Comment: .

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Of course you wouldn't drink those. (see in situ)

.

For your source question:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/17/fracking-report-car...

That's not Scientific fact, but I just tried to find a "somewhat credible" news source. I don't believe everything the HuffPo says but they seem to be a little more accurate than Fox/CNN.

I agree that Correlation does not imply causation, but I would think an "environmental detective" would probably think these chemicals are a little suspicious, no?

And I agree (in part) that the US probably has some of the more "safe" drinking water, but I have issues with the EPA calling anything "safe to drink" after they raised the radiation "safe" limit after fukushima.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/government-reacts-to-...

Again, no evidence that the EPA is "directly harming the people it's suppose to protect," just a little suspicious in light of no investigation done by the US.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.