Health Benefits Of Fracking

The topic concerning both environmental and occupational health that I’ve chosen to discuss is the importance and effects of hydraulic fracking. Originally created in the 1940’s, fracking became more used in the early 2000’s after large name corporations invested in expanding natural gas exploration (Burton). The process is quite simple; the idea is that millions of gallons of water, sand, and other such chemicals are pumped into the ground to break up shales of rocks that then release natural gasses (Osborn). The gasses are then able to move freely to the wells. Most of the fluid sent to the ground are sand and water; the process of fracking has become more and more common in the United States and is projected to increase to be the only efficient
way to drill wells. Once the gasses reach the well, the concept is that the fluid sent into the ground will also flow to ground surface. The process became more wide spread after it was proven to increase oil and natural gas production than other past drilling processes. Hydraulic fracking has become an important steeple of American energy production and has a key role in both public health initiatives concerning global health, energy conservation and natural gas development around the world. Through years of trials and studies, scientists and experts have comprised positives and negatives, so to speak, of hydraulic fracking effects the environment as well as public health. With regards to concerns for the public good, fracking can sometimes lead to possible waste disposal harms, methane and air pollution, and exposure to toxic chemicals (Hoffman). The environment is also susceptible to the bio-effects of fracking such as groundwater pollution and less availability of water due to the high concentrations of water needed to pressurize and then break the rocks for their contents. Most notable, is the possibility of fracking-induced earthquakes and workplace safety attributed to the standards and hazards of the process. Fracking would also increase reliance on natural gas rather than coal and fossil fuels which would create a less harmful exposure to air toxins; it has also been shown to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than other current actions such as coal burning (Yale Climate Connections). However, as stated previously, there is always the risk of methane and other chemicals leaking into our environment (Hoffman). Methane, a harmful odorless gas, is known to be very flammable, deadly if inhaled and fatal in cases of high exposure; all negative consequences to the argument for fracking. Concluding this section, many believe contamination to both air and water is the most significant and probable outcome from fracking which could lead to future unhealthy outcomes (Hoffman). Though fracking has been around for years, the health effects of such a process has just begun to be researched and studied according to experts and this is due to a change in collection of natural gasses (Burton).
The populations most affected by fracking are humans and animal life, accordingly. Previously noted, hydraulic fracking can cause contamination to both air and drinking water which could lead to infection, virus and other communicable diseases. Through water contamination, animal life is put in danger as through consumption along with poor air quality which effects all living specimen. Because methane is the main component or element of natural gas, it causes an added risk of air pollution that can be released into our atmosphere and is measured to beat least 50 parts per billion higher than the EPA’s health threshold of exposure (Hoffman). Exposure to such toxins and the chemicals in the fracking fluid could cause skin and eye irritation as well as organ failure if ingested; being that many criticize the workplace infrastructure as being unstable, much of these consequences relate to the workers
(Osborn). Water pollution is the other risk of fracking because of the pressure in which fluid is pushed into the ground, it is not always viable for all of it rise to the ground surface and thus has the potential to leak into other water wells and natural water ways (Hoffman). With the risk of soil contamination, many farmers are at greater risk of losing business and the public is at greater risk of contaminated consumption of fruits and vegetables (FracFocus). Those at most risk of exposure to the toxins are the workers as they are at added risk because of working conditions and lack of knowledge on proper safety as the effects of fracking and contact are still being researched and identified (Hoffman). As far as intended consequences, hydraulic fracking is used as a viable option because it increases the output of natural gases one can harvest from the Earth (FracFocus). Aside from extending the usability of oil and natural gas fields, hydraulic fracturing also allows for greater recovery of oil and natural gas through the wells. Most importantly, corporations find this process to be more economical than traditional practices by saving them time and allowing for the maximum output of natural gas (Davis). It is supported by many because it reduces gas prices, helps economy, clean energy source, jobs, along with stability year round, regardless of weather, unlike wind and solar power (FracFeed). Unintended consequences include air pollution, water contamination as well as critical soil and oil spill contamination.
As we’ve seen in the BP Oil Spill, the infrastructure of wells and fracking strategies are still flawed and large scale disasters can occur (Hoffman). In the case of this spill, aquatic life was greatly hurt but most significant was the loss of human life and the financial impacts it had on the country. Cleaning up the spill took months and payments and settlements, roughly $40 billion, took years to accomplish with the “big name” corporation and the workers’ families (bp United States). Another forgotten or accidental consequence of fracking is the production of wastewater or “flowback” as it is referred to which is supposed disposed of in ponds and tanks; however, because health effects are still being known, experts argue that disposal methods must be improved (Frontier Group). There have also been reported illnesses from drinking water after fracking, blowouts and fires; more discouraging, is the cost of treatment, methane removal alone costs upwards of $9,000 per family household according to the Environment N.C. article. Most common, families nearby fracking well sites have complained of eye and throat irritation, nausea, and headaches as well as the added danger, for workers, of inhalation of toxins or chemicals such as silica sand which can cause lung disease, silicosis (Frontier Group). Hydraulic fracking has it’s set of pros and cons, this
being said, the future of energy production is built upon what we do now such as guidelines and initiatives we put in place to protect the public’s well-being.