Thanks for the response! I was commenting more on /u/Claythorne's first two sentances:

This. People are so concerned about "fracking" like its the end of the world. Its just become a media hot topic frenzy.

As it seemed like he was dismissing a whole part of the argument, not to mention /u/spergery's apparent dismissal of it as well.

Define "large". The vast majority of these "quakes" are far too small to feel, and none are large enough to do damage besides maybe knocking a cup off a counter or cracking a window.

Despite their attention to contaminated water, it seems like they're dismissing it utterly, as if it's not even an issue, instead of identifying where it actually fits into these issues as a whole.

While it's surely not the end of the world, and I'm quite sure Canada isn't going to collapse due to geological issues anytime soon, I think I can safely argue the point that fracking shouldn't have come up as a viable solution in the first place in this decade, much less be such a hot topic that gets incredibly dimwitted rhetoric from all sides. The fact that it's being dismissed as if it's an insignificant type of mining, when it's still used regularly in many areas, just raises more red flags.

Also, you can gripe all you want about accidents, but the fact is people around the world demand this stuff on an enormous scale. Every time you fill up the tank or buy food instead of growing it in your yard you are asking for it. Of course accidents happen.

Right. These accidents happened because people were told to prioritize profits over safety. But I really can't take my gasoline powered car and expect it to run on sunlight, or even ethanol, despite that technology being around for close to 80 years, electric over 100, and stop the competition for gas.

Now, forgive the ignorance, but when you have a situation like this:

“There are more earthquakes in western Canada that are more related to hydraulic fracturing than wastewater injection by a factor of about two,” David Eaton, a University of Calgary geophysicist and a co-author of the study.

Where we have TWO different methods of human caused earthquakes, why don't we compare it to how many natural earthquakes the region has? Why are we saying that "some" earthquakes are "not so bad" when perhaps carelessly messing around with our tectonic plates may or may not end up being a much bigger problem than those driving by profits may think?

I'm sorry, but it pisses me off. We've proven how goddamn idiotic humanity is when it come to anything having to do with more than 30+ years in the future, and we've paid the price more times than it's been worth. I just don't like seeing this stuff happening over and over again. We're humans, we're supposed to LEARN from our mistakes, not repeat them over and over in a blindsided quest for profits.