August 28, 2013 9:56:16 AM
Story on fracking dubious and given too much prominence
Let me state first that I have no opinion of nor interest in the issue of fracking. I do, however, have an opinion regarding your treatment of the subject in your lead Page One article Monday, Aug. 26.
Please allow me to cite several statements in the AP article from Pittsburgh. First is the statement firm authoring the study "... has been trying to help people who feel they have sickened ... " Sorry, but that immediately takes away their credibility as an unbiased source of information.
Second are the numbers. The county "... has a population of 200,000 ... about 700 natural gas wells ... home to large gas processing operations." "Operations." Plural.
This ain't no tiny rural community; I would describe it as a large, gas-producing area. Even with this, however, the study could find only 27 cases where residents "believe" they were harmed. Skin rashes, eye irritation, headaches, and dizziness almost sound like effects from an over-chlorinated swimming pool, not a huge environmental disaster.
Now for my observation: I simply do not believe the facts presented justify a large, page one, banner headline that screams "Fracking study links drilling, air pollution."
Come on, guys. Let's please save the opinions for the editorial page where they rightly belong.
1. Our View: Citizens ill-served by city's timid response to CPD leadership DISPATCH EDITORIALS
2. Bernard Goldberg: Plan B: Sex NATIONAL COLUMNS
3. Voice of the people: Emilie White LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (VOICE@CDISPATCH.COM)
4. Voice of the people: Cameron Triplett LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (VOICE@CDISPATCH.COM)
5. Our View: Town hall meetings: Let's have more of them DISPATCH EDITORIALS