|« Back to Article|
Scientists consider effects of fracturing
By Jennifer Hiller : March 17, 2013 : Updated: March 17, 2013 11:05am
Is hydraulic fracturing moving faster than the science to monitor its health and environmental impacts?
“My feeling is that we're rushing this too hard,” said Bernard Goldstein, emeritus professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health.
Goldstein, who spoke on a panel about the effects of hydraulic fracturing at the Society of Toxicology's annual meeting and ToxExpo at the Convention Center, was among several scientists this week calling for more data and monitoring of the rapid increase in oil and gas activity across the country.
Hydraulic fracturing is the process of pumping water, sand and chemicals at high pressure down a well to break open dense rock and to get oil and gas flowing.
It was first used successfully with horizontal drilling technology in the Barnett Shale in Fort Worth, but has become widespread in oil and gas fields across the country, particularly in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale, the Barnett Shale in North Dakota and in Texas' Eagle Ford Shale and Permian Basin.
While Goldstein said he agrees that the gas deposits should be tapped by the industry, he also called for more public health and toxicological information. He said the public wants to know not just that that hydraulic fracturing is safe for a community now, but in five, 10 or 20 years from now.
Goldstein said air, light and noise pollution can affect public health, as can accidental spills.
Angela Harris, a toxicologist with Environ International Corp. in Little Rock, Ark., said there are number of potential pathways for hydraulic fracturing chemicals to come into contact with people or groundwater, from problems with a well's cement to something as basic as a trucking accident.
“Trucks have wrecks. Trucks have leaks,” she said.
Harris said the industry and public health officials should focus on the areas where their might be exposure, and work from there to try to limit risk.
And she said that it's important to collect as much baseline data as possible.
“We need to make sure we keep evaluating these data over a longer time period,” she said.
John Adgate, professor at the Colorado School of Public Health at the University of Colorado, said there's a need for data on everything from traffic and economic conditions to air before, during and after fracturing operations. Over time, workers exposed to silica could suffer adverse health effects. “It's certainly one of the major issues for workers,” Adgate said.
Goldstein said the public gets mixed messages from the industry, which on one hand touts the relatively new innovation of putting together hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, while at the same time talking about how fracking is safe because it's been done already for decades.
“The story is being managed in such a way to downplay the potential for risk,” he said.
More than 6,000 scientists met in San Antonio this week for the conference, which ran Sunday through Thursday.