Slashdot Mirror
German Brewers Warn Fracking Could Hurt Beer
Taco Cowboy writes "Those of you who like free beer, watch out! The practice of fracking for shale gas may ruin the beer you drink. Under the 'Reinheitsgebot,' or German purity law, brewers have to produce beer using only malt, hops, yeast and water. 'The water has to be pure and more than half [of] Germany's brewers have their own wells which are situated outside areas that could be protected under the government's current planned legislation on fracking,' said a Brauer-Bund spokesman. The Brauer-Bund beer association is worried that fracking for shale gas, which involves pumping water and chemicals at high pressure into the ground, could pollute water used for brewing and break a 500-year-old industry rule on water purity."
"it sounded like such a good idea!" ..
The Reinheitsgebot stipulates beer have only THREE ingredients: water, barley and hops. The purity law dates to 1516. Yeast wouldn't be discovered until 1680 and even then wasn't recognized as a living organism.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
And what about the ground water? Obviously, beer is not the main concern of the issues with fracking.
Signature intentionally left blank.
Seriously... People would die if they didn't drink fermented beverages in antiquity.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
German beer is boring anyways. Get rid of the purity laws and maybe they would catch up to the US and Belgium.
You obviously know nothing about Germany's economy. In a country where the average beer consumption is over a liter per person, ruining the beer would also ruin the economy.
The real pollution problem with fracking for gas isn't the fact that it's fracking as opposed to more traditional extraction techniques, but that the drilling sites are not well monitored and even existing regulations are not well enforced. In other words, the same crap can happen with conventional drilling. It's also ridiculous that thanks to Dick Cheney, companies don't have to tell the EPA or state environmental departments what the ingredients of their fracking fluids are. At least that's the situation here in the US - as an American I can't speak to the German situation so well. Hopefully they handle it better.
I'm afraid that this is yet another industry that'll screw itself through short term greed, just as lax safety at nuke plants has trashed that industry.
Yes! Let's destroy our clean drinking water in the name of boosting the fossil fuel industry! What a great fucking idea!
Water can be treated. It is all about the cost. If water treatment cost less than the energy obtained it is still a good thing for society.
Germany is one of the greenest countries on the planet, this oil and gas fixation is down to Americans and their inability to build remotely efficient houses and vehicles.
Or if only there was a way to filter the water (they don't already filter it?).
Filtering works great for sand, grit, etc. but is not so easy w/ various mixed in chemicals.
Or if only you could take hydrogen and oxygen gasses and do anything useful with them.
You mean the hydrogen that you get from the electrolysis of water, and the oxygen you get either from that or liquefying air? That'll solve your energy problem.
So distill the water if you need it "pure". I doubt the water coming out of the ground is as "pure" as distilled water.
I watch way too many WWII documentaries.
We have reverse-osmosis filtering system on the water source for the humidifiers for the environmental chambers in the test lab at work. It's not unknown technology. The old-fashioned alternative is a still.
Are these breweries currently using unfiltered, unpurified water?
Reminds of this one.
All a business is concerned about is profit, and rightly so! If a company doesn't have more money today than it yesterday it can't spend more money today than it did yesterday. Further, if it has less today than it did yesterday it can't spend any without causing risk to those who depend on it making more. Other than investing money only in and accepting the risk for doing so I don't know what else to suggest.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
That's like saying that it's okay to pollute the atmosphere with some poisonous gas (say, for example, chlorine gas) because we can always use technology to re-purify it.
No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
If only there were some. . .other. . .source of water for the brewers than their existing wells.
Existing wells which the companies have no doubt spent a lot of time and money developing to make sure they can provide an adequate supply. Do you really expect them to have to dump all of that and start buying it in from a profit-seeking provider just because somebody else has started to contaminate the groundwater?
Or if only there was a way to filter the water (they don't already filter it?).
Any why should they have to pay to clean up somebody elses pollution? Any filtration they have is probably geared for contaminants currently found in the ground, not fracking-byproducts.
Or if only you could take hydrogen and oxygen gasses and do anything useful with them.
Again, this is pollution caused by somebody else which then moves with the groundwater into their wells. Why should it be their obligation to change their practices?
But I guess this wouldn't be much of a story, then, would it?
"Fracking company takes steps to ensure their activities don't pollute groundwater" wouldn't be a story, except in the PR sense. "Established beer company has to dump water well facility for alternative sources because their neighbours are leeching crap into the groundwater" most certainly would be a story.
There is NOTHING more important than beer...
Germans are banning nuclear energy and starting fracking?!
Why risk the water supply in such a small and densely populated country?
Germany? Green? You may want to read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite
Well water is anything but pure. In the best case its loader with dissolved minerals and full of microbes. Now admittedly they might be good tasting minerals and microbes, that actually help rather than hinder larger organisms like us that drink but to say its pure is crazy talk.
If the rule is that water has to be pure than they need to be use water that has been made darn near pure via distillation or made by oxidizing hydrogen gas; not pretending well water is pure.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
We shouldn't defend anybody polluting private water wells - that's an affront to property rights - but it's also silly to think that any of those wells contain 'pure water'. Every ground well has some minerals in it, and it's often those 'impurities' that give the local food products their unique character.
We also shouldn't be paying attention to any 500-year-old rules that have something to say about chemistry...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Oh great, German anti-science deniers spreading scare stories about fracking.
Is it your scientific contention that fracking can't pollute water supplies?
The water supply is a bit more important than cheap gas, specially in a far smaller and densely populated country.
Haven't you ever seen The Lorax or Space Balls?
/end sarcasm.
The obvious solution will be to bottled and sell fresh air and water and let those that can't afford it die. Who cares what happens to plant and wild life that can't buy bottled products when we could be creating a whole new industry for some big corporation to make huge profits off something required to sustain life.
That's a great reason to to contaminate the groundwater for generations. Water is the most essential input needed to sustain human life. There is only 2.5% of the world's water that is freshwater. Why would you trade temporary economic gain for the permanent loss of freshwater. This doesn't even include the carcinogenic air pollution contaminates of fracking.
So, let me get this straight: nothing is happening to the beer source water now, and it may well be that nothing will happen to it in the future. And if anything does happen, the magnitude of it could be so small as to be unnoticeable. The only point of the article is somebody's trying to pass or extend the reach of an anti-fracking law/regulation.
This is without a doubt one of the most content-free and pointless articles I've come across on /. in a while...and that's saying something.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I've myself gone to such meetings and it's quite astonishing the kind of utter rubbish that's being peddled as 'fact'. :)
When I get up and ask questions the organisers get nervous and the press interested
But these agitators seem to get away with it, at least for now.
As an example in my town they showed this slide that 'proves' how water is affected.
The scale is so ridiculous I can't imagine why we haven't produced this shallow gas a century ago.
Fact is the shale in my region sits below 3500 m (~10,000ft.)
Above it are huge salt layers that cap the Slochteren formation, the largest but 3/4 depleted on-shore gas field in Europe.
Would there be any leaks from the frack they'd logically end up in this reservoir.
A lady from the public jumped up and cried "Where should we go once our water is polluted", the organisers agreed with her, this crime should be stopped!
In the mean time they 'forget' to mention polluted water is produced at every conventional oil- and gas field, something that in this part of Europe has never been an issue.
But with shale gas it should be?
Thanks Cheney/Bush for fucking up a good idea with irresponsible legislation.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Perhaps you would be happier if humans went back to living in caves? Nearly all industry causes some type of waste. There are ways to deal with it responsibly.
water purity (a long term issue) is a lot more important than the excuse of "energy" (immediate profits).
But working safely is in the short run obviously not the cheapest method.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Obviously it can't! After all, fracking takes place far below where the wells get their water, and with our latest technology, we have Scotty here to teleport the chemicals down and the gas up without having to drill through the water table!
I'd rather they get all that natural gas out of there that is polluting our water and beer!
Which is more than offset by their very significant wind and solar farms.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
You did notice the downward trend for Germany. And the upward one for the US. Right?
Perhaps you would be happier if humans went back to living in caves? Nearly all industry causes some type of waste. There are ways to deal with it responsibly.
The problem isn't that it can't be dealt with responsibly. The problem is we fear -- the past being our guide -- that it won't, at least not until it's already caused us problems.
I am not a crackpot.
Do you drive a car, use or own anything made of plastic, ever fly anywhere, take a bus?
Popular Science did a report on fracking. Sits that have been contaminated so far? 1 and that was an unusual site where the gas was near the water table.
Usually the gas layer is several thousands feet below the water table. fracking fluid is heavy and flows down so contamination should be next to impossible.
Mindless fear and opposition is frankly destructive and will just increase the use of coal and imported oil and gas.
Thinking people should look at the science and work towards good regulation and not a simple chicken little style ban.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Except from what I've heard, the Germans are faring better than most of Europe. I don't think they'll look the other way out of desperation, especially if beer is in danger.
Won't somebody think of the beer?! This must stop at once!
We have reverse-osmosis filtering system on the water source for the humidifiers for the environmental chambers in the test lab at work. It's not unknown technology. The old-fashioned alternative is a still.
Are these breweries currently using unfiltered, unpurified water?
As someone who consumes large amounts of beer, there are salts and minerals that exist in the water that come from certain aquifers that are actually desired to be in place for the beer and can have a negative or positive effect on the yeast. An adequate amount of calcium, magnesium, and zinc is necessary for some of the yeast’s metabolic paths. I believe most brewers add in these things to aid the yeast as much or as little as they want but I am almost certain that RO would completely remove any of this out of the water along with anything bad.
This becomes especially apparent when a very large brewery like Anheuser-Busch or SABMiller buys out a smaller brewery like Leinenkugel's and moves production from Wisconsin to Missouri or where ever it is most convenient for their supply lines. Often they keep the same formula, make little adjustments to it and rely on brand loyalty. And as someone who has consumed vast amounts of Leinies in Chippewa Falls, WI and also on the east coast, I can tell you right now that Leinies out here tastes like shit and I'd much prefer Yuengling, Troegs or any of the more local breweries.
And my suspicions are that they take shit water, put it through RO and don't or can't make proper adjustments to add sconnie minerals resulting in an inferior product. Don't get me wrong, I love RO water. I worked at restaurant that only served triple reverse osmosis water and then added some salts and minerals post process and holy hell that was the most refreshing thing I've ever drank. But these breweries are operating on top of hundreds of years of adjustments to their local aquifers and just asking them to insert RO water into their process is probably harder said than done.
My work here is dung.
Obviously it can't! After all, fracking takes place far below where the wells get their water, and with our latest technology, we have Scotty here to teleport the chemicals down and the gas up without having to drill through the water table!
Scotty ain't so sharp. He can't even tell the difference between a computer mouse and a microphone.
These are the same people who are now building new coal burning plants because they shut down their nuclear power industry. And the coal they are burning is low quality crap lignite. In some countries in Europe coal consumption is increasing 50% per year.
Some have called it a new golden age of coal in Europe:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-europes-energy-policy-delivers-worst-all-possible-worlds-unwelcome-renaissance
Now of course they are going to turn their back on much cleaner natural gas because they are afraid that they can't write effective regs for shale gas production?
MOAR COAL!!!
Europe's environmental policy is flat out nuts.
Are you saying he's another Hollywood tree-hugger distorting facts in order to sell movie tickets?
Do you drive a car, use or own anything made of plastic, ever fly anywhere, take a bus?
Do you drink clean water?
Except that the cost is probably a large multiple of the win you can get from fracking. So why would this be considered an acceptable solution?
Oh, right, because those who get the profits are not the same as those who have to pay the cost.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
For about 10 or twelfe years. (which is IIRC the estimated volume of oil/gas that could be produced my fracking).
And then a country WITHOUT energy, clean water and beer is definitly NOT what we need.
bickerdyke
Before you beer drinking baboons go on and on about fracking contaminating drinking water, learn about the issues. Water is found at 200 to 600 feet below the surface. Fracking occurs 5,000 to 10,000 feet below the surface. And the pipes that traverse the water table are double/triple insulated and regulated by the environmental agencies.... No threat to your beer water... even your bong water is safe. Move along now... nothing to see.... And why is slashdot even concerned about these issues....sounds like it has been infiltrated by a bunch of hippie douche bags.
Yes! Let's destroy our clean drinking water in the name of boosting the fossil fuel industry! What a great fucking idea!
Congratulations captain obvious. You have managed to repeat the same thing 93 other commenters managed to say!
Lots of people are worried about that, too.
They should have made it to the headlines, too. And that is what actually worries me.
bickerdyke
Ground water contamination is a possibility and we need to remain vigilant in monitoring and controls to make sure that it doesn't happen. Industry obviously needs oversight. However, when done correctly, fracking is done well below the ground water level and will have a layer of "impermeable" (yes, for thousands of years at least) clay, etc. in between the fracking and the groundwater. Contamination today usually happens (infrequently) when the surface installations leak or are improperly sealed. This does happen and we need to work to prevent it with safety controls and monitoring. However, done right, fracking poses less risk to ground water than many other technologies already in use.
Good day.
What about the water? I know it is the national drink in Germany, but they do drink water too, correct?
Do you drive a car, use or own anything made of plastic, ever fly anywhere, take a bus?
None of this requires fracking.
Because that's what humans do... over and over and over again.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A lot of money has been raised by the environmental fund raising industry, unfortunately the vogue have done a lot of information damage in doing so.
Democrats have actually politicized the issue to the point where the science is ignored and people are out with pitchforks and torches looking to kill a monster, and anyone who doesn't agree must be pro monster and must also be destroyed.
Are there any cases of water wells being contaminated? No. One well in Wyoming may have been contaminated though the water from that aquifer is extremely deep and nearly in the same zone as the producers in that area and the data-set is likely skewed to arrive at a politically hoped for conclusion the EPA is desperately hoping to construct.
Shallow water wells are notoriously infused with coal-bed methane, to this day I can't believe so many 'educated' people fell for the 'Gas Land' hoax.
People are scared, that is what the environmental money industry wanted and they are really good at it. There are people now who are so convinced 'fracking' is dangerous they are experiencing psychosomatic symptoms such as nose bleeds. And don't forget the lawyers, the lawyers see money and are looking for a big payout.
The beer is safe, what is in danger are the facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4RLzlcox5c
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
German industry doesn't need a supply-side boost: it needs a demand-side boost. Fracking is a supply-side boost. Fracking will not help German industry.
Actually, in the case of fracking we are actually polluting the ground water. This is a base requirement for fracking: there is no way to do fracking without polluting the ground water. Hence, there is no "responsible" way to do it, any more than there's a responsible way to pee in your living room.
If you want to ban fracking in Germany, just give the lawmakers some American beer and remind them that there's fracking in the US and look how the beer tastes.
1 site contaminated? really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing#Groundwater_contamination
Skimming 3 paragraphs shows 3 sites in the US and I'm sure proper research would turn up a lot more. There is a movie about this (arguably propaganda) called Gasland that I have yet to watch. Considering potable water is a necessary resource, and natural gas is not necessary (although it is important). I am very very wary of the proposition of risking one for another.
"Cheaper energy, boost to the economy, bla bla bla". None of this gets you ahead if you do more long term damage especially to really important resources like WATER. Be informed, do it right the first time, This sort of short term selfish frat boy thinking is costing us too much already.
"Water can be treated"? Not very cheaply if the contaminant is sodium or some other salt, which is typical of water contamination from poor drilling practices.
"Back to living in caves"? No one is suggesting that, advocating responsibility does not make one a Luddite.
prasadsurve, jacekm, and coward you guys are from the fuckin' fifties.
I think you misunderstand how fracking works. Fracking works by pumping water into the earth. The water is typically not potable, because potable water is expensive. So there's no amount of "monitoring" that can prevent "leaks" because the whole point of the process is to leak. You leak water into the ground under high pressure, and that releases natural gas which can then be exploited.
The problem with fracking is not so much that it would pollute ground water, although it could well do so, but that it will pollute aquifers.
Also, whenever an industry flack says "however, done right..." I wonder if said flack recalls any time in the history of extractive industries when things were "done right." Extractive industries are at their most profitable when things are not "done right," because doing things right is expensive. As long as the costs of not doing things right can be laid off on someone else, the stockholders would sue the asses off of a company that did things "right," because such a company would not be maximizing shareholder value.
So let us not pretend that things will be done right. Let us assume instead that they will not be done right, and plan for that, because that is what is going to actually happen.
I' d prefer more imported coal and gas. Neither pollute my local water table.
Just say no to fracking.
Water table != aquifer. Sites that have been contaminated according to Popular Science is not so interesting. Get back to me when Nature weighs in on the question. Popular Science is a fun magazine, but it's not my go-to source for accurate reporting on environmental contamination in the oil industry. How many times has Popular Science done articles on the flying car you'll be able to buy in 20 years?
Ever heard of a bucket?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Thank you for an informed opinion, The trick as always is resist the pressure from those impatient and dismissive of process and legitimate concerns. There are enough stories of water sources ruined by bad drilling practices and the difficulties for the effected parties. Connecting contamination to a specific project is not easy and the victims are often fucked. There is a lot of irrational hype over fracking, but the is also legitimate reasons for people to be concerned.
I drink from an aquifer. Most of my neighbors drink either from an aquifer or from ground water. People who are on town water in my town do in fact drink from a lake; the lake water is chlorinated, because it has to be, because animals poop nearby. But if you dumped a thousand gallons of hexane in it, the town would be drinking bottled water for the foreseeable future—there's no way to filter that out at the treatment plant. So don't give me this crap about it not mattering whether the water in streams and lakes is contaminated.
Umm.... no? Good cementing practices will seal off the freshwater aquifers. In some plays this is more difficult than in others, but it's nonsense to say that it can't be done right, only that many states are trying to regulate the wrong things to ensure that it is.
methane released from fracking, on the other hand, has been a problem for a number of people in the Marcellus region...
plenty of people drink from wells though.
Yes! Let's destroy our clean drinking water in the name of boosting the fossil fuel industry! What a great fucking idea!
+ 5 Insightful, hmm. I guess offering us insight into your opinion is all it takes to get up-modded these days.
Most fracking is done in existing or abandoned wells, if your well water had a chance of getting polluted due to fracking it'd already be polluted from the existing well.
And if you're in a location where it's worthwhile to use fracking in a new well, then your water is already going to be chock full of hydrocarbons and a variety of other crap you don't want to drink.
And just FYI since you seem to be a complete idiot, they aren't drinking that water they're using it to make beer.
Obviously you are not a beer drinker, my good sir.
Or if only there was a way to filter the water (they don't already filter it?
In much of Germany, the water in the brewers' wells is so pure, they do not need to filter it.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Nobody drinks from a lake river or stream anymore.
The entire city of Vienna, Austria - and that is: millions of people - drink from mountain streams, whose water is led to Vienna by aquaducts and pipes.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
If scholarly journals had a Rupert-type tabloid, it would be Popular Science.
"New spaceship design could open the universe to human exploration -- see pictures of the fat aliens that could be found!"
Interestingly enough that would make the step to space-travel smaller.
If you can't see the sun and have to breath bottled air you might as well under the Mars surface.
Many people drink from bottled (mineral) spring water, and they are required to be unprocessed from aquifer. You could sell re-processed tap water, just people won't buy it if they know it, as hard as Nestle might try.
Oh for..
Look, the solution is simple. You don't explore for oil and gas in the relevant aquifers or too close to them. You map the aquifers. Study them intensively. Most likely this has already been done by whatever German government institution is responsible for managing geological resources and managing the inevitable competition between many companies and people competing for access to them. You also have to manage the inevitable, much higher surface risks of groundwater contamination from roads (e.g., salt use and vehicle runoff), gas stations (underground tanks), human and animal waste (sewage treatment and agriculture), and every other industrial water use you can possibly think of. There's a very long list of groundwater risks. Basically, these companies are NUTS if they aren't already carefully monitoring their water supply already. But if there are any deficiencies in the understanding of the groundwater resource, I'm sure these companies can put their money where their mouth is and fund some more necessary work. Figure out whether there would or would not be any interference from oil and gas exploration. If there plausibly could be, don't do it. If there is no significant risk, then let it go ahead and keep doing the same monitoring you're doing already. Unless you're operating in a complete information vacuum in terms of groundwater resources (which would be really stupid regardless of oil and operations), or you're saying that no oil and gas exploration is needed at all, there is a basis for making a proper decision. If it goes ahead you follow it up with strict legislation (e.g., maybe ban fracking if it is within 1000m depth of the aquifer or something), bonds to mitigate the potential for damage, plenty of monitoring and prosecution of people for breaking the rules.
There's no rational reason for a complete prohibition, especially when all sorts of other groundwater risks are accepted every day without a second thought. Nobody would suggest banning farms, yet you would not believe the mess that they cause to groundwater. In some parts of the world whole municipal well drinking water systems have been contaminated, including some tragic cases where improper monitoring resulted in serious illness and deaths. Ban farms now!
Usually what's being tapped for water is FAR above the levels that are being explored for oil and gas anyway, but do the science and you'll find out soon enough whether there's a genuine risk worth worrying about, and if it is too risky to be worth the benefits.
By the way, hydraulic fracturing is used all the time to enhance water wells too, so it's not as if the technique is inherently dangerous by its nature. Don't do it in exactly the same area and depth level as the oil and gas exploration and it's fine.
The purity law says malt, water, yeast and hops are required, but German breweries seem to have been skipping hops recently. It's not beer anymore IMO. Just a malt beverage.
Your post in one line (to save time):
You don't know it'll be done right, I don't know it'll be done wrong, so let's assume I'm correct because I told you I am.
Did that about sum it up?
More beer is more important than beer. There, I've run rings 'round you logically.
rewriting history since 2109
"do you drive a car" - is that your car analogy? There is big money to me made by fracking, so remember that over a half of your "science" sources are bought and paid for.
All water can be cleaned using energy. Nobody drinks from a lake river or stream anymore.
No, no it can't. And cleaning it will not be cheap. Ethyl glycol ethers often dissolve the separation membranes on reverse osmosis systems. Many other chemicals are costly to remove. The disposal of the chemicals they were able to retrieve is an added expense. Most companies do not disclose the 'cocktail' of chemicals they're using, therefore testing for contaminants is an added cost. Most wells require a minimum of 500,000 gallons of water to frack and can consume up to 16 times that over a well's lifetime. How can that be useful for people that need water in western states like California, New Mexico, and Colorado? What about the slurry waste that is often pumped back into an unused well? No cleaning of the slurry is preformed. It's just pumped back into the ground. Many farmers and ranchers have been selling their water rights for fracking instead of making food. I see an unsettling pattern towards scarcity. This is manufactured and we don't have to settle for it, but I have a feeling that we're gonna be drinking someone's tainted Kool-Aid at the rate we're 'progressing'.
From the Dec. 17, 2012 edition of The Nation:
"No one doubts that fracking fluids have the potential to do serious harm. Theo Colborn, an environmental health analyst and former director of the World Wildlife Fund’s wildlife and contaminants program, identified 632 chemicals used in natural-gas production. More than 75 percent of them, she said, could affect sensory organs and the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems; 40 to 50 percent have potential impacts on the kidneys and on the nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems; 37 percent act on the hormone system; and 25 percent are linked with cancer or mutations.
"Fracking a single well requires...400,000 gallons of additives, including lubricants, biocides, scale and rust inhibitors, solvents, foaming and defoaming agents, emulsifiers and de-emulsifiers, stabilizers and breakers. About 70 percent of the liquid that goes down a borehole eventually comes up—now further tainted with such deep-earth compounds as sodium, chloride, bromide, arsenic, barium, uranium, radium and radon."
No sig for you! Come back one year!
you are a fracking retard!
Why do we have to pump toxic chemicals into the ground, though? Why not just pump water down? For that matter, why frack at all? There are plenty of high producing gas fields around. Just use those.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
To the german public this is about as scary as saying it will cause maximum speed limits to miraculously appear for all Autobahnen. Saying that fracking will spoil our beer has a real serious tone to it. Bizar, but true, to an extent.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Is it your scientific contention that every bad thing that *COULD* happen *MUST* happen no matter how unlikely or how many precautions are taken against it?
Let's redouble our efforts to despoil the Earth then. the world of bladerunner may be a shithole, but at least it's got off-world colonies. Pollute, and the rest shall follow.
Hmmm, living in germany. The dept even went down the last year and unemployment rate is pretty much nonexistant at the moment and most companies have shown very good numbers recently so I really can't complain (except for the horrible weather in munich these weeks). Don't know where you come from, but my rough guess would be that country that will most probably print even more money to avoid bankruptcy in 2013, I think it was called... USA?
Germany's not the best country of the world for sure, but some USA citizens have a view of the overall world that doesn't even come close to reality? (Always have to think about Homer Simpsons shouting "USA, USA" somehow XD)
The fracking process needs to be throughoutly tested imo, to my knowledge the company producing the liquid pumped in still didn't even disclose the contents of the liquid. Until they don't give that out and some independent institute does a study on the process I'm definitely against fracking in germany (like pretty much everyone except the gas lobby).
Your post in one line (to save time):
You don't know it'll be done right, I don't know it'll be done wrong, so let's assume I'm correct because I told you I am.
Did that about sum it up?
I am not the original poster, but let me respond with: Yes, and that is why any sane person should err on the side of safety.
After all, if I can't prove you are guilty and you can't prove yourself innocent; I have to assume you are innocent. Because if you are actually guilty, I have merely just not punished you for what you already did. But if you are indeed innocent, I would commit a crime (or at least wrongdoing) on top of yours.
On the other hand, if someone has told you that I wrecked my previous 10 cars, you would probably not lend me your car; even if you have no proof for it and I don't have a proof against it. Here, the safe approach is to not lend me the car (unless I can prove to you I desperately need it and you believe me).
Erring on the side of caution is in itself always a very good thing.
The fine details come from when you believe the scales are in balance. For example, in the above case of the car, the person who told you that I'm a car-wrecker could've been a person that you know very well, or a random maniac with soiled clothing. I think in the latter case you'd be more inclined to believe my (still equally baseless) statement of innocence in terms of car-wrecking.
Now look again back at the track record of all parties in the question of "Is fracking safe?" and ask yourself: Are the scales in balance or even tipped in favour of the safe approack of not allowing fracking? If yes, then choose the safe route. If not, then you can contemplate being adventurous -- but be ready to examine the scales if new evidence comes up.
You see, the problem is not the question itself; just which side you find more trustworthy and reliable in its arguments and proofs.
And now you know why I always bring a case or two of Point Special back with me whenever I get back to WI. The magnesium salts in the local water makes all the difference.
Filtering works great for sand, grit, etc. but is not so easy w/ various mixed in chemicals.
Well, to be strict, you just need to widen the definition of "filtering" to include reverse osmosis, nano-filtration and preparative chromatography. Not that these processes are always realistic, but just saying...
I'm a skeptic, so I am sympathetic to your outlook. However, I do feel that you maybe need to be exposed more to the other side of this story. A good starting point is the documentary film "Gasland". It's not scientific, and consists mostly of anecdotal evidence for the idea that fracking is not entirely consequence-free. I found it compelling.
Over a liter per person! Wow. That ranks up there with... Utah? During Prohibition?
beer consumption per capita
The argument is flawed. Reverse osmosis will remove all contaminants and yield water close to distillation purity. Benzene can be filtered out as it is not miscible with water.
Fracking doesn't change the law! The law still stands. You can (and must) still use pure water. You can use the by-product of exploding chemical hydrogen with chemical oxygen to get absolutely pure water (so pure it would give you the runs if you drank it). Getting water out of a well or some other source is possible too (most of Africa gets water from wells). But they usually consider cleaning impurities from it first, before drinking it. Is the industry merely complaining that they will have to clean the water before use? If so, what did they do if a bird or squirrel accidentally drowned in their well? Make a note that the beer isn't quite as good this year?
Water purification is simple. Distill it and you have far "purer" water than you get from a well.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
That was per hour.
I didn't read the summary or the TFA, but everyone knows it's the other way around: consumption of too much beer can ruin fracking. While the consumption of some beer may very well increase desire, reduce inhibitions and can make someone undesirable look very frackable indeed (google "beer goggles"), it is well documented that having too much beer reduces activity and performance and can very much ruin a good frack. In the extreme, having way too much beer will just make you pass out in the middle of fracking, making it prone for you to have the money from your wallet stolen in retribution by the girl that you were with.
As usual, I don't know what the hell the Germans are talking about.
Anyway, all this fracking business reminds me that I haven't seen Battlestar Galactica in a while.
We also shouldn't be paying attention to any 500-year-old rules that have something to say about chemistry...
I don't know about that. "Do not drink from the water the goat just pissed in" remains a sensible rule, even after all this time. Different centuries, different goats, but the principle remains sound.
Seems like it's about eight months old. Even crappy big American brews like Budweiser taste better when you're comparing three months vs. eight
Good cementing practices will seal off the freshwater aquifers.
Sure, it's just as easy as sealing a pond is. Plus, who cares if it leaks a little?
My suggestion to you, and anyone reading this - watch Gasland. Then fact check it. There was at least one site that did a (nearly) point-by-point analysis and...well, you must form your own opinions.
Spoiler - based on my (admittedly incomplete) fact checking, the movie (while being propaganda) appears to be more accurate than not. My take is that there are far more real* and potential downsides to fracking than the proponents would like you to know.
* why, oh why, in this day and age would it possibly be legal to pump a mix of 600+(iirc) often unspecified chemicals into the ground? Especially in major watersheds?
TLDR: If nothing else, it is a bit odd to see tap water catch on fire right out of the faucet.
The argument is flawed. Reverse osmosis will remove all contaminants and yield water close to distillation purity. Benzene can be filtered out as it is not miscible with water.
Want to play pedant? About RO, Wikipedia notes that "this membrane-technology is not properly a filtration method." More importantly than playing silly word games, please address the energy requirements and costs of RO (including who will bear those costs). Also evaluate the time between detecting that significant contamination has occurred and when these RO plants can go into operation.
Is it your scientific contention that every bad thing that *COULD* happen *MUST* happen no matter how unlikely or how many precautions are taken against it?
Could you possibly come up with less meaningful boilerplate argument?
He was talking about the downward trend of lignite production in Germany.
No need for caves. I think people would be happier if the pollution were not subsidized. That is, if the polluter had to pay for cleanup, instead of leaving that to the public.
And people keep advocating that it be dealt with responsibly, and losing.
IMHO it's probably a good idea to issue a strong ultimatum that the pollution either be dealt with responsibly, or else not be permitted to happen. The idea is to rephrase your question by giving it to the industry: would you be happier living in caves, while the public buys from your competitor who is allowed to do business since they clean up their pollution?
The public is getting increasingly weary of being passed these expenses as a kind of unvoted tax, since we've pretty much given up on cleanup and have passed it onto future generations who we desperately hope have some kind of magical technological edge which lets them bear the costs which we cannot.
Wait, was I just talking about pollution, or damn near everything?
Nobody drinks from a lake river or stream anymore.
All of the water in Seattle comes from 2 mountain rivers.
You matter just as much as native american indians. Learn to live with it. Drink more beer.
I think you misunderstand how fracking works. Fracking works by pumping water into the earth. The water is typically not potable, because potable water is expensive.
Isn't one or the key ways of making water potable by filtering it through the ground?
Its not that the fracking water is impure it is that it is actually Fracking MUD, an intentional mix of water, chemicals, (bentonite and others), as well as propellants. It starts polluted.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
You're right, seems I mixed up where the answer belonged to. So sorry, my mistake.
Luckily for the environment lignite production is going down since the DDR ended. Been around Leipzig on vacation sometime, where it was raised in large amounts. They made lakes out of the left holes by renaturation of those areas, but where they didn't do it yet you can easily see that pretty much everything that was once there has been destroyed. The lack of vegetation looks a bit like the grand canyon, just a really ugly variant of it...
The "big corporation's" name will rhyme with is Nonsanto. They already have a lock on food seed, water and air have to be on the radar.
BlameBillCosby.com
What the hell does this have to do with "free" beer? If your article can't stand on its own without sensationalizing it, it probably sucks.
Yeah, it will raise costs but you don't need beer to live.
Now, if the chemicals start affecting tap water or the wells people drink out of, well, mister, them's fightin' words!*
*"Oh, what, cheap energy for all in exchange for drinking poison? I'm flexible." - the unspoken words many in the public are actually thinking but don't dare say.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
We shouldn't defend anybody polluting private water wells - that's an affront to property rights - but it's also silly to think that any of those wells contain 'pure water'....
Water never stays in one place, even underground the water moves. It's impossible to predict which ground water will be contaminated by fracking.
The fracking process needs to be throughoutly tested imo, to my knowledge the company producing the liquid pumped in still didn't even disclose the contents of the liquid....
That's the whole point. If the (the extraction companies) disclosed what was being put into the ground, it would be possible to prove that ground water is contaminated by fracking.
You lie deliberately. Bentonite, note the "ite" is a rock. The other major "chemical" is gust gum which is a food from a bean. The other significantly used chemical is deisel oil, which, oddly enough comes from petroleum deposits.
Tell you what, AC, go google the two words: fracking bentonite and see what you come up with.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Already done :P
Fracking takes place so far below the water table that if they want to protect the purity of their water, all the have to do is place tough standards on how well the fracking wells are lined.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Industry exists so people can get beer (and stuff). Industry is a means to an end, beer is (one of the) end(s). Saying the means are more important than the ends shows a deep confusion.
In any case, apart from their enviromental effects, fossil fuels can only get more expensive over time as the remaining reserves are ever harder to get at, and are ultimately finite. And a recession is an excellent time for the government to spend on updating the infrastructure to migrate away from them, since prices are low, debt is cheap and any spending will have a stimulus effect.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
*why, oh why...
Because companies deriving large profits from fossil fuels will do whatever it takes to maximize and prolong those profits, everyone else be damned. The better-paid workers and executives can buy clean bottled water from current "known good" sources and presumably can pay for better-ventilated showers.
In all the articles and research, left unsaid is what effects the contaminated water will have on crops and livestock.
Were they anyone else (corps being people, after all), they'd be up for a Darwin award.
Perhaps it was not a good idea to shut down nuclear plants and embark on an unsustainable energy policy that demands increasing purchases of electricity from neighboring countries, and a requisite surge in shale gas development.
I would hope that my ancestral country chooses a more pragmatic approach to help us crack this existential energy problem once and for all instead of castrating itself as an industrial power.
The same thing is happening in the United States, people are jousting one another with windmills.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
That is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence. Specifically, it requires explaining why fracking liquid injected into a gasfield inevitably ends up in an aquifer, despite these being separated by impermeable layers (which is a requirement for gas to stay put in the first place).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
And one doesn't drink beer? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't beer mostly water? So, if you drink the beer, aren't you also drinking the water? After all, beer in one sense is just water with carefully chosen additives, is it not? Just FYI, of course.
All fracking is not the same.
Bad fracking
1. Shallow wells
2. permeable layers between fracked shale and aquifer
3. Poor handling of fracking chemicals
Good fracking
1. Deep wells
2. Impermeable layer between shale and aquifer
3. Close monitoring of site and disposal of chemicals.
By the way, a similar thing has bee done for decades in oil fields where hot water is injected down one well to increase production on others. The difference with fracking is the chemicals used to create and hold open the cracks so the natural gas can flow.
So you're saying that what is right for a corporation is not right for the populous, which seeks to receive goods while maintaining a healthy environment.
What is right for a populous is not right for a corporation at this time, which is to maximize the return to its shareholders by doing anything and everything possible.
We need to set some fundamental rules for coorporations...
A corporation may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A corporation must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A corporation must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
German beers don't have to do this anymore, so there is no actual worry about getting in trouble.
Lots of German beers don't conform to the very narrow ingredient list anymore and the world is a better place for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot#History
Do you think Coca Cola's Dasani has some interest in fracking?
That was a pretty good laugh. Thanks
Of course we could just learn to love Beer with a sweetish petroleum after taste or love to pay more to have "really pure water" where all the minerals wich where part of the specific caracter of your local beer have been removed, alongside the various chemicals that creaped in and gave a bad taste ....
You can complain about the high price of energy while drinking a beer, but complaining about the lack of decent beer while driving around in a car fueled by cheap energy is so uncultured it's almost american....
actually, the Viennese water comes from springs not streams
Guess we should distill our alcohol. Too bad boiling beer is illegal in most of the world.
Seems to be something missing I can't quite put my finger on. perhaps it's some overarching "zeroth" law...
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
Only one third liter per day? I thought the Germans were supposed to be drinkers.
Stereotype busted.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I've heard of these chlorinated lakes, and I gotta ask: WTF?
My small town has what was once the largest man-made above-ground reservoir in the world. Water gets pumped from the nearby river, up to the reservoir. It then sits there awaiting use.
Birds poop in it. Fish fuck in it. Boaters and fishermen use it. It's got a thriving eco system, and there's no chlorine anywhere near it.
Why should there be?
After it sits around for awhile, and before the water gets anywhere near a potable water system, it gets filtered and treated and polished and chlorinated. Then it is pumped to water towers. The water towers themselves have enough water for (IIRC) 2 or 3 days of good water, and they feed household plumbing using gravity alone.
So why would anyone want a chlorinated lake?
Kid-proof tablet..
We followed the water to British Columbia, but our property turned out to be downstream.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Germany is a water rich country.
The breweries are concerned because most of them have their own springs. If those get spoiled they are out of business instantly.
However the main fresh water supply for house holds etc. is very distributed and if one part gets tainted there is no problem for the population. It can be sorted out later in a court :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Simple it is not, as you need a complex structure for it.
And it is expensive.
How long does it take to cook a pot of water until it is empty? Consider what that costs in energy, now you know what the cost for destilled water is.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Actually Popular Science has done some very good science articles including one debunking the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I am shocked at how many good articles and balanced articles they are doing on things like Fracking and Nuclear energy.
Remember fear sells. People writing books and giving speeches about how the we are destroying the Earth also are making good money by feeding people's fear.
And yes since the gas layers must be impermeable to gas they must also be impermeable to water. Their are no Aquifers that are being used below the shale layers.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
To contaminate our precious bodily fluids.
Look at the science?
Which science? Ever says something different ...
Before the first nuclear plant had an accident every science told us: impossible!!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
But hey, almost all american bashing is premised on awful misunderstanding of science. The water that is pumped in during fraking is pumped at very different ground levels (orders of magnitude different) than the levels where accessible underground water reserves are. "Environmental" attacks on fraking are nothing but an attempt to saw confusion around an industry by oil and gas producing nations which don't have the technology. Oh, and no, the process is not simple and releasing it would be an outrageous act of industrial espionage.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Actually I was wrong and it was Popular Mechanics http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-1
Show both the pros and the cons and seems very well balanced.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"Remember when I said I'd Frack you last ? I lied"
I KNOW you misunderstand how fracking works. Do you even know what potable water is? Why would there be any need to put potable water into the earth?
Fracking involves pumping a chemical mixture (which is mostly water) with 3-12 chemicals and quartz sand. Or something to that effect.
The rest of your post is not based on knowledge of the fracking industry....just BS. I am not saying you are wrong on it all.
How your post ends up with a 5 score shows the ignorance of the Slashdot crowd as a whole.
in other words:
pollute water to get gas for energy to clean up the polluted water. what could be wrong about that?
I suspect they're agin' it. Dasani is filtered, not distilled, as far as I know. Of course, maybe they're for it, since it means more petroleum to make plastic bottles from...
I've never heard of a chlorinated lake. What I meant is that it's chlorinated in the water treatment plant, presumably after being filtered to remove any large chunks of fish poop.
Let's redouble our efforts to despoil the Earth then. the world of bladerunner may be a shithole, but at least it's got off-world colonies. Pollute, and the rest shall follow.
If you want off world colonies at the expense of turning the Earth into a barely habitable shithole, I have two words for you: Project Orion.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
That's like saying that it's okay to pollute the atmosphere with some poisonous gas (say, for example, chlorine gas) because we can always use technology to re-purify it.
Chlorine gas is injected into the atmosphere by the tons during volcanic explosions. See Mt. St. Helens if your unscientific mind even knows what that is. And while you are at it BAN VOLCANOES!!!
Cost? Cost?????? Are you fucking insane?
If water is indeed contaminated, the amount of energy alone required for such a process' will exceed the amount of the energy produced. The only way any "cost" will be involved, is if one entity enriches itself by selling gas, while another, likely the public, will have to do the cleanup.
One can argue that on average the cost of keeping the probability of contamination low, and cost of cleanup multiplied by a probability of contamination would be still below the energy cost, even considering the possibility of the contamination, however what you said is pure nonsense, and it reveals complete ignorance of anything that determines "cost" of anything. Hint: it's not the amount of whining you have to perform for daddy to pay for a new car, or whatever the fuck you feel entitled to.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Yes indeed! And if we keep on "not doing right" we will NOT be begging the middle eastern terrorists for more oil. We will simply use our own energy underneath our own feet.
What makes you think the colonies would be any better?
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
Why should I believe for a minute that companies are going to do the ecologically-responsible thing (assuming it actually works the way you claim it does) if there's no one to force them to? Doing it right costs extra money and all these companies give a fuck about is profit. The companies aren't going to stick around and drink the tainted water after everything of value has been extracted from the land.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
I read Dyson's book. Fascinating.
A man from above told me. I'm just looking for a chance to begin again.
That is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence. Specifically, it requires explaining why fracking liquid injected into a gasfield inevitably ends up in an aquifer, despite these being separated by impermeable layers (which is a requirement for gas to stay put in the first place).
Idiot. Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing. First they drill into that gasfield. Then they pump high pressure liquid into it to fracture the rock. Then they extract the gas.
So to recap, you start with an impermeable layer. Then you drill holes in it. Then you try to fracture the rock inside it. And after that, you expect it to still be impermeable to adjacent layers 100% of the time?
Which oil company do you work for?
Ditto for anyone who lives near the great lakes. Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, and hundreds of smaller communities drink lake water. Salt Lake City's water comes from the mountain streams that carry snowmelt down from the Wasatch mountains.
How about this quote from a review that was in Science Magazine, May 17 2013:
austria is certainly an exception in terms of waterd quality:
in the 1980s there was a huge push towards cleaner industry and less pollution in rivers and lakes. the result: basicly every lake and a lot of rivers (even big ones flowing through cities) have water quality equal to drinking water.
it's things like these that really impact your personal quality of life.
the whole discussion about fracking is more or less a question of priorities: do you think that cheaper natural gas is worth the potential contamination of water supplies - or do you think its not worth the risk because you value a clean environment higher than cheap gas.
For having lived here, now, for almost exactly three and a half years, I am strongly suspecting that a majority of Austrians would answer with a loud "NO ! Not worth it !" to your question.... This country is quite clean, almost as clean as Switzerland and Liechtenstein ( where they take it to absurdist levels ). Yes, Austrians simply agree to pay a bit more for electric power imported from Germany - they voted "no" on nuclear power long ago. I remember standing still, in my car, in a highway's emergency lane, waiting for the mechanic. It was truly remarkable: a highway without litter. Austria, simply Austria.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
The rocks don't stay impermeable after they've been fractured. We do in fact have some quite good evidence from fracing wells that have already been drilled that went where we didn't want them to go. The problem is not so much the fracking fluid (it's mainly water with a few additives like corrosion inhibitor etc.) but the oil/gas that migrates through what used to be an impermeable layer to the groundwater.
The main problem is that there isn't a good way to tell where exactly the rocks will fracture. It takes a lot more of an in-depth look at the rock than we currently have the capability to do. The oil industry does puch the limits of technology, and given enough pressure they will spend the money to thoroughly examine the rocks and precision-frack in such a way as to get the oil without polluting the groundwater. Only with pressure though, as long as the shills are going around telling us that there is no problem they'll keep doing what they're doing.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Bentonite, note the "ite" is a rock.
Dynamite, gelignite, Araldite. Three chemicals (or mixes thereof) that end in '-ite' and aren't rocks.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
We also shouldn't be paying attention to any 500-year-old rules that have something to say about chemistry.
Guess you don't drink much beer.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Which is more than offset by their very significant wind and solar farms.
Offset? How?
Germany is increasing it's CO2 output when it should be reducing it. They decided to replace clean nukes with dirty coal instead of using their clean wind and solar to replace the dirty coal.
Smart.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Your basic pleasure model and perhaps an artificial owl
Who'd have thought that Battlestar Galactica could have been so prophetic! Fracking frackheads.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Does this mean you'll be able to take a match to german beer in the future and have it explode, like American tap water?
One more point to all those that say it ain't gonna happen, just because it "could" happen.. Fact is, it *is* happening, anywhere it could happen. A simple google search will bring up *thousands* of cases of contaminated water tables.
The Lorax and Space Balls are both works FICTION. So is Harry Potter BTW, so don't jump out of a tall building with a broom between your legs thinking you can play Quidditch.
And you think this process of conversion to renewable energy is about to end?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
On the other hand, if someone has told you that I wrecked my previous 10 cars, you would probably not lend me your car; even if you have no proof for it and I don't have a proof against it. Here, the safe approach is to not lend me the car (unless I can prove to you I desperately need it and you believe me).
So let me see if I have this right. If there are two competing claims about the safety of something (driving ability, fracking, whatever) and you don't have any information about the reliability of the sources, you're going to believe whichever side is overstating their position the most. Kudos to you for honesty, because this is EXACTLY what happens in the real world. It's why one side here says that fracking is evil and dangerous 100% of the time and will result in the total destruction of society (or beer, same difference) and the other side says it's perfectly safe and completely harmless and will lead to a new utopia and eternal bliss. Forget compromise, and heaven forbid we do any kind of rational cost-benefit analysis.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Also, the idea that it's always a good thing to err on the side of caution? Better safe than sorry? Not so much. The "Precautionary Principle" is just a great excuse to never take risks and never change the status quo. If you decide in advance you're always going to conclude that the costs outweigh the benefits, why bother doing the analysis? There are risks worth taking. Look before you leap, but be prepared to leap.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to.
I don't kow about the "other" chemicals as you don't mention what they are, but bentonite is effectively inert. It's used as a settling agent in wine making because it is so. It's (roughly speaking) a kind of fine clay, it's natural and entirely harmless - and it settles out of water anyway.
The Reinheitsgebot isn't actually a law as such any more (not since the 90s if i remeber rightly) Various changes have meant that other ingredients are able to be used in German brewing (Weiss beers wouldnt have been possibly under the purity laws) though many of the German brewers still adhere to the restrictions, which creates a very high standard of beer but with very little possible flavour variation.
Hence the comment about states needing to regulate the proper things.