The nature of the ground underneath us is that it is not the singularly solid mass we perceive. Our point of view is relatively spec like tiny and the size even of a country is hard to encompass as a personal experience. There is a lot of ground underneath us and drilling out ancient residues and making big empty caves may result in a few ground sinks but what are the effects of explosions followed by mass removal of part of the ground that we live upon?
To pretend there is definite scientific evidence that there are absolutely no risks of earthquake or ground damage is the stance of the Prime Minister. His advisors clearly are very pro-fracking and have said that there are documents that show there are minimal risks. I am sure that someone has studied them properly.
Now. it would only take a fairly minor earthquake – about 6 on the Richter scale – and thousands would be killed. The underground could be affected, it could be wrecked. Overnight London would cease to function. It may happen anyway, but fracking means letting off explosives underground and removal of solid matter that supports us. It probably will not cause earthquakes but the fear in the average person may turn to fury if something does go wrong.
There simply needs to be published proof that fracking poses no threat and not lurch into an industrial scale venture that many are convinced that may destroy entire communities,
The Prime Minister has a responsibility to do more than promote this as economic miracle – he needs to convince the electorate that the economic plans of multi national companies do nothing that endangers the lives of any citizens of the land.
If you search for the wonderful headline Quake Britain: UK overdue a massive tremor that could kill scores of people at any moment, warn experts you will find an article all about it.