Challenging the Rhetoric

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

VACCINES AND VETERANS — MANDATES AND PENDING LEGISLATION

FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER:

“To veterans from NVIC Advocacy — If you are a veteran or have friends or loved ones who are veterans, there is currently a bill moving through the US Senate concerning veterans and vaccines. NVIC Advocacy is tracking this bill on the portal at www.nvicadvocacy.org

S.1203 is sponsored by Senator Dean Heller, Republican from Nevada.

https://www.congress.gov/member/dean-heller/H001041

This bill is long and has several proposals in it. One Section of this bill would require the VA to ensure that veterans receiving medical services from the VA receive each immunization on the recommended adult immunization schedule at the time such immunization is indicated on that schedule.

While the VA should make all vaccines available to veterans, veterans should not be forced or coerced to get every vaccine on the adult schedule in order to meet quality measures or metrics, which this bill proposes. If passed this has the potential to force veterans into getting a vaccine they may not want in order to receive medical services.

This bill was heard by the Senate Veterans’ and Affairs committee and is currently on the Senate Calendar under general orders.

ACTION NEEDED: 1) Contact Senator Heller and ask him to remove the section of S.1203 that requires the VA “ensure” veterans receiving medical services from the VA receive each vaccine on the adult schedule. These vaccines should be available on a voluntary basis and not coerced or forced in any way to meet quality measures or metrics. Senator Dean Heller 324 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202–224–6244 Fax: 202–228–6753 Senator Heller’s website:

http://www.heller.senate.gov/public/

Contact your own US Senators and ask them to oppose S.1203 unless it is amended to remove the section that requires the VA “ensure” veterans receiving medical services from the VA receive each vaccine on the adult schedule.

http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1203

According to the Veterans Affairs Committee Report — https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/114th-congress/senate-report/153/1?

q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22actionCommitteeCode%3Assva00%7C13200%22%5D%7D:

Section 101 of this bill would require the VA to report to Congress each year on programs conducted during the previous fiscal year to ensure that veterans have received each immunization on the recommended adult immunization schedule at the time such immunization is indicated on that schedule.

The bill would also require VA to submit to Congress, within 2 years of enactment, a report on the development and implementation of quality measures and metrics to ensure that veterans receiving medical services from VA receive each immunization on the recommended adult immunization schedule at the time such immunization is indicated on that schedule.

Text from the bill — https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1203/text

SEC. 101. Improved access to appropriate immunizations for veterans. (a) Inclusion of recommended adult immunizations as medical services. — (1) COVERED BENEFIT. — Subparagraph (F) of section 1701(9) of title 38, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: “(F) immunizations against infectious diseases, including each immunization on the recommended adult immunization schedule at the time such immunization is indicated on that schedule;”. (2) RECOMMENDED ADULT IMMUNIZATION SCHEDULE DEFINED. — Section 1701 of such title is amended by adding after paragraph (9) the following new paragraph: “(10) The term ‘recommended adult immunization schedule’ means the schedule established (and periodically reviewed and, as appropriate, revised) by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and delegated to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”. (b) Inclusion of recommended adult immunizations in annual report. — Section 1704(1)(A) of such title is amended — (1) in clause (i), by striking “and” at the end; (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and (3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause: “(iii) to provide veterans each immunization on the recommended adult immunization schedule at the time such immunization is indicated on that schedule.”. (c) Report to Congress. — (1) IN GENERAL. — Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on the development and implementation by the Department of Veterans Affairs of quality measures and metrics, including targets for compliance, to ensure that veterans receiving medical services under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, receive each immunization on the recommended adult immunization schedule at the time such immunization is indicated on that schedule. (2) RECOMMENDED ADULT IMMUNIZATION SCHEDULE DEFINED. — In this subsection, the term “recommended adult immunization schedule” has the meaning given that term in section 1701(10) of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(2).

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2010-title38/USCODE-2010-title38-partII-chap17-subchapII-sec1718

- current law to be amended

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html — adult ACIP Vaccine Schedule.”

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

“Stingray Devices” — Why Nothing is Secret on Your Phone

My latest story on http://www.floridanewsflash.com

It was announced today that the Internal Revenue Service’s newly revealed use of controversial “Stingray” cellphone trackers has triggered a fact finding inquiry by Senate Judiciary Committee leaders. These leaders want to know how and why the controversial “Stingray” devices are being used.

Earlier, on October 21, 2015, there was an Oversight Committee hearing about Stingray devices, policies and procedures and their use in Washington, DC. As of this writing, most videos of this hearing have been scrubbed from the internet and there are no available transcripts. One video begins the initial proceedings at one hour and fifteen minutes into the video.

The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security both announced that they have developed new policies regarding the use of these devices and have implemented these rules as of September 1, 2015. These policies do not apply to CIA, FBI, NSA and other high level intelligence agencies.

Elana Tyrangiel, the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General spoke for the Department of Justice and Seth M. Stodder, the Assistant Secretary of Threat Prevention and Security Policy spoke for the Department of Homeland Security at the hearing.

What Are Stingrays And What Can They Do?

This suitcase sized device that is currently in use to spy on all of us is called the Stingray, “Dirtbox,” “Wolfpack Gossamer,” “Hailstorm (an upgraded, new generation version),” “Cell Site Simulator,” “Triggerfish” or the “IMSI Catcher.”

The device masquerades as a miniature cell phone tower and can bounce off of any cell phones within its reach to give the user or the agency that is doing the monitoring all of the personal information on anyone with a cell phone. The information can be gathered on a targeted or non-targeted person or persons. Even when in use against a targeted individual or suspect, the Stingray can still capture personal data from all other cell phones in the vicinity of the target. This is called a “tower dump.”

Programming the devices and specific configuring can also track phone locations, record calls, lock onto a phone, target, track and map. While the device has all these capabilities, Stodder stated that the device is not used for Global Positioning System (GPS) purposes. (NOTE: If the device is being used to locate, map and track then technically it is already being used as a GPS device.) The device also has the ability to be used as a “bug” by modifying the “firmware” of a targeted phone remotely and then it can intercept the conversations.

So, who has them?

Many agencies across the country use these devices, but the details on exactly who has them remain murky as do the rules and standard operating procedures on their use. According to the most recent reports Michigan State Police are using them and California has banned their use without a warrant (Utah, Minnesota and Virginia have adopted similar laws).

It is said that these devices have been routinely and covertly used since 2006 by law enforcement agencies; perhaps earlier. So far 13 Federal agencieshave these devices including the Internal Revenue Service and through the latest reports by the ACLU, many state, county and local law enforcement agencies are using them, including Florida.

Russia Today says, “… 56 state or local police departments in 22 states and the District of Columbia own Stingrays, the American Civil Liberties Union says, but a lack of transparency in the use and ownership makes it impossible to know the scale of the surveillance that the devices facilitate.”

How does one get a “Stingray?”

These devices can cost local police or sheriff departments up to $400,000 each. The Federal Government makes it easier for local agencies to fund these purchases through the use of anti-terrorism grants through FEMA and other agencies.

But now, smaller companies are starting to manufacture cheap knock-offs that can be purchased at much lower prices. Some as low as $1,000.

As more of the devices enter the market, who will monitor the people buying them? And, will any new laws, procedures, and standards apply to the individuals purchasing these knock-offs? Probably not as there are no checks and balances with any of these devices that are not through a government contract.

Currently, the Stingray devices are purchased and acquired through theHarris Corporation of Melbourne, Florida and are manufactured in Europe.

More Legalese

Local law enforcement agencies are not bound by DOJ or DHS standards. Non-disclosure agreements with local law enforcement and the FBI protect the use of the technology and sensitive information gathering procedures and content.

There are indications that the Stingray is being used to collect personal data without probable cause and without issuing or the use of warrants. This brings up important legal ramifications; does the use of the Stingray device violate someone’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Constitution? The new laws require three levels of sign off before the use of the Stingray without a warrant. Exceptions would be for Secret Service operations.

Regarding privacy rights, data captured by the agencies using the Stingray must be deleted either after the mission/operation is completed or at the end of a 30-day period.

There is no data on how this device is used privately and the rules and regulations governing that use.

In the past, when media has asked for more information or filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the agencies using the Stingray have hidden behind their non-disclosure agreements.

According to the Associated press (AP), David Cuillier, the director of the University of Arizona’s journalism school and a national expert on public-records laws said: “I don’t see how public agencies can make up an agreement with a private company that breaks state law. We can’t have the commercial sector running our governments for us. These public agencies need to be forthright and transparent.”

It is suspected that since there is not a lot of information on their use that the Stingrays are first and foremost used to apprehend a suspect. Nathan Wessler, an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney said: “If police departments are going to use this kind of powerful surveillance technology, they need clear rules in place so they aren’t collecting private information.” Wessler also noted the rules on Stingray use should be in accordance with the Constitution.

“This is technology initially designed for military and intelligence agencies and now it’s being used in residential streets across the United States and Michigan, and it’s being done in secrecy,” said Wessler. “It’s tricking every phone in broad areas and sweeping information about every innocent bystander nearby and reaching through walls.”

The ACLU is continuing to make the case for citizen’s rights under the law and is attempting to acquire more information on these devices and how they are used.

What We Know and Don’t Know

Tyrangial and Stodder both stated that only a fraction of cases were without warrants before the implementation of the new policies in September 2015 but had no numbers available and no other data to back that up.

The Stingray is configured to not collect content but it could collect content (before these new policies were implemented on September 1, 2015). Asked if the agencies using it had collected content before this date, Tyrangial did not answer and said she would get back to the Oversight Committee. Stodder said the Stingray was not configured by the vendor to collect content.

In the circumstances with exceptions, i.e., no time to acquire a warrant, the Stingray was deployed rarely making a safety valve no problem under 4rth Amendment since three high level sign offs were required before the Stingray could be used. Again, there was no data and no numbers or specific information to back up that claim.

If local law enforcement is using the Stingray, then are they bound by the DOJ laws? Again, there was no information. Is any operation conducted by the Secret Service a blanket exception? Yes, Stodder replied that it is an exception within the DHS policy.

Will This Technology Be Used Against Ordinary Citizens?

This device was created and supposed to be used to combat terrorism. Instead, we the people are now the “terrorists” being spied on in our own communities. We are entering a brave new world where even our simplest communications, conversations, texts, calls, contacts and more can be visible to third parties and to government agencies with oversight granted by the government but not to us in the form of transparency. This is not about protection against terrorism. It’s all about spying on citizens.

Say “Hello” to Orwell’s nightmare. It’s called “Stingray.”

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Battle to Keep Florida Frack-Free Heats Up

By Julie Dermansky • Saturday, October 31, 2015 - 05:58

The battle to keep Florida frack-free is intensifying ahead of the 2016 state legislative session.

Fracking became an issue last year after Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) revealed that the Dan A. Hughes Co. had fracked the Collier-Hogan well in Naples, despite regulators telling it not to until the agency had a chance to thoroughly review the company’s plans.

Shortly after the news broke, the move to ban fracking in Florida began.

Democratic State Senators Dwight Bullard and Darren Soto filed Senate Bill 166 that called for a statewide ban on fracking. Their bill failed, but was reintroduced this year.

In July, Bonita Springs, a city near Naples, passed a ban on all types of well-stimulation techniques, including fracking. Nearby Estero is considering a ban as well.

In a move that would void existing bans, companion legislation sponsored by Republican State Senator Garrett Richter(SB318) and Republican State Representative Ray Rodrigues (HB 191) calls for statewide regulations for fracking. The bills, if passed, would preempt all local ordinances governing the oil and gas industry.

On October 15, the public had an opportunity to address a Collier County legislative delegation on the bills meant to govern the fracking industry. Senators Bullard and Richter were part of the delegation present at the Naples meeting.

Anti-fracking activists stated that nothing short of a fracking ban would protect their families from the harm the industry can cause, pointing to other states where documented incidents of negative impacts caused by fracking are stacking up.

Objections were made to the preemption of local ordinances governing oil and gas that would void Bonita’s ban and prevent other municipalities from initiating their own ban.

Richter said he is “not pro or anti fracking.” But he warned if the proposed statewide fracking ban fails to pass, Florida would be left with no regulations to govern fracking. Currently, no state agency has the legal authority to regulate fracking.

He doesn’t believe a statewide ban has any chance of passing, and insists the companion bills are the state’s best option to protect Florida. Not only would his legislation offer the first statewide regulations governing fracking, it would also ban fracking until the state conducts its own study.

Naples anti-fracking activist John Dwyer disputed Richter’s claim that “passing something is better than nothing.”

SB 318 is “something that is far worse than nothing,” Dwyer told the panel. “It hobbles local governments so that they cannot defend their citizens against the dangers of the oil industry: the traffic, the noise, the pollution, the damage to natural resources, the health risks.”

VIDEO: Senator Bullard on Bill 166 That Calls For A Ban on Fracking in Florida

In a state where Governor Rick Scott prohibits state employees from using the term “climate change,” Senator Bullard told DeSmog during an interview after the meeting,

“The devil’s in the details. The bills’ preemption of all local rules pertaining to the oil and gas industry will make it impossible for local governments to object to anything the oil and gas industry does in a meaningful way.”

According to Bullard, the Richter and Rodrigues bills are full of loopholes that leave Florida’s water supply vulnerable. Though they claim that the bills will force the industry to reveal all of the chemicals injected into the ground, it really isn’t so.

In fact, the industry will only have to disclose the chemicals that fracfocus.org, a registry managed in part by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, requires. Fracfocus.org allows the industry to keep a portion of the chemicals it utilizes secret due to proprietary concerns.

VIDEO: Jennifer Hecker On Well Stimulation Treatments in Florida

Jennifer Hecker, director of natural resource policy for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, also finds Richter's and Rodrigues' companion bills plagued with problems. They only address fracking, offering no regulation of other forms of well stimulation techniques.

A document (PDF) the Conservancy prepared for legislators explains how HB 191 and SB 318 fail:

o This legislation only addresses those techniques which fracture rock, excluding dissolving techniques and operations which “incidentally fracture the formation.”

o We know operations are completed in Florida using chemical mixtures to dissolve rock as well as fracture it. In order to address risks associated with this chemical use, dissolving and fracturing operations must be captured.

o The definition of well stimulation introduces a loophole by exempting operations that “incidentally fracture.” It is unlikely an operator would unintentionally fracture rock as this requires a great deal of fluid and high pressure. Even if this did occur, it would likely go unnoticed as fracturing occurs out of view thousands of feet below ground.

o While a draft hydraulic fracturing study has been prepared by EPA, the study does not include examples of well stimulation in Florida. Consequently, a Florida specific study is needed to evaluate the risks of unconventional extraction.

The Conservancy played a key role in uncovering what happened at the Hogan-Collier well, where Florida’s first publicly disclosed frack job took place.

While reviewing documents released by the DEP, Hecker learned that once a company has a permit to drill a well conventionally, all it has to do to use other well-stimulation treatments, including hydraulic fracturing, acid fracturing, and matrix acidizing, is to submit a workover notice to the state. And if the workover is marked “trade secret,” the public won’t know about it.

The documents show that Hughes stimulated the Hogan-Collier well with matrix acidizing, before it informed the DEP that it intended to workover the well again by fracking it. The records reveal that the DEP was not concerned about the matrix acidizing, only the facking, but it concerns Hecker.

Matrix acidizing uses many of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, though it is not considered fracking. The chemicals are injected into the well with less pressure than required for fracking to dissolve rock (limestone in Florida’s case) to increase the flow of oil.

“Matrix acidizing is more likely to be utilized than fracking in Florida,” Hecker said, and legislators she spoke to told her “the process is thought to be fairly commonly used in Florida.”

The discovery that workover treatments can be kept confidential was alarming.

Hecker pointed out there is no way for the public to know how many wells have been worked over with well-stimulation treatments.

“The Conservancy isn’t pushing for a fracking ban,” she said, but it does not support the regulatory bills as they currently stand.

VIDEO: Senator Richter and Pamela Duran Talking About Fracking

Pamela Duran, a Naples resident who lives 1,000 feet from a site where Hughes had planned to drill before the state revoked the company’s drilling permit, approached Richter during a break in the session. She asked him if he believed fracking is safe. “Yes,” Richter said, explaining that his conclusion is based on findings of Florida’s DEP and the EPA’s recent study.

LIke other pro-industry supporters, Richter’s takeaway from the EPA’s preliminary report on fracking's potential impact on drinking water resources was that the fracking doesn’t damage the water supply. “Fracking can be accomplished without any material harm to our water supply,” he said, “That study would refute that it damages our water supply.”

He admitted to not reading the entire report, so it is unclear if he realizes the report determined that the fracking industry was responsible for contamination of some drinking water supplies.

In an interview with DeSmog, Richter dismissed the concerns of those citizens speaking out against his bill as “emotional,” and denied that the bill would make the Bonita Springs fracking ban illegal.

“Bonita’s ban is more of a public statement than it is an actual ban,” Richter said. ”No one is going to go into Bonita Springs and go for oil. Let’s call a duck a duck.”

“If our fracking ban is symbolic, why is Richter pursuing a bill to overturn it?” Ben Nelson, the mayor of Bonita Springs, asked DeSmog. His citizens don’t want their city to be transformed into an industrial zone. The city’s ban on all well stimulation techniques, including fracking, was put in place to make sure that doesn’t happen. Nelson objects to any bill that strips local municipalities of their right to govern land use.

Senator Bullard also objects to such moves. His district currently includes part of Collier County, the county where new well stimulation activities are most likely to occur.

Efforts to redistrict the counties Bullard represents are already in the works. However, Bullard plans to continue fighting for a fracking ban even if new redistricting rules take Collier County away from him.

“Aquifers don’t follow redistricting rules,” he said.

VIDEO: Antifracking Activist, Dr. Karen Dwyer at a press conference in Naples

Attachment: The Conservency of Southwest Florida’s Legislator Handout 2016

Article originally published here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/10/31/battle-keep-florida-frack-free-heating

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Texans Warn EPA Its New Rule to Reduce Methane Pollution Isn’t Tough Enough

By Julie Dermansky • Thursday, September 24, 2015 - 14:15

On September 23, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held public hearings in Dallas and Denver on its proposed rule to lower methane and associated pollution from oil and gas industry facilities. A third hearing will take place in Pittsburgh on September 27th.

Once finalized, the standards mandated by the EPA to control methane pollution will be a component of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan for reducing U.S.greenhouse gas emissions.

For Texans, the hearing holds special significance because of HB40, a new law the state passed shortly after Denton, Texas, voted for the state’s first fracking ban. HB40 makes fracking bans illegal and threatens all local ordinances the oil and gas industry doesn't like.

“The industry showered our Texas legislators with over $21 million to pass HB40,“ Sharon Wilson, Texas organizer for Earthworks Oil & Gas Accountability Project, told DeSmog. “It stripped from cities a 100-year tradition of concurrent state and city regulation of oil and gas development.”

Shortly after the law was passed, Denton repealed its fracking ban, and the industry, in turn, dropped its lawsuit against the city for enacting it.

Testimony during the Dallas hearing revealed that many citizens impacted by the fracking industry don’t think the proposed rule goes far enough, while the industry doesn’t believe the new rule is needed at all.

Ed Ireland, executive director of the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council, was among the industry representatives who spoke out against the proposed rule.

“The American economic system has made the United States the world leader in abundant and low-cost energy, thanks in no small part to contributions from Texas,” Ireland wrote in an editorial for the Texas Tribune. “But new rules from the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency pose a direct threat to our oil and natural gas revolution.”

And the American Petroleum Institute, a national trade association representing oil and gas companies, claimed that“the proposals are unnecessary because the industry has already significantly reduced methane through innovation and existing regulations.”

But the EPA makes its case clear on its site:

“The industry is the largest industrial source of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a group of chemicals that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone (smog). Exposure to ozone is linked to a wide range of health effects, including aggravated asthma, increased emergency room visits and hospital admissions, and premature death. EPA estimates VOC emission from the oil & natural gas industry at 2.2 million tons a year in 2008.”

“The oil and natural gas industry also is a significant source of emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Emissions of air toxics such as benzene, ethylbenzene, and n-hexane, also come from this industry. Air toxics are pollutants known, or suspected of causing cancer and other serious health effects.”

Lance Irvin, a resident of Mansfield, Texas, a gas producing suburb of Dallas, who testified at the hearing, told DeSmog that Ireland’s editorial supports the EPA’s move to create a new rule.

“Methane leaking is a problem for the planet, and solving it isn’t coming from producers or Texas because it is so abundant, and it’s cheaper to waste lots of it during processing than to capture it,” he said. Irvin urged the EPA to make its rule tougher after pointing out ways in which the proposed rule falls short.

Sharon Wilson, Earthworks Gulf Coast Organizer, using a FLIR camera in Greeley Colorado at Northridge High School.

Wilson opened her testimony by showing a video she shot using a FLIR camera that records methane pollution not visible to the naked eye. The footage shows emissions spewing from fracking sites in Karnes County, Mansfield, and Denton, Texas, and in Greeley, Colorado, next to Northridge High School.

VIDEO: FLIR video shot by Sharon Wilson on behalf of the Citizen Empowerment Project

“You are the last hope for Texans. We are counting on you to make these methane rules strong enough to keep oil and gas pollution out of our neighborhoods,” Wilson told the EPA.

Wilson claimed that state regulators are not responsive to complaints from the public about air pollution in the Eagle Ford Shale, recounting her own experience.

She called the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) office after recording a site emitting a massive amount of fumes. Over 24 hours later the emissions worsened, so she called again and spoke to the region’s director who refused to investigate because Wilson is not a Karnes County resident.

Three months later, a Texas A&M atmospheric chemist found data that showed TCEQ’s own air monitor recorded a hydrocarbon spike on those same two days, yet TCEQ refused to investigate. Now that HB40 has stripped municipalities of their ability to protect their citizens, federal regulators are more important than ever, Wilson said.

Jim Schermbeck, anti-fracking activist and founder of Downwinders at Risk, doesn’t believe the new regulations offer adequate protection either. His organization points out that while the rules promise to cut future pollution levels as new equipment comes on line, they do almost nothing about existing facilities.

“Texas is the VW of State Governments,” Shermbeck told the EPA during the hearing.

DeSmog asked residents impacted by the fracking industry to weigh in on the proposed rule.

Lynn Buehring, a Karnes City resident in the Eagle Ford Shale region where 50 wells have been drilled within 2.5 miles of her home, told DeSmog she didn't come to the hearing because she suffers “from [post-traumatic stress syndrome] PTSS from my two accidents with 18-wheeler trucks.” But she shared her message to the EPA with DeSmog:

“I hope regulations are put into place to curb and/or stop the release of the methane gas from all facilities. Since the release of these gases, I now have full-blown asthma, watery burning eyes, skin rashes and bumps, nasal discharge, dry mouth, stomach issues and terrible migraine headaches…just to name a few of my health issues. We are not expendable just because we live in a rural area. Please help us, as no one else will.”

Cathy McMullen is the former president of the Drilling Awareness Group in Denton that was instrumental in making the fracking ban a reality. She is now involved with Texas Grassroots Network, a group leading the statewide effort to overturnHB40, and she commented at the hearing.

She asked the EPA to enact and enforce the strongest rules possible to reduce methane emissions. McMullen dispelled the industry’s claim that new rules controlling emissions will imperil job creation.

“Colorado has more stringent methane emission capture rules than the EPA is imposing, and their job growth has exceeded Texas,“ she said. A report by E&E confirms that.

Arlington resident and co-founder of the grassroots environmental group Livable Arlington, Ranjana Bhandari, stressed the need for the strongest rules possible in connection with her children’s well-being during her testimony:

“The Texas Railroad Commission does not have enough inspectors, 158 at last count, to monitor the large number of wells we have – 400 in Arlington alone. While supporting a rapid shift to clean, renewable energy, we strongly urge the EPA to implement these rules for new and existing oil and gas facilities in the interim, to help preserve not just a Liveable Arlington, but also a Liveable Planet.”

Tammie Carson, an environmental and social justice activist, took a day off work to attend the hearing despite doubting her effort would make a difference. Carson presented a photo of her grandchildren and said she believes it is her duty to protect them before pleading with the EPA to do the same.

“I am willing to go to any lengths to help facilitate whatever it takes to get clear air,” Carson told DeSmog. In 2012, during a Tar Sands Blockade action in East Texas, she locked herself to a truck carrying pipelines, delaying the construction of the southern route of the Keystone XL (renamed the Gulf Coast pipeline) for a day. The action landed her in jail overnight, and although her case was dismissed, she has a police record and an FBI file.

Weatherford, Texas homeowner Steve Lipsky, whose flammable water was featured in Josh Fox’s documentary,Gasland, told DeSmog he did not attend the hearing because he has little faith in any governmental agency.

He lost faith in the EPA after the agency dropped his case despite his water being contaminated with methane levels that are three times over the explosive limit, and shown to contain toxins like benzene and toluene over permissible limits.

Angela Spotts, Oklahoma homeowner and one of the founders of Stop Fracking Payne County, a grassroots organization, wanted to attend but was too busy fighting against the fracking industry in Oklahoma, where the number of earthquakes caused by the industry’s use of waste injection wells are record-breaking.

Spotts is skeptical that the EPA’s effort to set standards will be good enough. “How will the EPA actually address the seriousness of the issue of our air quality, despite the current administration's pro-fracking stance?” she told DeSmog. “The Oklahoma Corporation Commission is not adequately addressing the man-made earthquakes and the EPA has yet to step in and take over though we have asked them to do so.”

And in Colorado, despite some of the strictest emissions rules in the country, Eric Wilson, a resident of Weld County, north of Denver, had to temporarily relocate his family due to air pollution emitting from a frack site.

“I planned on speaking at the EPA hearings in Denver regarding the methane rule, but felt that effort was futile considering the revolving door between industry employees and regulatory agency staff, as well as the financial influence of the industry on our local and national government,“ he told DeSmog. “Since I am not writing a check, I probably won’t be heard.”

Mike Eisenfeld, New Mexico energy coordinator for the San Juan Citizens Alliance, didn’t attended either, though his group submitted comments.

“We’re glad to see reasonable measures to stop the oil and gas industry from continuing to foul the air in the San Juan Basindue to their leaking facilities,” said Eisenfeld. “The rule is going to help us tackle the sources that have caused the national disgrace of New Mexico’s 2,500-square-mile methane 'hot spot.'”

Testimony by Adam Briggle, a professor at the University of North Texas and leader of the Denton Drilling Awareness Group, ended with a message to the EPA that echoed throughout the day by those in favor of regulations tougher than those the EPA has proposed.

“I need your help. I need you to go back to Washington, D.C. and tell them that folks on the gas patch are watching. Remind them that they are deciding what will go into the bodies of children,” he said before asking them to do the right thing.