Rigorous Evidence Slim for Determining Health Risks From Natural Gas Fracking

Abstract

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING, COMmonly called fracking, allows access to previously inaccessible natural gas reserves. Fracking in the United States is being touted as a panacea, creating much-needed jobs following a brutal recession, reducing dependence on foreign energy supplies, and lowering emissions of greenhouse gases that might contribute to global warming. As this natural gas production ramps up, however, there are few scientific findings on the effects of fracking on the environment and animal and human health. Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests it may cause harm by contaminating well and ground water and releasing gases into the air. Some public health and community leaders are calling for a moratorium on fracking while scientists determine the risks, industry devises methods to minimize them, and regulatory agencies develop guidelines to ensure that risks remain minimized. Countering this cautious approach is the gas production industry, which argues that fracking has been conducted for more than 60 years on more than a million wells without any major environmental or health disasters; governments, which foresee additional revenue by taxing this gas production; workers looking for jobs; and consumers and businesses seeking cheap energy. A report by the American Petroleum Institute offers a glimpse into the financial stakes surrounding fracking (http: //tinyurl.com/8xoz3ky). The report suggests that over the next decade, development of the Marcellus shale formation, which is found underground in Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia, could generate almost 300 000 new jobs, more than $6 billion in tax revenue, and nearly $25 billion in value added to the economy by 2020. And additional natural gasbearing shale is found throughout the country, especially in Texas, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Fracking involves drilling a hole, usually thousands of feet into the ground, to reach shale formations where natural gas is trapped. Water, sand, and a proprietary mix of chemicals are then injected into the shale, fracturing the rock and releasing the natural gas, which is captured when it flows up and out of the hole. While fracking has been around a while, recent developments in the technology now allow creating a bore hole and then drilling into the shale horizontally, releasing a greater amount of natural gas from each well. But that greater release comes at a cost. Instead of using thousands of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals to release the gas, the new wells use millions of gallons. It is those millions of gallons of then-polluted water and the greater amounts of natural gas and potential air pollutants that cause some to worry about health ramifications. For example, a Pennsylvania study looked at 41 products used in fracturing operations and found that 73% had between 6 and 14 different adverse health effects. These included skin, eye, and sensory organ damage; respiratory distress such as asthma; gastrointestinal tract and liver disease; brain and nervous system harms; cancers; and negative reproductive effects (Finkel ML and Law A. Am J Public Health. 2011; 101[5]:784-785). Bernard D. Goldstein, MD, professor emeritus of environmental and occupational health at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health, who is studying the health implications of fracking in the Marcellus shale, would like the industry and governments to slow their embrace of this novel method of natural gas extraction until there is a better understanding of potential environmental and health harms. “We’ve