If You Can’t Find Evidence Of An Environmental Disaster, Just Make It Up

Schilke-for-web1

Jacki Schilke is a western North Dakota rancher who has gotten a lot of attention from left-wing environmental activists and media publications. Starting last year, Schilke began claiming that oil development around her property was killing her cattle and pets. I wrote about one of the YouTube videos she put out last November.

I did some investigating on that video, and found out from Lynn Helms, Director of the North Dakota Industrial Commission’s Department of Mineral Resources, that they were aware of Schilke’s claims and were attempting to investigate but she wouldn’t allow it at the time. “I recognize the voice on the video as an individual who has refused to allow the Department of Health access to medical records or to collect samples of water and air,” Helms told me in an email.

It seems that this is a theme with Schilke. The Dickinson Press has published a profile of Schilke and her environmental claims and at first blush it seems pretty convincing:

WILLISTON, N.D. – Jacki Schilke likes to say her black angus cattle live in harmony with the cats and dogs on her rural Williston ranch.

But recently, Schilke’s ranch has not been in harmony with oil development expanding around her 160 acres.

Five cows, one bull, two dogs and as many as two dozen farm cats have died in the past two years, and Schilke worries the dozens of oil wells within three miles of her ranch could be to blame.

Word of the health problems at Schilke’s ranch has gotten the attention of environmentalists as well as other ranchers trying to co-exist in western North Dakota’s new landscape. …

Schilke said she didn’t start out looking to point fingers at the oil industry. The 54-year-old spent seven years working in exploratory drilling in the 1980s, and her husband, Steve, now works in the oil industry.

“I have never been against the oil field,” Schilke said. “It was my bread and butter.”

But as oil activity increased around the home they’ve lived in since 2007, Schilke and her husband began having their own health problems and noticing the decline of their animals’ health.

They had four cattle that lost the ends of their tails before they either died or were shot by her husband to end their suffering.

“It’s the most horrible thing to watch in your life,” Schilke said. “You beat your brain trying to figure it out. It’s devastating.”

Ok, so what evidence do we have that Schilke’s claims are true? Almost nothing other than her own testimony, since she won’t provide any:

Keller said she offered to assist Schilke last year with testing but didn’t receive a response.

“If we’ve got something like that going on … for the sake of the neighbors, I’d really like to know if there are some legitimate contamination issues,” said Keller, adding that the offer still stands.

Schilke said she doesn’t recall hearing from Keller or anyone from the state veterinarian’s office.

But she added that she would not consider working with the state veterinarian’s office or a similar office from an oil-producing state because she doesn’t believe she’d get objective information.

Instead, Schilke said she has worked with an independent environmental consultant from Texas and veterinarians at Cornell University and Iowa State University. Autopsies of two cats that became ill and died ruled they died of asphyxiation, Schilke said.

Schilke said she attempted to have autopsies performed on her cattle, but local veterinarians didn’t have time to promptly collect the necessary samples. Schilke said she has had hair and blood testing on her cattle.

However, she declined to provide a copy of the test results, autopsy reports or veterinary records because she has been advised by an attorney not to share that information because it could be important to a future legal case.

So, Schilke won’t work with state officials on this matter, choosing instead to work only with sources sympathetic to her environmental cause.

And as an update from last yet, it appears as though Schilke is now allowing the Department of Health to investigate the matter, but the problem is they can’t find anything wrong with the environment where Schilke is living:

The North Dakota Department of Health, the Oil and Gas Division of the Department of Mineral Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency have investigated Schilke’s concerns and continue to do more testing.

“We’re having a hard time connecting the issues she’s having with her livestock with any environmental problem,” said Kris Roberts, environmental geologist with the Department of Health’s Division of Water Quality. “That’s not to say there isn’t one, we just haven’t been able to find it.”

Perhaps it’s time for a different tact in this investigation. Someone ought to look into whether or not Schilke is harming her own animals as a part of her environmental activism. Because that’s my guess.

What’s truly irksome about this fraud – because that’s what I believe it to be – is that it’s a distraction from a more level-headed debate we should be having about the impact of oil development in western, ND. That part of the state is going through a major phase of industrialization, and not everyone participating in it is as scrupulous in terms exercising good environmental practices as they should be. We need to be on guard against that sort of behavior.

But wild-eyed stories about dead animals and human suffering caused by all development, offered with almost no evidence and without similar problems occurring for any of the other hundreds of thousands of people who live in the oil patch, doesn’t help.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Captornado

    Sounds like a bull snake and possibly a mountain lion problem.

    • bigdaddybernie

      Sounds like a liberal/progressive problem ! . . . . .Give ‘em enough vote buying money and their shakedown, just, vanishes !

      • dakotacyr

        Still whining over your thrashing at the polls this year, eh Bernie!

  • mikemc1970

    Liberals aren’t interested in the truth or facts, unless it supports their made up claims. What they want is to see their ideology intacted and no cost is too high or dear.

    • guest

      100% agree. At the same time not all Republicans have the purest intentions either. Politics is about money, power, and special interests. Public good comes second. Examples are the fiscal cliff in Washington, higher education in North Dakota, billions of dollars spent during the last presidential campaign, and on and on and on.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        I agree with this.

        Sometimes politics seems less about ideas than about replacing their crooks with our crooks.

        • guest

          Exactly. This all circles back to the dialogue about what the Republican party will stand for moving forward. The party is fractured into segments i.e. moderate, conservative, tea party while the Democrats are more unified. It’s difficult to decipher a liberal Democrat and a conservative Democrat. The debate always shifts to conservative Republicans needing to embrace the center, whereas it is never the opposite. That is a major disadvantage for the Republican party as we head into the future.

          • Nd in MD

            will need work through issues and decide who they are and what they stand for.

          • ND in MD

            One reason it is hard to find a conservative or moderate democrats is because they are a very few and far between, there are no moderates or conservatives Democrats in leadership positions. Today, the democrat party is solidly under the control of its fringe, extreme left wing – people like Zell Miller, Scoop Jackson, San Nunn, etc. have been marginalized or driven from that party.

            You are right, Republicans, just like the democrats a few years ago – prior to their emergence under the leadership of its extreme, fringe left wing – who underwent an identity crises of their own will need work through issues and decide who they are and what they stand for.

          • Guest

            What a f*cking hack, the same thing happened in the Republican party. Demint single handily drove out moderate Republicans like Specter and Lugar. Only sh*thed like would ignore such a blatant double standard.

      • mikemc1970

        Environmentalism is an international socialist movement that seeks nothing short of America becoming a third rate military and economic power. While politicians on both sides of the aisle are deserving of unrelenting scrutiny. I tend to trust, a little more anyway, those that aren’t seeking the destruction of the American way of life, than I would leftists like Obama and the rest of the environmentalists who hate US.

  • guest

    I agree Rob. Schilkie’s claims severely lack evidence and her motives are questionable. With that said however who really knows what the cause is until it is properly investigated. I would be interested to know if Schilkie and left wing environmentalists are attempting fraud in order to fulfill a political agenda, or if the oil industry is doing something wrong.The article also mentions several important truths not necessarily related to oil, most signidficant of which are that people in North Dakota do not trust some in state government and they don’t speak out for fear of retribution. Kudos to Amy Dalymple for a well written, balanced article.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I think the matter has been properly investigated. Nobody else seems to be having the same problems. To the extent state authorities have been allowed to investigate these specific allegations, they have been able to find any evidence of a connection to oil development.

      As to trust in state government, you’re taking about a conspiracy to suppress dancing environmental details that would require the participation of hundreds of state officials. You’re giving them entirely too much credit if you think they’re capable of that.

      I don’t think that sort of innuendo is helpful.

      • guest

        I see your point. Makes sense.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          I’m about as pro-oil as they come, but if there really was a problem out there that was making people sick and killing animals, I’d be the first one to want to get to the bottom of it.

          But look at how much activity is going on out there, and this is the only lady with the problem? Either the issue is something specific to the development around her property or, more likely, she’s making the whole thing up.

          • guest

            I do not disagree with you one bit. I would simply like to know for sure if this woman is attempting to fraud the oil industry or if the oil industry is doing something wrong. My huntch is 99.9% that this woman has a grudge or angle and the reason probably has something to do with feed or or not getting money for the land or something like that. State authorities should be given whatever information she has in addition to the people she has already given it to. Then perhaps a more definitive answer to what actually happened may result. I also agree that it is extremely unusual that she is the only person experiencing problems such as this in her area. Unusual indeed.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        That should read “haven’t been able to find any evidence.”

    • Thresherman

      If by “balanced” you mean that Schilkie was given a platform to vilify others while they exercised restraint in calling her a fraud, then you are correct.

  • kevindf

    It’s a case of sour grapes. “The Schilkes don’t own the mineral rights below their ranch, but were offered $10,000 to put a well pad on their property. Still, they declined.” http://www.greatplainsexaminer.com/2012/01/10/welcome-to-boomtown-oil-production-raises-health-concerns/

    • badlands4

      I was just going to say that I bet she only owns surface rights.

    • JW -American

      from the article the best quote.. “That’s also how Schlenker-Goodrich describes an oil patch: like a big factory spread across thousands of acres.”

      Well, I describe ranching like a giant farmyard corral, spread across thousands of acres. Or in the Shilke’s case 160 acres. What is farming, but a garden spread across millions of acres.

      Do these people know that America was once fence and furrow free?

      Should we all move to city cores and survive by eating tablets of Soylent Green? So it says the Shilke’s want to move to Montana, so did the Commie Submariner from The Hunt for Red October.. Must be the idyllic home for folks of that political persuasion. (you’d think CA but who the hell am I to judge?)

      Why wouldn’t the oil company that wanted to drill there not just buy them out put in their pad and re-sell the land? Unless they want 2x what its worth, if that’s the case it blows the theory that there is something wrong with the land or environment.

      It might be worth buying them out just so they move, Leave! Go to Montana! maybe you can work on Ted Turners ranch shoveling Buffalo shit.

  • camsaure

    What’s that syndrome? Something like Munchausens syndrome? Where mothers kill their offspring in order to garner sympathy. Well, think about it, she is an ugly liberal cow and her cattle are dying. Just saying.

    • dakotacyr

      Sexist pig! But not surprising!

      • camsaure

        Cryer, I am certainly honored that you do not like me. I do not want to be associated with liberal/facist/progressive/socialist marxist a..holes like you. You hypocrit lefties demonstrate your so called “tolerance” every day. And by the way idiot, beauty is more then skin deep. She is an ugly person on the inside, but since you obviously agree with her……What does that make you also.

  • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

    What an evil lady.

  • badlands4

    There have been issues out here but I blame the state for it, not so much producers. The companies that have had issues be it illegal waste disposal, not securing waste pits when we had the flooding, allowing spills, etc tend to be repeat offenders. The state slaps them on the hand and then renews their permits. It puts a black mark on all the other producers doing things above what the state requires and there is NO incentive to change your ways if you know that you will be able to keep on going about your business.

    The state needs to clamp down hard on offenders(particularly repeat offenders) and make it extremely unprofitable to not get your operation in order. That will take care of any environmental issues that may come up and will not give the perception that the entire industry is doing the same things as the offenders.

    When you refuse to hand over any information that will prove your claim you tend to be viewed as a liar. If she didn’t trust the state to investigate she could have hired an outside contractor and allowed the state to shadow them and compare testing. The fact she chose not to do that tells me that she either has predators killing her cattle and she is trying to pass it off to make a buck, she is harming her own cattle in order to make a buck, or she doesn’t have mineral rights and doesn’t like the fact she has to deal with wells and not get any profit.

  • Clarence A. Herz

    I know from my own experience that the activity in the West is causing a whole bunch of people to become greedy bastards, but that is about all I’ve seen.

    • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

      I’ve heard a lot of greed going on in the housing market. Who’s greedier the person wanting to charge market rate for rent or the person demanding that they have to charge them less than the market rate?

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        Especially when charging market rate is the best way to ensure that more housing gets built, alleviating shortages.

  • http://randysroundtable.blogspot.com/ Randy G

    The oilfield was her bread and butter…Until she found a lawyer who offered her a bigger slice?

  • Guest

    You want f*cking evidence, here you go you f*cking hack. “Documentation of cases in six states strongly implicates exposure to fracking operations in serious health effects on humans, companion animals, livestock, horses, and wildlife.” http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/data/Bamberger_Oswald_NS22_in_press.pdf

    Rob: I’ll find one instance of questionable evidentiary merit and pretend that is the only evidence there is! Derp. I require strict evidence to support conclusions I don’t like, but when it comes to my claim that the common core includes propaganda, I won’t even proffer one sentence from the materials to support that claim. HERP DERP!

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      So, you do a quick google to see what the left-wing environmental websites have to say about the impact of fracking and, surprise, they’re touting a story by two scientists who have never done an environmental impact study before.

      You know what? I could use Google too and find some studies by scientists employed by the oil industry who say that fracking is 100% safe.

      But let’s review the facts:

      1) This woman is the only person in North Dakota who has experienced this despite heavy fracking in the western part of the state. The only other documented instances of impacts to livestock can be traced directly to those animals drinking from spills. They are a few minor instances.

      2) This woman is being extremely invasive. She has refused to allow state officials to investigate the matter fully. She claims to have had her animals tested, but won’t share the results.

      Those don’t speak much to her credibility.

      But why don’t you drop the f-bomb a few more times and see if that adds to your credibility.

      • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

        In Rob’s point #2, he obviously meant the woman is being evasive.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          I did, thank you.

      • Guest

        If you’re so confident that it was safe, you should have no trouble finding those studies. This happens every time someone links to a credible source, you claim that you could find another to support it, but never do. Let’s review the facts, you found one instance of indeterminate evidentiary weight and ignore all other evidence. You apply a strict evidentiary burden on conclusions you don’t like, but won’t offer any evidence to support conclusions you do like. Consequently, you’re a complete f*cking hack that can’t think or reason beyond Republican talking points. I know I’ve hit a sore point when you complain about language rather than offering anything to support your laughably weak arguments.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Well how about a study by the Brits?

          http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/royal-society-fracking-is-safe-as-along-as-its-regulated/

          Obama’s own EPA administrator has said that tracking has never been linked to water contamination.

          http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_20890934/fracking-is-perfectly-safe-petroleum-industry-says

          And then there are numerous state and federal studies which have also found no evidence linking fracking to water contamination. As one example, a study conducted by the state of California found no negative finances from tracking in that state’s urban Inglewood oil field.

          http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/california-study-into-fracking-in-urban-environment-finds-no-negative-environmental-impacts/

          My intent was to point out that you’re not very receptive to ” evidence” provided which contradicts what you’ve already decided to believe. Do rather than make this a contest to see who can link to the most internet websites iti thought I’d discuss the merits of this particular incident. Which aren’t very believable, frankly.

          • Guest

            Wow, let me tell you how pleasing it is that I got you to work those stubby fingers in a vain effort to support your pathetically weak contentions. Not being a complete f*cking hack like yourself, I’m more than capable of evaluating your “evidence” to see if it actually supports your claim, so the discussion need not devolve into a battle of links. For example, you’re link to the study from the Royal Society is unpersuasive, as it merely concludes fracking can be safe. Walking a tight rope over a pack of tigers can be safe to, but that doesn’t mean it is safe. Moreover, the fracking techniques being employed in the United Kingdom aren’t nearly as regulated as they are here.

            “Great Britain has much stricter safety standards for their fracking operations than does the United States: including bans on open-pit wastewater storage sites and requirements that all chemicals used in fracking operations be disclosed. In short, Great Britain’s best practices are much better than those in the United States. It is an important distinction since as Prof. Rob Jackson of Duke University’s Biology Dept., who has conducted some oft-cited pieces of research on hydrofracking, states in the Herald-Sun article: “the question isn’t can [fracking] be done safely, it’s will it be done safely.”

            Moreover, the other “study” you cite merely look to the sort term consequences of fracking. Much as drinking radioactive waste won’t have an immediate effect, the effects of storing huge amounts of toxic water in the ground will take years if not decades to fully develop. Thus, it’s not surprising there haven’t numerous widespread health emergencies, yet. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/15/local/la-me-fracking-study-20121015

            Mind you, none of this changes the fact that you still applying a obvious double standard of requiring strict evidence regarding the unsafety of fracking while refusing to proffer one sentence to support your claim that the common core contains propaganda.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            And you prove my point. Waive your hand and dismiss everything that contradicts what you what to believe.

            But we’ve gotten pretty far afield from the topic at hand, which is that this woman’s story isn’t believable.

            I’m not surprised you’d want to distract when you’re losing the argument.

          • Guest

            That’s exactly what you’re doing, Rob. I explained why your sources aren’t persuasive and instead of providing any semblance of an explanation for why those critiques, not to mention sources showing the dangers of fracking, are wrong, you simply ignore them and dismiss them for simply contradicting your pre-determined beliefs. Thank you for being unable to defend your evidence and proving you are indeed an unthinking partisan hack.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Unless you just want to curse some more? That’s so convincing. I mean, I’ve spent a lot of time studying and writing about this issue, but when you called me a “f***ing hack” I was like…whoa… maybe I’ve got it all wrong.

          • Guest

            Well you seem to be immune to logic and reasoning.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            So clearly caring on like a child will work, right?

            You amuse me, kid.

      • Thresherman

        The video you linked to last year showed that the cats she claimed were suffering from the effects of fracking were instead showing classic signs of distemper. Now strangely enough, she is the only rancher in the area that claims to have tails falling off of her cattle. This woman is a FRAUD and not even a clever one. So not surprisingly the usual factually challanged posters gobble this garbage up because their desire to want it to be true outweighs whatever small amount of healthy skepticism they might posess. The cursing simply shows that they are mostly emotionally invested in this rather than intellectually.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          She isn’t a particularly convincing fraud, but remember that her target audience is urban liberals who have probably never been near a farm or ranch.

          • Question Everything

            Wow. More craziness.

        • Guest

          Please, I’m the f*cking queen of england when it comes to etiquette compared to onslaught, willieb, two amber lights, and numerous others on this blog’s parade of horribles.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            You set such high standards for yourself. :-)

          • Onslaught1066

            You’re a queen of some type, anyway.

          • Guest

            Wow, homophobic slurs. I’d expect better insults on xbox live. You’re idiotic posts like Demint retiring because he wouldn’t win re-election in four years do more damage than any insult I could ever contrive.

          • Onslaught1066

            You are the one who said DeMint quit.

            politicians only leave office if they were going to lose, clearly Demint did not think he would win re-election in four years.

            Are you that much of a retard that you can’t remember what you say?

            You are also the one who labeled yourself a “queen”, I just happened to disagree with what you may or may not be queen of.

            As for your ability to insult, you are a walking insult to the mother that bore you.

            You sure are a hannitard, aren’t you?

          • Guest

            You left out the Derp, sh*thead. It was “Politicians only leave office if they were going to lose, clearly Demint did not think he would win re-election in four years. Derp.”

            Onshat1066 responded that that sarcastic comment was correct. Are you that much of a retard that you can’t remember what you say? What a retard. You sure are learning disabled, aren’t you?

          • Onslaught1066

            Trying to walk back your stupidity, I see.

            No surprise, really, I’ve never met a libtard who didn’t try to re-write history once its ass was handed to him.

            Apparently, we must also add the word sarcasm to the vast stores of knowledge to which you are not privy.

          • Guest

            Who’s the one is selectively edited a quote to take out a word that indicated its sarcasam. Why, it was onshat1066 of course!

            No surprise, really, I’ve never met a conservatard who didn’t try to re-write history once its ass was handed to him. Derp.

            Apparently, we must also add the word hypocrisy to the vast stores of knowledge to which you are not privy. Derp.

          • Onslaught1066

            Cry some more, it don’t change the facts.

          • guest

            Well, Ms. Queen, you can always leave.

    • Onslaught1066

      Back to relying on opinion as a substitute for fact, again?

      hannitard, you are such a ‘tard.

    • tony_o2

      How does that prove that HER animals were exposed to, and died from, fracking operations? Unless the test results from HER animals show that they died from exposure to fracking, it is only circumstantial evidence.

      Do you know what else is harmful to animals? Antifreeze. Her vehicles use antifreeze. Circumstantial evidence shows that her animals died from antifreeze poisoning. I don’t have any direct evidence to my claim, but if you call me a liar I will call you a “f*ucking hack” and find a study that shows that someone’s animals died from antifreeze poisoning. See how that works?

      • Guest

        Since you appear to lack in semblance if reading comprehension, the issue was whether fracking in general is dangerous. It was effectively conceded that this article isn’t much evidence (“questionable evidentiary merit”)

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          I think the fact that none of the wild claims about tracking made by the hysterics has come true is evidence. I mean, when the head of the EPA is forced to admit that there hasn’t been any links, maybe there aren’t actually any links.

          But the point of the post was this woman’s specific accusations. That’s why I wrote about her. And her accusations.

          • Guest

            The issue is whether fracking in general is dangerous Rob. If i found one person who chugged fracking water to support the conclusion fracking might be dangerous and contended nothing else should besides downing fracking water, you’d object that the scope of the argument is being arbitrarily limited.

          • tony_o2

            Contrary to your comprehension skills (including non-reading related ones), the issue at hand is not whether or not fracking in general can be dangerous. It is whether or not oil production has caused this woman’s animals to get sick and die. There is more involved with oil production than just fracking. There is also the possibility that this woman’s case has nothing to do with oil-activity.

            You are the one who submitted circumstantial evidence to change this into a discussion about fracking.

          • Guest

            Holy f*cking shit retard, if your reading comprehension skills are so great, please point to where it was claimed fracking killed her animals. It was effectively conceded you can’t judge the safety of fracking by her story alone (questionable evidentiary merit). You can’t, because you’re f*cking retarded sh*thead and would rather pretend there is no other evidence of the dangers of fracking besides her story. What a sh*thead, thanks for the laugh idiot.

          • tony_o2

            The story is about her claim that oil development is harming her animals. Rob questioned her claims and asked for evidence.

            You are the one who submitted a handful of fracking studies as “f****** evidence”. You are the one who is trying to change the discussion from whether or not oil-development is harming her animals to whether or not fracking is safe.

            would rather pretend there is no other evidence of the dangers of fracking besides her story

            I’m not here to debate the “other evidence”. This isn’t about fracking studies. This is about whether or not oil-development (not limited to fracking) is harming her animals. So far, she has yet to provide any evidence.

          • Guest

            Thank you for not being able to point to a single claim in our discussion where I stated fracking did kill her animals. Your claim that the discussion is limited to her story own is laughable, as even Rob stated, “That part of the state is going through a major phase of industrialization, and not everyone participating in it is as scrupulous in terms exercising good environmental practices as they should be. We need to be on guard against that sort of behavior.” Clearly, the discussion involves more than just this particular individual’s case and your pathetic attempts to limit the discussion are meritless. Hopefully you will learn not to repeatedly double down on your mistakes next time. Thanks again for the laugh retard.

      • DWHoover

        Found elsewhere on the Internet:

        Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

        The Invisible Killer

        Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form
        causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

        Dihydrogen monoxide:

        is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.

        contributes to the “greenhouse effect.”

        may cause severe burns.

        contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.

        accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.

        may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.

        has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

        Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!

        Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

        Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

        as an industrial solvent and coolant.

        in nuclear power plants.

        in the production of styrofoam.

        as a fire retardant.

        in many forms of cruel animal research.

        in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.

        as an additive in certain “junk-foods” and other food products.

        Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

        The Horror Must Be Stopped!

        The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its “importance to the economic health of this nation.” In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and
        designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

        I am guessing that her cattle were also exposed to DHMO. We also know that DHMO is a major component in fracking. So if her cattle came in contact with DHMO, and it is a major component in fracking, we can make a correlation that DHMO made her cattle sick. I know I was ingested great amounts of DHMO when I was in Iraq. I haven’t been the same since.

        • camsaure

          A lot of liberals already have sworn it off as witnessed by the OWs movement.

  • Waski_the_Squirrel

    Sometimes this comes from an inability to think scientifically. The woman may not have evil purpose in mind. She may simply have some dead animals, noticed the oil around her, and concluded that oil caused the dead animals. (All without evidence.)

    I remember living in a small town east of the power plant near Underwood. Many people in that town believed that the cancer cases in town were caused by the power plant. They had no evidence for it and no idea whether this town had higher than normal cancer rates, but by golly if the wind blew past the power plant on the way to this town, it must be the cause of the cancer. (I only taught there 3 years, so I won’t take the blame for any scientific ignorance in the citizenry there.)

    Scientific thinking is too much hard work, and emotion is far more fun. Now that this woman has a lawyer, she feels vindicated.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      You could be right. Too many John Grisham dramas.

    • sbark

      that is basically what Liberalism feeds on………the easy way, just spend other peoples money, and then fully willing to use peoples fears and emotions to drive them like lemmings toward, for example, a global warming cliff

  • bobalouie

    I actually talked to this woman when I was out working as a salesman a couple of years ago. She is a strange one…all she wanted to do is talk about the problem she was having. The water was contaminated according to her and the state was keeping it hushed up. If she were really trying to find out what was causing the problem, she would have done something a long time ago. If there is a conspiracy, it’s on her part.

  • Question Everything

    You all are in Rob’s little fantasy land. Ignorance certainly cannot be bliss. Read the rest of the story… http://www.thenation.com/article/171504/fracking-our-food-supply#

    “Ambient air testing by a certified environmental consultant detected elevated levels of benzene, methane, chloroform, butane, propane, toluene and xylene—compounds associated with drilling and fracking, and also with cancers, birth defects and organ damage. Her well tested high for sulfates, chromium, chloride and strontium; her blood tested positive for acetone, plus the heavy metals arsenic (linked with skin lesions, cancers and cardiovascular disease) and germanium (linked with muscle weakness and skin rashes). Both she and her husband, who works in oilfield services, have recently lost crowns and fillings from their teeth; tooth loss is associated with radiation poisoning and high selenium levels, also found in the Schilkes’ water.”

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      See, the problem is that while these test results may be good enough for a extremely biased, left-wing publication like the Nation, others want independent verification. And Schilke won’t allow it.

Top