Mums Agains Fracking

[SalisburyMummy]

So many people are unaware of the dangers, and the simple things they can do, like switching to a green energy supplier, Writing to your MPs & MEPs.

I am starting teddy bear picnic demonstrations in Salisbury town centre every Wednesday lunchtime, with nursery rhyme singing etc. to get out there and talk to people. Other info on my fb page:
www.facebook.com/groups/249553771863223/

Im hoping other mums in other towns will follow suit.

It makes me so sad when I think about what could happen to our beautiful country. We need to act now before it is too late.

Flatpack - what's with the "uhhh"? It was you who said that there was plenty of open space to frack in. The problem is that the shale is under people's homes and land in this country. I think you have rather contradicted your own argument there.

Also please explain what you mean by a small scale fracking site? How large is the drill rig? What about the flares? The fluid storage tanks? How many tankers and lorries go in and out every day? How much gas does it produce? How much noise does it produce - does a small scale fracking site just drill during daylight hours or like most fracking sites is it 24 hours a day?

Many of the proposed fracking sites are within striking distance of residential areas which is why people are not happy about it.

Regarding the water loss in into the rock formations - it is not just the extremist websites that say that - it is standard knowledge within the industry. Don't make out that it is radical environmentalism scaremongering - it is pure fact - the percentages vary but a lot is left down there.

Re-using fracking water for fracking is not yet standard industry practice. The water has to be treated before it can be re-used for fracking purposes and it has to be diluted so it is not simply a case of pouring it back in the well. It is a more complex process. Hence it is an expensive option for energy companies. Currently the water is treated and stored/ dumped.

Fracking - the modern version which is causing such controversy now has only taken place in ONE location in the UK and that was by Cuadrilla at Preese Hall, Lancashire. The Department for Energy and Climate Change will confirm this if you check - they are the body that permit fracking operations in the UK. High Volume Slickwater Fracking is different to fracking conventional oil and gas fields and has not been going on for 30 years in this country. It is only within the last decade that fracking of this nature has become a possibility. Research the difference between fracking conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons and it may clarify the situation for you.

This is relatively new technology - hence regulation is not fully in place for all aspects of the process. It is being driven by industry, cheer - leaded by the government and misrepresented by the media.

My reference to underground damage refers to the fracking fluid remaining under the ground - and the potential of it leaching into the ground. Also it refers to maintaining well integrity for the lifetime of the well - how long is a fracking well maintained for? Who is responsible for it? The landowner? The oil/gas company? Once the wells are in they remain there - long term effects are not yet known.

There are regular water shortages in the southeast - even given all the rainfall the reservoirs are low. Seawater could be used but this is an option not a requirement.

flipflop21

Flatpack - what's with the "uhhh"? It was you who said that there was plenty of open space to frack in. The problem is that the shale is under people's homes and land in this country. I think you have rather contradicted your own argument there.

It isn't a problem because the shale is 3 miles underground.

Also please explain what you mean by a small scale fracking site? How large is the drill rig? What about the flares? The fluid storage tanks? How many tankers and lorries go in and out every day? How much gas does it produce? How much noise does it produce - does a small scale fracking site just drill during daylight hours or like most fracking sites is it 24 hours a day?

Don't you know? I'm sure I can find you some pictures. Someone I know works on fracking sites in the US.

Many of the proposed fracking sites are within striking distance of residential areas which is why people are not happy about it.

Actually people are fine about it until wierdy beardy groups like Frack Off and Greenpeace rock up. Once they're shown the facts, they're happy. It's ecomentalists who cause the terror and distress. It's ecomentalists who misrepresent and lie and smear and frighten people.

It isn't a problem because the shale is 3 miles underground

Yes - the shale is under the ground but to get it out you need to drill. Hydrocarbon exploration and production is an industrial activity which requires industrial infrastructure.....

Yes please find pictures of a small scale fracking site - an active site with all the infrastructure in action.

Weirdy Beardy? Ecomentalist? Misinformed?

I am none of the above.

Using language such as is this is simply an attempt undermine people who have rational, considered and informed reasons for opposing fracking.

As for lying, smearing and scaremongering - I think the government and the oil and gas companies have done their fair share in that department.

I would like to share with you my thoughts on UNCONVENTIONAL onshore gas / oil exploration and extraction (ie fracking), and why I am extremely concerned about this.

I have a sister in the USA who, within the last 18 months, has 12 drill sites within an 8 mile radius of her family home. More permits to drill have been issued and even more are being applied for. A friend is in West Virginia, and he has 17 well sites within a 10 mile radius, again further sites applied for.

Due to this, I've been following the news here in the UK and I hope all the links I've supplied work.

1 Energy Security?

Any gas produced here would be sold into a market connected to the continent, so there would be no guarantee on the price or that it would not be exported to the 'highest bidder'. The companies involved in gas / oil exploration here are backed by massive USA corporations. We have all seen what has happened to our energy costs over the last 10 years, irrelevant what the 'trade' cost of gas has been.

www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10433041/David-Cameron-was-wrong-to-raise-publics-hopes-on-fracking-says-energy-expert.html

2 Rules and Regulations More Stringent in the UK than the USA?

This is not correct. The reason gas / oil wells leak is due to cementation integrity failure. The cement is the barrier which is meant to prevent the migration of gas / oil / chemicals into the ground / air / aquifers.

According to the Society of Petroleum Engineers figures, 34% of the UK offshore wells have cementation integrity issues.

In the UK the quality controls in place to ensure the concrete casings are of sufficient strength follow industry recognized best practice by the American Petroleum Institute.

Please see this Government link which states this fact (page 18 item B7).

"What quality controls are put in place to ensure concrete well casings are of sufficient strength?

The cement specification, testing of the slurry and placement of it in the well follows recognised industry best practice as contained in the following American Petroleum Institute (API) documents"

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225826/About_Shale_gas_and_hydraulic_fracking.pdf

Only last month the Environment Agency announced a staffing reduction of 15% by Oct 2014, and this is one of the MAIN agencies that will oversee the unconventional exploration and extraction of gas / oil onshore.

When wells are hydraulically fractured (fracked) seismic activity occurs. This increases the risk to the cementation integrity, further increasing the risk of pollution.

Professor Anthony Ingraffea (Cornell University) worked for 25 years helping to develop hydraulic fracturing of shale for the USA Energy Department. Here are two links which sum up his experience and opinions together with a synopsis of the second linked video:

"Industry wants people to believe that fracking has been going on since 1947, but this form of fracking is very different. There can be 10 or more wells on one pad, collectively using more than 50 million (US) gallons of water and chemicals.

In approx. 2003, the industry chose the current operational method was the best; high volume slick water fracking using multiple wells, clustered pads, long laterals including millions of gallons of fluid and tens of thousands of gallons of chemicals....

Dr Theo Colborn's research shows that 60% of the chemicals used in frack jobs are extremely hazardous to human health.

Industry own data shows that gas wells leak at very high rates; brand new ones are 1 in 20, over time this increases, and up to 50% after 30 years."

trib.com/news/opinion/forums/dangers-of-hydraulic-fracturing-in-shale/article_b080d8d6-e588-5505-b082-662434c65df2.html

3 The productivity of gas / oil wells using unconventional methods (fracking).

Productivity is reduced by approx. 75% in the first year and most wells have a producing life of about 3 years. Therefore, more and more wells have to be drilling just to keep producing the same amount of gas / oil. This in turn leads to higher and higher risks of pollution.

www.ftadviser.com/2013/11/04/investments/commodities/can-the-uk-follow-us-s-fracking-path-WAuqQL11aA2bI9Bx2sRW6H/article.html

The New York Times released over 400 pages of leaked industry documents supporting this.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4.html

Page 30: QUOTE (abstract) ...'if industry can get Congress behind gas through policy, then the industry has the US by the balls in terms of allowing development to continue as the shale wells that are already drilled rapidly deplete - higher prices, more money for industry, and more dependence on drilling'

Page 427: QUOTE (abstract) ...'when we examine the individual decision of drilling a shale well, I am hard pressed many wells making payout and generating a positive rate of return unless natural gas prices increase significantly'.

1. Quantity of wells needed for unconventional onshore gas / oil production.

Nowhere in the world is high pressure hydraulic fracturing happening in such a densely populated country as will be the case in the UK.

To see how many wells are needed to extract shale gas / oil, I would like to point you in the direction of a website:

www.fractracker.org/

On this website you can find maps of USA states where fracking has been happening for up to 10 years. In particular I would like to draw your attention to Pennsylvania and Ohio. These two states combined are a similar size to the UK;

PA + OH = 90,800 sq miles, population approx. 24,300,000
UK = 94,000 sq. miles, population approx. 63,000,000

When you look at the maps of PA and OH, you will see there are LOADS of well sites, and each site (called a pad) can have several drilled wells on it.

5 Infrastructure.

As thousands of wells would be needed to extract the trillions of cubic feet of gas the Government and industry say are beneath our feet, we will need thousands of miles of new pipelines. Each well site will need to be connected to compressor stations to separate the chemicals, silica, water and gas.

The toxic waste (including radioactive waste) also has to be disposed of, which means it will be either re-injected into the ground (further seismic activity / potential pollution) or transported on the roads. None of this is being talked about by the Government or the industry.

Finally, the company that set up in Balcombe was not called Cuadrilla Resources Ltd, (the parent company) but Cuadrilla Balcombe Ltd. Is this perhaps so that there is limited liability and reduced corporate responsibility if things go wrong?

The woman who started this group IS A SCIENTIST!!! She has a PHD!! Not that it should matter but several people seem to need that information before you can respect what she is doing.

Thank you all for comments and feedback. flipflop21 thank you so much for your input and for keeping your head whilst others loose theirs.
Sorry it took me so long to reply, I've been quite busy!

Firstly I should let you know that I have a PhD in molecular biology. I am highly trained in the art of researching a topic in depth and coming to an informed conclusion. Hence my motivation to take more direct action against 'fracking', by which I mean the unconventional onshore gas/oil extraction methods.

I try not to be boastful about my education and I believe everyone is entitled to make up their own mind regardless of their academic background. It is a matter that concerns all of us, not just the physicists and engineers and as such we should all do our best to understand the evidence in its entirety.

I'm quite shocked that women feel being a mother means your opinion is not valid. Especially on this website!

Perhaps it is my failing in setting up my fb page that I have not convinced you that I am well informed. I will address this as soon as I get a moment.

The teddy bear picnic idea is to show the general public that it's not just the hardened environmentalists who are concerned, that ordinary mums (who have done a bit of reading!) are concerned. Mainly the aim is to get the messages out that flip flop and Helz have delivered so eloquently on this thread.

More to come....

Fracking has not been done in this country before that is government or corporation hype. There is a form of mining that goes part way towards it but it is important to bear in mind that the technology that is now trying to come into the UK has not been done before. There is nowhere in the world where this technology has not caused widespread contamination of the air, the water and the soil.

Well written Helz, you've obviously put a lot of work into that.

My first personal concern has always been the water-intensity of it, both in the amount of water used and difficulty in cleaning the water after to make it safe again (both the amount used and the amounts contaminated from inevitable breaks in infrastructure). We're already having useable water struggles in many areas without purposefully doing something to reduce the size without the tech to clean it yet.

I know there are massive demonstration across Canada and the US, particularly on Indigenous lands in which the Canadian and American governments and corporations are ignoring Indigenous nations and local wishes (some have ended in a lot of police brutality and arrests). There are been a lot of problems in those areas with fracking and conflicts between corporations and locals. They still can't get corporations to clean up when it leaks onto lands and into communities (there have been massive leaks into residential areas that have had to be evacuated and still can't be cleaned because the corporations won't help get the specialists needed involved). I'm not sure we can trust the corporations we're handing these resources to do to do the right things if something goes wrong, only to take the credit if things go right, and that concerns me.

I don't think the fact we've used it for years here should give it the green light, it's only been done on very small scale in the UK and there have been people having major problem with it in other areas it has been rolled out in. We used asbestos for many years as a wonder material and many were still here, and yet thousands died and are dying painfully from it. Wonder tools rarely work as well as corporations like to think they will.

If you don't think that Mums Against Fracking is an appropriate angle then you might think again when you've checked out "List of the Harmed" just google it. There are over 1700 cases on there, just scroll down and all you see is kids with nosebleeds, rashes, dizzyness and much worse. If we allow fracking in this country, the same will happen to our kids. Why repeat it, we already know that its harmful. It is a mothers right to protect her children from this toxic industry. Go Mums Against Fracking!! You rock!!

So are your aquifers underground and the concrete casing which is put down after they have drilled is subject to cracking and leaking. 6% leak from the very beginning and they can't stop this happening all wells leak eventually. That frack mix which is a mix of highly toxic cancer causing and radioactive chemicals then takes the path of least resistance and ends up in your water supply. Some areas only have one aquifer to served the whole of the county there is no going back if the quality of that water supply becomes contaminated. The water used approximately 2 million gallons per frack is not recoverable that means it is lost to the system and they consider it a good job if only half makes it back to the surface. The rest is left to seep out over the next 20 odd years. That is highly toxic highly corrosive water which has hundreds of chemicals in it

No-one who cares about our beautiful country is trying to frighten people but we do not want it polluted for profit and we would like it left for the next generation to enjoy it - this industry has a long history of being disingenuous -

Only this year Cuadrilla were fined by the advertising agency for lying basically about the safety of fracking. The have a massive PR campaign in fact the very same people who told you that cigarette smoking was safe are the same PR company employed by the fracking companies. They are driven by profit and greed and nothing else.

I don't understand this thread or the title, I only came into it because of 'fracking'. What are you suggesting? Mum's get together and somehow stop this from happening? Tell me OP, are you completely green in your lifestyle choices? Do you not drive a motor vehicle, is your house warmed by gas, fuel? Is your lights and appliances charged by electricity?

I'm afraid if you answered yes to any of the questions above you are in no position to comment or protest against fracking. It does have its environmental set backs but unfortunately so does all unsustainable energy sources.

Thanks mum0019 :)

In Responding to other points I won't repeat points Heltz has addressed about well structure/drilling etc.

Fracking will reduce reliance on 'dirty fuel'.

It is likely that Methane leakage from wells cancels out any carbon savings. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The end of a wells life is when the most methane leaks out. The study that suggests that methane leakage is not substantial enough to be a problem only took measurements during the first 9 days of the wells life.

I guess it's a matter of opinion wether you think the countryside is an 'industrialised space'. It certainly doesn't have hundreds of trucks carting gallons of water and chemicals through it at the moment. Not to mention trucks/ barges carrying away waste water.

To those who feel we need fracking to bring fuel prices down. When have prices ever gone down??? How about the energy companies stop getting away with ridiculous profits and blaming green levies for their woes? Where is all the money for the fracking investment coming from?
Nb many green energy companies are cheaper than the big six now! And your money will be going towards green investment. It's a no -brainer!

pauses for breath

I'm not anywhere near as well qualified as some on here, but I am from a science/ engineering background. Having read round the subject I am still undecided.

I still think though that if we do allow it, rather than tax breaks the government should be taxing it and setting the money aside for environmental clean up. My greatest concern would be contamination of aquifers.

I would also like to add that the environmental cost of making all these dodgy chemicals, and cleaning them up afterward will be pretty high.

In the long run, environmental costs will wind up being economic costs, Short term fixes that don't solve any of our long term problems. I don't know enough about economics to regurgitate what I've read but I've seen a number of articles by esteemed economists who say that it is unlikely to make us that much money. And in the mean time, what have we done to our country? If we all have to outsource our water, isn't that going to cost more? All I ask you to do is your own research and to make your own mind up.

Scientists recently told us they are 95% sure that climate change is real. What are we doing to tackle it? Is fracking a good idea when you consider this? Shouldn't we be focusing on greener solutions.

To people who oppose green technology because it spoils their view I really don't know what to say. I personally think wind and solar farms are quite beautiful and every time I see one I fill with hope and pride in my species. And I would be quite happy to have them near my house. I think we can work around many of the problems people raise with more careful planning of sites.

I started my mums against fracking group because I am worried about my child's future. I'm worried about air quality, water quality etc but I'm also worried about the long term effect of fossil fuel reliance and the effects on climate change and I feel fracking is a major step in the wrong direction.

Hope I covered it all!

After spending nearly 25 years bringing up the next generation, I do not want to see my children’s health and future jeopardised by extreme gas extraction. It is not just a question of the introduction of high volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas (which is a recent development): the technology has also evolved partly due to the development of perforating guns, where powerful ballistic explosive charges can cut through rocks at great depth, making extensive and intensive mining for ’tight’ gas more attractive. 60% of the UK is on offer for gas exploration and some of this is Underground Coal Gasification and Coal Bed Methane or Coal Seam Gas. These processes are already damaging childrens health in Australia:

ALL methods of garnering energy and fuels from our lands causes dissent and a change in the environ. I am not a scientist, i am merely a woman who understands right from wrong, who understands we need sustainable energies for future generations. But if we pollute and kill our land and water then we leave them nothing!
Wind/solar farms may be unsightly (so are power stations, fracking sites and well heads etc) but from the reading i have done, they cause LESS damage and won't dry up... unless of course you can turn out the sun and turn off the wind?

One other minor point... the government informs us that the gas from these frack sites will sustain us for the next 50? years? What will they impose on us when the wells dry up at that point?
Ask yourselves how long will these 'unsightly' wind/solar farms sustain us?

Just a thought :0)

Bellablot- all I have learnt recently is making me more Eco conscious and I make positive changes every day to live more sustainably.

This is the whole point of my group, you shouldn't have to be a hardened Eco warrior who lives off grid to be concerned about your environment. I believe there is a middle ground, with the proper encouragement of renewable energy.

If the impact on public health is bad in countries like Australia and America, with large, open landscapes, this type of gas extraction is even more hazardous for a small country like ours:

Making Local Residents Sick
People who live close to fracking sites are exposed to a variety of air pollutants including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, xylene and toluene. These chemicals can cause a wide range of health problems—from eye irritation and headaches to asthma and cancer.
Existing data demonstrate that fracking operations are releasing these pollutants into the air at levels that threaten our health. In Texas, monitoring by the Texas Department of Environmental Quality de- tected levels of benzene—a known cancer-causing chemical—in the air that were high enough to cause immediate human health concern at two sites in the Barnett Shale region, and at levels that pose long- term health concern at an additional 19 sites. Several chemicals were also found at levels that can cause foul odors. Air monitoring in Arkansas has also found elevated levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—some of which are also hazardous air pollut- ants—at the perimeter of hydraulic fracturing sites. Local air pollution problems have also cropped up in Pennsylvania. Testing conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection detected components of gas in the air near Marcellus Shale drilling operations.

Residents living near fracking sites have long suffered from a range of acute and chronic health problems, including headaches, eye irritation, respiratory problems and nausea. An investigation by the journalism website ProPublica uncovered numerous reports of illness in western states from air pollution from fracking. In Pennsylvania, a homeowner in the town of Carmichaels described how she and her children began to suffer from a variety of symptoms after a compressor station was built 780 feet from her house. Pam Judy explained to the nearby Mur- rysville Council that “Shortly after operations began, we started to experience extreme headaches, runny noses, sore/scratchy throats, muscle aches and a con- stant feeling of fatigue. Both of our children are expe- riencing nose bleeds and I’ve had dizziness, vomiting and vertigo to the point that I couldn’t stand and was taken to an emergency room.” Eventually, she con- vinced state officials to test air quality near her home. That testing revealed benzene, styrene, toluene, xylene, hexane, heptane, acetone, acrolein, carbon tetrachloride and chloromethane in the air.

All indications are that these known stories just scratch the surface of health damage from fracking. In cases where families made sick from fracking have sought to hold drilling companies accountable in court, the companies have regularly insisted on gag orders as conditions of legal settlements—in a recent case even the children were barred from talking about fracking, for life.

www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/EA_FrackingNumbers_scrn.pdf

Firstly I have to say well done flipflop for providing some real information here. The first few reactionary comments on this thread I found very depressing and show what a woeful lack of knowledge there is surrounding 'fracking' in the UK. I genuinely would like to share information here rather than get into arguments so please read on....

To add a few more facts.

1. "Fracking" of conventional vertical wells has indeed been done since 1947. However the 'fracking' currently being considered in the UK has not been done since 1947, it was developed around 1996 by Halliburton and is High Volume Slickwater Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing. Media claims that thousands of wells have been safely 'fracked' here is DELIBERATE OBFUSCATION and intentionally confusing the old type of 'conventional' fracking with the new 'unconventional' fracking.

1. Whoever said we have plenty of wide open space in the UK has obviously not done their comparisons. The population of the fracked areas of Wyoming for example is about 1 person per square mile, in Texas it is around 20. The population of the UK is around 1250 per square mile, in Sussex for example it is 430. If you believe any comparisons to the US that you are hearing from politicians you are being totally blindsided.

1. It will not make our GAS cheaper. Unlike the US we are part of the EU and would be bound by their rates. We would be able to suddenly start selling gas to ourselves cheaper than say Norway already do.

4.If you think fracking can be done with one "Tiny drilling site" you have not done your homework. Fracking requires THOUSANDS of "tiny drilling sites" (which are actually at least the size of a football field) connecting roads, pipelines, compressor stations, water treatment plants, waste water storage- Infact massive scale industrialisation of the landscape (just take a look at some pictures of Pennsylvania or Texas commonsensecanadian.ca/birds-eye-view-texas-fracking-causes-rumble/)

1. The geology of the UK means that we have tight shale (unlike the US where it mostly loser shale) This means it will be harder to 'frack'. This means greater levels of chemical injection at greater pressures would be required to release any gas. All of this means greater RISK.

If you haven't engaged seriously with this issue then here is a good place to start frack-off.org.uk/campaign-materials/science-and-data/. The evidence from the USA as to the health effects and environmental devastation caused by fracking is growing by the week.
PLEASE be sure to always check who has funded papers on the safety of fracking. When you scratch the surface you will find that the peer reviewed independent study (such as this www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/04/fracking-leaks-may-make-gas-dirtier-coal) paints a VERY different picture than that our government would have us believe.

FINALLY (for now) I would like to say there is NOTHING wrong with a group called 'Mums against fracking' . To say that it is patronising implies that only physicists are worthy of having an opinion on this. I am a mum and I am not a physicist however I know a lot about this subject and have been researching it for myself for at least 6 months now. I'd be more than happy to try and answer any questions or point people towards useful information. Mums do need to get together on this as do gardeners, farmers, teachers, scientists, musicians- any other group you care to mention. We all live here and all depend on our most valuable resource which is NOT gas- it is WATER! As mums we have a responsibility to think seriously about this issue for the sake of our children.

Brilliant information from Helz (above) well done!

This is a quick and simple place to start for those who want for information

#t=12

Hello ladies - this is my first foray on here and am finding my way around - couldn't figure out how to respond directly to comments, but particularly feel the need to do so to the following two at the top of the discussion - and this seems the only way to do it...?

"MrsPnut Thu 07-Nov-13 06:45:29
Fracking has been going on for years in this country, and we are still here."

"flatpackhamster Thu 07-Nov-13 06:39:57
Fracking happens 5 miles underground. What's prettier - a tiny drilling site or 400 wind turbines covering a hillside? Not to mention all the electric pylons to move the power for the turbines."

Fracking has NOT been going on for years in this country. This is what deeply invested politicians are telling us and wish you to believe. There has been ONE high volume hydraulic fracturing operation in England - in Lancs in the Spring of 2011 - by Cuadrilla - and it triggered seismic activity.

See DECC confirmation of this here: www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=474309489331108&set=pb.263678780394181.-2207520000.1384123598.&type=3&theater

Re - depth underground and impact. This is not about what's pretty - it's about the impact it has on seismic security, air pollution, waste of fresh water supplies and irreversible toxic, radioactive pollution of the water that both comes back up and potentially leaks into reservoirs and wild water courses - and it's a darn sight shallower than 5 miles!

Realise these points may already have been addressed, but sadly haven't time right now to go through the whole discussion to check.

Great to see this discussion starting on here .. after two years' intensive involvement with this, living with my son 4 miles from Cuadrilla's site in Balcombe .. I'm happy to answer any questions I can if helpful .. though not sure how I find out if they've been asked!!

Vanessa

Reading replys to Rebecca Martin's concerns of Fracking in the UK, I'm astonished individuals are patronised by the groups name "mums against Fracking" , especially as the said mum is a doctor of science, and her husband is also a doctor of science !
Debate is always the way to truth.
So, do I just listen to politicians with vested interests ! ? Or do I also listen to mums with concerns without feeling patronised !! ?