Water Filtration: How to filter contaminated well water?

[Anonymous No.329912]

See this water,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bekzB7aUaaQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev-GY_uS2fI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=con8vHdH5fs

This is caused by local hydraulic fracturing drilling methods. The stuff in the water that catches on fire is natural gas (methane). That isn't the only problem with water like that. What you don't see or smell are all the chemicals used in hydrofracking. Ones that have various types of ethylene glycols, various types of benzenes, etc. There's over 500 different chemicals being used and they all end up in the local water supply. It is a HUGE problem.

Some oil and gas companies that have been faced with lawsuits over this. However, as far as I know, none of those have gone to court trial and everyone has settled out of court. Most of the time that includes a court gag order, money, and a filtration system for the household. However, the filtration systems they use do not work. The chemicals they use in hydrofracking actually break down the filters and allow the chemicals through into the water.

Keep in mind that the water gives off explosive gas and has turned some water wells into geysers of fire for days on end. The chemicals used causes brain lesions, permanent brain and nervous system damage and these end up in the air and the drinking water.

So, how the hell would you go about filtering the water so that it will be safe to drink?

[Anonymous No.329923]

That is some fucked up shit, how does something like this even become a problem? shouldn't the government step in and do something?

[Anonymous No.329924]

>>329923
The government mostly denies it.
Watch this movie.
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

[Anonymous No.329926]

>>329923
Heh, it happens because the oil and gas companies lobby the government to give them laws to shut people up.

In fact, there's a black out on it now. It is some really fucked up shit. The only reason I even know about it is because I live right in the middle of all this shit.

The local lake is almost completely dry because the gas company paid the local government or promised something to allow them to take water from it for fracking. All the fish are DEAD because the solar heat in the shallow water became too much. It looks terrible. I have 3 relatives who now can light their faucet water on fire.

[Anonymous No.329928]

Pump water to surface tanks, light it on fire, aggitate it to keep the petroleum on top, when it goes out distill it bonus points if you harvest the gas or at least use it to distill the next batch.

Monitor your temperature exactly to only boil at 100c. Heat the water to 90/95c for a while before that to get lower temp stuff to boil off before you start collecting the water vapor.

It's probably palatable now, but will still give you cancer in 50 years, I don't know what else you can do though

[Anonymous No.329932]

>>329928
If you don't have mineral rights to the land, you can't use the gas for your own purposes unless you pay the company for it.

I'm not too sure about distilling it. Some of that stuff may come out with it even at the correct temperature.

> probably palatable now

No, it isn't. If the water is flaming, there are some really bad chemicals in it too other than methane. Over the course of just a few months you can go from 100% healthy to death's door from this stuff. Animals start losing their hair and dying from it. It's pretty fucking bad.

In a lot of these places you shouldn't even be breathing the air anymore.

[Anonymous No.329934]

i'm not good at chemistry, but how about adding organics waste, waiting, and then treating ?

[Anonymous No.329933]

This isn't caused by fracking you retard. Some of the chemicals used in fracking are dangerous, but a large percentage of it is water, and the danger is present in a vacuum - not so much when pumped deep into the earth. You have to try your best to remember that they're pumping the chemicals deep enough to reach natural oil deposits. If your wells can be contaminated by chemicals down there, your well is obscenely deep.

The funny thing is, though, the problem that creates this is actually that your well isn't deep enough. It's a known problem among environmental engineers that shallow wells are both much cheaper and much more dangerous to draw water from. Shallow wells are prone to building up bacterial colonies, most notable of which is the dreaded methanococus, which causes the documented problem you've posted here.

Methanococus is a harmful anaerobic bacteria most commonly found at the bottom of swamps. They're notorious for their production of methane gas and are responsible for the occasional "alien sightings" in areas where the gas rises to the surface, ignites, and creates "strange lights".

Simply put, if your water is flammable, you're not observing contamination from a fracking industry. Your well water is contaminated with bacteria and will need to be cleaned. Afterward, you'll need to examine whether or not your well has been dug properly. Odds are, this will be a reoccurring problem until you dig your well deeper, which is going to be expensive.

Long story short, digging a well can be done yourself, but it takes a lot of advanced planning and you should still consult a professional. Otherwise your water could catch fire.

[Anonymous No.329935]

>>329932
I mean after distilling it, it would be palatable but still carcinogenic.

getting them to sue you for using their gas is a fantastic idea. They would have to admit in a court that they fractured the water table.

[Anonymous No.329936]

>>329933
>This isn't caused by fracking you retard

Yes it is. You should probably read up on this stuff first before making claims like you are. You post is full of half truths.

[Anonymous No.329937]

>>329933
Chevron and Exxon, pls go.

[Anonymous No.329939]

>>329933
>Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking
http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking

>Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/methane-contamination-of-drinking-water-accompanying-gas-we
ll-drilling

[Anonymous No.329940]

>>329935
>getting them to sue you for using their gas is a fantastic idea. They would have to admit in a court that they fractured the water table.

Brilliant!

However, it doesn't work like that I'm afraid. I mean it works like that for you and I, but not for the legal system. I mean, what would you do if someone came along and poisoned your water? Fucking shoot them. Since it is so obvious, but we can't do that because they are protected by USA laws.

[Anonymous No.329942]

>>329936
It's not full of half truths. This kind of well contamination is basic environmental engineering 101, and it's been going on since long before fracking began. It's only become recently that fracking industries have become a potential target for lawsuits, which makes this a ripe political topic.

Ordinarily, if fracking didn't exist, you'd approach this problem as a bacterial contagion. Further, it's not just methanococcus in your water. You've probably got a number of other anaerobic bacteria living in your water, and the anaerobic stuff is by far the most dangerous to ingest. They produce most of the toxins that give us problems.

One thing you may want to check for is algae in your well. If you don't have it then that doesn't mean you're safe, but if you do that means your well is absolutely too shallow. Any kind of algae bloom will draw oxygen out of your well water and make it a healthier place for anaerobic bacteria to live.

It's fine if you want to blame fracking, but this is a biological and water treatment concern, not a chemical one. You should examine your well and determine the proper course of action.

[Anonymous No.329946]

>>329940
You're an idiot. They can't maintain both positions. 1 there is no oil in your water. Or 2 you are using our oil that you are taking out of your water

[Anonymous No.329950]

>>329939
Are you familiar with the concept of "significance" in a study? Correlary data is regarded in reliability just above anecdotes and here-say. While a good place to form a hypothesis, it usually doesn't indicate anything definitive.

Try to bear in mind that this is a problem that can be studied empirically. Proper wells could be dug around a frakking site and monitored for contamination. The fact that there are no studies like this that support the fracking theory is kind of telling.

What you're seeing is a situation where many people have dug do-it-yourself wells and saved money by digging shallow. Trust me, it's a common problem. Save wells are much more expensive than unsafe ones, and a lot of people weight the risks against money and vouch for the unsafe well.

[Anonymous No.329951]

>>329946
No, you don't understand what I mean. It has to do with how the law is set up in their favor.

[Anonymous No.329952]

>>329950
>>329942
>>329933
lol

Holy shit, how moronic.

[Anonymous No.329955]

>>329951
Thankfully you're not allowed to shoot them. You don't understand the chemical process behind fracking or the biological process of water treatment. Therefore you shoot the fracking guys instead of treating and re-digging your well.

The law is set up in favor of rational procedure as well as it can be. If it allowed you just to kill people because you were suspicious, there'd be no point in the law even existing.

[Anonymous No.329959]

>>329952
You've got a situation where you can pay someone to examine your well and then pay someone to re-dig the thing, which will cost you thousands, OR you can sue to fracking company and make money, potentially to examine and re-dig your well.

Which sounds appealing to you? Personally, I'd say people who saved money by digging shallow wells also have something of a stake in this that makes them less than instantaneously honest.

I'm just telling you, without fracking you can produce this is exact same issue with the flammable water. The people suing for this are hoping to win in settlements. Often it's cheaper for a company to deal with this sort of thing out of court, especially when there's a lot of political buzz about it.

[Anonymous No.329960]

>>329950
>>329942
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222989/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866701/

http://www.esm.ucsb.edu/academics/documents/Urbina2011-08-03.pdf

The list goes on. the reason there's so little "evidence'; is because of the settlement cases. No one is allowed to talk about it or they will get fined and/or put in jail.

[Anonymous No.329963]

>>329955
>>329959
Jesus, you people really are trolling aren't you?

You have absolutely no fucking clue what you are talking about at all. Nothing. It's like fucking hilarious reading your comments.

[Anonymous No.329966]

>>329960
And there we go. See? They're all ending in settlements. Why? You've got only so many people in the area who dug bad wells. The cost to the company to drag their cases to court outweighs the settlement requests. The company doesn't incur extra risk by settling either, since only people in the immediate area who elected to dig shallow wells will be requesting settlements.

If you don't live in a fracking area where you can realistically sue anyone, if you get this problem with the flaming water, then you have bacterial contamination. The bacteria has a name. It's famous for doing this.

[Anonymous No.329968]

>>329955
>>329959
>>329966

www.hydrorelief.org/frackdata/methane_contamination/Colorado_Study_Links_Methane_in_Water_to_Drillin
g.doc

www.hydrorelief.org/frackdata/methane_contamination/Colorado_Study_Links_Methane_in_Water_to_Drillin
g.doc

http://www.frackinginsider.com/Fracking%20Insider%20Proxy%20Advisors%20120511%20post.pdf

http://www.bctwa.org/FrkBC-DrillingDown-NewYorkTimes.pdf

http://www.highswartz.com/library/files/wlj_haz3120_commentary_myers-flenner_.pdf

http://wwwnew.upstate.edu/cnymph/pdf/shelley_hydrofracking_04-13-11.pdf

[Anonymous No.329972]

>>329966
>You've got only so many people in the area who dug bad wells.

Kind of funny how you can have good water in water wells for years then have one gas/oil well drilled and all the water wells go bad. Then blame the people that drilled the water wells.

>then you have bacterial contamination. The bacteria has a name. It's famous for doing this.

I've been googling and I can't find one result linking bacteria to flaming faucet water. My googling skills might not be that good though. Perhaps you can post some links for us?

[Anonymous No.329975]

>>329968
You're still posting a lot of things that have "links" in the title. or you're posting from, say, the New York Times, which certainly isn't going to quote statistical significance or even understand design flaws in a study.

Correlary data always has the inherent flaw of not telling you anything. It will never tell you anything, but it gets reported on as if it were full-on conclusive data. Yes, there is a correlary relationship between methane contamination and wells near fracking areas, but there's also a correlary relationship between shallow wells and methane contamination.

We know methanococcus is a real thing. We know it pops up in contaminated wells. We know it produces methane. We know that shallow wells often face this problem. Why is this so hard? You're looking at areas where people are drawing water from shallow wells. It's not surprising to find a higher incidence of contamination from these cases.

It would be a different situation if a water processing plant were drawing water from underground water sources and then somehow couldn't get the methane out, but that's not what we're seeing. Safe water drawing practice prevents this problem, because it prevents the accumulation of anaerobic bacterial colonies.

[Anonymous No.329979]

>>329972
The growth of your bacterial colonies changes depending on the conditions around your well. Heavy rains washing topsoil into your well, for example, can cause a spurt in bacterial growth. If your well develops a problem with algae, you'll get a ton of anaerobic bacteria.

Shallow wells are not instantly going to develop problems. That's why people often opt for a shallow well instead of a much safer deep well. However, every now and then a shallow well runs the risk of becoming contaminated with bacterial infection. It's a risk people who opt for these wells should hopefully be aware of.

If you plan to dig a well and you aren't in the know about these basic water treatment issues, you've either done very little research, which is always bad, or the people you hired weren't honest with you.

[Anonymous No.329980]

http://frackingfreeireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/10aug19_NorthrupEPAcommentsFracking2010.pd
f

http://www.toolboxpro.org/secure/teachers/1937/Rolling%20Stone%20Article.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262000/

>>329975
Most of the papers cost money to get and publish. So, you must follow the citations like you would any other research and pay the $30 or so for each scientific paper in order to read them.

It seems you don't have a leg to stand on in this issue nor actual evidence to back it up.

Oh, and one more thing. What is a "shallow well" depth in your opinion?

[Anonymous No.329981]

>>329979
I've been googling and I can't find one result linking bacteria to flaming faucet water. My googling skills might not be that good though. Perhaps you can post some links for us?

[Anonymous No.329985]

Anon B: posts how fracking is ruining well water

Anon A: massive tl;dr rebuttals on how it can't possibly be fracking related.

Anon B: massive postings with scientific studies linking them to fracing

Anon A: anon, on 4chan, saying he "knows" about this stuff is discrediting these peer reviewed scientific studies

So, which do I believe? Anon A or Anon B?

[Anonymous No.329986]

>>329981
Start here. It's got a lot of links to study on methanococcus. It's a well researched bug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanococcus

I don't know why you didn't just start with wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.329987]

please don't feed the troll guys, do I really need to say this.

[Anonymous No.329990]

>>329985
Correlary data is not really "scientific study". You can "prove" a lot of things with correlary data if you want. Just like you can have a bad epidemiological study that goes nowhere and proves nothing, but shows statistically that cause A is responsible for problem B.

The problem here is that just "linking to studies" doesn't really show an intrinsic understanding of research methodology.

But I'm telling you a simple, straightforward cause for methane contamination that isn't surrounded by political controversy. Bacteria. It's water's ancient enemy.

[Anonymous No.329992]

>>329986
Oh, don't get me wrong, I know what bacteria can do. In fact I've made my own biogas methane digestor before and use the methane fro it for cooking gas.

>wiki link to bacteria name and description

Sorry anon, try again. Read this >>329981 specific part,

>find one result linking bacteria to flaming faucet water

[Anonymous No.329993]

>>329990
Besides. You know that old essay that linked a reduction in pirate populations to an increase in global warming concerns? You know, the famous Spaghetti Monster essay? Well, it was kind of make fun of exactly this kind of "scientific research".

You don't want correlary data. Correlary data lets you say "I think that maybe", but it doesn't give you any firm ground to stand on. All you've got with those links are some statistical data and a series of untested hypotheses.

[Anonymous No.329995]

More generally there's a wide variety of what are called "methanogens", which is to say there are a lot of different kinds of methane-producing bacteria.

Here's a link discussing their ability to produce methane and other chemicals in water:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359511310001984

Here's a wikipedia article discussing methanogens in general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanogen

Earlier you guys were talking about not really getting the chemistry. I don't know why you want links on how this all specifically works. You're willing to gobble up vague statistics that don't really represent anything. I don't know what you want with hardcore chemistry and biology facts and figures.

[Anonymous No.329997]

>>329990
>anon attacking a peer reviewed scientific study and its methods
>anon taking longer to type out his replies than he is obviously not reading in full any of the links unless he is a super human speed reader which I highly doubt

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3100993/

>>329987
Yeah, I think you are right. 10/10 would be trolled again my him.

>>329993
That was a joke and not even correlary in the first place. In fact there are more pirates in the world right now than in the entire human history. I think mid 2000 had the highest ever recorded piracy attacks.

http://www.icc-ccs.org/piracy-reporting-centre

[Anonymous No.329998]

>>329995
>waste water study
>methane producing bacteria

Sorry anon, try again. Read this >>329981 specific part,

>find one result linking bacteria to flaming faucet water

[Anonymous No.330000]

>>329998
Anon, you cannot find a journalistic statistical study linking bacterial contamination to bacterial contamination. What you're asking for is the same as asking me to prove, with statistical data, that pooping in a salad increases the risk of e-coli growth in the salad. We're not doing statistical research on salad or pooping on it. We're not seeking links - it's just a thing we already know.

At best, I can direct you to some textbooks that discuss the known properties of these bacteria, and I can direct you to some environmental engineering texts that discuss their involvement in water treatment.

There's not really a conflict about whether or not bacteria can infect your water or whether or not methanogens produce methane once they get into your water. These things just happen and we're aware of them.

People are out to prove that fracking causes methane build up. Nobody is trying to prove the existence of methanogens or their ability to pollute water.

[Anonymous No.330002]

>>329997
>The spaghetti monster thing was a joke and not even correlary data!
No, that was correlary data. Even if we was just making up figures, he showed a clear link between pirate populations and global warming. That's all correlary data is. That's it. That's what you're citing at me as definite prove that fracking causes methane contamination.

Somebody measured methane contamination. They made some graphs that imply a number of things, but all these graphs do is give the ability to form some ideas. They don't create proof or conclusive information. The next step is to produce studies that actually test the hypotheses we form from the statistics. I don't think you're finding any studies coming after the statistics that prove your case.

[Anonymous No.330004]

>>330000
What are you even talking about now? Another strawman argument? Perhaps you should be looking for scientific research that links bacteria to flaming faucet water.

You do know that fracking is a relatively new mining method, and that for 1000s of years man has been digging and drilling water wells, right? If flaming faucet water was a problem prior to fracking then logic states that there should be evidence of it and well documented cases and studies about it already, far before fracking was even invented. Why would people be looking for a link to fracking when fracking wasn't even invented? If that is flaming faucet water existed prior to fracking.

This seems pretty logical to me.

[Anonymous No.330005]

>>330002
>he showed a clear link between pirate populations and global warming

No, he did not, because piracy on the high seas has actually gone up over time, not gone down. He was making it up. Don't you get that? Hell, silence the early 1990s it has almost doubled at one point. Luckily, it is back down right now.

[Anonymous No.330007]

>>330005
>Hell, silence the

WTF?

>Hell, since the

fixed

[Anonymous No.330008]

>>330004
Here's more on methanogens and how they produce methane in water:
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/49/19657.abstract

Methane is flammable.

I don't know what you want. Somebody to come out and say specifically "We have conducted extensive research showing the methanogens can set faucets on fire!"

Look at the problem:
* Methane is being found in well water. Not standard drinking water. Well water.

Now look at our data:
*Methanogens pollute water and produce methane.

Do you want a study proving methane is flammable? I don't know what you think you need, anon. Try looking up studies showing that untreated water can lead to bacterial infection. You won't find it. You'll just find people saying "it'll happen and these are some of the bacteria you can get".

We don't need correlary data to form hypotheses about it like we do with the fracking thing. It's just something that is.

[Anonymous No.330010]

>>330005
Okay, then there's clear correlary data showing that increased pirate populations are actually causing global warming.

Look, this is all that correlary data is. It's just some figures placed next to each other. It really doesn't have as much meaning as you're giving it. It's a preliminary step before you dive into active research.

[Anonymous No.330011]

>>330008
>I don't know what you want.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me,

>find one result linking bacteria to flaming faucet water

[Anonymous No.330014]

>>330011
Find me one research link showing that stabbing somebody in the heart can be fatal.

You have a methane problem with a shallow well. Methanogens can breed in shallow wells. Methanogens produce methane. Follow along with me if you can!

[Anonymous No.330012]

Hydraulic fracturing used in gas wells for the extraction of natural gas causes contamination of local potable ground water supplies.

[Anonymous No.330016]

>>330012
If you want. You have statistical data behind you, but no background in chemistry or biology to understand it, and I kind of doubt you really get statistics either, anyway.

[Anonymous No.330021]

got off /diy/ you fucking faggots.

[Anonymous No.330022]

>>330021
Eh. It's /diy/ related. The wells having these problems are usually /diy/ jobs. They're dug or planned out by individuals living outside of areas where standard plumbing options exist, but when they don't do enough research or plan far enough ahead they get problems.

The article is political, just blaming fracking, but there is actually a lot of important research that goes into planning your own well. Shamefully, that's not what this thread is about.

[Anonymous No.330024]

>>330014
>>330016
Strawman and ad hominems, in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Just stop.

[Anonymous No.330026]

>>330024
There's no strawmanning here. Not really much ad hominem either.

Strawman is when you set up an easy target to knock down. I'm not setting up any targets, though. I'm just telling you about a basic bacterial infection that would produce exactly the problem this thread is about. I even discussed some ways to fix it. You've got to treat the problem as a bacterial infection, which means you've got to treat your well. You don't filter the water - it's full of naturally occurring pathogens if this happens.

And as for ad hominem, I don't know. How's your background in biochemistry and environmental engineering? If we started talking about the chemical make up of these bacteria and how to test if they're in your water, could you follow along?

[Anonymous No.330027]

>>330026
There is far more to both terms than what you list. Wiki them. Now, shut the fuck up you blithering pedantic ignorant moron.

[Anonymous No.330028]

>>330027
>Now, shut the fuck up you blithering pedantic ignorant AUTISTIC moron.

fixed

[Anonymous No.330030]

>>330027
What part of "bacteria will infect a bad well, and methanogens will produce methane" is strawman?

[Anonymous No.330034]

>>330030
Unless you're talking about the correlary data thing, I guess. Or the request to prove pooping in a salad will lead to bacterial infection. But then that's not really strawman. The salad-pooping is a comparison to your argument. You can't demand that we do statistical research on things we just plain know about - it's a waste of money. I'm not knocking down an empty opponent; I'm just telling you that there's no point in doing statistical research like that on subjects we already know about. We've plain cracked the genome on most methanogens. We're doing real research on it, not statistical data-gathering.

Therefore, you're not really going to find statistical data seeking to link the effects of methanogens to phenomena in water. Methanogens just do things we know about. When you learn about water treatment, methanogens are a subject you discuss. It's not controversial.

And correlary data is exactly as I've represented to you. That's not strawman either. It really is just data and figures stood next to each other. It's a backdrop to form ideas around, not the end-all be-all proof of a postulate.

[take your god and shove him up your ass No.330049]

Not the guy who's been posting science in this thread, but:
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2011/12/19/flaming-taps-methane-migration-and-the-fracking-d
ebate/

>Some worry fracking fluid will leak out of a well and contaminate aquifers. In fact, a recent draft EPA study about water pollution in Pavilion, Wyo., does make that link. Fracking wastewater has also spilled and contaminated surface water.

Here's the part that's important to this thread:
>But fracking does not put methane into tap water. Tap water blow torches, as seen in the documentary film Gasland, result from methane migration. Such movements of gas may or may not be related to drilling. But they do not result from fracking. And that’s an important distinction to make.

[take your god and shove him up your ass No.330055]

>>330049
The link to the EPA study in the article is broken, here's a working link:
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/

[Anonymous No.330074]

>>330026
>I'm just telling you about a basic bacterial infection that would produce exactly the problem this thread is about.

How much methane would the bacteria be able to produce? In a small, shallow well, would it be enough to turn "some water wells into geysers of fire for days on end?" and be able to consistently light faucets on fire over and over and over again? I'm curious; I don't know. How large of a colony of methanococus would be needed to produce how much gas? Would they ever die out or is a shallow well an ideal environment for them? You may not be able to link studies showing wells with bacterial contaminates are the cause behind lighting your faucet on fire, but you can do a little figuring and see if this is even possible for us.

Natural gas goes up. When there is an explosion, a leak, whatever... it goes up. That's why fracking works. Isn't it conceivable that companies are not successfully collecting all natural gas, and that it will come up and contaminate surface areas, too?

[Anonymous No.330084]

>>330074
That would be hard to calculate. It depends on the kind of bacteria, the size of the well, how long the bacteria has been down there, and so on.

As for "geysers of flame", I don't know what you mean by "geyser". A geyser calls to mind the image of a pillar of flame spurting from the top of a well. You know, a geyser. However, if the well is just consistently burning, that's different. I think wordings like "geyser of flame" are used intentionally to make it sound more intense than it really is.

Thing is, if your well water were capable of burning for days, then there must be a consistent source of fuel. The presence of a methane-producing bacteria does consistently produce methane, so there you go.

Meanwhile, there's not really data on how, exactly, fracking can cause water pollution. How is it introducing methane into your system?

>>330049
Surface water contamination is a real issue, but this has to do with how waste water is managed by the fracking companies, not so much by the process of fracking itself. It's important to remember that fracking DOES have ecological implications that need to be monitored, just like any industry. But it's also important to note what they are.

In the end, surface water contamination is not going to cause well water to be contaminated. Wells draw from underground water. Surface water contamination will do things like cause algae blooms and eutrophication in lakes, rivers, and other places where surface water is found. It's an issue, definitely, but not one concerning a DIY well.

[Radiofag No.330091]

Alarmists, alarmists everywhere.

Buy a large water filter, specifically one that uses activated carbon. Get the biggest one you can. More activated carbon = more filtration capacity, longer filter change intervals.

I work at a dive shop. You want OCD level filtration? Try breathing air for SCUBA.

You think something is in water at ambient pressure is toxic? Trying breathing regular old air at 220 ft... the nitrogen in the air you breathe becomes toxic. And that's just nitrogen. The maximum allowable quantity of CO, CO2, and hydrocarbons allowed in breathing air is ridiculously low. I'm in charge of maintaining our shop's air compressor. It generates up to 3600 psi @ 15 cfm... it's an old Ingersol Rand industrial compressor that is an evolution of a 1930s splash lubricated design. If it wasn't for Anderol 1000 synthetic ester lube, we'd probably never get our hydrocarbons down low enough. Even then, lube still vaporizes under load.

How do we get rid of it?

2 pints of Activated Alumina, 2 pints of Activated Carbon. Problem solved. The AA mainly serves as a desiccant, but it also provides filtration. I'm probably going to add another canister in the chain of molecular sieve 13X. MS13X is a zeolyte, which doubly acts as both a filter and a desiccant. It is such an effective filter that it will actually filter out some of the N2 in the air as well.

I digress...

As said, whirlpool whole-house activated carbon water filter.

[Anonymous No.330103]

There's actually a lot of water treatment steps that are important to through when treating this problem. Filtration is a big step, but it's also a good idea to make a few others. Treating the standing water with potassium permanganate, for example, will help improve water clarity and also remove some unwanted organic organisms. The permanganate is preventative, though, and isn't water you'll turn to if your water is already heavily contaminated.

Unfortunately, different kinds of contamination require differerent kinds of chemical treatments and analysis. You can DIY the preventative measures to keep your well safe, but once it's bad the best thing to do is seek professional help.

[Anonymous No.330118]

>>330091
This sounds interesting. Please, tell me more. What qualifications, if any, are necessary for your job? Is it your sole, or primary, responsibility?

[Cool man Fool No.330126]

You could probably put tankfulls of it in a lower-than-atmosphere pressure and it would all boil out of the water. Maybe intense agitation, or a mixture of these 2. But I suppose ALL of the conaminents would have to be gaseous, but im sure the chemicals they use for fracking arent all going to be a gas. So like 2 stage filter after that.

[Anonymous No.330132]

Hahaha this thread. It's amazing how wicked the sycophants are, and how overwhelmingly numerous they are. Legions of people ready to step up to bat for people who are literally poisoning the aquifer. That's james bond level evil.

Deep evil is banal. In fifty years all the sycophants will be supporting the newest banal evil and their support for evil in the past will be forgotten and covered up.

Anyway, distillation is the only reliable method of water purification.

[take your god and shove him up your ass No.330135]

>>330132
>everyone who disagrees with me is in on the conspiracy
Do you realize how insane you sound when you go on like this?

[Cool man Fool No.330136]

>>330132
Did you base your entire post off of my little bros 10th grade vocab list? Lol, fancy and unneeded word choice doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like a retard.

[Anonymous No.330139]

>>330136

I love it when morons call people on on 'using big words.' It's so painfully unaware.

Using the word 'banal' was a reference to a quote about the banality of evil. Way to look like a pleb, google next time and you won't embarrass yourself.

>>330135

Yeah, when arguing with depraved henchmen I tend to get a bit of the moral outrage, and people with morals these days come off as unhinged to apathetic faggots. I've learned to stop caring about your evil as much as I used to, and just hope for some sort of apocalypse as some kind of just desserts since that's the only kind that will ever be delivered.

[Anonymous No.330142]

>>330049
>But fracking does not put methane into tap water. Tap water blow torches, as seen in the documentary film Gasland, result from methane migration. Such movements of gas may or may not be related to drilling. But they do not result from fracking. And that’s an important distinction to make.

There's no evidence to say it does cause a problem and no evidence to say it doesn't cause a problem. This is like the argument for and against the existence of God.

>>330084
>As for "geysers of flame", I don't know what you mean by "geyser". A geyser calls to mind the image of a pillar of flame spurting from the top of a well. You know, a geyser. However, if the well is just consistently burning, that's different. I think wordings like "geyser of flame" are used intentionally to make it sound more intense than it really is.

That is literally what it is. A 10-25 feet tall flaming torch right out of the ground. I saw one of those in person. It lit up the entire valley and burned for about 3-4 days before the gas company came in to do something about it. That was from a 150 foot well.

[Cool man Fool No.330144]

>>330139
Implying calling me a plebian has any effect, and i wasn't saying i didn't know them, i was just saying that they are gratuitous unneeded and once again, make you look like a cock.

[Anonymous No.330147]

>>330144

It's okay, man. Just sit in front of the fan and cool your face. The ass pain of your humiliation at thinking every day words are 'big' will pass in time, as all things do. Hush now, sugardumpling. All is well.

[Anonymous No.330150]

>>330091
>alarmists

Radiofag, I live in and around this shit. I've had friends and family affected directly by it.

>filtering

You can't filter out all hydro fracking chemicals and still allow water through. You'd get some, but not all. The only filter that can do it is nature itself and time. Maybe someone can come up with a biological filter that would clean it over time, but that's not really a filter.

>>330103
>You can DIY the preventative measures to keep your well safe, but once it's bad the best thing to do is seek professional help.

I think this is the only course of action. There's just way too many chemicals in the mix to hope to know how to remove them all.

The cost for cleaning up water to make it potable would be extremely high. For the farms around me that have had their wells go bad, the cattle have been dying and most farmers have sold and moved away.

>>330132
It really is amazing. Like when there's a documentary like Gasland or Food Inc, you don't see anyone looking to it in any fashion other than to discredit the author or prove everything wrong. Even when there is direct truth they ignore it or go after that source with the same negative attitude. Which is really odd.

[Anonymous No.330152]

>>330136
When I read >>330132 I didn't once think about that. Why are you so offended by his use of words?

>>330144
Oh a troll.

>>330147
Ignore him.

[take your god and shove him up your ass No.330156]

>>330139
>evil henchmen
Riiight.

The point is, though fracking should be studied and, if need be, controlled, it's useless to fight against it from the standpoint of unscientific hearsay and gut feeling.

It's a lot more preferable to study it impartially and then do something about it.

And that is what is being done, not just by the EPA and not just in the US.

Environmentalists are already getting a bad rep from people bought to deny climate change.
So let's not give the unenvironmental assholes any more ammo, okay?

tl;dr: stop grasping at straws when there's a hefty ladder withing arm's reach

[Anonymous No.330160]

>>330156
I agree. It really needs to be studied. All sorts of blocks are in place and being put in place to prevent it from being studied. It is as bad or worse as what the tobacco companies and Monsanto have done.

[Anonymous No.330161]

Well, i didnt read anything because of fuck you, and i dont have any real advice or deep knowledge about the subject.

This happened once in a town here in Mexico, and it was something like gasoline coming out from tap water. People went crazy storing all of that shit, they could use it in old trucks and cars.

You say OMG petrol in my water!!!!!! call the media!!!!! here we say OMG Free gas, nobody say anything!!!!!!

[take your god and shove him up your ass No.330162]

>>330160
There you go again with the >>>/x/ shit.
It IS being studied. It HAS been studied. For years.

Look up the EPA link and do some google searches.

[Anonymous No.330164]

>>330162

That's not me. I think you're an asshat, I just didn't bother saying so. I'll say so now just so you don't go off thinking I actually agree with you. Take care.

[take your god and shove him up your ass No.330166]

>>330164
>I don't agree that it needs scientific study
I'm glad that you confessed.

[Anonymous No.330178]

>>330162
>It really needs to be studied FURTHER

Does that help?

The EPA has had lots of their funding for these studies cut in the past 2 years.

[Anonymous No.330208]

>>330084
You are being incredibly pedantic, to the point where you pick apart the opposing argument so that the burden of proof is far too high to ever reach your standards (and beyond what would be accepted in a normal 4chan discussion), and yet you turn around and pedantically pick apart your own argument so you don't have to answer anything. Debating what OP meant by geyser? Really? Deflect the topic a little bit more, fit everything to your theory without any reason other than you think so (because you've allowed yourself absolutely no burden of proof), and well... basically I'm calling you a master troll.

Basically we have something that inherently doesn't feel like a good idea, and some corollary proof that fracking could be behind it, compelling direct information, as well as most people's assumptions based on common sense interpretation of our environment. When you are faced with a risk, why would you choose to err on the side of very high risk benefiting relatively few when there are better, safer, and more innovative options? Why is this an argument? If I knew there was a mugger behind a door when I was currently getting read to enter, I'm going to end up with a punch in the dick or getting robbed. OR I could just not go through the fucking door. There are other options. Why not utilize them? Who does it benefit to utilize fracking?

[Anonymous No.330218]

>>330161
you would destroy your engine if you tried using this.

also you would likely die of cancer if you consistently tried drinking this. It will also kill plants.

so in summation, you are a fucktard.

[Anonymous No.330233]

Methane is also a a common byproduct of digestion.

[Anonymous No.330270]

>>330208
>Who does it benefit to utilize fracking?

Oil and Gas companies and investors.

It certainly doesn't benefit me. I can do without a lot of the things that comes from those wells. I can even make enough methane with a biogas generator to suit all my own needs.

[Radiofag No.330272]

>>330150
Activated carbon neutralizes what isn't filtered out.

It is the primary component used in gas mask filters.

If 8 oz of activated carbon is enough to keep a soldier safe in a battlefield drenched in nerve agents, it is good enough for your water.

[Radiofag No.330279]

>>330270
Pictures of your methane powered car as well as your gas storage system / high pressure compressor.

[Anonymous No.330290]

>>330279
I don't even have pics of the old 6.5 gallon glass carboy I was using to make biogas with. I still have it, but it is all clean and not being used right now. (making damn sure to keep it separate from my brewing carboys!)

As for a vehicle, my truck is not converted. However, I do want to make a pedal car that is also powered via electric motor and battery. I already have a 5000watt gasoline generator, but I have plans on hacking up the carburetor to accept methane. However, I'll only use that in special cases. I'll be getting most of my power from wind turbines and solar cells.

I've been pricing charge controllers and researching circuit diagrams of charge controllers most of the day when not engaged in this thread or Minecraft.

When I get back into methane biogas I'll still be switching to 55 gallon water drums. I won't be using high pressure containment. I only need enough to heat some small living space and random cooking. Though, I do use my solar cookers a good bit and if I ever get a greenhouse up I'll be venting excess heat from it (if there is any) into my house.

I travel maybe 10 miles a month max and live fairly close to a grocery store I can bike to.

[Radiofag No.330306]

>>330290
55 gallon drums would be kinda a waste of space.

Utilizing Boyle's law, you would be able to compress 55 gal @ ambient to 5 gal @ 10 bar (145 psi).

Not to mention that the burning of hydrocarbons is crude, smelly, and extremely polluting...so it seems hypocritical to complain about natural gas fracking, then turn around and pollute the earth by basically doing the same thing, just on a smaller scale.

[Anonymous No.330312]

>>330306
The 55 gallon drums are for brewing the biogas not storing the biogas, fyi.

>Not to mention that the burning of hydrocarbons is crude, smelly, and extremely polluting.

Agreed.

I get to use my own house/septic wastes for this and then use the spent waste as high nitrogen fertilizer on my gardens.

The only way I could get around not using methane would be to go all electric and use wind power in order to be as green as possible. Even then though, I'm not sure how green the batteries are versus the amount of methane created/burned they'd be replacing. The foot print is really far reaching for each tech. The best thing seems to be to simply use less energy in the first place. Which I'm trying to do every day.

[Anonymous No.330326]

>>329923
Josh Fox amirite?
>crazy fracking shit
I read a few months back in a nothing-to-see-here news story, source forgotton but legit, that the UKs gonna start this soon..

[Anonymous No.330340]

>>330326
crap. duuuuur
i meant >>329924

[Anonymous No.330343]

>>329985
He only mentioned methanococcus as

>>330005
Are you mentally retarded? Just because something is indirectly related and not directly related doesn't mean it isn't correlated data.

>>330024
Why the fuck is everyone trolling a guy who actually has intelligence? Heaven forbid /diy/ has a man who actually has a few views that don't coincide with the green party.

>>330208
>>330270
Jobs, it actually creates jobs.
> OMG but higher ups will get rich!
Higher ups will always get rich, shut up.

> When you are faced with a risk, why would you choose to err on the side of very high risk benefiting relatively few when there are better, safer, and more innovative options?
Show me a cheaper alternative as well as the 'better and safer' and you'd have me on board. Also, the idea (theoretically) is pretty damn innovative, but productivity is what you should aim for.

[Anonymous No.330344]

>>330326
Yeah, there's tons of shale under the UK. I'm really hoping the thing that is happening in the USA won't happen in the UK.

[Anonymous No.330355]

>>330343
>Why the fuck is everyone trolling a guy who actually has intelligence?

Only he is the troll. Or you.

>Show me a cheaper alternative as well as the 'better and safer' and you'd have me on board.

To replace oil and gas?

Stop using oil and gas and their related products for starters. No need to replace them in most cases. In other cases you use everything else; passive/active solar, passive/active geothermal, hydro power (wave power, tidal power, ocean thermal energy, hydroelectric etc), microgeneration, biomass utilization, wind power, etc, to create energy needs. To replace plastics you use older tried and true natural materials (no bioplastics please). No biogas either. Use wastes aerobically instead of anaerobically.

[Anonymous No.330386]

>>330218
>>330218
saying shit, not knowing the situation. god you are a retard.

[Anonymous No.330419]

>>330355
Yeah man, we're trolling so hard. Pointing out something that can cause the fire water besides fracking is somehow trolling.

> To replace oil and gas?
Wow, you're suggestions are long, from multiple sources and require more intellectual exertion than most care for. So yes, your list may be cheaper, is 'better' and most likely 'safer' on all fronts, but the time aspect is so much less attractive than most Americans care for. So you'd have the typical American on board if there was a one quick fix, oil and gas (one being formed from the other) is the 'quick fix'. I love the idea of utilizing intelligence and although I haven't gotten to the age to invest my time in it, I do look forward to it. So I'm on board with the idea of everything you listed... but most sloths couldn't care less. This is the biggest problem with ideal vs. reality, so accept the reality on the political front and roll with the punches. I have seen the process of fracking and I know that if the hole is dug and sealed AS IT SHOULD BE, then you won't have trouble. Still theoretical, but it's what reinforces the idea of Nuclear energy. All the Best towards the future innovations of energy,

- Anon.

[Anonymous No.330422]

Can someone point me to the imaginary energy thread please ?

[Anonymous No.330435]

>>330422
If you mean >>330355 then you're off base. Most of his would be 'imaginary' energies are simply obscure uses of a sterling engine, which makes real energy.
> :S

[take your god and shove him up your ass No.330439]

>>330355
>To replace plastics you use older tried and true natural materials
Oh, you're one THOSE people.

[Anonymous No.330444]

>>330422
That thread imploded into a singularity when it achieved light speed. The good news is that it took most of the true believers with it.

[Anonymous No.330464]

>>330419
There are people out there that think it is a good idea to hand a 24/7/365 electric hand lotion warmer.

The human race is doomed.

[Anonymous No.330465]

>>330439
Plastic will destroy the world. Mark my words carefully, anon.

[take your god and shove him up your ass No.330473]

>>330465
I will. I mark all the words of doomsday prophets.
I also mark their graves so I can dance and piss on them.

[Anonymous No.330478]

Quick poll, which is worse, a thread on cracking, or the metric vs imperial measurement thread from last week?

[Anonymous No.330480]

>>330478
Fracking..... Damn autocorrect

[Anonymous No.330484]

>>330419
You've pointed out that something COULD cause the fire besides fracking, but are there any actual events where this has happened to someone's well and faucet? As far as I can tell in this argument, the bacteria idea is just a hypothesis. I've never head of it happening, the guy that said it could happen didn't have any information on it actually happening, and I would just like to know if this has happened outside of the theoretical.

Also, not everyone desires to roll with the punches, and while it may seem that we do absolutely nothing and that politics is at a standstill and everyday Americans support nothing, just compare where we've been as compared to 20, 50, and 100 years ago. There's been a lot of changes and progress, and technology has only sped that up to a point where we cannot respond quickly enough to it. But that does not mean most of us prefer to just "deal" and roll the fuck over.

>>330343
Jobs and rich people getting richer can also happen in other energy sectors as well. Moving away from fracking is not going to negate jobs and money that other sectors could also produce.

[Anonymous No.330498]

>>330478

american? or asian fracking gear? then we can combine both into one WONDERFUL THREAD! also how to get rich quick? and i want to build a house in the wilderness, do i need money? and... oh never mind.

[Anonymous No.330511]

The problem really right now is fracking is done by analog idiots

Digital fracking doesn't have nearly as many issues

[Anonymous No.330536]

>>330478

I'm unfamiliar with gas drilling, hydraulic fracturing and (bad) American well construction. This thread about burning well water is funny. Particularly dude(s) saying it's caused by bacteria are hilarious - no matter if they're right or wrong.

[Anonymous No.330541]

>>330156
i am not bought to deny climate change, i simply cannot believe that the <5% CO2 that we spit out compared to the 95% that the nature itself spits out (vulcanoes etc) matters. there is enough evidence against climate change if you look around at sciencedirect and similar sites (if you have university access)

and even IF the CO2 bullshit matters (which it does not): the world climate changed in the past, why should we stop it now?
there used to be a fucking tropical sea where i live now, lets me tell you it's not tropical anymore

[take your god and shove him up your ass No.330542]

>>330541
The world also used to be a sea of magma, why shouldn't we make it like that now? It also used to be a loose cloud of pebbles. And a very diffuse cloud of gas.

I'm too fucking tired to present you with all the evidence as to why you're full of shit, I'm also too tired to be civil with people who have a problem with science.

Here's one example of why the current trend is bad:
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100504HuberLimits.html

Here's a lot of stuff(with links to original studies) about how you're wrong and how people who actually study climate are right:
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
http://planet3.org/

All the 'evidence' against climate change I have seen are either quote mining, misinterpreted data or outright lies.
Which of these categories would you like to present?

[Anonymous No.330563]

>>330478
The measurements one because it was specifically posted to troll and everyone fell for it (janitors included), except those that reported it.

[Anonymous No.330565]

>>330541
It matters when you have literally cut down half the worlds trees and removed a lot of the grasses that are CO2 sinks that normally scrub out this stuff.

[Anonymous No.330570]

i've never understood how in the fuck any form of gasses or chemicals would be allowed to get into your tap water. It's a fucking tube, it's supposed to be a closed system. Water treatment facility -> Pipes -> Your home.
The only way i can imagine how this shit would happen is if the pipes were damaged, their shitty construction permitted gasses to enter, that there were some kind of bacterial byproduct build up, or some bumblefuck hooked up a natural gas or sewage pipe to a water pipe...

Or the treatment facility is just plain fucking terrible at removing gasses from the water it pumps out; in which shit that goes on at the water source (IE: drilling for oil) is really the only case how those fucking gasses got there in the first place.

[Anonymous No.330572]

>>330570
>Water treatment facility -> Pipes -> Your home.
For many people (myself included) there's no city water to your home. So the quality of the water is completely dependent upon how well engineered and properly maintained your well is.

So it's
Well -> Well Pump -> Pressure Tank -> Home

Screw up the depth of the well or poorly maintain it and you will get bacterial growth, or gasses in solution.

Another vote for Gasland being complete bullshit btw.

[Anonymous No.330574]

>>330542
i have no problem with science, heck it´s my fucking job to do science. biomedical but hey it´s still science.

opinions may differ even withing my own world of science (the biomedical one) people are fighting over various subjects, sometimes it comes to literal fighting, quite enjoying to watch.

but to come to the point there are peer reviewed articles for both sides and we can start smashing the others head with them or you call me an idiot and i call you a tree hugger and leave it at that. so hereby i declare you tree hugger.

p.s. i would love a sea of magma, it would look great with my world domination palace.


anyway, the real question is: can you roast marshmallows on that flame? also: free energy, hook it up to a generator and enjoy!

[Anonymous No.330577]

>>330542
wrote a wall of text but i got an error, lets keep it at this i call you a tree hugger you may call me an idiot.

also, science is my job i have nothing against science.

the real question is: can you roast marshmallows on it? and on a side note: it's fucking free energy, hook it op to an old generator and voila: free electricity

[Anonymous No.330591]

this has nothing to do with the fracking industry.
Jesus, you americans and your conspiracy theories.

>uropoyr 1044

[take your god and shove him up your ass No.330617]

>>330577
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMTVGBGs_40

[Anonymous No.330619]

>>330565
> mfw trees have been planted elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.330808]

>>330572
There's 3 water wells in my local area. One for each house. Their depths and info are as follows,

30 feet (tasty as fuck water, runs dry all the time even when doing light laundry)
70 feet (sulfur taste and smell, never ever runs dry; waters multiple garden all night long)
120 feet (never runs dry, has strong iron taste, needs iron removed to do laundry, stains sinks)

These are all about 1,000 yards from each other. They are all maintained very well. Each is just a 4 inch wide pipe in the ground with a submersible water pump.

I'm just adding info, nothing more, nor an argument for anything you posted. I just want to add in some anecdotal perspective.

[Anonymous No.330811]

>>330591
>talking about things in some other country like you know what is really going on

hurr

[Anonymous No.330848]

>>330808

30 feet?

The well for my last construction project went 430.

[Anonymous No.330917]

>>330848
Here the eater table is pretty high. In other places in the county you need to go to 150 to get good water. Most stop at 200 if they can't find water yet. 430 feet for a water well is completely unheard of here because you'll be drilling a gas well that far down. Which is why there's over 10,000 shallow gas wells in the county and 10,000 deeper pads planned and starting.

To get home tonight I had to wait 30 minutes and drive through massive work lights that blinded me the entire time. Gas company workers are installing water pipelines to drain the local lake. The city sold them the water. though, I don't know how they are going to get much more water from it since it is almost gone right now.

[Anonymous No.330982]

i bet most of you idiots bitching about fracking would happily swill a big glass of fluoride-laden municipal tap water without having a second thought

[Anonymous No.331016]

>>330982
No, not really. Why are you making up claims based on nothing more than your own psychological projections?

[Anonymous No.331018]

>>330982
>fluoride-laden municipal tap water

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZ15m-D_n8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

>herewego.jpg