Wendy Lynne Lee: Activist, Professor and Now a Fiction Story Teller

Wendy Lynne Lee is as entertaining as it gets.  I recently had the opportunity to listen to her read a paper full of assertions about the natural gas industry.  Called “The Good Ole’ Boy Extraction Club: The Pseudo-Patriotic and Pervasively Patriarchal Culture of Hydraulic Fracturing (Why Breast Cancer Is the Canary in the Fracking Coal Mine” the paper is about what you’d expect from a piece so titled.

Susquehanna University recently allowed Professor Wendy Lynne Lee of Bloomsburg University to give a presentation titled “Where Environmental Integrity Meets Social Justice: Clean Water, Economic Vulnerability, and Big Gas (The What and the Who of ‘The Frack’).”  I had the opportunity to sit in on Lee’s presentation where she read (yes, read) a paper she has been working on highlighting the negative aspects of hydraulic fracturing, the events at the Riverdale Mobile Home Park  and the role women play as the public relations face of the shale industry.  It has a title, as you’ll note from the introduction, almost as long as the paper.  Lee offered her draft paper to anyone who wanted to read it further and, college being a place for the free exchange of ideas, I received a copy from an attendee.

Who is Wendy Lynne Lee?

Lee is a philosophy professor at Bloomsburg University who spends her apparently considerable free time as an activist in a number of causes and also commenting on this blog site.  This is how she described herself in one of a series of rants, in a comment on one our blog posts:

“Marxist, Atheist, feminist, vegetarian, union activist, queer, animal welfare theorist – and one of the most reliable, hard-working, publishing professors BU has.  Want to discuss my commitment to my university with my university president?  Call him: 570-389-4674.” – Wendy Lynne Lee

space

Wendy Lynne Lee at the Schlumberge Protest

Wendy Lynne Lee at the Schlumberger Protest

 space

Lee has participated in several environmental protests in Pennsylvania and across the state line in New York, including the Schlumberger protest we chronicled earlier (see more here and here).  She says she teaches her Bloomsburg University students civil disobedience is a worthwhile activity.  Not only does she profess this lifestyle, but she also claims to live it (see video below).

(Talking about her group’s “occupation” of the Riverdale Mobile Home Park)

This is the police raid when we occupied Riverdale. This is one of the most phenomenal events I’ve ever been involved in and I have a long history of political activism across states.  (39.26)

Like many of you, no doubt, I remember thinking it was cool to stand up to the “man” in high school and then I grew up.    I also recall from my school days that civil disobedience was supposed to involve a serious commitment to pay the price required for the disobedience.  It’s not something that’s supposed to be enjoyed.

http://youtu.be/iwwoWZyIGAc

Let’s examine some of what Wendy Lynne Lee says, starting with the Riverdale Mobile Home Park and then her observations about my colleagues, Nicole Jacobs and Rachael Colley.

Occupy Riverdale

Riverdale Located in Floodplain

Riverdale Mobile Home Park Floodplain

I did my own research on the Riverdale trailer park and here is my take on the situation.  Skip Leonard, owner of the park, had the property up for sale for a number of years, which was no secret to the people inhabiting the mobile home park or anyone else.  PVR/Aqua America purchased the property for a water withdrawal facility to supply the gas industry with water for hydraulic fracturing.  When they did so, they gave residents a month and $2,500 to move, which was more than fair, especially given the long period during which the property was for sale.

Further research indicates the Riverdale Mobile Home Park was also located in a flood plain – just about the worst place imaginable to place mobile homes – so bad, in fact, FEMA often insists on removing them following a flood.  Let me ask what might have happened to those residents should another major storm on the order of Sandy hit this particular area like it hit Staten Island?

Let’s be candid.  Wendy Lynne Lee’s problem with this situation was nothing more than the fact a company supporting the natural gas industry bought the park.  Does anyone believe she or others would have been at the park with arms linked if someone had bought the park evicted the tenants to turn it into an organic farm, a recreational river access or a university athletic field?  Does anyone believe any of those replacement uses would have produced $2,500 moving allowances for residents, something extra that PVR/ Aqua America provided?  All this appears to be irrelevant to Lee, who is focused on stopping natural gas development at any cost.  If she truly cared about the people in that park, she wouldn’t be trying to insist they stay in the flood plain, would she?

None of that apparently matters to Lee, who is enthralled with the idea her 13 days of “Democracy in Riverdale” somehow made a difference and took her up into the stratosphere of social consciousness.

One of the great things that came out of Riverdale and I would feel remiss if I didn’t mention it, is that over that 13 days we lived democracy.  We lived collective decision making, we built ovens, we’re all living on the ground outside or in these stripped mobile homes and we engaged in considerable tasks to improve the living conditions of everyone in the park.  We didn’t have plumbing for example we didn’t have much for electricity, but we figured out ways to get it and we figured out ways to make decisions in such that we were all eating, we were all cooking and we were all doing the labor required in the park. (42:36)

Lee described her time of “democracy” in Riverdale with joy and a sense of accomplishment, kind of the same way I described my camping trip down the Delaware River this past past summer.  The only difference is this; I was allowed to camp on the river and was not disobeying laws in doing so.  As I listened to Lee speak about her camping experience, I tried to imagine a life like that 24/7, one without fossil fuels.  I don’t mind doing that once in a while as I do enjoy camping and “roughing it” but  I wouldn’t want to do it all the time.

I suspect Lee wouldn’t either.    Following that 13 day lark in stripped down trailer park with no plumbing and not much for electricity, I’m fairly confident she felt good going back to to teach in the comfort of Bloomsburg University’s steam heated halls – steam heated by a plant retrofitted to  “have the flexibility to burn wood chips, natural gas, and coal, with the latter being significantly reduced.”  Then again, maybe she’s out protesting forest destruction by wood-chip manufacturers.  Who knows?

“The Women of The Frack”

We do know she’s out protesting women who disagree with her.  She titled one section of the draft report she read as “The Women of the Frack: Some are Extorted, and Some are Excuseless.”  Interestingly enough, it starts out with the approving citation of remarks by Karl Marx.  Wendy then proceeds to go after Rachael, Nicole and other women advocating for natural gas development.  She even used a picture of Rachael in her presentation.  Here it is, followed by what she had to say about Rachael:

space

Wendy Lynn Lee’s Powerpoint Slide of Rachael Filming Schlumberger Protest

space

This is Rachael Colley from energy in depth, one of the folks I was talking about in the last section of the paper, where I argue that I find it incredible that the fracking industry itself goes to great lengths and effort to employ women to be their promotional agents… I find it remarkable the use of women to promote fracking as safe, as if women wouldn’t sell us out on mother nature. (51:17)

Not only does Lee have a problem with natural gas development, but she clearly has a problem with women who work within the industry as what she describes as natural gas “cheerleaders.”  Her problem with them, however, seems to stem more from the fact they don’t agree with her and little, if anything, else.   Rachael is not a Marxist, but she is a vegetarian, by the way, so it would seem Wendy ought to give her some respect, but it wasn’t to be the other night.  Nevertheless, Rachael can take comfort in who else gets bashed by the Bloomsburg professor.

Wendy is also, for example, harshly critical of charity organizations such as the Susan G. Komen Foundation for partnering with Chesapeake.  She says “The fact is that Chesapeake uses non-­profits like Susan B. Komen to genderize and greenwash its image in the face of the fact that it contributes to breast cancer.”  Well, that’s quite an accusation – backed up by not a single fact, of course.

Passion apparently substitutes for facts in Lee’s world.  She says this about us, for example.

Energy in Depth is a pro-industry group funded by the American Petroleum Institute, as well as a number of extraction corporations.

A short visit to our the Energy In Depth “What’s EID?” web page reveals we are funded by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, not API.  No doubt she dismisses this as a distinction without a difference, but it’s revealing as to how little she cares about details compared to the message she’s intent on delivering.

Here’s some more from her draft paper:

Chesapeake uses events like this bike race to promote itself as a compassionate enterprise interested in human welfare, women’s health and environmental integrity.  But, the truth is that its drilling process involves benzene and that its spokespersons actively lobby elected representatives to pass legislation to keep its chemical cocktails proprietary.

It’s interesting that Lee brings up benzene.  According to the American Cancer Society (emphasis added):

Sources of benzene in the environment include gasoline, automobile exhaust fumes, emissions from some factories,waste water from certain industries.  While benzene is commonly found in air in both urban and rural areas, the levels are usually very low.  However, exposures can be substantial to people in enclosed spaces with unventilated fumes from gasoline, glues, solvents, paints, and art supplies.  Areas of heavy traffic, gas stations, and areas near industrial sources may also have higher air levels.

Cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke are important sources of exposure to benzene. Cigarette smoke accounts for about half of the US national exposure to benzene.  Benzene levels in rooms contaminated by tobacco smoke may be many times higher than normal.

Hmm…

Perhaps Wendy should look to her fellow protestors first if she wants to address benzene problems.  Here is one of her friends from the Schlumberger protest:

space

Schlumberger Protester Smoking

 space

Lee, of course, has little interest in such explanations.  Instead, she repeats the following piece of fiction from one of Josh Fox’s tall tale videos as Energy In Depth noted here:

In the six counties in Texas which have seen the most concentrated gas drilling, breast cancer rates have risen, while over the same period the rates for this kind of cancer have declined elsewhere in the state.  The average of the six counties rates has risen from 58.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2005 to about 60.7 per 100,000 in 2008.

The Associated Press investigated this claim and found it bogus.  Here’s what they found:

Opponents of fracking say breast cancer rates have spiked exactly where intensive drilling is taking place — and nowhere else in the state.  The claim is used in a letter that was sent to New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo by environmental groups and by Josh Fox, the Oscar-nominated director of “Gasland,” a film that criticizes the industry.  Fox, who lives in Brooklyn, has a new short film called “The Sky is Pink.”

But researchers haven’t seen a spike in breast cancer rates in the area, said David Lee, a professor of medical anthropology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

David Risser, an epidemiologist with the Texas Cancer Registry, said in an email that researchers checked state health data and found no evidence of an increase in the counties where the spike supposedly occurred.

And Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a major cancer advocacy group based in Dallas, said it sees no evidence of a spike, either.

I guess we now know why Wendy Lynne Lee doesn’t like the Komen group, don’t we?  They apparently deal in facts, not fiction, unlike Lee.  Wendy Lynne Lee is peddling theories, of course, and facts that don’t match the theories don’t seem to count with her.  Lee is, in that regard, the prototypical anti-gas activist, isn’t she?

Comments

  1. Mike Knapp says:

    Wendy Lee is a massive hypocrite. I asker her why she uses fossil fuels if they re so horrible. Her response? It impossible! Which, in her mind, is true. Giving up the comfy life afforded to her by fossil fuels doesn’t even register as an option. She does however brag that he bought a Honda! Wow, that’s a serious sacrifice.

    Never have I encountered someone so smug and self righteous, while being so hilariously hypocritical. It’s like watching someone rally against tobacco companies with a Marlboro hanging out the side of her mouth.

    • Dean Marshall says:

      Mr Knapp…..you have no idea of the time and effort Dr. Lee invests in trying to make the world we All live in safer, healthier, and more equitable for everyone. It is the greedy , smug, profiteers such as yourself that only serve to solidify our resolve to continue to resist. Keep up the good work brother!

      • Tom Shepstone says:

        Your posts are LOL moments, Dean. Thank you!

    • Sean K says:

      Nice strawman Mike. There’s a difference b/t using fossil fuels because they are widely available and trying to ween ourselves as a society off of fossil fuels that are a lot harder to extract than regular oil. Tar Sands and Fracking are a lot worse than burning oil because of the energy that is required to extract or convert them into a viable form.

      • Tom Shepstone says:

        Please get in touch with reality, Sean. Natural gas usage is way up and carbon dioxide output is way down.

    • jackie wilson says:

      I don’t know you sir, but I can tell you Wendy Lee is not a hypocrite. I did not know her until I showed up at a protest. What I saw was a person of integrity, who believes in the right to stand up against corporations who have become so focused on the bottom line, and shareholders they completely ignore what is best for our environment and ordinary people. What have you gotten for your money? Well, let’s see. You put people in office that vote for shale over the majority of their constituents. Your money has bought legislators that pass a bill that completely takes the rights away from municipalities, therefore from the people. You have bought legislators that completely ignore the rights of those affected by the chemicals used by your industry, and keep these chemicals secret. You have bought our legislature, our governor (for $1.8 million) so that you can poison our water and do it legally, by withholding these same chemicals from test results of people’s water. You do this so you can keep saying there has been not one water well contaminated by fracking. I think you will need to change this fact in the near future.

      I notice on the PN Forum that no one even bothers to answer you anymore, and have not for a long time. When they did it should have told you what people think of your efforts. Seems like you need to come up with a new tactic. The only reason I answered you this time was because I saw Wendy’s name in the title. You see, you I can ignore, but Wendy I cannot. That is simply because I always want to hear what she has to say. It could be because she is credible, you are irrelevant.

      • Tom Shepstone says:

        You’re telling us we’re irrelevant while you’re commenting!

        • jackie wilson says:

          As I said, I saw Professor Lee’s name, and had to see what propaganda you were using to discredit her. Now I am just having a good time.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            Have a great time!

        • jackie wilson says:

          Sometimes you have to repeat things, before people get it. You sir, just don’t get it.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            Well that’s certainly a valuable contribution to the debate. Wendy, at least, articulates some reasoning behind her positions.

  2. Sean K says:

    So that protester at the Schlembruger protest looks like he is smoking a cigarette? Picking at straws eh?

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      Nice try, but…

      • vic firman says:

        butt – butt – butt – boogie

        (That’s cigarette butt)

      • Dean Marshall says:

        Wow! Snappy Knappy comeback Tom! Are you still in second grade?

        • Trulylucky says:

          Right on the money Dean!

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            Thanks, Julie!

          • vic firman says:

            As in Sautner….the sellout ???

          • Trulylucky says:

            That hurts….not! Iam soooo lucky!
            Have nose will travel

      • Sean K says:

        Ohhhhh some one is smoking the demon plant that’s pretty much on it’s way to being legalized. This isn’t the 60’s and using the term “Marxist” in an argument doesn’t carry the same weight because it’s been watered down. And honestly, how can you tell if that is marijuana? For all we know it can be a hand rolled cigarette or a Luck Stripe.

        • Tom Shepstone says:

          Who said it was marijuana – certainly not us.

    • Mike Knapp says:

      It’s kind of hard to take someone serious when they complain about how a company is supposedly poisoning them with Benzene, while sucking on Benzene sticks.

      • Joe says:

        Thanks Mike, exactly the point I am making here.

  3. jackie wilson says:

    Being one of those people who helped defend the trailer park, what it did for me was show me that the shale industry and Aqua America have one goal in mind, to make money. That to me is greed. $2500 for someone’s life, is not satisfactory compensation. But when greed is the ultimate goal as it was in this situation, it will take precedence over the lives on ordinary citizens. You can put your spin on Riverdale, Jersey Shore, all you want, but when it comes down to the real reason for taking people’s homes and lives and community, it is greed, pure and simple.

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      I see. You don’t require money to live then?

      • Dean Marshall says:

        Again…are you this totally out of ammo Tom? They are most likely lookig at resume’s for your replacement as we speak! Incredibly Lame spokesman at a loss for words……LMAO!

      • jackie wilson says:

        Money to live does not equal greed. The greed of the shale industry knows no bounds having spent $23 M in Pa alone to buy our legislators. They did it for much more. Mr. Tom, you can use your PR skills all you want, you are going to need them, since it has been found that even our DEP in Pennsylvania was bought and paid for by the shale industry. Check out the transcript from the trial recently, I see you have tried to discredit Jesse White, but it does not change the facts. I just wonder how much it is costing the shale industry to pay you as a shill. They are not getting their money’s worth, I can tell you that.

        People are starting to wake up, surprise. It is laughable that you attack someone, or several someone’s that state the facts. I am sure that may have worked in the past, but people are educating themselves, and are not brainwashed anymore. Riverdale is a fine example of greed and corruption, and how corporations treat people. We remember what coal mines have done to our environment, and we remember the cigarette industry and how they lied to the people. Isn’t the shale industry using these same firms to sell the shale industry to the people. The internet is here now, so you might want to rethink that strategy. In case you haven’t noticed people are able to get instant information, it is not so easy to pull the wool over our eyes. We are smarter than you think. Thank goodness for that.

        • Tom Shepstone says:

          I see. Money you require to live is important. Money landowners require to survive doesn’t. Jobs to support your family aren’t either if it conflicts with your opinion of right and wrong. What I do is greed and you do is service. I get it.

          • jackie wilson says:

            No, you don’t get it.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            Well, alrighty then.

          • jackie wilson says:

            I do remember seeing you at a forum, and you testified that drinking water will be better because of the shale industry. Because, you said, the wells will be tested, otherwise they would not be. You forgot to mention the results would be falsified. So did you mean they would look better on paper, but not for drinking?

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            You know as well as I do there was absolutely no falsification of data. The fact you would suggest so speaks to your credibility or, at best, unwillingness to research the facts.

    • Mike Knapp says:

      A couple of years go I rented a house, and the owner decided she wanted to sell the house so I had to move out. It was an extreme financial hardship for me, but I found a new place and moved out. The person that bought the house didn’t give me $2,500. That thought never even crossed my mind. I didn’t cry and complain. I didn’t lock myself to a tree in the front yard.

      Lets stop pretending this is about people. It’s about hatred of gas companies. Several other trailer parks in the area were sold, no protestors, no media, no relocation payouts. Why? No gas company involved. It’s so nauseatingly transparent. So fake. Preying on the misfortune of others to advance their agenda, because actually sacrificing themselves is out of the question.

      • jackie wilson says:

        Mr. Knapp, I would have to ask you, had you lived in that location for 30 + years? Had you just gotten a mortgage for a trailer with your family and had to tear out what you could salvage, and still have a mortgage on it, and still move out and pay rent? Had you lived there for years with your elderly spouse, who has a bad heart, and other health issues, had paid off your trailer, and had to now pay rent three times the amount (due to shale industry bringing up the price of rental properties) and live on a fixed income? Had you just put $15,000 into improving your home, only to have to walk away because you could not afford to move the trailer. To move a trailer costs $6000 to $12,000. Would you have had the money, when you live from pay to pay? And actually if you were still there a month after the initial date, you would have only gotten $1,500. It is people like you that make the rest of us look bad, the human race, I am referring to.

        • jackie wilson says:

          And one more thing, Mr. Knapp, the shale industry certainly had the money to give our governor and legislators for their campaigns. Need I say it again, Corbett $1.8 million, second in command, Scarnati, $359,000 for his campaign. Good example of $2,500 offered to people, for the forfeiture of their homes, their community and their lives. Good call.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            Doesn’t come close to matching the Park Foundation, NRDC or the Heinz Endowmensts (not to mention the Rockefeller family)

          • Tom Frost says:

            Again, Mr. Shepstone, the Park family is YOUR buddy sometimes; just look at how they censored that billboard (when if they’d hired somebody who was actually IN South Montrose that day such as me as an agent I could have CORRECTED for them the misinformation that it was the landowner’s idea to censor the billboard).

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            Yeah, right.

          • Tom Frost says:

            I bet you don’t know the name of the greenybaby-archleftist who coined that expression, way back a few years before I joined the internet and he beat you to becoming one of my esteemed cyberepistolary gunfight opponents. The good news is that you’re paid to atrophy in front of a computer all day and that therefore on a slow day sometime you ought to be able to dig up what his name is and join me in conducting ad hominems on him.

        • Tom Shepstone says:

          I would comment, but Mike is fully capable of defending himself.

      • Mike Knapp says:

        Jackie,

        My point is that had it been any other buyer than a gas industry related business, nobody would have cared. Im not going to say I don’t sympathize with the folks because I do… But to demonize the company that bought the place that allowed extra time and very generously offered to help pay for folks to move is just messed up.

        • jackie wilson says:

          That was the lives of a community, and $1500 does not even come close to what they lost. They are saddled with debt for nothing. Their lives matter. If you would have met those people, and looked them in the eye, your comments might be valid. but you did not, did you? What if it would have been your mother, grandmother, grandfather, children, what then? People matter. People’s lives are important. What they lost can never be replaced, especially the elderly, who lived there for years. Not the way they should spend the rest of their lives, scraping by, losing their home. There was a property Leonard owned, adjacent, next to the river, but it was best for him to unload this property rather than sell the other property which was vacant. It was probably beneficial to him to have stock in the shale industry, bet he does. Greed is a terrible thing.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            And, what the people desperate to hang onto their farms in New York who need natural gas development to do so. What do you have to say about them?

  4. Dean Marshall says:

    I am so glad Mr Massaro attended the Susq. U. Talk by Dr. Wendy Lynne Lee. I did not notice him there and would have enjoyed meeting him face to face. (I did block his camera at the Scumberger Rally in Horseheads, NY but he wasn’t in the mood for a chat there…..someday perhaps?)
    I must say that Jive-talk Joe has been a busy little boy! Over the last yr or so I have read his venomous ad homenim attack pieces on the likes of Dr. Ingraffea, Dr. Steingraber, Josh Fox, Mark Ruffalo,( http://eidmarcellus.org/ ), Bill Huston, and anyone else who speaks out against his Benefactors. Yes, Joe takes his work for Big $$$ Gas seriously….traveling to our Speeches and Protests to film and record our unsavory pleas to protect the environment, (the very same that Joe and his family must live in ,I might add) and then, burning the midnite oil,(Pun Intended), he diligently researches our history and devines ways to discredit our efforts.
    Yes….he is paid well for this enterprise, as are the other Cheerleaders, Racheal Collie, and Nicoal Jacobs….all under the inept direction of Tom Sheepstone, one of the worst Liars I have encountered to date!
    Oh, forgive me…I sometimes sink to Their level! Needles to say, I am amused by the urgency and frequency these hatchet jobs are generated, including the one against Dr. Lee! The only logical conclusion here is that they are afraid people are really Listening and Learning many of the aspects of their dirty, greedy business that they have spent a fortune hiding from public view thru Lobbying, Media ad blitz’s, payoffs, “Campaign Contributions”, Bribery, Smear Campaigns, and “Non-disclosure” pacts!
    I am heartened to know we are getting the real story out inspite of all the $$$ they throw at the “Problem”. Yes…methinks Joe doth protest to much. Hey Joe…maybe a vacation would do you some good? Perhaps Arlington Texas, or a nice Cabana next to the Salt Dome Sink Hole in Louisanna? Thanks again for posting Dr. Lee’s Entire Presentation Video so even More folks will see who cares about healthy Environmental Energy Policy…and who cares about Profiteering. Dean H. Marshall

    PS Love the ending FLIR footage!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHf7ethnKqc&feature=share

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      This will undoubtedly help your cause, Dean.

    • Joe Massaro says:

      Yes, my family and I live in the same environment that you do just like in aspects of your life you and your family I am sure utilize natural gas.

      I do however appreciate that my hard work does not go unnoticed.

      • Tom Frost says:

        You don’t know what hard work is.

  5. Dean Marshall says:

    I am re-posting the copy above in the event that your “Moderation” “accidently” erases it!

    • Dean Marshall says:

      More attack trash:

      Tom Shepstone

      October 22 via The Huffington Post.

      Josh Fox is a charlatan. He’s a never got a $100,000 offer, he lied about the Colorado flaming faucet, he collects $75,000 per year from the Park Foundation, a special interest anti-gas group, to promote his nonsense and deliberately distorts data to make his points and embellish his 15 minutes of fame.

      .
      .

  6. Dean Marshall says:

    Please note: All of my Comments and Replies are re-posted elsewhere…happy hunting!

  7. Let us examine Mr. Massaro’s argument in very careful and patient detail:

    1. Mr. Massaro begins his article in a tone of ridicule and dismissal. You have to give him credit for knowing his audience–white, mostly male, mostly men who look just like himself–and have a monied stake in hydraulic fracturing. Indeed, we can only surmise that we in the anti-fracking movement must really be getting under the skin of the fracking proponents when they go after us individually. Mr. Massaro quotes me: ““Marxist, Atheist, feminist, vegetarian, union activist, queer, animal welfare theorist – and one of the most reliable, hard-working, publishing professors BU has. Want to discuss my commitment to my university with my university president? Call him: 570-389-4674.” That’s exactly right, Mr. Massaro–and unless you’re a homophobic, misogynist, anti-collective bargaining bigot, you’ll find everything in that list is something to be proud of–indeed to celebrate as excellent avenues of intellectual investigation and opportunities for freedom of expression in a democracy. Call my university president, Mr. Massaro. You have his number. Ask him about the service I render to my university. In fact, come to my campus. Talk to my students. Ask them about my work ethic. Free time? No, Mr. Massaro, very judicious and thoughtful use of my time. After you chat with my president, sign up for my course next term: Philosophy of Ecology. You might learn something.

    What this is called is a cheesy hit piece–and nothing about its opening lines recommends Mr. Massoro as anything other that a hired hit-man for an industry known for its hired hit-men and women. The trouble with that, of course, is that it makes plain right form the beginning that Mr. Massaro has nothing with which to actually argue any case. Ridicule and dismissal is the refuge of the lazy and the empty-handed–and in this Mr. Massaro does not disappoint. The FABULOUS thing about it is that Mr. Massaro rises to the occasion of exactly the man I describe in the piece–coming to the defense before Ms. Colley utters a peep–calling her by her first name–Rachael–and thereby treating Ms. Colley with precisely the patronizing attitude the industry is no richly known for. Irony atop irony, but more of this later.

    2. Civil disobedience: Mr Massaro claims that “[l]ike many of you, no doubt, I remember thinking it was cool to stand up to the “man” in high school and then I grew up. I also recall from my school days that civil disobedience was supposed to involve a serious commitment to pay the price required for the disobedience. It’s not something that’s supposed to be enjoyed.” So, Mr. Massaro identifies civil disobedience with childishness and by extension conformity to existing law–obviously regardless the content of that law–with maturity. Good thing, then, that Martin Luther King or Gandhi or any number of other civil and human rights leaders engaged in the childish. By Mr. Massaro’s reasoning, we’d still be living under Jim Crow segregation and women (say, “Rachael”) would still be in the kitchen making his dinner and pumping out “his” babies. I have no reason to think that he’d have thought these movements just as “childish” as he thinks the anti-fracking movement. And no wonder–these movements offer equality–something that threatens the money-soaked privileges and un-earned power folks like Mr. Massaro enjoy.

    He then goes on to suggest that there’s something wrong with teaching one’s students about the value of civil disobedience, and again, by implication, that students ought to be taught conformity. But Mr. Massaro is very very wrong. Civil disobedience is at the heart and soul of American democracy. Without vigorous exercise of that fundamental and basic human right, the state–and particularly our increasingly corporatized state–becomes precisely the dictatorship we–including Mr. Massaro–say we must avoid. Mr. Massaro suggests that I–and my fellow anti-fractivists–am unwilling to pay the price for that civil disobedience. But he in fact, has absolutely no idea and no evidence for such a tedious claim whatsoever. Of course, civil disobedience has a price, and of course where the stakes are this high–the destruction of the environment and with it our children’s futures–it is a price well-worth paying. That Mr. Massaro chooses the easy-money path of an industry that, as Dean Marshall put it to me, “is willing to burn the furniture to heat the house” is his choice. But the consequences of his actions redound to the detriment of us all–including himself. It is my and my fellow citizens moral responsibility to make it as clear as we can the destitution of his position. And if THAT requires civil disobedience, then so be it.

    3. Riverdale: “…they [Aqua America/PVR) gave residents a month and $2,500 to move, which was more than fair, especially given the long period during which the property was for sale.” While some of the residents knew that the land was up for sale, they had, in fact, no reason to believe that Mr. Leonard had gained any traction on this quest. They found out IN THE NEWSPAPER that the property had been sold. And that gave them two weeks notice to relocate in a region completely over-run by gas workers–and with it rents that had in some cases tripled. Fact: it costs at least 7-9 thousand dollars to relocate a mobile home–leaving many of the residents in no other position but to abandon homes they owned. Riverdale was indeed located on a flood plain–like many mobile home communities because they offer land-owners an opportunity to make enormous sums of money from economically vulnerable people in virtue of rents. Mr. Leonard was being pressured to improve the park by the local municipality in order to prevent flooding–but he did not want to do this.

    Now for some more rich irony: Mr. Massaro asks “Let me ask what might have happened to those residents should another major storm on the order of Sandy hit this particular area like it hit Staten Island?” Hard to say, Mr. Massaro–especially since the likelihood of storms like Hurricane Lee and Tropical Storm Sandy are on the increase due to precisely the pollutants industries like the natural gas industry make regularly available to our atmosphere. Once you factor is all of the pollutants cradle to grave of the fracking process including the process itself, the trucks emissions, the compressor station emissions, the dehydrator emissions, and so on and so on, it becomes abundantly clear that fracking is a major contributor to climate change. Mr. Massaro knows it. Skip Leonard knows it. We all know it. So this crazy idea that Mr. Massaro implies that Mr. Leonard was doing the residents of Riverdale a favor by evicting them is completely undermined by the fact that Mr. Leonard is making money from a process that is destructive for us all.

    Mr. Massaro seems to think that he can read my mind and divine my motives: “Wendy Lynne Lee’s problem with this situation was nothing more than the fact a company supporting the natural gas industry bought the park. Does anyone believe she or others would have been at the park with arms linked if someone had bought the park evicted the tenants to turn it into an organic farm, a recreational river access or a university athletic field?” Here too he could not be more mistaken–and it’s clear that he hasn’t done his homework. Had he, he’d know that I have a long history in the defense of the vulnerable–whether these be human beings, nonhuman animals, indigenous peoples, or environments. THAT the park was going to be converted into a water withdrawal for fracking was one of the reasons I and the many other protesters came to Riverdale. But as is abundantly clear from our actions in the park, our wholly democratic form of decision-making which included the residents, and our willingness to engage in the civil disobedience Mr. Massaro dismisses as childish to defend the dignity of the residents and the park, the Occupation of Riverdale is a shining example of what a democracy should look like–however uncomprehending of our country’s foundational principles Mr. Massaro may be. Don’t believe me? ASK KEVIN JUNE. ASK DEB ECK.

    Mr. Massaro: “Lee described her time of “democracy” in Riverdale with joy and a sense of accomplishment, kind of the same way I described my camping trip down the Delaware river this past past summer. The only difference is this; I was allowed to camp on the river and was not disobeying laws in doing so.” No, Mr. Massaro, the difference is that the beautiful environment you got to enjoy for your camping trip is made possible by the actions of people just like me to protect the water and the air you breathe. You may take this for granted–but you re not entitled to. Yours is called egregious hypocrisy; mine is called moral consistency. Moreover, we were NOT disobeying any law whatsoever at Riverdale. We were there as GUESTS of the residents. They WANTED us there, and unless you think that Aqua America had some right to tell the residents prior to the eviction of July 12th that they could not have guests–well, you’re just even more enamored of corporate fascism that I thought. THE moment the residents asked us to leave–to protect US from the state police–we left.

    It is notable that Mr. Massaro says nothing whatever about the failures of DEP to demand inspection for asbestos at Riverdale–the main content of that section of my research essay. Does he simply not care about the poetential exposure of economically vulnerable people to asbestos? Can he find no way to defend DEP?

    4. Mr. Massaro opens the next section of his hit piece with the claim that I attack women who disagree with me. No, Mr. Massaro–i find it ironic and tremendously important to any evaluation of fracking that the industry goes out of its way to employ women to greenwash and genderize this environmentally horrific process. This isn’t about agreeing with me; this IS about the use of women by the industry as a front–and some women’s complicity in that use. That Mr. Massaro continues his piece by way of straw argument–distorting my argument in order to dismiss it–is not surprising, but it is wholly dishonest. Dishonesty number 1: I describe ALL of you folks here at EID as cheerleaders–not just the women of EID. I have not disrespected Ms. Colley (as you have by calling her by her first name in a “professional” venue). I have laid out the hypocrisy and self-undermining facts of her position.

    5. In a particularly ludicrous and apparently desperate attempt to downplay the fact that benzene is a carcinogen, Mr. Massaro offers us a picture of a smoker at the Schlumberger protest. Indeed, smoking is very very BAD for you. I wished no one smoked at all. But the notion that because there as a smoker at this protest means that it is somehow morally unobjectionable that benzene is used in a process that could expose women UNKNOWINGLY to a carcinogen identified in breast cancer is absurd. That second hand smoke is a source of benzene exposure has led to the regulation of cigarette smoking in closed spaces. GOOD. Now why doesn’t Mr. Massaro apply that same reasoning to fracking? That if it cannot be done without insuring against the exposure to benzene it should not be done at all. Ipso facto: fracking CAN’T be done without this mammoth risk–as the evidence makes abundantly clear. Hence, it should be banned. Thank you Mr. Massaro for offering such a good argument for banning fracking!

    6. The facts are clear: benzene is associated with breast cancer as a cause. benzene is used in fracking. Fracking accidents expose women (and all of us) to the potential risks bosed by this carcinogen. Susan B. Koman takes dirty money from the fracking industry contrary to their stated mission to defeat breast cancer. Rachael Colley, Kathryn Klaber, Nicole Jacobs all make their money from an industry that traffics in a cancer causing agent that decimates women’s lives. That is called hypocrisy. And worse: it is charlatan.

    That Mr. Massaro apparently fancies himself as some knight in shining armor coming to the defense of fracking industry women epitomised precisely the masculinist politics and culture that I spell out in my piece. That he doesn’t appear to get this is not surprising–but it does illustrate the willful ignorance for which this industry and its cheerleaders are well known.

    Wendy Lynne Lee, Professor
    Philosophy
    Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
    [email protected]

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      We’ll let your latest epistle stand or fall on its merits, Wendy but I notice you offer nothing of substance regarding the rebuttal of your reckless breast cancer claim. You just continue to make it, pounding the table ever harder, with the obvious implications.

    • Nicole Jacobs says:

      Actually Wendy, we don’t look at Joe as our “knight in shining armor,” although he is a pretty nice guy. Realistically, he’s the person who attended your event, so he wrote the post. Rachael and I are just as capable and would have written one had we attended. He calls Rachael by her first name because they’re friends, not as a sign of disrespect. Had he called her Colley or Miss Colley she might well have taken offense.

      I also read your paper and, quite frankly, find your view of women who have become successful in “male dominated positions” demeaning and hypocritical. First, those women who fought for our rights and continue to work to break the glass ceiling didn’t fight so we could sit back smug because we can have those jobs–they did it so we’d take them if we wanted them. I participate in a group of hundreds of women, from this region alone, working in this industry; from general laborers to management and educators and each and every woman is proud of the work they do, me included.

      Lastly, professor roles are historically male as well, so by your definition are you not doing the exact thing you claim we are? Your argument collapses on itself for if we are to not take historically male positions because they perpetuate a male dominated society, then what would you have us do? Sit at home like good little women raising babies (not that there is anything wrong with a woman choosing to do so–it is her choice afterall.)?

      I am proud of my PASSHE earned degree, proud I am putting it to use, and proud to be a part of the many women of the natural gas industry helping to secure a better future for generations to come in our region. You take issue with not what we do, but who we do it for, and the effort put into your paper to stretch a solid, successful career into something of which to be ashamed, simply because you disagree with us, is inexcusable for a tenured professor.

      • Nicole Jacobs: “I also read your paper and, quite frankly, find your view of women who have become successful in “male dominated positions” demeaning and hypocritical. First, those women who fought for our rights and continue to work to break the glass ceiling didn’t fight so we could sit back smug because we can have those jobs–they did it so we’d take them if we wanted them. I participate in a group of hundreds of women, from this region alone, working in this industry; from general laborers to management and educators and each and every woman is proud of the work they do, me included.”

        Response: No Ms. Jacobs, your view of women is mercenary and self-defeating. By participating for pay in an industry whose environmental and human consequences include breast cancer, and because you cannot fail to know this, YOU are actively undermining the capacity of many women to achieve their own dreams. Indeed, you are clearly willing to sacrifice not only women but life in general to make the money EID pays you. Your motto is clearly “Success! At any cost!” Just because it pays well, Ms. Jacobs, and just because you have allies doesn’t mean it is morally acceptable to do it. You have bought into an overwhelmingly male-dominated industry, and if you think it will ever see you as anything other than “a woman in a man’s field,” you are sadly mistaken. After all, your actions strengthen the stranglehold the men who are pulling ALL of the strings here have over ALL of the rest of us–including you.

        Ms. Jacobs: “…professor roles are historically male as well, so by your definition are you not doing the exact thing you claim we are? Your argument collapses on itself for if we are to not take historically male positions because they perpetuate a male dominated society, then what would you have us do?” No, Ms Jacobs, you are wrong again. I AM a professor, and I have made it my career to interrogate the meaning of that from within the professoriate. Google me and see for yourself. I challenge the image of what a professor ought to be and do every day. YOU simply repeat the same male-privileging pro-extraction line of your male colleagues. I reflect an academic profession that is sexist and has much to change–especially in philosophy. I take risks to make out these arguments. You reflect only the party line of an industry that is poisoning the very women you claim to emulate. You risk nothing. Well, there’s your health–but that’s the risk to which your money-making venture exposes all of us.

        I don’t disagree with you, Ms. Jacobs. I expose you. I have shown that you are both deeply wrong in your assessment of the facts, and that you–for the sake of making money and getting to pretend you have a secure place with “the boys”–are deluded.

        • Nicole Jacobs says:

          Well Wendy, I had to stop laughing long enough to be able to respond. What’s funny is it’s not what you say about me that upsets me, it’s what you represent for the educational system and the ever existing debate on whether student tuition is being spent appropriately. It’s evident just from the responses you post to us that you are the type of professor who does not seek to educate students on how to think rationally, as is the purpose of philosophy, but rather the type that condescends, preaches to, and leaves no room for argument. I truly feel sorry for any males in your classroom and any females who do not buy into the notion that anything we do will not be good enough because there will always be a man doing better.

          Now onto your actual argument. You dislike what we do because you claim we are selling out and helping spread cancer. You say I am “reflect[ing] only the party line of an industry that is poisoning the very women you claim to emulate.” But isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? Wendy you sound like a parrot spewing Josh Fox nonsense. Even Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which you condescend upon in your paper, says cancer rates are not on the rise in areas of development.

          Opponents of fracking say breast cancer rates have spiked exactly where intensive drilling is taking place — and nowhere else in the state. The claim is used in a letter that was sent to New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo by environmental groups and by Josh Fox, the Oscar-nominated director of “Gasland,” a film that criticizes the industry. Fox, who lives in Brooklyn, has a new short film called “The Sky is Pink.”

          But researchers haven’t seen a spike in breast cancer rates in the area, said David Lee, a professor of medical anthropology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

          David Risser, an epidemiologist with the Texas Cancer Registry, said in an email that researchers checked state health data and found no evidence of an increase in the counties where the spike supposedly occurred.

          And Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a major cancer advocacy group based in Dallas, said it sees no evidence of a spike, either. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/experts-some-fracking-critics-use-bad-science

          I for one believe those trained in the medical profession and those who make it their daily purpose to find a cure for a disease that has touched each and every one of us far more than a professor of philosophy that seems to still be stuck in the cave studying shadows. Come up with another party line to spew, Wendy. That one’s getting old.

          As for not taking risks. I’m not worried when I go on a well site quite frankly, but I take risks every day as a result of proudly giving my opinion and sharing facts on this website. Ask some of your fellow Josh Fox followers about the threats they send us for speaking up. Ask them about those they send the landowners and elected officials who speak up. And yet we continue on because we believe in this industry and what it means for our communities.

          I’ll say it again, I am proud of the degree I earned from the very state system you disgrace, my professors are proud of what I have done with my degree since graduation and even ask me to come speak/have their students send me questions, I am proud to have a job in an economy where far too many are so not so fortunate and I am proud of the work I do every day. If I wasn’t I wouldn’t work here. I don’t look to a man to justify my standing, although their criticisms are just as welcome as my female colleagues. When my partner and I decide to have children and decide whether he or I will stay home with them or both of us will continue to work, I’ll be proud of that decision as well. You see, I don’t look at my relationships whether professional or personal to see what male is holding me back, I view my male counterparts as equals and my work ethic and drive has led them to view me the same. I don’t play the victim card because I’m a female, I strive to overcome that historical stigma and prove my worth the same as any male is required to do. Your ideology is flawed at best and whether you respond or not, I am done with this conversation. The circles, the misinformation, the fear you spread may work on students still figuring out who they are in this world, but quite frankly I find them lacking in intellectual stimulation, nonsensical, and not worth my time. I will end with a quote of a rather angry follower of ours:

          “You know you’ve got them worried when they can’t stop talking about you.”

          • Unable or, more likely, unwilling to comprehend the difference between politics and pedagogy, Ms. Jacobs makes the wildly unsubstantiated claim that because I have taken the time to patiently and thoroughly laid out the abysmal failures of Mr. Massaro’s argument, Ms. Jacob’s and Ms. Colley’s defense of their complicity in fracking, Mr. Shepstone’s lackluster response menu, etc., that I must be a dictatorial professor, and a “disgrace” to my university.

            One response: COME AND SEE. Sign up for a class. Or even just show up for a class. Any class. Any time. No need to give me heads up. Happy to have you participate. More than happy to post you the course syllabi. I’ll make it even easier for you:

            Spring, 2013:

            Introduction to Philosophy: T/R 9:30-10:45, 11-12:15
            Philosophy of Ecology: T/R 2-3:15.
            Contemporary Moral Problems: W, 5-8.

            And if you’d like to see my student evaluations, my peer reviews, my curriculum vitae, my professional publication record, you let me know.

            The gauntlet is down, Ms. Jacobs. Don’t bother with excuses to wriggle out. We both know your bosses at EID would be thrilled for you to come.

            As for breast cancer and fracking, let’s review:

            http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/chemicals-linked-to-breast-cancer/air-water/

            “Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking): Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, is a process used to increase production in oil and natural gas wells. More recently, fracking has been used in combination with horizontal drilling through shale layers to reach natural gas reserves that were previously not easily accessed. Large quantities of water and other fluids are pumped into the ground at high pressure, which causes rock to break and allows gas to be extracted. Fracking fluids can contain chemicals linked to breast cancer, including known and suspected carcinogens such as benzene and toluene, and endocrine-disrupting compounds such as the phthalate DEHP. Evidence is beginning to emerge that these chemicals may contaminate underground water sources. In addition, waste water containing fracking fluids, bromine salts (which interfere with wastewater treatment), minerals and radioactivity from deep in the earth flows back out of wells and must be stored and disposed of safely. There have been a number of spills of fracking waste water, and underground storage of this waste has been implicated in the increased incidence of earthquakes around some storage wells. A summary of the chemicals used in fracking can be found here.”

            From the CDC: http://www.realnatural.org/2011/10/22/breast-cancer-rises-near-fracking/

            “The Centers for Disease Control has recently reported that while breast cancer rates have been slowly falling in recent years, they are on the rise in several natural gas production counties in Texas. The counties, including Denton County and five surrounding counties, has been the home to the largest concentration of natural gas production, according to a 2010 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report, which inventoried natural gas production emission sources in 24 counties among the Barnett Shale.
            It just so happened that the cancer hike was exclusive to the same counties that had the highest concentration of natural gas production equipment and emissions – which are known to utilize a number of toxic solvents and other chemicals for their natural gas ‘fracking’ production according to some scientists.
            It also so happens that while the rest of Texas and the U.S. on average is experiencing lower cancer rates, rates are up in these six counties: Denton, Hood, Johnson, Parker, Tarrant and Wise counties. These six counties contain about 3 million people within a 5,000 square mile area.
            Breast cancer rates have been falling nationally over the last few years according to the National Cancer Institute. Between 1975 to 1999, breast cancers rose from 103 per 100,000 people to 141 per 100,000. Then the rates dropped since 1999, to 127 per 100,000 in 2008 – the last yearly data published by the Institute.
            Meanwhile, according to the Texas Cancer Registry, breast cancer rates among these six counties in Texas has risen by nearly 20% from 2005 to 2008.
            Research has increasingly found that breast cancer is linked to toxins. These have included smoking, synthetic hormones and other toxins according to the American Cancer Society. Most experts also agree that poor diet and lack of antioxidants also significantly relate to breast cancer. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Cancer Institute have been funding the Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program, which studies causitive elements at laboratories on the east coast and west coast.
            “Finding cancer clusters has a very limited application in understanding environmental exposure, since statistical research methods work better when studying things that are big,” Julia Brody, executive director of the Silent Spring Institute, told a Denton Record-Chronicle reporter. The Silent Spring Institute is a research group that studies breast cancer risk. The group has found a number of associations between toxins such as solvents and fuel compounds and breast cancer.
            Natural gas production has been under fire for their use of potentially toxic chemicals, which they use during the process of drilling through shale using a process called “fracking.” Many states, such as New York, are seeking to limit the amount of potential exposure to these toxins during the production of natural gas. Robert F. Kennedy has reported recently on these efforts.
            Medical researchers are currently trying to nail down the precise causes for the uptick in breast cancer rates among these counties – and are closely looking at natural gas production chemical exposure.”

            You claim to be interested in the science–but you’ll now deny the Center for Disease Control. Hypocrisy. Bought and paid for.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            I’m so glad you posted your evidence, Wendy, because your “CDC” link actually takes the reader to a commercial natural health products website. Where you found the little article you quoted I do not know but I assume it’s there. The key point is that it is not the CDC speaking but an article that simply quotes a simple CDC statistic out of context and superimposes extravagant language to make it appear an indictment when it’s anything but. Indeed, here’s what the CDC itself actually says at http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/what_cdc_is_doing/success/tx1.htm:

            Helping Rural Counties Access Breast Cancer Screening
            Texas Cancer Registry

            “Tarrant County and five surrounding counties (Denton, Wise, Parker, Hood, and Johnson) are in Texas’ Health Service Region (HSR) 03. Texas Cancer Registry data indicated that this HSR had the highest incidence of invasive breast cancer when compared with the rest of the state. It was also noted that access to mammography screening and subsequent screening rates were less than optimal. To address this issue, the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern/Moncrief Cancer Resources proposed expanding its Breast Screening and Patient Navigation (BSPAN) evidence-based program to include Denton, Wise, Parker, Hood, and Johnson counties, which are rural and underserved.”

            “BSPAN/UT Southwestern/Moncrief Cancer Resources staff met with Texas Cancer Registry epidemiologists and the Texas Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening (BCCS) program to discuss the best possible cancer registry data analysis, and how to coordinate optimally with the BCCS program. BSPAN’s program also was designed according to guidelines issued in the 2005 Texas Cancer Plan, a significant part of the Texas Comprehensive Cancer Control Program.”

            “BSPAN used Texas Cancer Registry data to demonstrate an important need for services and propose a means for program monitoring and evaluation (incidence and changes in stage at diagnosis) for the six-county area. They obtained more than $900,000 from the new Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas to expand their program from Tarrant County to the five neighboring rural and underserved counties, increasing access to breast cancer screening, diagnostic mammograms, and biopsies.”

            So, your data demonstrates no connection to natural gas other than what you imagine. It’s just one more example of the way anti-gas special interests twist things to suggest what they hope to be true rather than what is. Appalling.

  8. Monica Miller says:

    I have long ago stopped following Wendy and have blocked her on facebook. However, if I remember correctly, she did not stay at the trailer park for the 13 days, I think she drove back and forth for at least a few of the days.

  9. Kim Feil says:

    Hey don’t forget my rant at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHw2SLx3kTY
    There are a number of us out there who will use unconventional methods to educate or convert others of the horrors of unconventional methane extraction ….now please try to discredit this information cause it is in the news today with the LA TIMES and Australia’s fracking leakage rate and here is my comment you can try to discredit too. “The state of Texas TCEQ does NOT test for methane on their suma canisters or their permanent air monitors….they refuse to accept that the feds want GHG’s tracked and reported. The Ft Worth one million dollar air study had ERG present their findings at a public meeting the evening of 7/19/11. The notes I took when I attended was that “we (Ft Worth) are at 5-10 ppm of methane in ambient air…2ppm is the average worldwide background, that the air becomes toxic if methane is at 50,000 ppm”. So if Ft Worth has 2-5 times more methane in our air, that is saying alot since we have been urban drilling for ten years now. Our Railroad Commission, who regulates our state’s natural resources/minerals, needs to be fired, and our governor needs to direct the TCEQ to start screening, and reporting methane losses.” PS kudos if you post this…I have a snap shot that I submitted this if U don’t post this comment.

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      We’re pleased to post it because if anyone can make sense of it, Kim.

    • tbones says:

      Now I know why tigers eat thier young

      • tbones says:

        and that is after watching only 30 seconds of that video. 30 seconds I will never get back….

  10. Dean Marshall says:

    Everytime EID Rips out a new ad homenim hit piece, an angel gets her wings…..er ah a Fractivist gets the Medal!

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200213297439085&set=a.2597328376441.2152868.1351690715&type=1&relevant_count=1

  11. Wendy Lynne Lee says:

    You are patently and recklessly wrong, Mr. Shepstone. The evidence that benzene causes breast cancer is not for sale; it is fact. That fracking uses benzene is fact; that fracking contaminates sources of water is fact; that DEP is now embroiled in the deepest and ugliest coverup of carcinogens in water testing is fact. That you guys would say and do anything–including covering up facts about cancer is beyond dispute–as you are demonstrating right here, right now. “Epistle”? Exactly–it takes time and effort to spell out the evidence and its implications, and it takes time to make clear exactly why Mr. Massaro’s reasoning is so shoddy. To dismiss the “epistle” because it it too long for YOU shows only the laziness of your sense of entitlement. Your responses re short because you have nothing to say.

    Ms. MIller–READ the piece. I did not claim that I was there every night (and this is irrelevant). In fact, I make very clear that I was there as much as I could be but that I had animals that required care. What on earth is your point?

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      You don’t have the facts, Wendy, and you continue to avoid that issue.

  12. Wendy Lynne Lee says:

    Enjoy:

    http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?

    set=a.10100148185761729.2256797.38810784&type=3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52w1brdZcQY&feature=share

  13. Bob Smith says:

    Great piece! Thanks for posting, Mr. Massaro.

  14. Dr. BENZENE A BUTT says:

    Tom

    Congratulations goes to Joe on this posting. 46 responses and more to come I am sure.

    Circle the wagons call out to the troops EID has exposed errrr I mean got it right again. Wendy Lee is so smart no one else knows anything with friends who worship:
    the weed
    the will
    Marxist studies to avert socialism quote “History need not repeat itself through education”
    “Pot is almost legal” …. so are bullets but the abuse has the same results one is just quicker.

    Answer me this Wendy Lee…. what satisfies us all yet you say is evil and it’s not gas.
    benzene youzine I zene for benzene
    Natural Processes That Produce Benzene
    ■Volcanoes #1 cause of benzene you can’t frack with mother nature wendy
    ■Forest fires # lightning strike a tree or was it a fossil fuel protester discarding his butt from his vehicle as he/she was driving from/to a well site

    Products Containing Benzene
    ■Paint, lacquer, and varnish removers – OMG wendy don’t paint your teets
    ■Industrial solvents – you know used in solar panel production
    ■Gasoline and other fuels – yeah yeah yeah… remember that one Yoko?
    ■Glues – as in huffing away the sixties
    ■Paints – Rembrandt is a polluter
    ■Furniture wax – hmmmmm
    ■Detergents – Don’t wash your Bra…fight breast cancer
    ■Thinners – Good movie
    ■Inks – As in the ones Wendy Lee used in her tattoo’s
    ■Adhesives and coatings – what isn’t
    ■Industrial cleaning and degreasing formulations – don’t wash the dishes

    Activities/Uses Involving Benzene
    ■Emissions motor vehicle exhaust – yuppers
    ■Burning coal and oil – very true
    ■Painting and lithography – damn benzene
    ■Dry cleaning – I go nude whenever possible
    ■Making chemicals used to make: ■Plastics
    ■Resins
    ■Nylon and synthetic fibers – there goes the clothing good thing I go nude

    ■Making some types of:
    ■Lubricants
    ■Dyes – as in Tattoos and tie die t-shirts
    ■Detergents – Huff them too see PC cleaner
    ■Pharmaceutical drugs – party party party at the uuc
    ■Agricultural chemicals (pesticides) – Holly grape vine Cuomo

    Industries Using Benzene
    Lets just stop the world and get off
    ■Petrochemical manufacturing
    ■Petroleum refining
    ■Coke and coal chemical manufacturing
    ■Rubber tire manufacturing
    ■Gasoline storage, shipment, and retail operations
    ■Plastics and rubber manufacturing
    ■Shoe manufacturing

    Occupations/People Who May Be Exposed To Benzene
    Not NIMBY’s though they live on entittlements
    ■Steel workers
    ■Printers
    ■Rubber workers
    ■Shoe makers
    ■Laboratory technicians
    ■Gasoline service station employees

    Places Where Benzene May Be Found
    ■Air around waste sites and gas service stations
    ■Contaminated well water, as a result of benzene leaks from underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites containing benzene

    THE WHOLE WORLD IS OUT TO GET ME…. FRACK IT…. PASS THE CRACK AND THE BUTANE IT’S ALMOST LEGAL

    • timkay says:

      oh thank you !!!!! i needed that, well done !!!!! hit the spot and a good laugh too.

  15. timkay says:

    Thank you Joe, at least I am not the only American that feels this way. I think wendy tries to push her idea’s on all. If some like them, fine, I dont, as an American I have that right. I do not agree with her philosphy on the industry or on the world, but that is it, it is just a philosophy !! She has no respect for anyone who does not think the same way she thinks ! People who see the world the same as she does seem to love her and she treats them with respect, but dont disagree with her she will lash out and attack, freedom of speech only applies when she is speaking or you agree with her . I have read different philosphies and found others to more suitable to my beliefs, there is nothing wrong with that, but wendy thinks there is, she will attack anyone who see’s it differently then she does. This is America, I have the right to choose what I see fit for my family, You wendy have no right to tell me its wrong or try to apply guilt to those decisions because they differ from your beliefs. You are everything you accuse EID of being, you have attacked them many times, on their own page and yet when they write a story on you it is seen as a last resort or effort, but I call it protecting themselves, showing the readers the whole story, providing the facts. You all believe EID should just sit back and allow you to slander them? I can not believe it took them this long to write this piece, I say they are quite patient and tolerant, alot more tolerant then wendy is with anybody who disagrees with her fairy tales.
    Thank you EID for standing up for our rights as citizens, and telling it like it is.

    • Dean Marshall says:

      Tim Kay….Man/wife…..Man works for gas Wife runs her mouth. Who is most likely to lie? Somone who makes the$$$$ or someone who has volunteered to help her neighbors clean up after floods, adopted and cared for unwanted pets at great personal expense, and donates to charity with money and service? EID =Well paid PR Liars….Tim & Kay…..just plain old Garden Variety LIARS!

      • Tom Shepstone says:

        Well, now we see the other side, don’t we. If you disagree with a true believer you’re either a paid liar or a free liar but still a liar. Dean, you are simply intolerant.

      • timkay says:

        Nice try…….I am a citizen of the country who is tired of others telling me what is good for me….Our ancetors went through so much to come to this FREE country, and people like you try to make us more and more dependent on govt everyday. I will keep freedom and minimal govt involvement..Some people stand for more than just fracking, it runs deeper than that. Its not about what YOU want. So you can try and spin who I am any way you want, but guess what you are wrong and it really doesnt matter, if you werent using that excuse it would be another you put way to much effort in trying to discredit everyone, well guess what not all people are like you, thank God. Gee how did you find all this stuff out about me “someone who has volunteered to help her neighbors clean up after floods, adopted and cared for unwanted pets at great personal expense, and donates to charity with money and service”. The garden center gives so much free time in the winter months so i choose to spend that time wisely and doing what we can for our community until our next season starts, then its busy busy busy growing and planting mothers natures gifts. Its great helping others and didnt need the govts help to do so.

  16. Bryant La Tourette Sr says:

    Wendy Lee,
    Your quote ,
    “This is Rachael Colley from energy in depth, one of the folks I was talking about in the last section of the paper, where I argue that I find it incredible that the fracking industry itself goes to great lengths and effort to employ women to be their promotional agents… I find it remarkable the use of women to promote fracking as safe, as if women wouldn’t sell us out on mother nature. ”
    If it was all men working for EID, would you take a cheap shot at that?
    You are a self proclaimed feminist correct?
    Where is it you think women should work?

  17. jackie wilson says:

    I am too a citizen of Pa., and before I knew Wendy, long before, years before I knew that our legislators were run by oil, and gas, and coal corporations. If that is what you wish, fine. I also have known for years that our elected officials work for who can get them elected. What bothers me the most about the shale industry is they bought every government, state, local, and federal in the US, and other countries. That offends me. Somewhere along the way, years ago, our government became the government of bankers, Wall Street, and corporations. They do not listen to the people, we are expendable. If you applaud the industry then you are one of them. If you are one of them, then you too have no respect for democracy. Real democracy should not be so easily bought by those that have the most money. Real democracy is for those that stand up against the corruption. This is not just about our environment, it is about our democracy.

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      You’re not for democracy. You’re for authoritarianism in the hands of folks who believe what you believe, Jackie. If you want to understand how government is really influenced, follow the Rockefeller money that goes into supporting your causes.

    • timkay says:

      so you do not like the way democracy is run?? so you attack the extration of natural gas which this community is benefiting from, has given many jobs, restored many farms, and is heating and fueling this country.. Your anger is misplaced and you are attacking it in the wrong way. Trying to kill the industry and the millions it employee’s to stop govt corruption? The only thing you will accomplish is destroying the millions of families that are employeed through this industry..Why does everyone refer to it like it is one big bad man, its not, anyone can own it or at least a piece of it. Try and change the system by destroying what fuels our society? The buying of govt officials happens on all sides of the fences, time to place and refocus that anger at where it belongs.

  18. David Meiser says:

    Is this all EID can do but attack people who are concerned with their community?

    While Wendy and I do not see eye to eye on issues, she and I agree that EID is nothing but a PR agency (and not an ethical one which follows the guidelines of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)on ethical practices)

    This article could be used as a classroom example of logical fallacies in action from the Ad-homenim attacks to the false analogy’s.

    Just to educate others, A logical fallacy is a false argument that appeals to emotion or prejudice rather than use logic, facts of the issue, or reason. Lord Byron was quoted as saying he who cannot reason is a fool and he who dares not is a slave.

    This attack article proves the author must be both. (my own little Ad-homenim)

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      Tell us how repeating false statements about natural gas development causing breast cancer fits into your theories, David.

  19. David Meiser says:

    Having studied benzine while I was with Mobil Oil I can say without a doubt that it is a carcinogen.

    This link is from the NTP and is the monograph of its toxicity and carcinogenicity. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Benzene.pdf

    The first statement in the document is “Carcinogenicity
    Benzene is known to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans.”

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      This is classic diversion, David. No one said benzene isn’t carcinogenic. Wendy, however, is trying to draw a link between natural gas development and benzene levels and breast cancer rates that doesn’t exist. You know that.

      • David Meiser says:

        Not a diversion, as a poster was trying to falsely state that benzene is naturally produced

        Data indicate that where natural gas production is concentrated excessive levels of BTEX chemicals have been found, as stated from Scientific American:

        A set of seven samples collected throughout the town Dish Texas analyzed for a variety of air pollutants found that benzene was present at levels as much as 55 times higher than allowed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Similarly, xylene and carbon disulfide (neurotoxicants), along with naphthalene (a blood poison) and pyridines (potential carcinogens) all exceeded legal limits, as much as 384 times levels deemed safe.

        Currently there there are no national ambient air quality standards for air toxics (as there are for criteria air pollutants), there is no consensus metric to use to reflect the state of the environment for pollutants such as benzene.

        As the USEPA has issued new regulations for Air Emissions from Natural Gas Drilling, they don’t take effect until 2015, so until then the gas industry can keep polluting. Also theses are for point source emissions and not ambient air limits

        Regulations are here http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20120417finalrule.pdf

        The issue here is again that the regulations only cover emissions from point sources and do not cover overall ambient air concentrations, so the general public is still at risk from ambient air exposure.

        If one looks a the NIOSH TLV 8 hour time weighted average exposure limits for workers exposed to Benzene it is 1 ppm ( (TLV) of a chemical substance is a level to which it is believed a worker can be exposed day after day for a working lifetime without significant health effects. For the uneducated it means that a worker can be exposed to no more than a 1 ppm concentration over a 8 hour work day. Many OSHA exposure limits are not considered by the industrial hygiene community to be sufficiently protective levels, as they are based upon using the criteria that 85% of the population exposed to this concentration will not see harm (what about the other 15%??)

        If one extrapolates the NIOSH 1ppm to 24 hours the limit would be 4.2 parts per billion ambient air levels.

        I don’t think the Oil and Gas industry would ever support such a limit for ambient air as they screamed that the 2015 regulations for point source emissions go too far!!!

        So Tom would you support an ambient air limit???????

        • JD Krohn says:

          David:

          You asked Tom if he would support an ambient air limit. It is not our role to tell states or the federal government the regulations it should put into place. Energy In Depth doesn’t comment on regulatory matters.

          That said, the issue of benzene in the metroplex of the Dallas-Ft. Worth area has been studied extensively. Below are just some of the comments from that study and regulators in the region. Also, its worth noting the EPA declares mobile sources (or vehicles) are by far the largest source of benzene in the U.S. So if you, and others, think benzene is causing breast cancer perhaps the best source to boycott is your car and our nation’s motor vehicle systems.

          http://www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Activists-deploy-scare-tactics-to-attack2.jpg

          Texas State Health Agency: “Biological test results from Texas Department of State Health Services investigation in Dish, Texas indicate that residents exposure to certain contaminants was not greater than that of the general U.S. population.”

          “In Dish, we found no pattern to our test results indicating community-wide exposure to any of these contaminants,” said Dr. Carrie Bradford, the DSHS toxicologist who led the investigation. “We were looking to see whether a single contaminant or a handful of contaminants were notably elevated in many or all of the people we tested. We didn’t find that pattern in Dish.”

          DSHS paid particular attention to benzene because of its association with natural gas wells. The only residents who had higher levels of benzene in their blood were smokers. Because cigarette smoke contains benzene, finding it in smokers’ blood is not unusual.

          Finally, there are the results of the Texas Department of Environmental Quality’s extensive air monitoring network as relayed in this post from comments made by a TCEQ official. Operating every hour of each day for multiple years throughout some of the most active drilling regions of Texas, the study found:

          http://www.energyindepth.org/institute-of-medicine-roundtable-better-perspective-critical-to-understanding-shale-development/

          “From this perspective, the most informative presentation was provided by Michael Honeycutt, Ph. D, Director of the Toxicology Department of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Dr. Honeycutt was the only panelist with direct regulatory experience and he presented data his department has collected on natural gas development over the past two decades.”

          “His presentation reviewed data from the most extensive natural gas emissions monitoring program in the nation, including data from over 1,126 fixed and mobile monitoring stations and over 2,100 site surveys using emissions finding infrared technology.”

          “These findings showed that as natural gas extraction increased exponentially, harmful air emissions like benzene and other volatile organic compounds decreased. Further, the data showed the area hadn’t seen an increase of pollutants, or public exposure to pollutants at levels that would cause public health concerns, due to natural gas development in nearly twenty years of production from shale resources.”

          • David Meiser says:

            First off siting anything from a publication from EID I consider circular logic, So I try and find alternate sources to EID articles as it has been my experience that these are public relations articles with cherry-picked sections and never have the complete unedited information from the source.

            So after reading the PDF titled “DISH, Texas Exposure Investigation
            DISH, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, May 12, 2010

            The information which was clearly lacking in the EID reports were the limitations stated in the study.

            Text copied from the limitations:

            ————————————
            It only captured information about recent exposures. VOCs have a short half-life in the body (hours); therefore, unless exposures are known to be on-going, the levels found in the body only represent recent exposures.

            It was a one time sample event; thus, it could not consider external factors that could have affected the results such as temperature, wind conditions, and variations in the natural gas operations.

            Staff was limited in the types of comparisons that we could make with respect to the urinary data; staff compared the participants’ results to levels found in the literature and to those of the TxDSHS staff. The information necessary to compare them to the levels normally found in the U.S. population was not available.

            In most instances staff was not able to definitively identify exposure sources.

            It is not possible to determine potential health risks based on the levels found in the blood.
            ————————————

            In other words the study was a limited short-term monitoring study and not an epidemiological evaluation.

            Stating that there is no health effect from exposure from this one short-term study is not ethical, as it misguides the public into thinking there is no long-term epidemiological effects.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            Now you’re making excuses, David, to suggest data that doesn’t support your view must be flawed.

  20. First, I want to thank Jackie Wilson for her astute and thoughtful remarks. It is simply an honor to know someone so committed to squarely dealing with both the environmental and the serious social justice issues at play in fracking.

    Second, as I read through this thread, I cannot help but get the feeling that Tom Shepstone has become bored with his job. His responses aren’t even a pretense to an argument–it’s as if he’s all played out. I wonder if his employer knows what a poor job Mr. Shepstone is doing. Ironically, Mr. Shepstone would likely be the first to defend the “American (capitalist) way of life” and the rights of employers to hire and fire at will (or pay the lowest possible wages, for example, to “roust-about” workers imported from Texas to do the most difficult and dangerous of jobs), but he’ll get to keep his for precisely the reasons I lay out in my research paper–he is white, male, and entirely bought off. Like virtually every pro-gasser here, he offers not a bit of argument addressing even one of my arguments specifically–just versions of “you’re wrong.” But claims are not arguments–and Mr. Shepstone’s claims amount to “You’re stinky.”

    Third, to Mr. La Tourette, you have committed straw fallacy–you deliberately misrepresent my argument in order to dismiss it. What I argued was that we AS FEMINISTS must evaluate the extent we wish to participate in ventures which contribute to environmental destruction. We must evaluate the extent to which we are willing to participate in male-dominated and male-aggrandizing institutions–like the oil and gas industry. When we condone the terms and conditions of an industry whose history is indisputably destructive, racist, and profoundly sexist, we effectively condone the continuation of these social and economic injustices. We also contribute to the very practices that do active HARM to women. What do I expect of women? A great deal–a commitment to a far more sustainable and more just world, and I think women who have more are morally obligated to DO more. Colley and Jacobs may appeal all they wish–just as the men here do–to the trite and false sloganeering of an industry which is poisoning us–but their actions are contributing to environmental conditions that not only provide a significant factor in breast cancer, but to a future unsustainable for anyone’s child–and they’ve sold out for the money. Being emancipated from male domination does not entail simply beating men at their own game–this allows men to continue to make the rules. Liberation means rethinking the rules and the world we want to live in–a far harder–but far nobler task.

    Fourth, to Dave Meiser, thanks for your support here. I am critical of Susan B. KOman for the same reasons I have been critical of the Sierra Club. BOTH organizations CAN change, and I hope Susan B. Koman recognizes the hypocrisy of their position.

    Fifth, to Dr. Benzene A. Butt–your’s is an incoherent rant–though very much in keeping with the level of argument offered by Mr. Massaro. So thanks for spelling out what the EID position comes to–and it’s absurdity.

    Sixth, perhaps TimKay was feeling a bit pinched and embarrassed after Her/His rant on Facebook:

    “sounds a little off thier wendy? good guess thow, my husband does not work for the industry. but you can keep trying, nice to know it bothers you trying to figure me out….nothing to figure, i believe in American freedoms and rights. I dont believe in you or others trying to undermine my freedoms…I also never denied that i was KAY, i have stated that to you many times !!!! but again you only hear what you want too. As for disclosing my personal info to you, NEVER, the threats that have come from your side are unprofessional. friend who used her last name and place of business in her profile, she would go to work and find nasty notes and threats taped to shelves. They would drive by and yell things out, yes the dimock few a wonderful stock pile !!!! so when this debate got heated, i hide are last name and set my privacy settings to be seen only by friends !!!! Myself and our family does not need to be harrassed at our places of business, we are respected members of our community and act accordingly….so keep spinning your stories, lord knows you have to be getting dizzy…Again making false accusations with nothing to back it.”

    All that following my assertion that I now knew that “Tim” works in some capacity for the gas–despite “Kay’s” assertion that she made no money on the gas at all. My goodness, I clearly struck a nerve, and it’s quite clear TimKay protests a bit too much. Anyways, She/He seems at least a little calmer here in their own comfy turf at EID. What “push my ideas on all” means, of course, is “I don’t like hearing the truth, so I’ll call her “stinky,” (the Shepstone/Massaro method). No one denies TimKay the right to act as they see fit to care for their families, and no one has in any way denied TimKay their right to freedom of expression. They’re right here using that to attack me. This strategy is another version of straw argument–misrepresent the argument of the opponent and call them stinky. And, like Mr. Shepstone, TimKay addresses not a single argument from my paper–leaving me to conclude that they’re either too lazy, too arrogant, or too stupid to comprehend it. I think the latter false–TimKay is NOT stupid. But this only makes them more culpable for thinking that name-calling and pretending they’ve been threatened is somehow a legitimate substitute for argument. It is not. The paranoia TimKay evinces on the FB thread is also no doubt intended to fear monger–and that is the most ridiculous of all since on our side is the tradition of non-violent protest, and on EID’s and TimKay’s is environmental destruction and rank social and economic injustice.

    We all know who’s is the more violent.

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      There you go again, Wendy. You accuse me of not delivering facts when it’s you who cannot defend your false data on breast cancer.

    • timkay says:

      not one remark has anything to back it up!!!! name calling and assumptions are all you hand out….I stand on my beliefs and will protect my freedoms. I can ask you questions and ask you to provide proof, been there and done that for at least a year now, you never answer or provide, you begin to slander and try and discredit anyone who challenges you. Read this thread and its comments, Mr shepstone has asked you to back up your statements, instead you insult the people. No one was asking you to analyze them, they asked for proof of what you speak. Not your interpertation of how you think things are. So prove what you say, stop spinning and turning the conversation on others and who they may be? Answer the questions? Where is the PROOF?

      • timkay says:

        wendy we agree to disagree rightfully soo. there is resonable regulations and then there is over regulations…Lets go with smoking, yes protect others from second hand smoke in public places, but to take a privatly owned business and tell the owner that people can not smoke in His or Hers business is over regulation…If i own it and i want to allow people to smoke in it, that is my business, if someone doesnt smoke and does not like it, they have the freedom not to come to it. I see what you are fighting for is only creating this same kind of over kill in regulations. You do not look for solutions to problems, you have a ban all attitude, i am not able to figure out what you want? All i can get from it is you want complete govt control and we shall except what they think we should have? As far as nat. gas extraction goes, i do support it, i have not seen or experienced anything of what the anti have describe in their public outcries and poison, i have seen Exaggeration of the situation, which i would assume is the way to capture ones imgination and convience them it is the truth and persaude them to fell the same as you. I could stick my head in the sand and pretend it is ok, but i will not. I can not allow people to slander my home with so many false hoods and tales and sit back, I will not watch people be stripped of their provite property rights, so i speak up and tell what i am seeing, what i have learned and what i experience…By doing so, it has earned me the name of liar, bought, shill, why? because i stand up for what i beleive, that ruffles my feathers, so as you have said to me “so I feel morally obligated to show how morally bunkrupt your view is”!
        I feel exactly the same, just on the other side of the fence.

    • Fred Peckham says:

      With Wnedy Lee its all garbage in, garbage out!!!

  21. fred jones says:

    One thing that has bugged me since posting here and a big question for the EID staff and Joe in particularly. Why does Tom (Shepstone) in most cases (I can count on one hand, authors replies) undertake the task of defending pieces he had no hand in writing? I for one, would want to defend my work, yet the authors pen is silent in the aftermath. And character attack pieces uniquely call out for a “stand-up for your accusations” true or not, defense and responsibility, when it gets this personal, wouldn’t you think? These kind of “articles” would go a long way, if the author jumped into the comment fray he or she has spawned. I’ll just chalk it up to…….”it’s part of Tom’s job description” All righty then…….

    Fred

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      I do most the moderating, Fred, because I like doing it. Gives me exposure to all the absurdity out there, you know. By the way, is that you’re real name Fred? I’m not saying it isn’t but I am curious.

      • fred jones says:

        Tom (if that’s your real name, sarcasm on:)) That still doesn’t answer my question.

        My real name is Frederick. And Tom………it’s a more genuine name than timkay, observer or Dr. Benzene A Butt, wouldn’t you say, my old friend? Those characters should spark more of your curiosity……..I would think. They are advocates though……me……just a questioning, watchful sort, that deals in facts and numbers and tries his best to avoid the emotional side, but I am guilty of posting in that arena now and then. Just an old patriot that thinks life is never a one-sided picture and time almost always brings out the truth. But we are a very impatient species these days.

        Fred

        • Tom Shepstone says:

          So, Jones is not your real name and you want to suggest to me how to do a better job moderating. As much as I find your comments worthwhile, I don’t think you’re being entirely sincere.

          • fred jones says:

            Frederick is my first name Tom……lighten up. Fred is short for Frederick …..my full Christian name. I was being funny my friend.

            Frederick Jones

        • timkay says:

          Tim kay, has been our screen name before this debate began, i dont believe i should have to change what i have always had in order to please you…i have been using this blog for quite some time. I have made my position clear and anyone fimiliar with this blog will have read it many times. MY name is KAY, I am a MOM, I manage a garden center, I feel strongly about my home and community also i have never mislead people to believe i am something that i am not. I will not change the way i have done things to amuse the few that doubt because i dont think like them. This screen name has excisted before i got involved in this discussion. For you to point my name out over yours? why because I agree with EID’s point of view, but if i agreed with Wendy’s, that i would recieve a thanks for your support and no one would care about the way my screen name was set up, as long as i supported wendy. Sorry i will not be bullied to change who i am

          • fred jones says:

            OK kids…….let’s not get all fluffed up over names here. How about focusing on the subject of the article and the content of the posters post. I really don’t give a rats patootie what you or anyone calls themselves. I mentioned you and others as an example of screen names which is obvious by your “handle”. Besides…….this all started with Tom questioning my name, which is real and I had nothing to do with picking it out……..my parents had that chore. I was not singling you out and if you think I was……well……that’s your paranoia. And one last word here, I support Fred Jones and no one else Kay and as you say, you’ve been posting here for a long time, you should be used to the heat in this kitchen as it can get a bit HOT now and then.

    • Joe Massaro says:

      Sorry Fred I was out attending another presentation/reading. I stand by everything that I write and again, Wendy sorry, Ms. Lee, is here commenting because she is seeing that people besides myself dont agree with what she is putting out there.

      Like Tom said he does most of the moderating and because I supplied data to support my writing, if you take the time to read and understand my position here I think you will understand where I am coming from. If not that’s fine I can accept that some people will disagree with me.

      • Mr. Massaro,

        How easy it is to “stand by everything” that you write when you don’;t rise to the occasion of actually addressing anything! It’s EASY PEASY to insist that you’re right when you haven’t any intention of actually examining the criticism. But then again, THAT is the approach you took to the original piece, so why would this be any different?

        The one who took the time to “read and understand” your “position” is ME. Mr. Massaro–and then I gutted your fallacious reasoning point by point, and exposed your faulty manipulation of the evidence.

        So what are you standing by? The commitment to be right–no matter how wrong you really are?

        It is one thing to claim to be right, Mr. Massaro. It is quite another to BE right. I do not merely claim it–I have SHOWN it point for point.

        • Joe Massaro says:

          Ms. Lee, you are standing by your statement that in areas of gas development there is an increase of breast cancer. This is called an assertion when you apply no hard data which you didn’t.

          My point of bringing up the cigarettes was to give you another look at something that could be causing breast cancer. You constantly scape goat the industry for any problem that arises. I never said that Benzene was not a carcinogen I was merely trying to get you to look at other sources for the benzene instead of being narrow minded and only focused on shale gas development for the source.

          “Fifth, to Dr. Benzene A. Butt–your’s is an incoherent rant–though very much in keeping with the level of argument offered by Mr. Massaro. So thanks for spelling out what the EID position comes to–and it’s absurdity.”

          I dont believe this was an incoherent rant as Dr. Benzene was again trying to get you to think about the other sources of benzene.

          “In a particularly ludicrous and apparently desperate attempt to downplay the fact that benzene is a carcinogen, Mr. Massaro offers us a picture of a smoker at the Schlumberger protest.”

          Placing that picture there shows the hypocrisy you and your cohorts constantly show. Again, playing into the fact that there are other sources of benzene. Just think about this, many of these people come out to protest natural gas development they smoke cigarettes while doing so. They then go home and use natural gas to heat their homes and cook and that same smoker then goes after the industry for having benzene as a by product and somehow that is the only thing increasing cancer rates. Makes sense to me!

          It is notable that Mr. Massaro says nothing whatever about the failures of DEP to demand inspection for asbestos at Riverdale–the main content of that section of my research essay. Does he simply not care about the potential exposure of economically vulnerable people to asbestos? Can he find no way to defend DEP?

          In your paper you stated that you called DEP and they told you that they had tested for asbestos and it was clear. You are simply choosing not to believe them. Also, you stated multiple times that the residents of the park were stripping the trailer homes down to sell the parts for money to move. You talked about copper siding among other things. Clearly if they were stripping these homes down they were not worried about asbestos or they knew that there was none there.

      • fred jones says:

        Why thanks Joe! I appreciate your joining in. Poor Tom get’s to have all the fun most of the time, but as he says……..he enjoys the challenge. I still think he’s the go to guy on rebuttals for EID.

  22. Rachael says:

    Just who gave you the right to decide who can call me by my first name or not, Ms. Lee? And, by the way, you calling him Mr. Massaro is exactly what you are preaching against isn’t it? Isn’t calling him by a formal name showing you feel inferior? “Yes mister,” “okay sir.” Do your friends call you by their last name? Do you refer to your friends as Mr. and Mrs.?

    Let me also point out to you my education is in economics. I have taken several classes discussing the glass ceiling and the traditional roles of men and women in the workplace. I chose not to be a nurse or kindergarten teacher, as have you, which, again, demonstrates the tradition roles are changing. I am also not a self-proclaimed feminist. I currently hold a position where I make the same amount of money as my male coworker and I am extremely proud of that. Joe (and, yes, I can and do refer to him as “Joe”) is not a knight in shining armor; rather, he is my coworker and my equal. He and I work hand in hand together on projects, something perhaps you’ve not experienced, by the sound of it. I am not inferior to Joe, nor is he to me. We don’t refer to each other as mister and miss, because, quite simply we are friends and equals. It’s as simple as that and the fact you can’t understand that says more about you than me or Joe.

    You say the following in your comment:

    “Marxist, Atheist, feminist, vegetarian, union activist, queer, animal welfare theorist – and one of the most reliable, hard-working, publishing professors BU has. Want to discuss my commitment to my university with my university president? Call him: 570-389-4674.” That’s exactly right, Mr. Massaro–and unless you’re a homophobic, misogynist, anti-collective bargaining bigot, you’ll find everything in that list is something to be proud of–indeed to celebrate as excellent avenues of intellectual investigation and opportunities for freedom of expression in a democracy.”

    Nowhere do I read where he degrades you for any of that. If you take this reiteration of your own comment personally, you are the one making the argument it is something to be ashamed of, not Joe. If you aren’t, there would be no point in bringing it up at all. Why do you feel you need to defend it, if you are so “proud,” when Joe expresess no opinion on it?

    You then say “By Mr. Massaro’s reasoning, we’d still be living under Jim Crow segregation and women (say, “Rachael”) would still be in the kitchen making his dinner and pumping out “his” babies. I have no reason to think that he’d have thought these movements just as “childish” as he thinks the anti-fracking movement.”

    Again, this is another example of you making assumptions, thinking people will fall for every word. Please, Ms. Lee, tell us where in any blog post, or anywhere else, where you have read Joe discuss Rachael in the kitchen making dinner and pumping out babies (which is such a classy way to say bearing children by the way)? You can’t find it anywhere? Well, surprise, surprise, surprise! You’ll have to do a lot better than that if you want to put words or thoughts into people’s head.

    You also say “But the notion that because there as a smoker at this protest means that it is somehow morally unobjectionable that benzene is used in a process that could expose women UNKNOWINGLY to a carcinogen identified in breast cancer is absurd. That second hand smoke is a source of benzene exposure has led to the regulation of cigarette smoking in closed spaces. GOOD. Now why doesn’t Mr. Massaro apply that same reasoning to fracking?”

    Regardless where people are smoking, they are preaching against the things they are doing themselves. Why doesn’t the same reasoning apply? Natural gas is explored outside, not inside, so, there, problem solved, correct? Well, according to the argument you just made my statement would be.

    You are clearly a feminist who feels she is right in every aspect of everything and determined to impose her views on everyone else. I know you are digging for a “thank you for protecting my feminism, because Joe is so degrading” but I am not going to feed obsession. You try to turn women against men in nearly every comment you make. Unfortunately for you, you wouldn’t be where you are without men. You have had male teachers, professors, and family members, maybe you should thank them instead of degrading them as you claim they do us.

    • Ms. Colley, you are ranting.

      1. Mr. Massaro would not have printed any of the list about my commitments did he not know his audience could be manipulated via their own conservative ideologies. You know that. I know that–so let’s stop playing that game, shall we?

      2. Please read my post to Ms. Jacobs. It applies to you just as well.

      3. Mr. Massaro provides no reason whatever for his reader to think he’d not have rejected the civil rights movement as childish. And if there’s any difference, it’s not one he can defend. maybe he likes civil rights and hated fracking, but of you think THESE are reasons, your education has failed you.

      4. I don’t make assumptions, Ms. Colley. I offer arguments. And my arguments decimate Mr. Massaro’s piece. You also seem not to get irony. “Pumping out babies” is a way of referring to the patriarchal institutions and ideologies that entitle Mr. Massaro–and in fact demean YOU—whether you get that or not. Why? Because you are contributing to an industry that strengthens the entitlements of all the men in power over it–and they are virtually ALL men. If you think you can rise to the position of an Aubry McClendon under the current conditions, you are sadly mistaken. And if you think that THAT is a worthy aspiration given the cancered bodies of women you’ll have to trample to get there–you are deluded.

      5. Colley’s reasoning about smoking: “Smoking is bad. Some of the people who protest fracking smoke. Both fracking and smoking involve benzene. Benzene is a carcinogen. So since both involve benzene, and we do one we should do both.” How ridiculous! We should do NEITHER MS. Colley. And this is true by your own admission that smoking is bad. You’re just so apparently blinded by your monied devotion to EID, you refuse to see this.

      6. Fallacy of ridicule and dismissal: Ms. Colley, “You are clearly a feminist who feels she is right in every aspect of everything and determined to impose her views on everyone else.” This amounts to the claim that you, Ms. Colley, don’t like what I have to say so you, Ms. Colley, are going to claim I’m stinky.” No one believes this nonsense about themselves. And even were it true, it’s irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves. Fracking causes cancer–and especially cancer that could affect women YOU know and love. But YOU have chosen to disregard this and promote an industry whose actions are not only implicated in this cancer–but use YOU as their front to gender-sanitize the fact that their poisoning us.

      As for looking for a “thank you,” don’t be daft.

  23. Rick Steeno says:

    Thanks Joe, a very well written article. Keep it up.

  24. Dr. BENZENE A BUTT says:

    My darling Wendy in response to – Fifth, to Dr. Benzene A. Butt

    Thank you so much for recognizing my rant in your long winded defense of yourself, and sharing your admiration for those you have inked into your heart like the benzene loaded tattoos you so proudly display. (note) Nothing against tattoo’s as I have a few myself. So why do you come here Wendy to EID’s blog site, Were you drawn in by Joe’s Blog to defend yourself against your own actions? You speak of this site as if it is nothing more then a hit man out to discredit the rank and file of the anti gas opponents. You couldn’t be farther from the the truth! Knowing that you will disagree I will state my case in spite of your tongue and the fingers that put your words to cyber.

    I have been reading Blogs on EID I believe from the start and I found them to contain factual information based on my own research of their subject matter conceding the majority of those blogs were written on the process of shale gas extraction and not attacks on those against it unless” you find the truth a weapon against your cause?

    That being said compulsive BS, fear mongering, distorted science, self serving hypocrites who do in fact very little or nothing to get away from fossil fuels due to the reality of the cost of conversion and availability of the elements to keep up with the demand.
    The Lie Wendy
    The Denial
    The pick and choose outrage
    They do belong to you and yours and therefore I applaud sites like EID for facing down with the use of fact over fracktion (fiction notice the “K”)
    No matter how you read the stories on the blogs or in the paper this is still America!!! where people can choose to fight head on the propaganda that any group tries shoving down our throats and not expect retaliation. The best part Wendy is with all your crying and complaining is you have not yet got the power top stop thoughts from hitting paper or cyber. If you throw cow dung straight up into the air then stand there guess what It’s coming back at ya.

    • Let me know “Dr. Benzene A, Butt” when you arrive at sufficient self-respect that you can use you name. Only then are you worth addressing.

      • Dr. B Butt says:

        Ohhhh wendy you pathetic excuse for an argument… It’s me your truth no debate required

  25. Ourland says:

    There is a way to gain RESPECT in your battle. Cleanse and detox yourself of any an all hydrocarbons and any exposure to them,including your investment and retirement fund. Start a real movement where people across the board can say they practice what they preach.
    If you get enough attention, and people follow you the demand will drop the industries will not have enough money to buy a party or officials. They would be able to purchase trailer parks.
    Example: At one of the DEC hearings a guy pulled up on a bicycle with a sign that said No FRACKING! Oil a and Gas Kills. We clapped because he was trying to practice what he preached. Wooden tires and a rusty chain, we would have cheered!

  26. Michael Fitzgerald says:

    Don’t waste time debating these guys… keep after the politicos if you want to shut down these frackers…

  27. Posted at Raging Chicken Press:

    http://www.ragingchickenpress.org/2012/11/18/part-2-the-good-ole-boy-extraction-club-the-women-of-fracking-the-courageous-the-extorted-and-the-excuseless/#comment-12126.

    One example of precisely the topic I am trying to speak to in this particular piece–the complicity of some women in the promotion of the extraction industry, the exchange between Nicole Jacobs, Rachael Colley, and myself. The exchange is interesting because it highlights the extent to which women who might in some ways identify with the goals of the feminist movement–that is, that they can participate as equal players in the institutions and organizations men have constructed–nonetheless act in ways that undermine the lives and aspirations of other women–especially poor and/or minority women.

    Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Colley both function under the illusion that their positions at Energy in Depth are testimonial to the equality of women in a man’s field–they site equal pay as the measure of this equality. But what neither see is that this is a bribe for a service they provide to the fracking industry that their male counterparts cannot, namely gender-sanitized window-dressing for an industry that contributes to the production of conditions associated with cancers that target women. If anything, Jacobs and Colley should be paid more for their particular effort at shilling. They can’t perpetrate a deception that, say, Joe Massaro and Tom Shepstone just aren’t going to be as good at–the myth that fracking is safe with respect to carcinogen exposure.

    Indeed, Mr. Shepstone in and EID post 11.19.12 tries to argue the simply ludicrous claim that we have nothing to worry about with respect to the chemicals protected by proprietary rights laws because they are so benign! He fails, however, to ask why–if so benign–such chemicals, their mixes, quantities, and compound reactions NEED such protection. No doubt, he’d respond that the need derives from competition–if the competitor knew THAT mix, etc., it would give them the fracking-advantage. But this response fails as abysmally as his original argument since it’s the TOXICITY of that mix that leverages the advantage. hence it’s the TOXICITY that must be protected by proprietary rights laws. Moreover, this is precisely what is recognized in Pennsylvania’s ACT 13’s physician gag order clause that permits a doctor to tell her patient that she has been exposed to frack fluids–but not the QUANTITY OR THE MIX because THESE are precisely what is protected as “PROPRIETARY.”

    About as straight-forward a violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution as we could imagine–and almost surely to be struck down as such. Hence, we can only interpret Mr. Shepstone’s defense as a rearguard maneuver to ally this decision, for as he just as surely knows, if the public actually knew what proprietary rights laws protect, they’d be outrages. They’d see plainly that it is no exaggeration to call this industry genocidal profiteering.

    As for my exchange with Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Colley, in the end it just leaves me cold and sad when educated, bright, and capable women so identify their own emancipation with the money-soaked standard of value bequeathed to them by what remains a demonstrably patriarchal culture that they cannot see that there is far more to justice than narrow self-interest.

    The exchange in toto:

    NIcole Jacobs: “Actually Wendy, we don’t look at Joe as our “knight in shining armor,” although he is a pretty nice guy. Realistically, he’s the person who attended your event, so he wrote the post. Rachael and I are just as capable and would have written one had we attended. He calls Rachael by her first name because they’re friends, not as a sign of disrespect. Had he called her Colley or Miss Colley she might well have taken offense.
    I also read your paper and, quite frankly, find your view of women who have become successful in “male dominated positions” demeaning and hypocritical. First, those women who fought for our rights and continue to work to break the glass ceiling didn’t fight so we could sit back smug because we can have those jobs–they did it so we’d take them if we wanted them. I participate in a group of hundreds of women, from this region alone, working in this industry; from general laborers to management and educators and each and every woman is proud of the work they do, me included.
    Lastly, professor roles are historically male as well, so by your definition are you not doing the exact thing you claim we are? Your argument collapses on itself for if we are to not take historically male positions because they perpetuate a male dominated society, then what would you have us do? Sit at home like good little women raising babies (not that there is anything wrong with a woman choosing to do so–it is her choice afterall.)?
    I am proud of my PASSHE earned degree, proud I am putting it to use, and proud to be a part of the many women of the natural gas industry helping to secure a better future for generations to come in our region. You take issue with not what we do, but who we do it for, and the effort put into your paper to stretch a solid, successful career into something of which to be ashamed, simply because you disagree with us, is inexcusable for a tenured professor.”

    My response:

    “Nicole Jacobs: “I also read your paper and, quite frankly, find your view of women who have become successful in “male dominated positions” demeaning and hypocritical. First, those women who fought for our rights and continue to work to break the glass ceiling didn’t fight so we could sit back smug because we can have those jobs–they did it so we’d take them if we wanted them. I participate in a group of hundreds of women, from this region alone, working in this industry; from general laborers to management and educators and each and every woman is proud of the work they do, me included.”
    Response: No Ms. Jacobs, your view of women is mercenary and self-defeating. By participating for pay in an industry whose environmental and human consequences include breast cancer, and because you cannot fail to know this, YOU are actively undermining the capacity of many women to achieve their own dreams. Indeed, you are clearly willing to sacrifice not only women but life in general to make the money EID pays you. Your motto is clearly “Success! At any cost!” Just because it pays well, Ms. Jacobs, and just because you have allies doesn’t mean it is morally acceptable to do it. You have bought into an overwhelmingly male-dominated industry, and if you think it will ever see you as anything other than “a woman in a man’s field,” you are sadly mistaken. After all, your actions strengthen the stranglehold the men who are pulling ALL of the strings here have over ALL of the rest of us–including you.
    Ms. Jacobs: “…professor roles are historically male as well, so by your definition are you not doing the exact thing you claim we are? Your argument collapses on itself for if we are to not take historically male positions because they perpetuate a male dominated society, then what would you have us do?” No, Ms Jacobs, you are wrong again. I AM a professor, and I have made it my career to interrogate the meaning of that from within the professoriate. Google me and see for yourself. I challenge the image of what a professor ought to be and do every day. YOU simply repeat the same male-privileging pro-extraction line of your male colleagues. I reflect an academic profession that is sexist and has much to change–especially in philosophy. I take risks to make out these arguments. You reflect only the party line of an industry that is poisoning the very women you claim to emulate. You risk nothing. Well, there’s your health–but that’s the risk to which your money-making venture exposes all of us.
    I don’t disagree with you, Ms. Jacobs. I expose you. I have shown that you are both deeply wrong in your assessment of the facts, and that you–for the sake of making money and getting to pretend you have a secure place with “the boys”–are deluded.”

    Nicole Jacobs:

    “Well Wendy, I had to stop laughing long enough to be able to respond. What’s funny is it’s not what you say about me that upsets me, it’s what you represent for the educational system and the ever existing debate on whether student tuition is being spent appropriately. It’s evident just from the responses you post to us that you are the type of professor who does not seek to educate students on how to think rationally, as is the purpose of philosophy, but rather the type that condescends, preaches to, and leaves no room for argument. I truly feel sorry for any males in your classroom and any females who do not buy into the notion that anything we do will not be good enough because there will always be a man doing better.
    Now onto your actual argument. You dislike what we do because you claim we are selling out and helping spread cancer. You say I am “reflect[ing] only the party line of an industry that is poisoning the very women you claim to emulate.” But isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? Wendy you sound like a parrot spewing Josh Fox nonsense. Even Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which you condescend upon in your paper, says cancer rates are not on the rise in areas of development.
    Opponents of fracking say breast cancer rates have spiked exactly where intensive drilling is taking place — and nowhere else in the state. The claim is used in a letter that was sent to New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo by environmental groups and by Josh Fox, the Oscar-nominated director of “Gasland,” a film that criticizes the industry. Fox, who lives in Brooklyn, has a new short film called “The Sky is Pink.”
    But researchers haven’t seen a spike in breast cancer rates in the area, said David Lee, a professor of medical anthropology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
    David Risser, an epidemiologist with the Texas Cancer Registry, said in an email that researchers checked state health data and found no evidence of an increase in the counties where the spike supposedly occurred.
    And Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a major cancer advocacy group based in Dallas, said it sees no evidence of a spike, either. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/experts-some-fracking-critics-use-bad-science.
    I for one believe those trained in the medical profession and those who make it their daily purpose to find a cure for a disease that has touched each and every one of us far more than a professor of philosophy that seems to still be stuck in the cave studying shadows. Come up with another party line to spew, Wendy. That one’s getting old.
    As for not taking risks. I’m not worried when I go on a well site quite frankly, but I take risks every day as a result of proudly giving my opinion and sharing facts on this website. Ask some of your fellow Josh Fox followers about the threats they send us for speaking up. Ask them about those they send the landowners and elected officials who speak up. And yet we continue on because we believe in this industry and what it means for our communities.
    I’ll say it again, I am proud of the degree I earned from the very state system you disgrace, my professors are proud of what I have done with my degree since graduation and even ask me to come speak/have their students send me questions, I am proud to have a job in an economy where far too many are so not so fortunate and I am proud of the work I do every day. If I wasn’t I wouldn’t work here. I don’t look to a man to justify my standing, although their criticisms are just as welcome as my female colleagues. When my partner and I decide to have children and decide whether he or I will stay home with them or both of us will continue to work, I’ll be proud of that decision as well. You see, I don’t look at my relationships whether professional or personal to see what male is holding me back, I view my male counterparts as equals and my work ethic and drive has led them to view me the same. I don’t play the victim card because I’m a female, I strive to overcome that historical stigma and prove my worth the same as any male is required to do. Your ideology is flawed at best and whether you respond or not, I am done with this conversation. The circles, the misinformation, the fear you spread may work on students still figuring out who they are in this world, but quite frankly I find them lacking in intellectual stimulation, nonsensical, and not worth my time. I will end with a quote of a rather angry follower of ours:
    “You know you’ve got them worried when they can’t stop talking about you.””

    My response:

    “Unable or, more likely, unwilling to comprehend the difference between politics and pedagogy, Ms. Jacobs makes the wildly unsubstantiated claim that because I have taken the time to patiently and thoroughly laid out the abysmal failures of Mr. Massaro’s argument, Ms. Jacob’s and Ms. Colley’s defense of their complicity in fracking, Mr. Shepstone’s lackluster response menu, etc., that I must be a dictatorial professor, and a “disgrace” to my university.
    One response: COME AND SEE. Sign up for a class. Or even just show up for a class. Any class. Any time. No need to give me heads up. Happy to have you participate. More than happy to post you the course syllabi. I’ll make it even easier for you:
    Spring, 2013:
    Introduction to Philosophy: T/R 9:30-10:45, 11-12:15
    Philosophy of Ecology: T/R 2-3:15.
    Contemporary Moral Problems: W, 5-8.
    And if you’d like to see my student evaluations, my peer reviews, my curriculum vitae, my professional publication record, you let me know.
    The gauntlet is down, Ms. Jacobs. Don’t bother with excuses to wriggle out. We both know your bosses at EID would be thrilled for you to come.
    As for breast cancer and fracking, let’s review:
    http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/chemicals-linked-to-breast-cancer/air-water/
    “Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking): Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, is a process used to increase production in oil and natural gas wells. More recently, fracking has been used in combination with horizontal drilling through shale layers to reach natural gas reserves that were previously not easily accessed. Large quantities of water and other fluids are pumped into the ground at high pressure, which causes rock to break and allows gas to be extracted. Fracking fluids can contain chemicals linked to breast cancer, including known and suspected carcinogens such as benzene and toluene, and endocrine-disrupting compounds such as the phthalate DEHP. Evidence is beginning to emerge that these chemicals may contaminate underground water sources. In addition, waste water containing fracking fluids, bromine salts (which interfere with wastewater treatment), minerals and radioactivity from deep in the earth flows back out of wells and must be stored and disposed of safely. There have been a number of spills of fracking waste water, and underground storage of this waste has been implicated in the increased incidence of earthquakes around some storage wells. A summary of the chemicals used in fracking can be found here.”
    From the CDC: http://www.realnatural.org/2011/10/22/breast-cancer-rises-near-fracking/
    “The Centers for Disease Control has recently reported that while breast cancer rates have been slowly falling in recent years, they are on the rise in several natural gas production counties in Texas. The counties, including Denton County and five surrounding counties, has been the home to the largest concentration of natural gas production, according to a 2010 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report, which inventoried natural gas production emission sources in 24 counties among the Barnett Shale.
    It just so happened that the cancer hike was exclusive to the same counties that had the highest concentration of natural gas production equipment and emissions – which are known to utilize a number of toxic solvents and other chemicals for their natural gas ‘fracking’ production according to some scientists.
    It also so happens that while the rest of Texas and the U.S. on average is experiencing lower cancer rates, rates are up in these six counties: Denton, Hood, Johnson, Parker, Tarrant and Wise counties. These six counties contain about 3 million people within a 5,000 square mile area.
    Breast cancer rates have been falling nationally over the last few years according to the National Cancer Institute. Between 1975 to 1999, breast cancers rose from 103 per 100,000 people to 141 per 100,000. Then the rates dropped since 1999, to 127 per 100,000 in 2008 – the last yearly data published by the Institute.
    Meanwhile, according to the Texas Cancer Registry, breast cancer rates among these six counties in Texas has risen by nearly 20% from 2005 to 2008.
    Research has increasingly found that breast cancer is linked to toxins. These have included smoking, synthetic hormones and other toxins according to the American Cancer Society. Most experts also agree that poor diet and lack of antioxidants also significantly relate to breast cancer. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Cancer Institute have been funding the Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program, which studies causitive elements at laboratories on the east coast and west coast.
    “Finding cancer clusters has a very limited application in understanding environmental exposure, since statistical research methods work better when studying things that are big,” Julia Brody, executive director of the Silent Spring Institute, told a Denton Record-Chronicle reporter. The Silent Spring Institute is a research group that studies breast cancer risk. The group has found a number of associations between toxins such as solvents and fuel compounds and breast cancer.
    Natural gas production has been under fire for their use of potentially toxic chemicals, which they use during the process of drilling through shale using a process called “fracking.” Many states, such as New York, are seeking to limit the amount of potential exposure to these toxins during the production of natural gas. Robert F. Kennedy has reported recently on these efforts.
    Medical researchers are currently trying to nail down the precise causes for the uptick in breast cancer rates among these counties – and are closely looking at natural gas production chemical exposure.”
    You claim to be interested in the science–but you’ll now deny the Center for Disease Control. Hypocrisy. Bought and paid for.”

    Rachael Colley:

    “Just who gave you the right to decide who can call me by my first name or not, Ms. Lee? And, by the way, you calling him Mr. Massaro is exactly what you are preaching against isn’t it? Isn’t calling him by a formal name showing you feel inferior? “Yes mister,” “okay sir.” Do your friends call you by their last name? Do you refer to your friends as Mr. and Mrs.?
    Let me also point out to you my education is in economics. I have taken several classes discussing the glass ceiling and the traditional roles of men and women in the workplace. I chose not to be a nurse or kindergarten teacher, as have you, which, again, demonstrates the tradition roles are changing. I am also not a self-proclaimed feminist. I currently hold a position where I make the same amount of money as my male coworker and I am extremely proud of that. Joe (and, yes, I can and do refer to him as “Joe”) is not a knight in shining armor; rather, he is my coworker and my equal. He and I work hand in hand together on projects, something perhaps you’ve not experienced, by the sound of it. I am not inferior to Joe, nor is he to me. We don’t refer to each other as mister and miss, because, quite simply we are friends and equals. It’s as simple as that and the fact you can’t understand that says more about you than me or Joe.
    You say the following in your comment:
    “Marxist, Atheist, feminist, vegetarian, union activist, queer, animal welfare theorist – and one of the most reliable, hard-working, publishing professors BU has. Want to discuss my commitment to my university with my university president? Call him: 570-389-4674.” That’s exactly right, Mr. Massaro–and unless you’re a homophobic, misogynist, anti-collective bargaining bigot, you’ll find everything in that list is something to be proud of–indeed to celebrate as excellent avenues of intellectual investigation and opportunities for freedom of expression in a democracy.”
    Nowhere do I read where he degrades you for any of that. If you take this reiteration of your own comment personally, you are the one making the argument it is something to be ashamed of, not Joe. If you aren’t, there would be no point in bringing it up at all. Why do you feel you need to defend it, if you are so “proud,” when Joe expresess no opinion on it?
    You then say “By Mr. Massaro’s reasoning, we’d still be living under Jim Crow segregation and women (say, “Rachael”) would still be in the kitchen making his dinner and pumping out “his” babies. I have no reason to think that he’d have thought these movements just as “childish” as he thinks the anti-fracking movement.”
    Again, this is another example of you making assumptions, thinking people will fall for every word. Please, Ms. Lee, tell us where in any blog post, or anywhere else, where you have read Joe discuss Rachael in the kitchen making dinner and pumping out babies (which is such a classy way to say bearing children by the way)? You can’t find it anywhere? Well, surprise, surprise, surprise! You’ll have to do a lot better than that if you want to put words or thoughts into people’s head.
    You also say “But the notion that because there as a smoker at this protest means that it is somehow morally unobjectionable that benzene is used in a process that could expose women UNKNOWINGLY to a carcinogen identified in breast cancer is absurd. That second hand smoke is a source of benzene exposure has led to the regulation of cigarette smoking in closed spaces. GOOD. Now why doesn’t Mr. Massaro apply that same reasoning to fracking?”
    Regardless where people are smoking, they are preaching against the things they are doing themselves. Why doesn’t the same reasoning apply? Natural gas is explored outside, not inside, so, there, problem solved, correct? Well, according to the argument you just made my statement would be.
    You are clearly a feminist who feels she is right in every aspect of everything and determined to impose her views on everyone else. I know you are digging for a “thank you for protecting my feminism, because Joe is so degrading” but I am not going to feed obsession. You try to turn women against men in nearly every comment you make. Unfortunately for you, you wouldn’t be where you are without men. You have had male teachers, professors, and family members, maybe you should thank them instead of degrading them as you claim they do us.”

    My response:

    “Ms. Colley, you are ranting.
    1. Mr. Massaro would not have printed any of the list about my commitments did he not know his audience could be manipulated via their own conservative ideologies. You know that. I know that–so let’s stop playing that game, shall we?
    2. Please read my post to Ms. Jacobs. It applies to you just as well.
    3. Mr. Massaro provides no reason whatever for his reader to think he’d not have rejected the civil rights movement as childish. And if there’s any difference, it’s not one he can defend. maybe he likes civil rights and hated fracking, but of you think THESE are reasons, your education has failed you.
    4. I don’t make assumptions, Ms. Colley. I offer arguments. And my arguments decimate Mr. Massaro’s piece. You also seem not to get irony. “Pumping out babies” is a way of referring to the patriarchal institutions and ideologies that entitle Mr. Massaro–and in fact demean YOU—whether you get that or not. Why? Because you are contributing to an industry that strengthens the entitlements of all the men in power over it–and they are virtually ALL men. If you think you can rise to the position of an Aubry McClendon under the current conditions, you are sadly mistaken. And if you think that THAT is a worthy aspiration given the cancered bodies of women you’ll have to trample to get there–you are deluded.
    5. Colley’s reasoning about smoking: “Smoking is bad. Some of the people who protest fracking smoke. Both fracking and smoking involve benzene. Benzene is a carcinogen. So since both involve benzene, and we do one we should do both.” How ridiculous! We should do NEITHER MS. Colley. And this is true by your own admission that smoking is bad. You’re just so apparently blinded by your monied devotion to EID, you refuse to see this.
    6. Fallacy of ridicule and dismissal: Ms. Colley, “You are clearly a feminist who feels she is right in every aspect of everything and determined to impose her views on everyone else.” This amounts to the claim that you, Ms. Colley, don’t like what I have to say so you, Ms. Colley, are going to claim I’m stinky.” No one believes this nonsense about themselves. And even were it true, it’s irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves. Fracking causes cancer–and especially cancer that could affect women YOU know and love. But YOU have chosen to disregard this and promote an industry whose actions are not only implicated in this cancer–but use YOU as their front to gender-sanitize the fact that their poisoning us.
    As for looking for a “thank you,” don’t be daft.”

    And I am done with these threads. To the possible criticism that I have been rough on Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Colley–no. I HAVE treated them as the equals of their male counter parts. Equally deluded. Equally bought off. Equally (if not more) dangerous.

    Wendy Lynne Lee

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      More and more bizarre – not even worth addressing, Wendy. Sorry.

  28. Caitlyn says:

    I agree with Michael. The only people who read this are anti-fracking activists and industry shills.

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      And, you, apparently, along with about 70-80,000 other folks ever month.

  29. Ourland says:

    First: Ourland, you offer common sense,however common sense isn’t so common.
    Second:Micheal Fitgerald,
    There is no debate….. The world needs Oil and Gas, even with the best technology on sustainable s you still have harmful impact.
    Unless you consider components made in other countries without regulations a non impact.
    Your argument offers no solid solution. Your percentage of concerned citizens continues to drop. This can be attributed to your misinformation and alarmist behavior. I wish we could attribute more to our out reach program. But it is your side of the “ debate” that has converted a larger percent. When the fear campaign first started you captivated peoples attention Josh Fox’s Gas Land , The Flaming faucets, The Brown Jug and even Wendy’s hate for free enterprise allowing such transactions of purchasing a trailer park. Over the next few years America will turn to harvesting more domestic energy under the tightest guidelines and regulations in the world. Even as corrupt as you think we are with BIG business running the show. Surplus will be shipped off to other countries America will become exporters again. Mans ingenuity will continue to try and create immaculate energy.
    Third: Wendy Lee and others will always have the 25% to sustain their existence by way of offer no solutions just conspiracy and hate striving for a utopia that is as obtainable as finding the end of a rainbow.

  30. Mike Knapp says:

    The real environmentalists are working with companies to make a real difference. Not whining to sympathetic audiences on the Internet to fluff their egos and further fuel their deluded and undeserved sense of supeority.

    • Analogy 1: The real doctors are working with the cigarette manufacturers to make safe nicotine cigarettes. Real doctors don’t whine on about how smoking is dangerous for you and can cause cancer! How egoistic of them! No, doctors who whine about how smoking is a cause of lung cancer are just deluded–how dare they tell us the facts. A doctor who tells me that smoking could kill me is just fluffing his ego! They just think knowledge makes them superior.

      Analogy 2: The real doctors are working with fast food corporations to make safe Whoppers. Real doctors don’t whine on about Type 2 Diabetes and how eating too much fat can lead to corroded arteries. How egoistic! No, real doctors would work with Burger King to make a Whopper that came with all the deliciousness of the Whopper–but none of the worry about the heart attack. They just think that knowledge about how that much fat sets you up for coronary artery disease makes them superior.

      Analogy 3: The real pharmacist works with Big Pharma. She/he doesn’t whine on about how anti-depressants are addictive, and about how counseling or therapy might be better. No, she works with BIg Pharma to deliver you to the best drugs in the most efficient way. Who needs counseling when there’s Prozac? Any doctor who says that drugs that make Big Pharma. raft loads of money isn’t what best for you is just fluffing his ego!

      Analogy 4: The real DEP agents work with Big Extraction. They don’t whine on about how fracking is dangerous from frack to compression to transport to global export. No! Real DEP agents work with Big Extraction to exclude crucial water test results, wait as long as possible to conduct investigations, allow operations to get back underway after explosions before its safe. Yes, real DEP agents work effectively as a public relations firm for Big Extraction. How egoistic that anyone would blow the whistle! Doing your job is just more ego-fluffing!How deluded!

      Analogy 5: The real biologists work with the creationists to come up with an account of human origins that accords with a 6ooo year old earth. Real biologists don’t whine on about how geology shows that the earth is billions of years old or about how natural selection can account for that pesky fossil evidence better than any appeal to the Bible ever could. No! Real biologists call fossils rocks!

      Just like frackers call carcinogen laced water “produced,” compressed frack waste “cake,” and pipeline ruptures “inadvertent returns to surface.”

      Once you’ve got a comfy sounding euphemism, you’ve got an audience you can sell all sorts of poop to.

      But just as each of these analogies highlights an absurdity that no reasoning person would accept. so too the notion that the real environmentalist is the person who works with the polluters is absurd.

      It’s like saying that the real Jesus is the one who offers up his family for execution to the Romans.

      That might be Knapp’s Jesus, but it’s not mine.

  31. Joe Smith says:

    Wendy is a hater…………..hates free enterprise, free markets, free thought, and freedom. And she hates whomever disagrees with her radical, leftist position.

  32. Sigmund Freud, says:

    “Marxist, Atheist, feminist, vegetarian, union activist, queer, animal welfare theorist – and one of the most reliable, hard-working, publishing professors BU has. Want to discuss my commitment to my university with my university president?

    Wow , This raging chick is whacked! I wonder how her co-workers feel now they have been dub “inferior”? I can honestly say, I have never heard a more jaded,negative,malevolence rant in my life. I have been face to face with some real haters, this is over the top. The only reason you might be able to hold onto your position would be by pure hardcore fear and intimidation with concern for psycho backlash.

    After a rant like that I would jump out a window to get away from you, even if a door was closer. You scare me and add a new visual to the names Wendy, Lee, Lynn. To think you are in the education field. I think our military could use you in the front lines with a bullhorn. Attila the Hun has nothing on you.You are as dark inside as your scavenger crow/raven tattoos on the outside.

    • Dean Marshall says:

      I would bet the farm, (as so many have done via mineral rights leasing), that Sigmund Freud

      is spinning in his sepulcher at the use of his name by such an obvious anti-intellectual.

      First and foremost is the ad homenim name-calling that aside from being immature and

      irrelavent, exposes the ( Freudian slip-up ?) that the writer may have a problem with women,

      especially those who are educated and not afraid to voice their opinion under their actual

      name. Yes…an assumption on my part….sobeit. One might further conclude that the

      cowardly use of a pseudonym in these attack reveals a lack of genuine factual input that

      pertains to the matter at hand. Methinks this slinger of barbs may have some sort of EIDipus

      Complex, (Pun intended…ok…look it up), and hopes to continue suckling at the Fossil Fuel

      Teet by way of chimeing in on blogs where he (or she) is unarmed in such a battle of wits.

      Oops…..personal attacks seem to be contagious here! I apologize.

      One thing is certain here, the assertion Dr. Lee made was that she was “One of the ….” Not

      that she feels superior to any of her peers. These purposely divisive rants that are intended

      discredit logical opinions are so transparent and telling. They tell of a ideology with little or

      no real service to any but the greedy profiteers and a frustration they feel when confronted by

      the truth. Begone Sir Feud….er ah…”Freud” Leave room for a debate of the issues.

  33. Delightful to meet you Mr./Ms. “Freud.” I’ll look forward to your making good on your need to jump out windows to get away from me. My Philosophy of Ecology course is on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 2-3:15 in the afternoon, Spring term. Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. The class is, however, on the second floor–so you might want to sit by the door instead. Or, you could decide you’d like to learn something. Your call.

    Looking forward to meeting you–of course, you’ll have to use your real name so I can get you on my class roster.

    Wendy Lynne Lee

  34. Sigmund Freud, says:

    Dean,Wendy
    One thing is for certain your infinite wisdom never brings a plan to the table. The rants expose your total incompetents to hydrocarbons. You cannot practice what you preach the use of your hydrocarbon base tablet,laptop,desktop or phone to convey a message is an example. Keep supporting what it is that you despise and protest. Here is a word for you to look up (Hypocrite). I’m am sure you can pronounce it and have used it before,however I think its one of those simple words you never really understood.
    If I had to take a guess I would say Dean is also in the education field. Like Wendy he probable never held a real job and if he did it didn’t last long so out of panic he became a “teacher”. Or the real world scared him and he directly entered into the education field. The best professors I ever had were retired from the working class field and true experts in their field. When you google them it would show their tangible contribution to our world. However this isn’t the case here, your self esteem is built by engaging unsuspecting youth . We refer to you as, “those that cant teach”.
    The comment from Ourland is correct you set no examples and offer no solutions. For the same reason you ended up in the education career …you cant. EID is not a sight for you stay in the shallows. The capitalist revenue generators of America is way to deep for you both. We will continue to invest in this country and make money, send our youth on to higher education to become “productive” and along the way that will also support your existence.

    • Dean Marshall says:

      Dear misguided Sir and /or madam,
      Incompetents to hydrocarbons? What language is this? I am sorry, but I am not fluent in Idiot-speak. I must say you seem to have it down tho.

      As far as the hypocrite barb, Ouch! That is so hurtful-Not! Whereas everyone on the planet who is not a primitive aborigine hiding in the jungle or perhaps a castaway on a dessert isle, uses or is going to use fossil fuel, plastic, fertilizer, drugs, paints, cosmetics and/or consume food grown,transported, preserved and prepared by these products…..ergo, we are All “hypocrites”. We all want and need the modern convienances we have been provided by industry and innovation which has and always will be fueled by profit motive ie; Greed.

      That said, I assure you I am not some Ludite who wishes the destruction of our “advanced” society and lifestyle. I have Campaigned for a sane Energy Policy since the early 1970’s when arrogant Corporations like DOW and Hooker Chem. and Union Carbide engendered a spike in rare cancers by pumping Love Canal near my WNY home with their Toxic waste.

      Back then there were few regs. and even fewer Agencies to enforce the ones there were! People died. Fish and non-human animals died. Water supplies were tainted and generations of residents were sickened. So my Early political leanings were certainly for stricter controls of Hazardous Waste, Air /water Pollution sources, and Corporate Cover-ups. I recall marches and petitions for cleaner, renewable energy and especially this new Solar Technology.
      Now, some 40 yrs have passed and the International, Corporate Juggernaut whirls away, buying out innovations that threaten their grip on our wallets and purchasing our Politicians to hamstring the enforcement of environmental Regs. that might make the World safer, but cut into their bottom line. The Poison piles up and the People get sick……nothing learned in 40 yrs!

      My “Plan” is simple: Immediately rescind ALL Taxpayer Subsidies to hugely Profitable Polluters prolonging the folly of finite fossil fuel production and divert those funds to research/Development/implementation of clean renewable energy.

      Increase the manpower at all levels of EPA and State Depts. of Environmental Quality

      Increase the Fines, Penalties and Jail Sentences for Corporate Polluters

      Mandate Fuel Mileage Standards that will cost the industry enough they will begin to Mass

      Produce Electric Vehicles rechargable by Solar and other Green energy sources

      Begin NOW to energize the grid with a steadily growing percentage of Green Energy as we Phase OUT Oil,Coal, AND GAS fired dirty power plants.

      and Finally, Shrink the Military Budget and learn to co-exist in this Global Socio-economic Emergency by leading the world in the effort to Save the world from the effects of toxic waste, WARS fueled by Oil Dependency, and Starvation of the impoverished left in the wake of this Greedy, Oily Stench that folks like YOU applaud!

      Just FYI SIGGY, I dropped out of 9th Grade to support myself and help my family. As a teen I was a Newsboy, Janitor, Busboy, Farm Laborer, Lawn care and Snow Shoveler near Buffalo NY.
      I went to Auto Mech Trng. and Got my GED in 1972 after a brief shot at Deisel Mech. in Job Corps.
      I began my career in MFG. when I turned 18, and have worked in heavy industry for the 40 yrs since as a Laborer, Utility Man, Printing Press Asst., and then Combination Welder /Fabricator. I have built Semi Trailers, Modular Homes, Railcars, Submarines, and machinery of all kinds. On the side, I did landscaping, maintenance of rental properties,and various other carpentry jobs. I have broken my ribs, ruptured my Lumbar Discs, mashed my hands and crippled my knees, developed hearing loss, arthritis, and poor eyesight……not to mention a double hernia,(untreated) and recently a torn Thoracic nerve in rt. shoulder.
      Inspite of the above, I am still on the job as lead Welder/Fabricator/Asst. Draftsman!
      You see, aside from training new hires and wanna-be welders over the years, and a single semester as an Instructor at an Assoc. Degree Welding School, I am Not an “Educator” as you ASSumed.

      I think I may have educated You just a bit and hope you will think twice before labeling someone you could have no way of knowing on any level apart from these blogs. BTW, Wendy is my Partner and I doubt you know beans about her either so why not be a grown-up and say you are sorry. I believe in second chances…..but I won’t tolerate anyone abusing her or demeaning her dedication to education.

  35. Wendy Lynne Lee says:

    Quick note for “Sigmund Freud”: You’ll want to sign up for the Philosophy of Ecology Course soon! It’s almost closed! You don’t want to miss out on the course field trip opportunities!

    Bring your real name–and leave your firearms at home (I’ll not allow them in my classroom).

    Here’s a little reading for you:

    http://www.ragingchickenpress.org/2012/10/07/the-industrialization-of-passhe-where-the-public-good-its-students-and-its-faculty-are-auctioned-off-to-the-extraction-profiteers/

    Cheers!

    Wendy

    PS: I am posting your amazingly insightful comments all over the Internet–I’m sure you’ll enjoy loads of others reading them.

  36. katherine colley says:

    Ms. Wendy Lee,

    I wish all the parents of your students could read what it is you write. You invite people to call your university president and visit the university so sure you will be warmly recognized. I doubt that would be the case. I implore all parents reading what you scratch out to take you up on that one for the benefit of all the students who are subjected to your message.

  37. You bet, Ms. Colley. I hope they do exactly that. Because then they’ll decide to put their young adult children in front of just the kind of role-model that will encourage them to value truth, examine their own assumptions, open their minds, laugh at themselves, and care about the world beyond their own. I AM that role model–as are the vast majority of my PASSHE colleagues. Don’t believe me? Ask my students. Indeed, ask their parents. Even better:
    COME TO ANY OF MY CLASSES.
    ANY TIME.
    NO ADVANCE NOTICE REQUIRED.
    NO NEED TO LAY DOWN MONEY.
    JUST COME.
    FILM IF YOU’D LIKE.

    And then be prepared to be embarrassed by your gross failure to distinguish between my life as an activist and my life as a professor.

Speak Your Mind

*