Bill Van Slyke, in his commentary ("Fracking doesn't include the risks of war," Feb. 20), puts into perspective a classic dilemma involved in most, if not all, new technological developments. Oil is a great energy source but also a great polluter of land, water and air. Natural gas is better, and we have a great deal of it. The real issue he raises is the question of whether "highly localized risk" is manageable.
Balancing dollar cost against the cost in lives to defend foreign sources is profoundly different than most debates about the cost of pollution control here at home. Can anyone calculate the value of human lives lost in defending supplies for us at home, who only pay more dollars for energy? That cost would only go to zero when no soldiers are defending foreign energy supplies. Reducing the use of foreign energy sources becomes a matter of lives saved.
There is one other issue: Without data to support it, I would wager that we all use much more water than gasoline or gas. One of the major concerns in the use of fracking is the likelihood of contaminating underground water supplies due to leaking pipes and/or faulty installation of those pipes. Once contaminated, it would be difficult and expensive to repurify the water.
Fortunately, fracking now has a significant history of experience to guide improved standards for the drilling and piping process. A significant cost of the proper use of the resource will be a diligent inspection program, during installation and use.
Knowing every day that foreign sources of energy must be protected costs lives, our government leaders are tasked with deciding how soon the new energy sources can be brought online while protecting consumers and the environment. They need all the support they can get to make the right choices.
ANGELO DOUNOUCOS
Delmar