might not t t it ishen you have it and it's , but 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 on tu cod smell it. it smellikel diesel fuel, u knome kind of oil thing. , i us to my 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. >> anile, increased levels of megas e water supplies have been reported in areas of ensit drilling. >> this is the water and supposedly i' supposed to be drinking this. >>ne 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 ve tiet they should be alloto put chemicals into my ground, 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 alknknowth hyhydrochloric acid, ethylene glycol. it's about half of 1% fluid is a chemical--or is really a cocktail of chemimicals, and-- e math on n that. thatat means that that's 5,000 gallons per well i is chemicals, or toxc 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 mave one more circumstance that s us lthe farms quicker

is all the quicker that they'llm >>he rush for gas has had other effeon theocal clobecomeed witindus-ry trucks. >> i have to say the days of having a nice conversation, sitting out in front of the diner, are lingo reet's noisier and louder now than ever as a result of thelart requires run nonstop 24 hours a day through town, and, yeah, the noise is louder >>ilst t increase in traffic represents an ine fve locaop the high me of trucks point to f more serious problems. >> once the chemicals are injected and the fracturing process is te, large erntage of that fluid comes olluted large quantitties ofy freshwater with chemicals that do not belong in a human

environmentnt, and now we havave the responsnsibility--thee induy and t the landowners have a responsity--tdispose of them properly, but we'rere talkg enormomous quantities. >> w whereas energy-rich h texas the temperate geography ofpennty ist--hardly enough tor th thousands of wls planned in coming years. he safe disposof frac >> the amount running around out there literally in n tanker trucks-u r truck going off the road with into a river would pretty much h zed usvitynd plopping i it right down in the cotswolds kn--youow, mayaybe not such a good idea.

>> truman barnett's retirement dream has been destroyed after a gas-industry truck spilled a small amount of polluted >> my wife ealth problems anis waser recovery area, and we had attley thing you heheard at nighttime here was your hetbit'jt t total, and the water dumped out, down off theiown across my land into my pond, through the pond and into the wetland here alongside me. and wht did, it killed the pond. it killed the fish. it killed everything in the pond...no frogs, no war in our house has higigh concentrations of lead. they've recommended--or they've td us w it's turned into our hell.bn . >> the estimate of the pennsylvania department of onvironmental preservation n is serious environmental concern for eve5050 wells

driilled to date. you do the math.hundweds of thousands of wells, were' 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 ts is accumulatico 10 years. as-industry employee whoinex 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 them and styea. they're well-regulalated. but the rest f the 95% of them where they're not gonna go out to tit look athno. . no, t're not w well-regulated. some of tm are real babad. i've se chls come out he literally, the side. it looked like the mountain was bleeding. they had--it loke a plateau. they had the pad here, and they hlike,he 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. right. >> but a tox chemicals is not the only wonent in frack wastewater. critics argue it could contain far more dangerous substances. >> these shale deposits are rich in radium, radium 226. the l lel ofofradium in n the marcelis taes the safe disposal at, meaning that 'o tere's alsso--there's anecdotal evidene that these frac fluids will leach uranium out of these shale 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 le. e shae radium is carcinogenic, and that's something g 's being introduced to the surface in a ill tt wasn't there bef

>> as the profile of the potential dangers of hydraulic and experts are becoming ecreasingly concerned by the ansion of fracking. hiback wh expensive ads, p. campaigns, and high-level >> itit'it of b.s., of f p.r., of ads, and payof to poliliticians is extraordinary. the return on investmenent of paying off f a politician,un discrediting critics is--it's one of the b best investments that 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 trfromracking is both safe and "a panacea for america, offering a fuel that is both a cleaner and a re secure choice than relying on foreign energy ra

>> because, in generain the usage framewowork, oil and gas petroleum is largely used fo transportation; natural gas is largely used for heating and for industrial activity. so until you can show me a plan as part of a national energy plan to transform our transportation system in the ud to one that us natur gas, all right, that argument is speechless. natural gas burns cleanern any other fossil fuel, but it is not cleaner in its life cycle. studies ththat e being done an cornell university right now that are gononna be released soon in peer-review ls wnal show conclusively that the life cycle cost in terrms of carbon dioxide emissin and methane emissionrom the development of gas from onventnal sources like shale is at least as "dirty" as coal. >> professor ingraffea is alsoco 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 eur i africa that are gonna jump into this, again, too soon without understanding comompletely what ththe implications of t this usf and human health.n envirme >> but despite the concerns of experts from across the spectrum, fracking in pennsylvania is set to continue. campai against the iy, oers a sober assessment. >> y to otalize the vast majority of people here think 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, theat goes outut the windo. with ydraulic fracturing set

to expand across europe in the coming years, how governments w teonnology will be crucial. e luth of a new domestic energy source and the promise of jobs in regions 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 information. it took a subpoena to get halliburton, the company that pioneered fracking, to respond. fracking chemicals d breast cancers, respiratory, developmental, as well as brain and nervous system

disorders, and they are in frack waste and may find their way into drinking water and air. and it gets worse. today, waste from pennsylvania gas wells, waste that may also contain unacceptable levels of radium, is routinely dumped across state lines into landfi new inrk, ohio, and west virginia. new york does not require testing waste for radioactivity prior to dumping or treatment. so drill cu m pennsylvanave 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 nertheless allows other statesie to dump frack waste within its ths rts are calling for testing and are concerned about the contamination of the drinking supply of major population cent including new york city. with the gas

production boom underway in the some-400,000 wells in the coming decades, the cumulative impact waste without adequate ersight is a catastrophe waiting to happen. ñññññññzñvpx]wówn

ma: : by e yeyear030, two-thdsds of e woworlwill b b cckingccesess clerinking water. this is a pblblem tat e evy singleererson gononnae dealig g withegarardls of w wre they y ve in the world. woma w when u bebegito trere war r as aommomodi, whererthe price oththe war isis dendentnt supp andnd dand, y y end up with corpotete conol o of l of our drinngng wat. mani mean, ink abouit