary which allows you to support your family. If a man and a woman do the same work, they should get the same pay. All people who work have the right to join together to defend their interests.

24   Each work day should not be too long, since everyone has the right to rest and should be able to take regular paid holidays.

25   You have the right to have whatever you need so that you and your family: do not fall ill or go hungry; have clothes and a house; and are helped if you are out of work, if you are ill, if you are old, if your wife or husband is dead, or if you do not earn a living for any other reason you cannot help. Mothers and their children are entitled to special care. All children have the same rights to be protected, whether or not their mother was married when they were born.

26   You have the right to go to school and everyone should go to school. Primary schooling should be free. You should be able to learn a profession or continue your studies as far as wish. At school, you should be able to develop all your talents and you should be taught to get on with others, whatever their race, religion or the country they come from. Your parents have the right to choose how and what you will be taught at school.

27   You have the right to share in your community's arts and sciences, and any good they do. Your works as an artist, writer, or a scientist should be protected, and you should be able to benefit from them.

28   So that your rights will be respected, there must be an 'order' which can protect them. This ‘order’ should be local and worldwide.

29   You have duties towards the community within which your personality can only fully develop. The law should guarantee human rights. It should allow everyone to respect others and to be respected.

30   In all parts of the world, no society, no human being, should take it upon her or himself to act in such a way as to destroy the rights which you have just been reading about.

 This plain language version is only given as a guide. For an exact rendering of each principle, refer students to the original. This version is based in part on the translation of a text, prepared in 1978, for the World Association for the School as an Instrument of Peace, by a Research Groyp of the University of Geneva, under the responsibility of Prof. L. Massarenti. In preparing the translation, the Group used a basic vocabulary of 2,500 words in use in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. Teachers may adopt this methodology by translating the text of the Universal Declaration in the language in use in their region.

Exploring the “Evidence” related to Fracking

Hydraulic Fracturing = Fracking

 

I have long been an advocate for looking more closely at the risks of Hydraulic fracturing. Friends and Facebook posts share the dangers associated with “fracking,” sometimes posting spills and leaks or speculation about risks. I decided to research online some of the information. It is difficult for me to believe TV ads sponsored by the oil and gas industry since they have been hesitant to reveal the actual toxic chemicals used in the process and have a vested interested in continuing the practice. I spoke with a state representative several years ago about the potential dangers of fracking and was not shocked to hear him repeat the talking points for supporting fracking claiming it is environmentally safe because the drilling companies deem it so... and is good for the state and country for better economic and national security.

Most simply, fracking or hydraulic fracturing is a method used when drilling in shale to extract natural gas. The process takes millions of gallons of water and is usually combined with various chemical compounds.

Many complex factors come into play as we look at the safety and issues surrounding “fracking.” They include:

·       the economics of the practice,

·       perceptions about the implications for national security of relying on domestic or imported energy,

·       the consequences for climate change from the emissions of different amounts of greenhouse gases from different energy strategies,

·       the positive and negative implications of fracking for employment and quality of life in rural communities, and

·       the scientific evidence about the environmental consequences of the practice, including risks to water availability, water and air quality, and local ecosystems.

 

-------------------

In 2012, the Pacific Institute did a study and report entitled, “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources: Separating the Frack from the Fiction” (http://pacinst.org/publication/hydraulic-fracturing-and-water-resources-separating-the-frack-from-the-fiction ).

 

The following information is directly extracted from the executive summary of that report:

·       Hydraulic fracturing is standard practice for extracting natural gas from unconventional sources, including coal-beds, shale, and tight sands, and is increasingly being applied to conventional sources to improve their productivity. It has been reported that hydraulic fracturing is used on 90% of all oil and gas wells drilled in the United States, although insufficient data are available to confirm this estimate.

·       To better identify and understand what the key issues are, the Pacific Institute conducted extensive interviews with a diverse group of stakeholders, including representatives from state and federal agencies, academia, industry, environmental groups, and community-based organizations from across the United States. 

·       For the purpose of this report, we use a broad definition of hydraulic fracturing to include impacts associated with well construction and completion, the hydraulic fracturing process itself, and well production and closure. Despite the diversity of viewpoints among those interviewed, there was surprising agreement about the range of concerns and issues associated with hydraulic fracturing.

·       Interviewees identified a broad set of social, economic, and environmental concerns, foremost among which are impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the availability and quality of water resources. It especially examines the impacts of hydraulic fracturing and unconventional natural gas extraction on water resources and identifies areas where more information is needed. Our focus throughout the report is on shale gas, although we discuss other unconventional natural gas sources where information is readily available.

·       In particular, key water-related concerns identified by the interviewees included (1) water withdrawals; (2) groundwater contamination associated with well drilling and production; (3) wastewater management; (4) truck traffic and its impacts on water quality; (5) surface spills and leaks; and (6) storm-water management.

·       Much of the media attention about hydraulic fracturing and its risk to water resources has centered on the use of chemicals in the fracturing fluids and the risk of groundwater contamination. The mitigation strategies identified to address this concern have centered on disclosure and, to some extent, the use of less toxic chemicals. Risks associated with fracking chemicals, however, are not the only issues that must be addressed. Indeed, interviewees more frequently identified the overall water requirements of hydraulic fracturing and the quantity and quality of wastewater generated as key issues.

·       Most significantly, a lack of credible and comprehensive data and information is a major impediment to identify or clearly assess the key water-related risks associated with hydraulic fracturing and to develop sound policies to minimize those risks. Due to the nature of the business, industry has an incentive to keep the specifics of their operations secret in order to gain a competitive advantage, avoid litigation, etc. Additionally, there are limited number of peer-reviewed, scientific studies on the process and its environmental impacts. While much has been written about the interaction of hydraulic fracturing and water resources, the majority of this writing is either industry or advocacy reports that have not been peer-reviewed. As a result, the discourse around the issue is largely driven by opinion. This hinders a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental and public health risks and identification of strategies to minimize these risks.

·       Finally, the dialog about hydraulic fracturing has been marked by confusion and obfuscation due to a lack of clarity about the terms used to characterize the process. For example, the American Petroleum Institute, as well as other industry groups, using a narrow definition of fracking, argues that there is no link between their activities and groundwater contamination, despite observational evidence of groundwater contamination in Dimock, Pennsylvania and Pavillion, Wyoming that appears to be linked to the integrity of the well casings and of wastewater storage. Additional work is needed to clarify terms and definitions associated with hydraulic fracturing to support more fruitful and informed dialog and to develop appropriate energy, water, and environmental policy.

 

The Pacific Institute analysis concludes that a lack of credible and comprehensive data makes it much more difficult to identify or clearly assess the key water-related risks associated with hydraulic fracturing and to develop sound policies to minimize those risks. That conclusion was stated in 2012.

 

-----------------

Dr. Peter Gleick, a water and climate change expert, authored an article entitled: “The Growing Evidence of the Threat of Fracking to the Nation’s Groundwater” ( http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/06/27/the-growing-evidence-of-the-threat-of-fracking-to-the-nations-groundwater ).

 

He writes:

“In fact, even with the limited research done to date, there is clear scientific evidence that fracking not only can — but already has — led to groundwater contamination, including a new study just released this week.

 

Here are just seven separate lines of evidence:

1.    As far back as 1984, the USEPA reported on a clear case in which hydraulic fracturing fluids and natural gas from production operations contaminated a groundwater well in West Virginia, ‘rendering it unusable.’

2.    The USEPA issued a draft report in 2011 on groundwater contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming, that showed extensive presence of fracking chemicals (natural and synthetic) in shallow and deep groundwater systems. Some of this contamination may have resulted from faulty wells drilled through groundwater aquifers; some of it may have resulted from surface seepage of fracking waste fluids escaping from badly designed and managed wastewater pits.

3.    The US Geological Survey Report issued its own independent assessment of the Pavillion, Wyoming groundwater testing that also showed high concentrations of several chemicals used in fracking.

4.    A Canadian groundwater contamination report described a “hydraulic fracturing incident” in 2011 in which errors in well drilling and management led to the release of fracking chemicals into groundwater including isopropanolamine, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, petroleum hydrocarbons, and more.

5.    A Duke University peer-reviewed study showed that fracked groundwater systems pose risks to other groundwater systems that were thought to be, but were not, hydraulically separate. This study clearly shows the risks in some groundwater geologies of cross contamination.

6.    Even more compelling, another peer-reviewed study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences documented “systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale gas extraction.”

7.    The latest peer-reviewed study, released this week [June 2013], also shows strong evidence that increased concentrations of methane and other hydrocarbons in drinking water wells are directly correlated with proximity to gas wells in the Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania.”

 

“This growing evidence of a real threat to some of the nation’s valuable groundwater makes it all the more disturbing to learn that the US EPA is halting its own independent assessment of groundwater contamination from fracking in the Pavillion gas fields of Wyoming and even worse, turning that research over to a project funded by the fracking company itself. This smells rotten and is not how independent research should be done.”

 

--------------

 

What is in this chemical cocktail injected into the wells to assist the extraction process? Here is one list from a company doing fracking in Wyoming (posted in 2011):

Click Here >>> http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.3/unpacking-health-hazards-in-frackings-chemical-cocktail

-------------

Fracking has been used commercially employed as a method of gas extraction since the 1940s: Click Here to see a map of fracking operations around the planet >>> http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/map

 

-------------

In an article by writer and scientific researcher, Dr. Jennifer J. Brown entitled, “Growing Evidence of Fracking’s Health Risks” (http://www.everydayhealth.com/news/growing-evidence-of-fracking-health-risks ), she writes:

 

“What concerns me the most about fracking is the almost complete lack of comprehensive study of health risks,” said Susan Nagel, PhD, a researcher of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s Health at the University of Missouri in Columbia, whose work is focused on the effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals in the environment.

 

Concerned Health Professionals (NY) spelled out fracking-related health risks in the open letter, which was signed by 25 health and medical organizations, including the New York Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Lung Association of New York, as well as more than 200 individual health professionals. The letter points to new data on potential health dangers of fracking, and follows a similar call for a ban from the Medical Society of the State of New York (MSSNY).

 

A growing body of medical evidence links fracking, the politically controversial process of natural gas extraction, to specific health risks, said a group of health professionals in a recent open letter to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and acting state health commissioner Howard Zucker (http://concernedhealthny.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Medical-Experts-to-Governor-Cuomo-May-29FINAL.pdf ).

 

One public health concern about fracking is the potentially toxic and hormone-disrupting chemicals (http://www.endocrine.org/~/media/endosociety/Files/Publications/Scientific%20Statements/EDC_Scientific_Statement.pdf) — described in a recent Endocrine Society Scientific Statement — used in the blasting process, as well as radiation and methane gas released from the ground at fracking sites.

 

1.    Harmful chemicals can contaminate water at fracking sites. Hormone-disrupting chemicals were among the contaminants found in water supplies at fracking sites. Of the chemicals used in the fracking process, many are substances that can act like the human hormones estrogen and androgen while others block the activity of these hormones. In a study of 39 groundwater samples - http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/en.2013-1697 - taken near fracking sites by Dr. Nagel and others, they found higher levels of chemicals that could block estrogen, compared to specimens not near fracking sites.

2.    Methane gas can leak at fracking wells. Even new fracking wells can leak, and over time more of the wells leak — releasing methane gas, according to researchers at the advocacy group Physicians, Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy. Odorless and colorless, methane gas is not only explosive; it can also cause health problems if it contaminates air and drinking water. Methane contamination can cause a person to feel tired or dizzy and have headaches. Long-term effects of these gas leaks are not yet clear.

3.    Earthquakes can result from fracking-waste disposal. Fracking waste injection into deep wells may have triggered earthquakes in Oklahoma, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The earthquakes have yet to be directly linked to hydrofracturing. In New York, health experts warned in the May 29th letter that earthquakes from fracking — or fracking waste disposal — could affect the drinking water supply for millions in New York City. "Seismic damage to these aqueducts that results in a disruption of supply of potable water to the New York City area would create a catastrophic public health crisis," the letter notes.

4.    Radioactive materials can contaminate water after fracking. Fracking wastewater has been found to contain radioactive substances, by Lara Haluszczak and others at Pennsylvania State University, in waste that flows back to the surface after blasting to recover natural gas deposits. While underground, this naturally occurring radiation does not pose a health risk. Once it emerges in fracking wastewater, however, analysis by graduate student researcher Andrew Nelson and others at the University of Iowa found that radioactive radium contaminated water sources. Long-term exposure to radium raises the risk of developing lymphoma, leukemia, and bone cancer, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

5.    Air pollution levels may rise in areas where there is fracking. Levels of cancer-causing pollutants like silica dust, ozone, and the chemical benzene should be monitored more carefully to see if they are on the rise in fracking areas, according to Rachael Rawlins at the University of Texas, Austin. The pollutants come from fracked gas wells, gas that escapes, and even fracking pits that store waste. This contaminated air is potentially dangerous for people with health problems like asthma, and for children.

According to an April 2014 Physicians, Scientists & Engineers for Health Energy report published in Environmental Health Perspectives, studies suggest fracking contributes to air pollution known to be associated with rising health risk rates. The authors noted more research is needed to understand possible health outcomes faced by people living near fracking operations.

 

Independent research must be involved to produce facts we can trust. Government, University, Industry, and even private research is often the recipient of oil and gas corporate funds which may bias findings.

 

One anti-fracking website [Frack Off] provides a useful list of “Reports and Evidence” if you wish to read actual incidents and reports related to accidents and spills >>>> http://frack-off.org.uk/campaign-materials/science-and-data

This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg in term of considering the evidence about fracking. Most of the information used from posts and articles are direct extracts from the original material. One of the reasons it is difficult to trust government officials, politicians, and agencies who are supposed to protect the welfare of the public is that many of those same people have come from the oil and gas industry. I am also reminded that then Vice President Cheney made it easier for drilling by lifting the EPA regulations and oversight on air and water. It would be good for all to have those regulations put back into play and empower the EPA with some authority to do the job initially assigned to it. As much as I would like to trust the integrity of public officials, I find it difficult and try to find out as much as I can about what they are saying. John Hutchinson jhutch888@yahoo.com

 

-------- Additional information and links---------

 

Chemicals used in fracking:

http://www.allenstewart.com/practice-areas/gas-property-damage/chemicals-used-in-fracking/

 

---------



Business Insider: "10 Scariest Chemicals used in Hydraulic Fracking"

In 2005 the Bush-CHENEY administration and Congress used the study to justify legislation of the "Halliburton loophole," which exempts hydraulic fracturing from Safe Drinking Water Act. Legislation also exempted the practice, used in 90 percent of U.S. natural gas wells, from the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. [Cheney is a former CEO of Halliburton]

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scary-chemicals-used-in-hydraulic-fracking-2012-3?op=1#ixzz3DtksT2ni

---------

 

List of 78 Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid in Pennsylvania

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2010/06/list-of-78-chemicals-used-in-hydraulic-fracturing-fluid-in-pennsylvania/

 



-------------

 Fracking Fluid Contains at Least 8 Highly Toxic Chemicals, Many Unknowns

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/fracking-fluid-contains-highly-toxic-chemicals-081314

 

-------------