Lomax tries to push the blame on I-70. He evidently didn’t notice the study did a baseline sampling program. Ludlam sends a CERTIFIED letter ‘requesting’ data. The data was in the report. The other interesting thing was the data profile tracked two different drilling operations with a corresponding lower amount from the second at a greater distance.

Well two spin artists took the report to task and FAILED – I would recommend both and the Sentinel staff to actually read the report and look at the data tables.

While this bunch tries to nitpick, readers take a look for yourself:
http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/files/HERA12-137NGAirQualityManuscriptforwebwithfigures.pdf

I did miss taking staff to task on the cavalier statement of water contaminations from fracking. There have been two very outstanding and representative cases that resulted in record fines in this ‘news’ area.
1. Divide Creek, where sealing of the frack zone was faulty, the company went ahead and fracked with resulting contamination of creek and wells. It is quite possible the fracking itself also hit the same fault or others as remediation did not stop the gas flow – only reduced it.
2 The Prather cabin water supply, where mishandling of holding ponds result in spring water contamination. If any part of the fracking process causes contamination, whether the frack in the rock or the handling of the fluids, it is the company’s fracking process that ended up contaminating ground water. Fracking is not just the breaking of rock, it is the entire process where errors contaminate ground water. The giant frozen waterfall is another example of this error.

I was going to suggest that the spin-meisters were spinning without actually reading the report, which has as attachments all of its data, but Bob Arrington beat me to it, and said it better! The only thing that Bob did not mention is that this scientific study has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in a scientific journal.