Summary Of The Film 'Hydraulic Fracking'
The central argument of the film is that there is a risk caused by contaminated drinking water from ground water sources which tends to be a result of hydraulic fracking. All water is connected so if an individual or company pollutes an area where the water is, the water will inevitably become polluted over time as well.
This argument is effective mostly due to the fact that the film showed that the government and large cooperations were getting away with being responsible for causing health concerns for both humans and animals. Additionally, this documentary used the stories of real people that were living through terrible situations. What gave the fracking industry the upper hand is that oil and gas industries were exempt from abiding by …show more content…
When it comes to hydraulic fracking, of all the water that is pumped into the ground only about half of it comes back up so there is a lot of water that has the ability to get into the water table causing contamination. Companies cannot monitor water conditions until they know what to monitor. Residents of Dimock complained of issues with their water but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said their water was just fine and safe for consumption. The residents never had a problem with their water but once drilling started taking place in their area then they started having problems with their water. It is not just a few people in the area having an issue with their water, it is everyone having the same problem of not having drinkable water. Some people were even able to light their water on fire which should not be able to be done. In one instance, a gentleman turned on a sink in his garage and light a lighter next to the water and it ignited fairly quickly and it produced a large flame. Even news stations broadcasted on air that people in the community had unsafe groundwater and that it was tested and said to have been contaminated due to natural gas. People repeatedly …show more content…
In particular, even though I appreciate that real people and events were used in this film, not all of the sources were credible especially one family in particular. One family did not want to talk to the media about their water being able to be lit on fire and when Josh Fox wanted to interview them they let him in but would not let him tape their faces and did not share much information with him initially. They later called him back and said money is not worth it and that their health is more important so he was given a sample of their water in a jar to find out what was in the water. Another instance that seemed odd was when Josh Fox was asked by an individual he was interviewing if he had a message he was trying to get across with his film and he did not give an answer to the gentleman he just said “um.” Actual government representation was not present in the documentary to point out what they may or may not be doing wrong with the issue of hydraulic fracking. It was only a few people who work for higher up government companies that were brave enough and know what they are doing as a company is wrong and they cannot stand for it any
This argument is effective mostly due to the fact that the film showed that the government and large cooperations were getting away with being responsible for causing health concerns for both humans and animals. Additionally, this documentary used the stories of real people that were living through terrible situations. What gave the fracking industry the upper hand is that oil and gas industries were exempt from abiding by …show more content…
When it comes to hydraulic fracking, of all the water that is pumped into the ground only about half of it comes back up so there is a lot of water that has the ability to get into the water table causing contamination. Companies cannot monitor water conditions until they know what to monitor. Residents of Dimock complained of issues with their water but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said their water was just fine and safe for consumption. The residents never had a problem with their water but once drilling started taking place in their area then they started having problems with their water. It is not just a few people in the area having an issue with their water, it is everyone having the same problem of not having drinkable water. Some people were even able to light their water on fire which should not be able to be done. In one instance, a gentleman turned on a sink in his garage and light a lighter next to the water and it ignited fairly quickly and it produced a large flame. Even news stations broadcasted on air that people in the community had unsafe groundwater and that it was tested and said to have been contaminated due to natural gas. People repeatedly …show more content…
In particular, even though I appreciate that real people and events were used in this film, not all of the sources were credible especially one family in particular. One family did not want to talk to the media about their water being able to be lit on fire and when Josh Fox wanted to interview them they let him in but would not let him tape their faces and did not share much information with him initially. They later called him back and said money is not worth it and that their health is more important so he was given a sample of their water in a jar to find out what was in the water. Another instance that seemed odd was when Josh Fox was asked by an individual he was interviewing if he had a message he was trying to get across with his film and he did not give an answer to the gentleman he just said “um.” Actual government representation was not present in the documentary to point out what they may or may not be doing wrong with the issue of hydraulic fracking. It was only a few people who work for higher up government companies that were brave enough and know what they are doing as a company is wrong and they cannot stand for it any