might not t think it is when you od, e t when you lose it, it's gone. you'll never get it t ck. like, we would take a glass of water out of the tap, and it would have, like, an oil base on the top. you could smell it. it smelled like diesel fuel, or some kind of oil thing. you know, i useded to my sink and get a glass of water. i can't do that anymore. i have to p put lotion on my has 3 times a day from using the watter free...even wash my dishs or wash my clothes or anything. >> meanwhile, increased levels of methane gas in water suppl have been reported in areas of intensive drilling. >> this is the water. it's in supposed to be drinking this. >> one of the key problems with the fracking process is its reliancnce upon huge volumes of water that are combined with an array of harmful chemicals. carolyn knapp is an organic farmer.

>> i don't believe that they should be allowed to put chemicals into my ground, chemicals that are not allowed, by my certification, to be put in the ground. chemicals that i feel can do harm to my family, to the people around me, and i don't feel--i feel violated. >> nonene of those chemicals are palatable--you knknow, methanan, hyhydrochloric acid, ethylene glycol. it's abou1% of the fracking fluid is a chemical--or is really a cocktail of chemimicals, and-- but do the math on n that. thatt chems,xic that's 5,000 gallonsi chemicals that goeoes in. so if there's 8 wells per pad site, that's 40,000 gallons of toxic chemicals. >> and we're losing farms far too quickly as it is, and to have one more circumstan tt makes us lose the farms quicker

is all the quicker that they'll be gone. there will be no more small family farms. >> the rush for gas has had other effects on the local community. small t towns have become clogged with gas-industry trucks. >> i have to say the days of having a nice conversation, sitting out in front of the diner, are long gone. main reet's noisier and louder now than ever as a result of the large trucksks that the industry requires. they run nonstop 24 hours a day through town, and, yeah, the noise is louder than ever. ase in tric repsents an inconvenience for local people, the high volume of trucks point to far more serious probms. >> once the chemicals ared an the fracturing process is complete, a large percentage of that fluid comes back up. so we have purposely lapole quantitties of frter wahe do not belong in a human

environmentnt, and now we havave the responsnsibility--thee induy and t the landowners have a responsibility--to dispose of them properly, but we'rere talkg enormomous quantities. >> w whereas energy-rich h texas lveans that onlyaphy ofl wells, a few exist--hardly enough to cater for the thousands of wells planned in coming years. but the safe disposal of frac fluid is not the only concern. >> the amount of fluid that's running around out there literally in n tanker trucks-- you u know, thousands ofof tankr trucks--is such that one tanker truck going off the road with fring chemicals in it into a river would pretty much wipe it out. this is like taking that rough and tumble, highly industrialized activivity and cotswolds--you knnow, mayaybe nt such a good idea.

>> truman barnett's retirement dream has been destroyed after a gas-industry truck spilled a small amount of polluted frac water onto his property. >> my wife had some health problems and this was her recovery area, and we had a little bit of heaven. the only thing you heheard at nighttime here was your heheartbeat. now it's just t totally y devastate, and the water dumped out, down off their pad, down across my land into my pond, through the pond and into the wetland here alongside me. and what it did, it killed the pond. it killed the fish. it killed everything in the pond...no frogs, no turtles--nothing. our drinking water in our house has higigh concentrations of lead. they've recommended--or they've told us not to drink it and d don't bate in it. from our heaven, now it's turned into our hell. >> the estimate of the pennsylvania department of environmental preservation n is one serious environmental

concern for every5050 wells driilled to date. you do the math. if we're talking hundreds of thousands of wells, we're doing hundreds or thousands of spills--that's called cumulative impact. so it goes to the heart of your question: why are you not seeing all these things ye bemulative impact is accumulating. come back in 10 years. >> "the ecologist" met with an ex-gas-industry employho described a spill on a site that he worked on. >> some of the sites are well-regulated, yeah, where d.d.e.p. and osha and stuff like that, where ththey're righght on ayeah, ty' well-regulalated. but the rest f the 95% of them where they're nna go out to the site and look at t them, no. . no, they'e not w well-regulated. some e ofm are real babad. i've seen chemicals come out of the side-- literally, the side. it looked like the mountain was bleeding. they had--it looks like a plateau. they had pad here, and they had, like, the barrier fence around it, and there was just, like, this red, nasty water just coming, just oozing out the side of the mountain,

just the side of the hill. so they're not doing sosometh right. >> but a toxic cocktail of chemicals is not the only worrying component in frack wastewater. critics argue it could contain far more dangerous bstanc. epohts are rich in radium, radium 226. the l lel ofofradium in n the marcellus is about 267 times the safe disposal amount, meaning that it'll kill you. so there's alsso--there's anecdotal evidene that these frac fluids will leach uranium outf these shalale dedeposits. there's also r radon in these shale depeposits. so in addition to the fracking fluid, which we know is toxic, the frac flowback leaches radium out of the shaum ile. th carcinogenic, and that's something g that's being introduced to the surface in a spill that wasn't there before.

>> as the profile of the potential dangers of hydraulic frcturing grows, both public and experts are becoming increasingly concerned by the rapid expansion of fracking. but the gas industry have hit back with expensive ads, p.r. campaigns, and high-level >> itit's--the cost-benefit o of b.s., of f p.r., of ads, and payoffs to poliliticians is extraordinary. the return on investmenent of paying off f a politician, running a an ad, discrediting critics is--it's one of the b best investments at the indusustry can make. >> although they declined an opportunity to speak on camera, a spokesperson for the marcellus shale coalition, which represents the gas industry, told "the ecologist" that gas extracted from fracking is both safe and "a panacea for america, offering a fuel that is both a cleaner and a more secure choice than relying on foreign energy supplies." but professor ingraffea disagrees.

>> because, in general, in the usage framewowork, oil and gas are not interchangeable. nsportation;atal gas ised for largely used for heating and for industrial activity. so until you can show me a plan as part of a national energy plan to transrm our transportation system in the united states to one that uses natural, all right, that argument is speechless. natural gas burns cleaner than any other fossil fuel, but it is not cleaner in its liycudieththat being done an cornell university right now that are gononna be released soon in peer-review journals will show conclusively that the life cycle cost in terrms of carbon dioxide emissin and methane emission from the development of gas from unconventional sources like shale is at least as "dirty" as coal. >> professor ingraffea is also concerned about unregulated fracturing practices spreading around the world. >> not only do we now have a technology that has exceeded our regulatory capacity, we have a

government saying something that's ahead of the technology. so i'm really concerned about people in europe, india, asia, africa that are gonna jump into this, again, too soon without dingdomompletely what ththe implications of t this usf technology aare on environmennt and human health. >> but despite the concerns of erts fm across the spectrum, fracking in pennsylvania is set to continue. inst tas indtry, offersgnera a sober assessment. >> you got to realize the vast majority of people herenk it's wonderful. they think there'll be jobs. they think they'll be able to keep their families here. they'll be able to pay for education. but we find--as you've seen, when you talk to people, that all is good on paper. but when things happen that ruin the value of your property, ruin the health of your family, then that all goes outut the window. >> with hydraulic fracturing set

coing years, goverentse in the respond to this new technology will be crucial. but the lure of a new domestic energy source and the promise ob starved of investment may prove too powerful a combination to oppose. potential benefits need to be balanced against acceptable risk. for that, you need facts, like what's really in the 5 million gallons of fluid, includining the 7 75,000 gallonf chemicals, used to frack a single well? under the bush administration's energy policy act of 2005, companies didn't have to tell you. however, in september, 2010, 8 companies responded to an epa request for informaa . bpoena to get halliburton, the company that pioneered fracking, to respond. fracking chemicals are linked to bone, liver, and breast cancers, gastrointestinal, circulatory, respiratory, developmental, as well as brain and nervous system

disorders, and they are in frack waste and may find theiway into drinking water and air. and it gets worse. today, waste from pennsylvania gas wells, waste that may also contain unacctable levels of radium, is routinely dumped across state lines into landfills in new york, ohio, and west virginia. new york does not require testing waste for radioactivity prior to dumping or treatment. so drill cuttings from pennsylvania have been dumped in new york's chemung and other counties since 2009, and liquid waste is shipped to treatment plants in auburn and watertown, new york. it is ironic that new york state, the first in the nation to put a temporary hold on fracking, pending a safety ew, nevertheless alther states to dump frack waste within its boundaries. how radioactive is this waste? experts are calling for testing and are concerned about the contamination of the drinking supply of major population centers, including new york city. with the gas

production boom underway in the marcellus shale, and plans for some-400,000 wells in the coming adese cumulative impact of dumping potential lethal waste without adequate oversight is a catastrophwaiting to happe @ óóóóówówówoñ0ççñññññ

-george koururounis: the polar r bear, the wod's largestand predator, is der r that. as the atitic was, e icy y bitat of the bear is melting faerer, leaavi them m ngry d vuerable. their pululatiois d dwiling as they struggle to survee he longesummmmer and nowtatarvi beear arar coming into towns sechching r fofood i've come to tirir wor to fd ouout w thehere coping instnginclim can they svivive a adadapt orill the mighty parar bea bome a a imate casualty? -george: i'm hdiding to c cana's fafanorth, to e timberline, wherererees ge waway to a atic tundra