Stemming off of last week’s post about fracking, this week’s post will focus on one of the major issues that fracking brings to the table: water use. One of the major issues with fracking was that it pollutes large volumes of water; yet, if water is a renewable resource and no new water is created nor destroyed, then why is water pollution such an impending issue on the environment? Is it actually such a massive issue, or is it exaggerated?

Recently, in Harrisburg, PA, the Department of Environmental Protection agreed to a certain type of settlement that agrees to reduce the extent in which water is polluted by coal fired power plants. Many of these power plants release different types of metals into the water sources, which include but are not limited to: arsenic, a well-known carcinogen, cadmium, lead, and mercury, which are all highly toxic as well. These pollutants can infiltrate the sources of water through the discharge of raw sewage, chemicals from other factories, agricultural run-offs causing red tides or toxic algal blooms, simple urbanization, oil spills, acid rain, fossil fuel burning, or human litter. The pollution of metal and other toxic chemicals into water supplies is an extreme issue because it is awfully difficult to remove many of these pollutants from the water, in order to make it fit for consumption.

For example, many are familiar with the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Here, there were dangerous levels of lead present in the water supplies in residents’ homes. The water was undrinkable, attributed to the fact that energy source companies polluted the water supplies of many locations in the Flint area. The pollution of water is an environmental concern because the water may never become filtered ever again. With unfiltered water that contains lead and other pollutants, residents could suffer from dehydration from the lack of water, they may not be able to bathe or even wash their hands, and could negatively affect gene expression and the frontal cortex. Thus, lead is known as a pollutant and the EPA limits the amount of lead in drinking water due to all of the adverse health effects.

Not only does pollution in water make it undrinkable, but it also negatively affects the wild life in the area. For instance, in the area where the coal power plant is continuously polluting the water in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, many fear that the fish in the streams are ingesting the pollutants in high amounts. By contaminating water that fish live in, their habitats are destroyed and humans are murdering these fish. As innocent species of wildlife that live in water are killed for no reason, not even for dietary purposes, biodiversity will be limited and fish species could become endangered. Not only can this pollution kill the fish living in the bodies of water, limited the food supply, but the fish can actually stay alive, even while ingesting these pollutants. The fish store the pollutants such as lead or cadmium in their fatty tissue, which humans consume when they eat the fish. Therefore, humans are, in hand, consuming lead and other pollutants by eating the fish. The fish are toxic and can kill the humans, even though the humans are not drinking the polluted water directly.

Another negative aspect of water pollution is that you can simply acquire common sicknesses. Some of these common illnesses include vomiting, diarrhea, stomach aches, or skin rashes. In some severe cases of consuming contaminated or polluted drinking water, some types of cancer can ensue such as leukemia. In other severe cases, reproductive problems, such as infertility, or developmental problems such as learning disabilities can occur after drinking vast amounts of polluted water.

While the countless negative aspects of contaminated or polluted water, health concerns in particular, some argue that the effects of polluting water are exaggerated. During the 2015 Republican primary elections before the 2016 presidential election, many candidates supported this argument. Marco Rubio, in particular, aimed to eliminate most of the regulations that weigh heavy on companies that pollute bodies of water. During an interview, Rubio said that he does not believe that the dramatic changes to the Earth’s environment can be attributed to the activity of humans.

In addition, Fox News has stated in several interviews that they believe that water pollution actually HELPS the environment. They claim that pollution to the water actually helps grow forests in the southeastern part of the United States. Huge corporate companies are actually benefitting and profiting from exploiting water resources and polluting it. Thus, companies will contaminate water because they can make more money from doing so.

Clearly, the cons of polluting sources of water outweigh the pros of contaminating bodies of water. Why do people still contaminate water if there are so many issues with doing so? Corporate interests, cheaper energy, and misinformation by politicians. Is cheaper energy worth the tradeoff of the possibility of the elimination of fish, reduction of available drinking water, and several human diseases? Visit my blog next week as I discuss more impending environmental civic issues!