“Millions Spent in Albany Fight to Drill for Gas”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/nyregion/hydrofracking-debate-spurs-huge-spending-by-industry.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=government%20talks%20about%20hydrofracking&st=cse

The decision for New York State has been a hot topic for the past few months regarding Andrew Como’s decision regarding whether or not natural gas extraction should take place in New York State. The decision for the Governor should be an easy one considering natural gas extracting from the hydrofracking process has been linked to several hundred water contamination accidents throughout the country where hydrofracking does take place. However, Como’s decision could be tainted considering the $3.2 million that natural gas companies have contributed to in lobbying for natural gas to become acceptable in New York State. Additionally Como has labeled himself as a person who cares deeply with not only job creation which could result from gas companies developing in new York State, but also someone determined to helping the environment. However, the issue taking place in Albany is not exclusive to New York Stare, but gas companies have also spent millions lobbying for the same things in other states such as Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio where there is also a considerable amount of shale formation.

This article gives insight to both the environmental awareness groups along with the natural gas companies who believe could make exceedingly high profits if the bill is passed. One of the complications environmental awareness groups see within the hydrofracking debate is the fact that companies are not required to say which chemicals they use when fracking, which makes it nearly impossible for people to link water contamination accidents to the companies.

This article ties in closely with class discussion on two different aspects. The fact that the reason why gas companies don’t need to submit the chemicals they use is because stated in the safe drinking water act there is what many like to describe as the Halliburton loophole. The loophole said that companies are not required to release the chemicals they are using. Additionally it also relates to the precautionary principal which states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or the environment that the burden to making sure no on is harmed falls on the people making taking the action. Additionally the action should not be taken if the consequences are uncertain and potentially dangerous.

"How animals predict earthquakes" By Victoria Gill from the BBC, 1 December 2011 Last updated at 01:53

This article is about the observed phenomena surrounding animal behavior and natural disasters. The researchers began to investigate strange behavior in toads in L'Aquila , Italy. The ninety-six toads abandoned their pond breeding colony in a period of three days.

The research team led by Friedemann Freund and Rachel Grant had their findings published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. In the journal article, they suggested stressed rock can release charged particles that can react with water and the air.

The mechanism described suggested the charged particles would ionize air molecules and create hydrogen peroxide in water. the reaction could cause a bigger chain reaction that could turn harmless organic matter into organic matter toxic to aquatic animals. laboratory tests suggested the changes to the water and air could be connected to the stressed rock.

I find this article to be very interesting! This would be another case where natural designs work better than modern man made made tools and understanding! These toads were able to predict an earthquake more accurately and precisely than the six scientists put on trial for failing to predict the same earthquake in Italy.

If more tests were done on the proposed mechanism and all of them led to the same conclusion, this could be a breakthrough in earthquake prediction. A large part of what would be needed to be done would be testing the air for a certain amount of ionization, testing the water for a certain amount of hydrogen peroxide, and looking for and tracking the amount of inhabitants a body of water may or should have.

As this news article states,"Friedemann Freund from Nasa and Rachel Grant from the UK's Open University hope their hypothesis will inspire biologists and geologists to work together". This is very significant for science. Imagine two scientists from very different disciplines. One studies things that are alive and the other one studies things that aren't alive. Both of them will now have something in common to study and a common goal to achieve.

I find this news article to be very interesting and hope there will be more studies on it to either discredit the hypothesis or reinforce the hypothesis even more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/15945014

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9593123.stm