Just the facts, please.
I was awestruck by the letter of 5/28. Right away the writer started the attack by using emotionalism, instead of facts, that relate to the issue. The Buffalo findings had nothing to do with the Postal Service, hospitals, road construction, doctors or even schools.
Let's address the cited 3000 violations. How many were purely environmental? How many were the result of misinterpretation of regulations by the officers? How many were overturned, upon review? How many were remedied the very day of the official visit?
Now consider the lame presentation of the 25 of 845 events. First that is only 3 percent! How many were mechanical failures and not irresponsible human action? How many were turned in by the operators themselves? Yes they are that responsible, as they do not want bad reps and they will police themselves.The good operators do not want the profits eaten up by mistakes and fines.How many of that 3 percent were remedied on-the-spot and in short order?
A very sad attempt to drag you into the arguemnt was her citing one death. She asked,"Is this acceptable?" As a pro-lifer, I can answer that death is a very real pain that families and friends carry for a long time. But for the record, was that death caused by the fracking or the other aspects of the operation? Is the writer advocating the elimination of flush toilets, as children drown in them far too often.
Unadulterated facts about oil and gas exploration have been published in the WTO and are available to those who want them, for you did not get any in that letter.
Harry T. Anderson