A social. The interactions within and among relevant social groups can give different meanings to the same.” (Bijker, 2001, pp. 26). In order to understand how controversial hydraulic fracturing is, the importance of how this technology is socially constructed among the relevant social groups constructivist approach is relevant in understanding how knowledge and debates are formulated by differing social groups. Using this theoretical framework provides us with a background on how a technology, in this case hydraulic fracturing, is constructed through separate discourses. According to Bijker, “In the social construction of technology approach (SCOT), relevant social groups are the starting point. Technical artifacts are described through the eyes of the members of these groupsis crucial. Thus looking at the controversy through a social constructivist study of the technology does not strictly mean we are applying just an ontological position (Bijker, 1993, pp. 115).
In order to in knowledge distribution, and the understanding that calculable risks in an industrial society became incalculable and unpredictable now in a risk society. Understanding the different levels understand how actors create a controversy over a technology it is best understood from Ulrich Beck’s theory of risk society. Beck explains how society moves from an industrial society to a risk society through two phases. Phase one: where self-harm is systematically produced but is not a public issue or in any way the center of political conflict, and phase two: hazards from the industrial society now dominate the political and public debates (Beck, 1999, pp. 72). These phases are distinguished due to an increase of risk interpretation by different actors builds support on why they may or may not support a technology. In the case of hydraulic fracturing, proponents argue fracking outcomes result in simplistic risks, which means they are manageable and can be easily to complete a well for production. Hydraulic fracturing has been an established and proven calculated. In responding to potential opponents, the industry argues that risks can be managed through existing and rapidly improving technologies. A press release from the Marcellus Shale Coalition (2010).” In the additional measures to secure the extraction processproposes what their argumentation looks like: “The members of the Marcellus Shale Coalition develop and drill wells in an environmentally responsible manner, including the use of hydraulic fracturing practice to access the gas. Further security is guaranteed by the new, modern character of the technology. As a direct response to the risk of methane-contamination of the environment, incidents due to hydraulic fracturing, the strong pipe and the layers of cement, make hydraulic than the one of by state agencies. There have been no identified groundwater contamination). The opponents’ arguments focus on environmental risks and health issues. They claim that shale fracking - carbon dioxide for example (Howarth, Ingraffea & Engelder fracturing a very safe way unpredictable uncertainties. Beck explains, “the face of the unforeseeable and unaccountable consequences of largefor 60 years in Pennsylvania and around the country, and has been regulated successfully scale technologies, it is necessary to re-define the rules and principles” (Beck 1993, pp. 78-79proponents argue that groundwater contains methane gas naturally and that it is not a poison. If methane gas would leak into the atmosphere, it is of no significant danger, because the half-life is a lot shorter, 2011, p. 274-275). Opponents argue that risk outcomes from fracking are ambiguous and create is not clean. The toxic additives used to extract the gas from the shale are likely to leak into the groundwater, which is a threat to the ecosystem. Acids, Benzene and friction reducers harm living beings, if