Sheats_3300_L8-RP

HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
Health Risks associated with Fracking pertaining to Health Sciences and Animal Science
Allison Sheats
INTS 3300- D01
Dr. Gail Bentley
Texas Tech University

2
Abstract
This paper outlines the health issue with fracking, through the scope of the disciplines of
Animal Science and Health Sciences. The most common brought about problem with fracking is
the contamination of ground water, as well as drinking water. Therefore, in the paper the possible
risks associated with contaminated water; as well as on the job health risk. Furthermore, the
environmental impacts and how it affects wildlife will be overviewed. The utilization of both
qualitative and quantitative research, pulled from multiple origins of research, brought forth
many different views on the issue of contamination of both ground and drinking water due to
fracking. As a result it was found that there is a discrepancy in the views on if fracking can truly
be harmful, and concluded that this wicked problem needs to be more thoroughly researched to
provide empirical data.

3
Fracking is a process that involves drilling and injecting fluid into the ground at high
pressure to fracture shale rocks for shale gas production. Over the years, hydraulic fracturing has
become a hot debate concerning if there are possible health hazards. Through using Repko’s ten
step process, this wicked problem will be outlined. Two disciplines of health sciences and animal
science have been chosen in order to look at this issue through an interdisciplinary approach; and
wholly look at the health issues. On the Health science side, the most posing question is what
side effects or possible health problems could arise with working closely with fracking? There
has been controversy of the methane contaminant entering the water supply due to fracking; how
does that affect the surrounding communities water supply, or does it affect all water supplies?
Additionally, what levels of fracking fluid is considered safe in ground and drinking water? The
animal science perspective, examines how fracking affects both livestock and wildlife. Does the
contaminated water play a factor in the animals, therefore compromising meat quality? Therefore
comprehensively this paper will outline the health risks associated with hydraulic fracking in
respect to the disciplines of health sciences and animal science; and how this could affect the
average family
STEP 1: Define the Problem
The process of hydraulic fracturing is described as a technique used to release and
promote extraction of natural gas from deep natural gas deposits (Ewers, Gordalla, & Frimmel).
There has been much controversy over this topic as it brings forth many issues, with how it
affects the laborers as well as citizens worldwide. This is practiced in several countries; the
United States and Germany are two examples that will be discussed. When researching the
problem it is easy to see that contamination of both ground and drinking water are the most

4
talked about issue. It has been found that fracking injects up to 17 million liters of fluid
consisting of water and additive, and 9% to 34% returns to the ground surface (Myers, 2012,
p.872). Therefore, foreign materials entering the water system, naturally bring forth concerns.
My natural concerns immediately rely with the disciplines I affiliate myself with; those
being health sciences and animal science. When examining the hazards of contaminated drinking
water, it is important to look at this problem thoroughly. The health science side of things
immediately pertains to humans. However, it is important to look at the affects of livestock,
which in turn will be the human’s food, to truly outline the health risks. Contamination must be
examined in how the water affects humans first hand, but additionally looking at how this affects
the environment which then affects livestock. What health risks does this pose to livestock, does
this then bring sick animals making food scarcer, or possible undetected unsafe products being
consumed by humans? Therefore, comprehensively I will be looking at the health risks in
livestock as well as humans in association with hydraulic fracturing, and how it affects the
average family.
STEP 2: Justify Using an Interdisciplinary Approach
There are several justifications for using an interdisciplinary approach for studying
fracking. Simply put, it is too complex to adequately analyze through one discipline. This
problem offers multiple components; I chose to narrow it down to the contaminated water;
although there are many other issues such as general safety of laborers, environmental issues,
and financial issues. However, it is easy to see that just looking at the contaminated water issue it
would be impossible to fully analyze through one discipline. For example, health risks associated
can vary from contributing factors, as well as laborers health risks versus citizens. Through

5
researching hydraulic fracturing, I found that the problem truly is unresolved. Therefore, the
problem being unresolved proves that not one discipline has been able to find a conclusion to this
issue.
STEP 3: Identify Relevant Disciplines
When examining hydraulic fracturing health hazards and how they affects the average
family; disciplines such as science, sociology, finance, agriculture, health science, and
psychology are a few examples of disciplines that could be used to analyze this issue. Many of
these disciplines can overlap with each other to fully explain this phenomenon. For example,
when researching the health implications due to fracking most of the resources came from the
category of science. Furthermore, health hazards could easily be examined accompanied by
psychology; by examining the psychological impacts for laborers, or the psychological disorders
that could arise from the contamination of ground water. However, the small area of psychology
mentioned above could be examined through the lens of health sciences. When examining the
contamination of water, finance can also be eliminated, as looking at the financial aspects
contributes little to health hazards. Therefore, to in-depthly and effectively analyze the health
issues, it would seem natural to look specifically in the discipline of health sciences, but to also
take the more abstract route to animal science. Animal science, centers heavily on raising healthy
livestock in order to slaughter for consumption. Therefore, it is imperative to look at the potential
hazards as well as overall health of livestock in order to ensure quality and safe food is being
consumed. As the old saying goes, “you are what you eat”, therefore, the effects on the livestock
directly affect humans.
STEP 4: Conduct a Literature Search

6
The literature search conducted turned up primarily research related to health sciences,
and little pertaining directly to animal sciences. There is a lack of how contaminated water could
potentially affect livestock; however, how it affects the environment was of relevant use. The
environment affects directly affect livestock. The literature searches show the effects of habitats,
water contamination, as well as air pollution. It also found that some ecosystems are at greater
risk due to closer geographical proximity of the ecosystem to the drilling site (Burton, Basu,
Ellis, Kapo, & Entrekin, 2014, p. 1679).
The health science side begins with science, but describing the amounts of fracking fluid,
fracking injects up to 17 million liters of fluid consisting of water and additive, and 9% to 34%
returns to the ground surface (Myers, 2012, p.872). Furthermore, the risks were assessed as
developing cancer, pulmonary disease, and silicosis. However, many Germany and United States
authors argued, that fracking fluids are below health reference values (Gordalla, Frimmel, and
Ewers, 2013, p.3893). Furthermore, both Germany and United States seemed to agree that
further research is needed to be conducted to reach a final conclusion on the risks.
STEP 5: Develop Adequacy in Each Relevant Discipline
Adequacy can be found through finding a basic understanding of each individual
discipline and applying them to make a large integrative approach. When analyzing the
disciplines, all agreed unanimously that hydraulic fracking contaminates drinking water.
However, it is important to look at the various arguments and how they pertain to each individual
discipline. For example, research concerning the environment looks at how this affects wildlife
and livestock. This would immediately point to the discipline of animal science. Furthermore,
research looking at drinking water and how this could affect the overall health of the citizen;

7
would be the discipline of health science. By looking at these two disciplines various issues
separate it then allow the overall health issue for fracking to be looked at globally. The health
issues of animals would not necessarily be addressed in the discipline of health science; as health
science pertains to strictly humans. However, it is important to look at health issues with animals
as those health issues could be passed along to humans via consumption.
STEP 6: Analyze the Problem and Evaluate Each Insight or Theory
When analyzing the phenomena of contaminated drinking water due to fracking; most all
the articles come from a science based disciplinary affiliation, this makes sense due to the fact
that without science health sciences would cease to exist or at least make sense.
Science
The scientific outlooks can examine how the water becomes contaminated, as well as,
determine the amount of contamination. “Potential Contaminant Pathways from Hydraulically
Fractured Shale to Aquifers” by Myers discussed how the vertical flows drive contaminants from
the fractured shale to the aquifers, thus there is an increase in gas in water wells near areas used
for fracking. To further elaborate upon this phenomenon it is discussed that, fracking injects up
to 17 million liters of fluid consisting of water and additive, and 9% to 34% returns to the ground
surface, thus agencies have found more thermogenic gas in water wells near fracking areas. Due
to the increasing development of unconventional sources, the risk to aquifers could potentially be
increasing. Therefore, the intent of the study is to characterize the risk factors associated with
vertical contaminant transport from the shale to near-surface aquifers through natural gas
pathways in the Marcellus shale region of southern New York. This is done by examining five
conceptual models of flow and transport and post-fracking transport that were analyzed; one

8
being the natural upward advective flow, two the same as the previous one but with a vertical
fracture connecting the shale to surface, the third scenario tested the effect of extensive
fracturing in the Marcellus shale by increasing the shale. The fourth similar to number three
measured the effect of the change in shale properties but with a fault of number two’s, and lastly
this scenarios simulated injections of fluid in a fractured shale from a horizontal well with and
without finding fault. Through this simulation it was concluded that subsurfaces should be
mapped prior to fracking, setback distances from the fracking to fault should be established, the
properties should be verified post fracking, and lastly a system of deep and shallow monitoring
wells and piezometers should be monitoring wells.
Environmental
Once there is a basic understanding on how fracking works it is important to dive in
deeper and look at how this effects the environment. “Hydraulic ‘Fracking’: Are surface water
impacts an ecological concern?” was published by Burton, Basu, Ellis, Kapo, Entrekin, and
Nadalhoffer; this article looks particularly at surface water impacts from fracking, and how that
affects the environments. Due to the increase in natural gas in the market place, abundant natural
gas reserves and fracking operations targeting shale gas formation; however, this new drive
comes with health, environmental, and geopolitical concerns. Hydraulic fracturing fluids contain
a range of additives, including proppants, gelling agents, solvents, antiscalants, surfactants,
corrosion inhibitors, and biocides; some are known to be toxic. This is concerning as ecological
impacts include release of harmful pollutants due to construction of new roads; and these
activities may have profound effects on a region’s ecosystem and organisms. The US
Environmental Protection Agency found that the majority of aquatic life impairments are the

9
result of nonpoint-source runoff in human dominated watersheds. Water quality versus quantity
is outlined by showing how the lower dilution rates and contaminants can damage ecosystem and
harm aquatic life; and the concern of extraction of surface water leading to period of water
shortages thus impacting agriculture. In conclusion, the closer to fracking the more of ecological
concern; it was found this could bring forth increased erosion and sedimentation, increased risk
to aquatic ecosystems, habitat fragmentation, altered biogeochemical cycling, and hyporheic
water volumes because of withdrawal-inducing lowering of local groundwater levels.
Health Science
Now that the foundation for understanding the process of fracking has been built and how
this can be of an ecological risks; the impacts of the ground and drinking water can be discussed.
“Hydraulic fracturing: a toxicological threat for groundwater and drinking-water?” a study
conducted by Gordalla, Frimmel, and Ewers; discusses the environmental impact of
contaminated ground water and risk associated with the toxic substances; as discussed with the
use of unconventional shale gas reservoirs. It examines the most important sources of drinking
water in Germany and many other European countries, as it pertains to hydraulic fracturing. A
majority of the research is conducted at Exxon Mobil drilling sites in northern Germany and
overviews fracking and how it pertains to water fluxes, the purpose of these fracking fluids is
discussed, and lastly the chemical uses in the fracking fluids are discussed. It was found that
varying amounts of fracking fluid contaminate the water from underground or above-ground
accidents associated with transport, storage, or handling. Furthermore, the research concluded
that different dilution of fracking fluid emerge in ground water; and found that 1:1000 up to
1:10,000 dilutions of fracking fluid are below health reference values as outlined in European

10
Drinking Water Directive. In terms of drinking water produced, it is thought to be more
problematic; however there is little reliable data available to prove this.
The last scholarly article “Hydraulic fracturing- a hazard for drinking water?” is in fact
published by Ewers, Gordalla, and Frimmel just as the article discussed above. In this article they
further examine risks of contaminated drinking water within Germany’s and other European
Countries’, drinking water. Fracking is among great concern to the German public due to the
potential environmental impact that includes contaminating water. The article outlines that the
process of hydraulic fracturing is described as a technique used to release and promote extraction
of natural gas from deep natural gas deposits. The risks of ground water are discussed along with
the toxicity of chemical additives of fracking fluids; and found that due to present safety
requirements and obligatory geological and hydrogeological scrutiny of the underground water,
prior to fracking, the risk of contamination is actually relatively low. Lastly, preventative
recommendations are outlined such as, assessing, approving and recommending that fracs should
be completed by the mining authorities and water authorities in order to prevent possible
contamination. Additionally, it was recommended that hydraulic fracturing should be
accompanied by ground water monitoring for preventative measures.
STEP 7: Identify Conflict Between Insights and Their Sources
By outlining the various literatures, it is easy to see that there is much conflict across the
board. Research varies from extreme health risks, little health risks and no health risks. With
these findings it could be concluded that due to the conflicting opinions the research has yet to be
concluded on this topic, and little valid research is a resource at the present time. Additionally, it
was important to notice that the literature claiming contaminated water due to fracking posed

11
little health risks, as well as the literature claiming fracking claimed no health risks were both
studies done in Germany, as well as the United States. The article titled “Rigorous Evidence
Slim for Determining Health Risks from Natural Gas Fracking”, originated from a professor
from the University of Pittsburgh. When first reading the article, it can lead one to believe Dr.
Goldstein is implying there is no health risks associated with fracking. However, this article
consists of Dr. Goldstein simply urging business to refrain from fracking until the health and
environmental risks can be empirically determined (Mitka 2012, p. 2136). One of the German
articles, “Hydraulic fracturing: a toxicological threat for groundwater and drinking-water?” does
in fact prove that there is little risk to contaminated ground water. The research found that
1:1000 up to 1:10,000 dilutions of fracking fluid are below health reference values outlined in
the European Drinking Water Directive (Gordalla, Frimmel, and Ewers, 2013, p.3893).
However, on the contrary, a United States based article “Air Emissions near Fracking Sites May
Pose Health Risk”, takes the route of severe health risks, by stating that “Residents who live
there are subject to higher cancer risks and health issues like eye irritation headaches and sore
throats” (Air Emissions, 2012, p.46). Furthermore, “Fracking - what are the health risks?” by
Hildenbrand, discusses risks of exposure to silica which can lead to pulmonary disease and
silicosis, hearing damage, and exposure of radioactive materials (Hildenbrand, 2014, p. 10)
The articles “Hydraulic fracturing - a hazard for drinking water?” and “Hydraulic
fracturing: a toxicological threat for groundwater and drinking-water?” were both originally
published in German. Therefore, there are some vocabulary issues due to language barriers. For
example, the German articles discussed various agencies such as the
European Drinking Water Directive, the WHO Guideline Values for Drinking-water Quality
both of which Americans would be unfamiliar with their standards and organization in general.

12
Furthermore, when discussing the amount of contamination in water, the German article used
metric units versus the customary units the United States is familiar with; making it difficult for
non metric users to fully understand. Overall, the various literatures refers to this process as
hydraulic fracturing, fracking, frac, and fracturing; however, due to the similarity of the names it
is easy to recognize these in fact are all the same processes.
STEP 8: Create Common Ground
The main conflict when looking through the research on fracking, concerns with the
potential health risks; studies vary. “Rigorous Evidence Slim for Determining Health Risks from
Natural Gas Fracking”, states that there is truly a lack of empirically valid data associated with
fracking. “Hydraulic fracturing: a toxicological threat for groundwater and drinking-water?”
outlines research examining dilutions of fracking fluid in ground water, and finds these are at a
safe level. Whereas, “Air Emissions near Fracking Sites May Pose Health Risk”, and “Fracking -
what are the health risks”, both offer alternatives views, and claim serious health risks such as
cancer and pulmonary disease. The common ground all the literature discusses is that hydraulic
fracturing does in fact contaminate both ground and drinking water. The articles stating there is
little health risks do give data, for example, the dilution ratio of fracking fragments found in
ground water, and how that aligns with safe levels outlined with the
European Drinking Water Directive and WHO Guideline Values for Drinking-water Quality.
However, the two articles claiming there are serious health risks, lack fact and figures to sustain
this claim, additionally, these two articles only take into account fracking laborers, and citizens
living close to fracking areas; they fail to look at the populations outside of the fracking
proximity. Therefore, the common ground could be the lack of common ground, and the

13
possibility of a gray area; what levels of contaminations are therefore harmful? Does it vary
between nations and regions possibly, and that is why there is this lack of common ground?
STEP 9: Construct a More Comprehensive Understanding
When looking at the problem at hand, there are many various arguments and
counterarguments when concerning health risks associated with hydraulic fracturing. Many times
results of the studies concluded there needed to be a “better understanding of the environmental
impact of fracking operations, especially with regard to the development of sustainable rules for
planning, permission, performance and management of fracking, and for the monitoring of
groundwater quality around fracked drilling sites” ( Gordalla, Frimmel, & Ewers, 2013, p.3875).
From the disciplinary side of health sciences, there were the two articles counter arguing that
health risks still need to be further explored. These articles claim there is serious health risks,
such as silicosis, pulmonary disease, and cancer risks. However, when reading these articles,
they lack evidence to back up these claims. They simple make statements without allowing the
reading to examine data for themselves and draw a conclusion. The articles claiming little health
risks gave the exact dilutions therefore, supporting their claim. Measurements found 1:1000 up
to 1:10,000 dilutions of fracking fluid are below health reference values outline in European
Drinking Water Directive (Gordalla, Frimmel, and Ewers, 2013, p.3893).
On the flip side, looking at this issue through the scope of animal science, articles such as
“Fracking, the Environment, and Health” claims the risks of air pollution, water contamination,
and radiation exposure. This would undoubtedly affect the environment; which could affect the
food supply for the animal’s consumption which then affects the human’s food supply as
population consumes these animals. “Hydraulic 'Fracking': Are surface water impacts an

14
ecological concern?”, then discussed the heightened risks with being geographically closer to
drilling sites, this can result in increased erosion and sedimentation, increased risk to aquatic
ecosystems from chemical spills or runoff, and habitat fragmentation( Burton, Basu, Kapo,
Entrekin, & Nadelhoffer, 2014, p. 1679). Furthermore, it was found that there is an
overwhelming amount of oil and gas wells found within National Wildlife Refuges, which could
in fact lead to habitat fragmentation, as well as spills (Burton, Basu, Kapo, Entrekin, &
Nadelhoffer, 2014, p.1685 ). In addition, the noise from the fracking, such as the pumping
stations, producing wells, and general vehicle traffic can severely disrupt wildlife and livestock.
Lastly, flooding an ecosystem with excessive light can disrupt feeding, breeding, and rest patters
(Burton, Basu, Kapo, Entrekin, & Nadelhoffer, 2014, p.1684). Therefore, if wildlife is disrupted,
so is the human population as the food supply is disrupted as well as compromised.
STEP 10: Communicating the Results
By integrating the disciplines of health sciences and animal science, this enabled this
“wicked” problem to be looked at through a unique, yet effective scope. By looking merely at
health sciences, it enables the potential health risks from working first hand with fracking, as
well as, the contaminations of water health risks. The common ground that has been found is that
in fact the water is indeed contaminated from fracking, the debates is whether this is of an actual
health risk to the population. When looking through the various researches many conflicts were
found, however, there was arguments stating no health risk and arguments claiming severe health
risk; these are unrelated conclusions. Repko’s 10th step is reflect on, test, and communicate the
understanding; therefore when looking at this complex problem the only true conclusion that can
be made is that fracking contaminated both drinking water and well water. However, the rest of
the claims are still inconclusive, much of the research lacks conclusions as well as data to

15
support the claim. Furthermore, with the lack of unison in this issue, it naturally points to in-
progress research. The best options would be what was discussed by Dr. Goldstein in “Rigorous
Evidence Slim for Determining Health Risks from Natural Gas Fracking”, which would be to
refrain from fracking until the health and environmental risks can be empirically determined. The
health risks for humans needs to be further addressed, and secondly the health risks associated
with livestock need to be examined as well. The ecological impact can impair proper habitats, as
well as proper food sources or exposure to radiation. Therefore, human consumption of these
animals could bring forth a new set of health risks, not presented with the contaminated water
consumed.

16
References
AIR EMISSIONS NEAR FRACKING SITES MAY POSE HEALTH RISK. (2012). Air Quality
& Climate Change, 46(2), EI-15-EI-16.
Burton, G., Basu, N., Ellis, B. R., Kapo, K. E., Entrekin, S., & Nadelhoffer, K. (2014). Hydraulic
'Fracking': Are surface water impacts an ecological concern?. Environmental Toxicology &
Chemistry, 33(8), 1679-1689. doi:10.1002/etc.2619
Ewers, U., Gordalla, B., & Frimmel, F. (2013). [Hydraulic fracturing - a hazard for drinking
water?]. Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband Der Ärzte Des Öffentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes
(Germany)), 75(11), 735-741. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1355369
Gordalla, B. C., Frimmel, F. H., & Ewers, U. (2013). Hydraulic fracturing: a toxicological threat
for groundwater and drinking-water? [electronic resource]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 70(8),
3875-3893.
Hildenbrand, B. (2014). Fracking - what are the health risks?. Safety & Health
Practitioner, 32(6), 10.
Mcdermott-Levy, R., Kaktins, N., & Sattler, B. (2013). Fracking, the Environment, and
Health. American Journal Of Nursing, 113(6), 45-51
Mitka, M. (2012). Rigorous Evidence Slim for Determining Health Risks From Natural Gas
Fracking. JAMA: Journal Of The American Medical Association, 307(20), 2135-2136.
Myers, T. (2012). Potential Contaminant Pathways from Hydraulically Fractured Shale to
Aquifers [electronic resource].Ground Water, 50(6), 872-882.

Sheats_3300_L8-RP

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Sheats_3300_L8-RP

Similar to Sheats_3300_L8-RP (20)

More from Allison Sheats

More from Allison Sheats (7)

Sheats_3300_L8-RP