Study: Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status - Results of...Marcellus Drilling News
A "study" published in the online NIH journal Environmental Health Perspectives that supposedly shows there *may be* a link between how close people live to fracked wells and an increase in skin rashes and coughing. However, the authors take pains to make it clear they only have theories--no answers. This is not conclusive in any way, shape or form. The survey relies on self-reporting of health symptoms from only 180 households in a single county in southwestern PA. Small sample, self reported, and funded by anti-drilling organizations. That's all you really need to know.
Study: Perinatal Outcomes and Unconventional Natural Gas Operations in Southw...Marcellus Drilling News
A study published in PLOS ONE that reportedly tries to link low birth weights in babies whose mothers lived close to Marcellus Shale drilling in western Pennsylvania. The "study" was funded by the anti-drilling Heinz Endowments, calling into question its objectivity and findings. The authors themselves say the study doesn't prove anything conclusively, further marginalizing the findings.
DSD-INT 2019 D-Health - quantifying impacts of water quality - GeerlingDeltares
Presentation by Gertjan Geerling, Deltares, at the Delft3D - User Days (Day 4: Water quality and ecology), during Delft Software Days - Edition 2019. Thursday, 14 November 2019, Delft.
Study: Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status - Results of...Marcellus Drilling News
A "study" published in the online NIH journal Environmental Health Perspectives that supposedly shows there *may be* a link between how close people live to fracked wells and an increase in skin rashes and coughing. However, the authors take pains to make it clear they only have theories--no answers. This is not conclusive in any way, shape or form. The survey relies on self-reporting of health symptoms from only 180 households in a single county in southwestern PA. Small sample, self reported, and funded by anti-drilling organizations. That's all you really need to know.
Study: Perinatal Outcomes and Unconventional Natural Gas Operations in Southw...Marcellus Drilling News
A study published in PLOS ONE that reportedly tries to link low birth weights in babies whose mothers lived close to Marcellus Shale drilling in western Pennsylvania. The "study" was funded by the anti-drilling Heinz Endowments, calling into question its objectivity and findings. The authors themselves say the study doesn't prove anything conclusively, further marginalizing the findings.
DSD-INT 2019 D-Health - quantifying impacts of water quality - GeerlingDeltares
Presentation by Gertjan Geerling, Deltares, at the Delft3D - User Days (Day 4: Water quality and ecology), during Delft Software Days - Edition 2019. Thursday, 14 November 2019, Delft.
17 de marzo 2014 – (Washington, D.C.) La Asociación Americana para el Avance de la Ciencia (AAAS, por sus siglas en inglés) anuncia el lanzamiento de una nueva iniciativa para expandir el diálogo sobre los riesgos del cambio climático. El elemento central de la iniciativa es el informe de la AAAS “Lo que sabemos (–What we know)”, una evaluación actual de la ciencia del clima y los impactos que hacen hincapié en la necesidad de comprender e identificar posibles escenarios de alto riesgo.
“Somos la mayor sociedad científica en el mundo, y por lo tanto creemos que tenemos la obligación de informar al público y a los responsables de tomar decisiones sobre lo que la ciencia está mostrando sobre cualquier tema en la vida moderna, y el clima está particularmente presionando”, comentó el Dr. Alan Leshner, director ejecutivo de la AAAS. “Al ser la voz de la comunidad científica, tenemos que compartir lo que sabemos y llevar a los responsables de la toma de decisiones a la mesa para discutir cómo hacer frente a este problema.”
El Dr. Mario Molina laureado del Premio Nobel, distinguido profesor del Departamento de Química y Bioquímica de la Universidad de California, San Diego y la Institución Scripps de Oceanografía y los co-dirigentes, la Dra. Diana Wall, Profesora Distinguida de Biología de la Universidad Estatal de Colorado, Escuela de Sustentabilidad Ambiental Mundial y el Dr. James McCarthy, Profesor Alexander Agassiz de Oceanografía Biológica en la Universidad de Harvard, presidieron el panel de la ciencia climática que elaboró el informe. Ellos, junto con los 10 panelistas que abarcan especialidades de ciencias del clima, participarán en la iniciativa de diversas maneras, desde ofrecer eventos y testimonios en un sitio web interactivo que estará disponible próximamente, hasta compartir conocimientos con otros profesionales. La iniciativa alienta a los estadounidenses a pensar en el cambio climático como un tema de gestión de riesgos; el panel tiene como objetivo aclarar y contextualizar la ciencia para que el público y los tomadores de decisiones puedan ser adecuadamente informados sobre los riesgos y las posibles maneras de manejarlos.
“Este nuevo esfuerzo pretende afirmar de manera muy clara la evidencia excepcionalmente fuerte que el clima de la Tierra está cambiando, y que el futuro cambio climático puede afectar seriamente los sistemas naturales y sociales “, comentó el Dr. McCarthy. “Incluso entre los miembros del público en general que ya saben acerca de las evidencias del cambio climático y de qué lo está causando, algunos no saben el grado en que muchos científicos del clima están preocupados por los riesgos de cambios climáticos posiblemente rápidos y bruscos – eso es algo a lo que estamos dedicados a discutir con los diversos públicos, desde los líderes empresariales y expertos financieros hasta los tomadores de decisiones en todos los ámbitos de la vida.”
This report highlights recent scientific research on potential public health risks associated with confined animal feeding operations or CAFOs. In particular the report focuses on impacts to air quality, water quality, and pathogens such as viruses and bacteria. The purpose is to provide reliable information, based on a broad review of scientific research currently available, for regulators, individuals, and organizations.
This is basically a protocol upon the basis of P.G Public Health presentation on behalf of the Health effects due to environmental pollution on population.
Health Effects- Unconventional Natural Gas Development and Production (“FRACK...Tiffany Blackden
Ann Bristow shared this science based presentation on fracking in Maryland at the Garrett County Commissioner's Meeting on March 17, 2015. Fracking in Garrett County is restricted until October, 2017, when the moratorium is lifted, and the state will permit fracking. Now is the time to get involved and alert law makers to the fact that the risks are immense, and we are NOT willing to be collateral damage.
Axelrod Becker Consulting facilitated the 2.5 day environment and health summit for MDI Biological Laboratory. Key stakeholders published their action plan commitments in Current Environmental Health Reports.
VCE Environmental Science: Health human and the environment: PollutionPeter Phillips M.Ed.
This presentation looks at how pollution is defined, different types and sources of pollution, and how it can be measured. News reports and case studies are provided as examples.
Why Do People Get Sick in Damp Buildings? The joint conference of the Wisconsin Environmental Health Association and the Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Health (Wisconsin Department of Health Services).
17 de marzo 2014 – (Washington, D.C.) La Asociación Americana para el Avance de la Ciencia (AAAS, por sus siglas en inglés) anuncia el lanzamiento de una nueva iniciativa para expandir el diálogo sobre los riesgos del cambio climático. El elemento central de la iniciativa es el informe de la AAAS “Lo que sabemos (–What we know)”, una evaluación actual de la ciencia del clima y los impactos que hacen hincapié en la necesidad de comprender e identificar posibles escenarios de alto riesgo.
“Somos la mayor sociedad científica en el mundo, y por lo tanto creemos que tenemos la obligación de informar al público y a los responsables de tomar decisiones sobre lo que la ciencia está mostrando sobre cualquier tema en la vida moderna, y el clima está particularmente presionando”, comentó el Dr. Alan Leshner, director ejecutivo de la AAAS. “Al ser la voz de la comunidad científica, tenemos que compartir lo que sabemos y llevar a los responsables de la toma de decisiones a la mesa para discutir cómo hacer frente a este problema.”
El Dr. Mario Molina laureado del Premio Nobel, distinguido profesor del Departamento de Química y Bioquímica de la Universidad de California, San Diego y la Institución Scripps de Oceanografía y los co-dirigentes, la Dra. Diana Wall, Profesora Distinguida de Biología de la Universidad Estatal de Colorado, Escuela de Sustentabilidad Ambiental Mundial y el Dr. James McCarthy, Profesor Alexander Agassiz de Oceanografía Biológica en la Universidad de Harvard, presidieron el panel de la ciencia climática que elaboró el informe. Ellos, junto con los 10 panelistas que abarcan especialidades de ciencias del clima, participarán en la iniciativa de diversas maneras, desde ofrecer eventos y testimonios en un sitio web interactivo que estará disponible próximamente, hasta compartir conocimientos con otros profesionales. La iniciativa alienta a los estadounidenses a pensar en el cambio climático como un tema de gestión de riesgos; el panel tiene como objetivo aclarar y contextualizar la ciencia para que el público y los tomadores de decisiones puedan ser adecuadamente informados sobre los riesgos y las posibles maneras de manejarlos.
“Este nuevo esfuerzo pretende afirmar de manera muy clara la evidencia excepcionalmente fuerte que el clima de la Tierra está cambiando, y que el futuro cambio climático puede afectar seriamente los sistemas naturales y sociales “, comentó el Dr. McCarthy. “Incluso entre los miembros del público en general que ya saben acerca de las evidencias del cambio climático y de qué lo está causando, algunos no saben el grado en que muchos científicos del clima están preocupados por los riesgos de cambios climáticos posiblemente rápidos y bruscos – eso es algo a lo que estamos dedicados a discutir con los diversos públicos, desde los líderes empresariales y expertos financieros hasta los tomadores de decisiones en todos los ámbitos de la vida.”
This report highlights recent scientific research on potential public health risks associated with confined animal feeding operations or CAFOs. In particular the report focuses on impacts to air quality, water quality, and pathogens such as viruses and bacteria. The purpose is to provide reliable information, based on a broad review of scientific research currently available, for regulators, individuals, and organizations.
This is basically a protocol upon the basis of P.G Public Health presentation on behalf of the Health effects due to environmental pollution on population.
Health Effects- Unconventional Natural Gas Development and Production (“FRACK...Tiffany Blackden
Ann Bristow shared this science based presentation on fracking in Maryland at the Garrett County Commissioner's Meeting on March 17, 2015. Fracking in Garrett County is restricted until October, 2017, when the moratorium is lifted, and the state will permit fracking. Now is the time to get involved and alert law makers to the fact that the risks are immense, and we are NOT willing to be collateral damage.
Axelrod Becker Consulting facilitated the 2.5 day environment and health summit for MDI Biological Laboratory. Key stakeholders published their action plan commitments in Current Environmental Health Reports.
VCE Environmental Science: Health human and the environment: PollutionPeter Phillips M.Ed.
This presentation looks at how pollution is defined, different types and sources of pollution, and how it can be measured. News reports and case studies are provided as examples.
Why Do People Get Sick in Damp Buildings? The joint conference of the Wisconsin Environmental Health Association and the Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Health (Wisconsin Department of Health Services).
A healthy diet is essential for good health and nutrition. It protects you against many chronic noncommunicable diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Eating a variety of foods and consuming less salt, sugars and saturated and industrially-produced trans-fats, are essential for healthy diet.
A healthy diet is essential for good health and nutrition. It protects you against many chronic noncommunicable diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Eating a variety of foods and consuming less salt, sugars and saturated and industrially-produced trans-fats, are essential for healthy diet.
Contaminated without Consent - Resources for Healthy Children www.scribd.com/doc/254613619 - For more information, Please see Organic Edible Schoolyards & Gardening with Children www.scribd.com/doc/254613963 - Gardening with Volcanic Rock Dust www.scribd.com/doc/254613846 - Double Food Production from your School Garden with Organic Tech www.scribd.com/doc/254613765 - Free School Gardening Art Posters www.scribd.com/doc/254613694 - Increase Food Production with Companion Planting in your School Garden www.scribd.com/doc/254609890 - Healthy Foods Dramatically Improves Student Academic Success www.scribd.com/doc/254613619 - City Chickens for your Organic School Garden www.scribd.com/doc/254613553 - Huerto Ecológico, Tecnologías Sostenibles, Agricultura Organica www.scribd.com/doc/254613494 - Simple Square Foot Gardening for Schools - Teacher Guide www.scribd.com/doc/254613410 - Free Organic Gardening Publications www.scribd.com/doc/254609890 ~
A healthy diet is essential for good health and nutrition. It protects you against many chronic noncommunicable diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Eating a variety of foods and consuming less salt, sugars and saturated and industrially-produced trans-fats, are essential for healthy diet.
In July 2014, experts from public, private and research sectors met at the Rockefeller Foundation's "Planetary Health" summit to explore ways to better value ecosystems today to ensure their healthy existence tomorrow.
A Study to Assess the Effectiveness of Planned Teaching Programme on Environm...ijtsrd
Background Environmental health the branch of public health concerned with monitoring or mitigating those factors in the environment that affect human health and disease. Or other words the condition of the environment in a particular region, especially as regards ecological diversity or pollution. Objectives The aim of this study was to assess effectiveness of planned teaching programme on environmental health among the community people. Methodology The research approach adopted for this study is a Quantitative research approach. The research design was pre test and post test design. The pilot study was conducted at Rural Area Gandhi Nagar Bhopal. A Convenient sampling technique was used. Structured knowledge questionnaire was used to assessing the environmental Health. The final study was conducted with 50 sample in schools was given followed by post test after 7 days using the same pre test tools. The data collected was analyzed using inferential statistics. Results Indicated overall pre test and post test mean knowledge scores on environmental health. Depicted mean post test score 24.95 is higher than mean pre test score of 16.825. The actual gain knowledge score is 8.125 and post test SD =3.25, pre test SD=4.50 and computed paired t test 9.3235 p= 2.04 at the level of 0.05. Thus, data showed higher than the tabled value t test = 2.18 at the level of 0.05 thus indicated significant difference and effectiveness of planned teaching program, in increasing the knowledge of Community people regarding environmental health. The computed ”˜t’ value t=9.3235 was higher than the table value t=2.04 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the research hypothesis H1 was accepted. Conclusion The study concluded that planned teaching program was effective in increasing the knowledge score of Community people regarding environmental health. Ms. Sunita Singh | Mr. Mata Deen | Mrs. Malika Roy "A Study to Assess the Effectiveness of Planned Teaching Programme on Environmental Health among the Community People in Selected Rural Area Gandhi Nagar Bhopal (M.P.)" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-6 | Issue-4 , June 2022, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd50349.pdf Paper URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/medicine/other/50349/a-study-to-assess-the-effectiveness-of-planned-teaching-programme-on-environmental-health-among-the-community-people-in-selected-rural-area-gandhi-nagar-bhopal-mp/ms-sunita-singh
Human Impact On Environment Essay
The Problem Of Food Waste In America
Environmental Science Essay
The Micro Environment
Importance Of Protecting The Environment Essay
Persuasive Essay On The Environment
Essay about The Ocean Environment
Essay on Environmental Ethics
Essay on Environmental Racism
Environmental Impact Of Personal Lifestyle Essay
English Essay on the Environment
Essay on Human Impact on the Environment
Caring About Our Environment Essay
Mining and The Environment Essay examples
Humans Damaging the Environment Essay
Importance Of Environment Essay
Bearing the Burden - Health Implications of Environmental Pollutants in Our B...v2zq
Bearing the Burden - Health Implications of Environmental Pollutants in Our Bodies - Resources for Healthy Children www.scribd.com/doc/254613619 - For more information, Please see Organic Edible Schoolyards & Gardening with Children www.scribd.com/doc/254613963 - Gardening with Volcanic Rock Dust www.scribd.com/doc/254613846 - Double Food Production from your School Garden with Organic Tech www.scribd.com/doc/254613765 - Free School Gardening Art Posters www.scribd.com/doc/254613694 - Increase Food Production with Companion Planting in your School Garden www.scribd.com/doc/254609890 - Healthy Foods Dramatically Improves Student Academic Success www.scribd.com/doc/254613619 - City Chickens for your Organic School Garden www.scribd.com/doc/254613553 - Huerto Ecológico, Tecnologías Sostenibles, Agricultura Organica www.scribd.com/doc/254613494 - Simple Square Foot Gardening for Schools - Teacher Guide www.scribd.com/doc/254613410 - Free Organic Gardening Publications www.scribd.com/doc/254609890 ~
Biophilia: Does Visual Contact with Nature Impact on Health and Well-Being
`
For more information, Please see websites below:
`
Organic Edible Schoolyards & Gardening with Children =
http://scribd.com/doc/239851214 ~
`
Double Food Production from your School Garden with Organic Tech =
http://scribd.com/doc/239851079 ~
`
Free School Gardening Art Posters =
http://scribd.com/doc/239851159 ~
`
Increase Food Production with Companion Planting in your School Garden =
http://scribd.com/doc/239851159 ~
`
Healthy Foods Dramatically Improves Student Academic Success =
http://scribd.com/doc/239851348 ~
`
City Chickens for your Organic School Garden =
http://scribd.com/doc/239850440 ~
`
Simple Square Foot Gardening for Schools - Teacher Guide =
http://scribd.com/doc/239851110 ~
Effectiveness of Planned Teaching Programme on Knowledge Regarding Environmen...YogeshIJTSRD
Environment is a major determinant of health of individual, family and community. Environmental health consists of preventing or controlling diseases, injury and disability related to interactions between people and their environment. Aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of planned teaching programme on knowledge regarding environmental health among women . Quasi experimental one group pretest and posttest design was used. Non. probability convenient sampling technique was adopted . the result findings shows that pre test mean score of environmental health was 11.3 with SD of 3.85 and the post test mean score was 23. 9with SD of 1.19. There was a statistically significant increase in the overall knowledge regarding environmental health after structured teaching programme at p .00001 level. Mrs P. Umalakshmi "Effectiveness of Planned Teaching Programme on Knowledge Regarding Environmental Health among Women in Selected Setting, Chennai" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-5 | Issue-3 , April 2021, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd41123.pdf Paper URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/medicine/nursing/41123/effectiveness-of-planned-teaching-programme-on-knowledge-regarding-environmental-health-among-women-in-selected-setting-chennai/mrs-p-umalakshmi
1. 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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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. HEALTH RISKS FROM FRACKING
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.