By Hugh MacMillan

High-volume hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is making it possible to extract natural gas from rock formations deep underground. Many sing its praises. Many do not. Then there are those that just try to confuse policymakers and the general public alike by spewing false information. With so many contradictory reports out there on natural gas, it’s sometimes nearly impossible to tell fact from fiction.

Fear not, we’re here to help.

Among those creating the confusion is Jon Entine of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), whose recent blog “More Questionable Reporting About the Dangers of Shale Gas” degrades public understanding of fracking.

AEI is, of course, an influential right-wing think tank to which the media (for better or worse) pays attention. It has a long history of taking money from corporations to promote the free-market, deregulatory agenda of big business, and a history of falsely undermining climate science.

Exxon Mobil, now the largest producer of natural gas in the United States, is in AEI’s “Corporate Leadership Circle,” having donated over $200,000 last year. So, Entine’s arguments are really questionable at best.

To begin, Entine discredits an important piece of independent research out of Cornell University by claiming it wasn’t peer-reviewed, a process essential to ensuring academic credibility. He dismisses the article as a letter that was simply released.

The truth is, the article was published in Climatic Change, a highly respected scientific journal, which, according to the journal’s Aims and Scope statement—contrary to Entine’s claim—subjects all its submissions to peer review. It’s a little surprising that, as a senior fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication at George Mason University, Entine wasn’t able to see this.

Entine also claims that the media didn’t sufficiently report on criticisms of the study, including those from the Natural Resources Defense Council, which according to Entine, debunk its credibility.

Yet, at the link Entine provides, the NRDC’s Dan Lashoff praises the study for highlighting the need for more data on the effects of fracking.

The important point here is that scientists have a very limited understanding of how much methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is being emitted from shale gas drilling across the United States. Lacking this understanding, we can’t know the full greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas.

This means that the natural gas industry’s promotion of shale gas as a bridge from fossil fuels to renewables is not based on science, and that more research is needed before exposing the public to the effects of fracking.

Entine concludes his post with a bizarre take on a recent New York Times article by Ian Urbina, an article which counters the oil and gas industry’s mantra that fracking poses no risks to groundwater.

The Urbina article details a 1987 EPA report that concluded fracking fluids had, in fact, contaminated a water well adjacent to fracking operations in Ridley, West Virginia. Deftly, Entine leads readers to believe that Urbina, not the 1987 EPA report, makes the claim of water well contamination.

Entine says that Urbina accuses industry representatives of trying to keep the 1987 EPA report from circulating, but in fact Urbina states that the report had simply gone unnoticed.

Entine claims that the case was sealed after being settled, and that this is why the 1987 EPA report to Congress was not circulated.  Whether the settlement agreement was sealed is irrelevant, but the 1987 EPA report to Congress, which detailed the well contamination, was not sealed; it is a public report to Congress!

The confusion Entine is sowing with his misinformation benefits the oil and gas industry. This tactic isn’t new; we’ve witnessed ongoing attacks on climate scientists, not just climate change.

It is in the public’s best interest to dissect the claims of industry—and their backers—and get to the roots of what is known and what is unknown about shale gas development. The next time you read an AEI article about shale gas development, beware its claims. It may turn out to be as leaky as a fracked well.

Take action to protect our water from the dangers of fracking!

By Rich Bindell

While some are speculating that Tuesday’s earthquake was caused by fracking, maybe we should be more concerned that fracking could potentially cause another type of disruption. Since energy companies are banking on serious output from gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale region, they are going to extraordinary lengths to lease land wherever they can find it, even if the acreage includes business, homes or, as we found out recently: cemeteries.

Since most gas companies refuse to divulge the chemicals they use in the fracking process, we can only speculate as to what types of apocalyptic effects they could have on a cemetery. This begs the question: do we need to worry about fracking causing a zombie apocalypse? It’s happened before in the region.

Just south of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, in Washington and Allegheny Counties, gas companies have acquired around 11 leases for parcels of land whose acreage includes cemeteries. Thanks to the Oil and Gas Act, gas companies are allowed to drill as close as 200 feet from someone’s home or resting place, whether they are alive, dead or… undead.

Environblog’s Alex Rindler noted that Calvary Cemetery is one of several parcels of land under lease to an oil and gas company called Huntley & Huntley, Inc. And Calvary is where three Pittsburgh mayors were buried. So, while some may speculate about the potential threat of earthquakes caused by fracking, I’m much more nervous about the political power of three zombie mayors and other flesh-eating, decaying, brain-thirsty zombies.

In all seriousness, shouldn’t this complete disregard for the sanctity of a cemetery by gas companies be a serious red flag for Pennsylvanians?

Whether or not fracking chemicals could cause earthquakes or the reanimation of the deceased, leaving the public to speculate on the bizarre impacts of fracking chemicals is a sure sign that gas companies are being reckless. Every week the gas industry’s disregard for the wellbeing of the public and the environment becomes clearer.

Some of us believe that fracking is so ridiculous that it sometimes requires a little humor for purposes of levity. That said, we do take our campaign against fracking quite seriously. Join us in our effort to ban fracking across the nation.

By Rich Bindell, Food & Water Watch

He came dancing across the water (actually, it was more like across the Homegrown Village area of the 2011 Farm Aid Concert). Regardless, singer-songwriter, rock music legend and friend-to-the-farmer Neil Young did something that proves he has a heart of gold: he signed our petition to Congress for a Fair Farm Bill.

The Godfather of Grunge knows it’s gonna take a lotta love to fix the food system and make improvements to the Farm Bill to make it happen. But don’t let it bring you down because, while participating in the 2011 Farm Aid Concert in Kansas City, the musician took a minute of his time to give his “Neil Young” to our campaign, as well as a little message for Congress: “Real money should go to real farmers.”

Lots of people have already signed our petition for a Fair Farm Bill, demonstrating that fixing our broken food system is a priority for them. But, having Neil Young’s signature is a nice boost. Maybe you’re not easily impressed. Me? I am a child… I’m freaking out about the fact that Neil Young is just as passionate as we are about the Farm Bill. But this story isn’t mine to tell. I’m just here to remind you to stay tuned for a special blog from Midwest Organizer Matt Ohloff, who’s going to tell you everything from Hank to Hendrix about his moment with Neil Young, along with the rest of his stories from the Fair Farm Bill Road Trip.

Comes a time when we need a Fair Farm Bill and Neil Young is definitely on board. It feels good to have someone this big in our corner. Who knows, maybe Neil Young is a huge fan of Food & Water Watch. Maybe he shares quotes from our fact sheets.

By Rich Bindell

Back in March, we tried to imagine through a short video what it would be like if the President got a wake-up call about his proposed food safety budget cuts and how they might affect one his favorite meals: a hamburger. On second thought, make that a turkey burger. Cargill Value Added Meats Retail, a subsidiary of Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, just recalled 36 MILLION POUNDS of ground turkey products because of possible Salmonella contamination. This is exactly why it’s not a good idea to cut critical food and safety protections from the federal budget.

Cargill, the third largest turkey processor in the United States, is recalling the turkey products because of a strain of bacteria called Salmonella Heidelberg, which has sickened 76 consumers and caused one death. The fact that Salmonella Heidelberg is antibiotic-resistant certainly reinforces the need for ending the overuse of antibiotics in livestock production.

Tracing the contamination back to its source — no easy task when you’re talking about 36 million pounds of processed food distributed to 26 states — has been the task of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in conjunction with USDA and state health agencies. In case you’re wondering how long it takes to figure out where food contamination originated, in this case it took five months since the first reported case of food illness was reported until they linked the public health threat to Cargill’s ground turkey.

Food recalls like this one have become typical in an age of consolidation in agriculture and food — when 58 percent of the poultry market is controlled by the top four firms. Big firms like Cargill brag about their market share in their quarterly reports, but this type of marketplace domination is putting consumers at risk and farmers out of business. There are hidden costs to doing business this big, and one of them is public health. And, we can only rely so much on our federal agencies to provide food safety if their budgets are being cut. They are strained now; what will their challenges be like next year if they have less funding and more responsibility?

This is the reason our Food & Water Watch organizers are currently out on the road, covering 20 states in 34 days, and talking to people about the Farm Bill. If we want to fix this broken food system — one that is controlled by food processing middle men, not farmers — we need to make better farm and food policy, and to fund critical programs that protect consumers.

As you sit down to dinner tonight, think about where you want your food to come from: a grower in your region of the country or a processing plant on the other side of it that’s handling millions of pounds of your dinner.

We’d love to know what you think about how this food recall relates to our efforts to improve our food system through the Farm Bill in 2012. Please go to our Facebook page and share your thoughts!

Massive consolidation in our food system means

that a few big processors handle the majority of

our widely distributed food. This makes it harder

to trace back the origins of food contamination

like Salmonella Heidelberg. With next year’s

proposed food safety budget, the scenario isn’t

likely to improve.