Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Positives and negatives of fracking
Positives and negatives of fracking
Positives and negatives of fracking
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Positives and negatives of fracking
Human Health and Hydraulic Fracturing
Current research, in the field of public health, is looking at the adverse health effects of hydraulic fracturing on community members. This research is focused on looking for evidence-based research in processes, procedures, materials and cleanup from drilling and running a well. In recent years, several states such as Maryland and New York, have called for special advisory commissions to examine the potential adverse health implications for the community if the moratoriums are lifted and fracturing is allowed to start. A lot of the previous research conducted focused on the anecdotal perspective of the adverse health effects. This perspective does not offer scientific verification that the fracturing processes are causing them or evidence where the contaminations are coming from.
Contamination from the Hydraulic Fracturing Process
There are many potential adverse health impacts caused by the chemicals used at the drilling site, which are later often unintentional released into the environment. These chemicals are hazardous and as Witter et. al. (2008) state “some of the chemicals used in this process are brought to the surface, potentially contaminating soil, air, and water, while some of the chemicals are left underground, potentially subsurface aquifers” (4). This makes it difficult to track which chemicals are causing effects and where they are coming from. Another piece to the puzzle is that the drilling companies do not disclose the full-list of chemicals so there is a great mystery in what chemicals and what concentrations are used in the process (Lauver 2012:383). However, recently there researchers have begun to breakdown the chemical identities and concentrations.
There is a di...
... middle of paper ...
... and Colorado." Environment and Health Abstracts. National Institute for Health, n.d. Web.
Kovats, Sari et al. “The Health Implications of Fracking.” Lancet 383.9919 (2014): 757– 8. Web.
Lauver, Lori S. 2012. “Environmental health advocacy: an overview of natural gas drilling in northeast Pennsylvania and implications for pediatric nursing.” Journal of pediatric nursing 27(4):383–89. Retrieved February 24, 2014 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22703686).
McKenzie, Lisa M., Roxana Z. Witter, Lee S. Newman, and John L. Adgate. 2012. “Human health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional natural gas resources.” The Science of the total environment 424:79–87. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22444058).
Olmstead, Sheila M et al. “Shale Gas Development Impacts on Surface Water Quality in Pennsylvania.” PNAS 110.13 (2013): 4962–4967.
In the video “Fracking Hell: The Untold Story” by Link TV explains how natural gas has been a huge problem not only for the earth in general but for everyone and everything living in it. The video explains how North East of Pennsylvania is having difficulties to conserve a healthy environment and people. North East of Pennsylvania is the main sources to extract gas and send it throughout the United States for gasoline and so on. However, this action is wonderful for the cost of gas, but has a huge impact on the environment and the people living in Pennsylvania. A lot of people in this state are worried having health issues because everything is not usable is being thrown out to the rivers where they get their fresh water.
Then rupture the layer of sediment with high pressures of water, sand and a plethora of chemicals. Once the chemicals are saturated in the crevices of the drill site, they extract the excess fluid and then ship them to market. The process of hydrofracking allows for a new source of renewable energy, but it takes a toll on the environment. Five-hundred plus of toxic chemicals like hydrochloric acid, sodium chloride and formic acid are left in the ground.
Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana." Serc.carleton.edu. Carleton College, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. .
Berman, E. M., Bowman, J. S., West, J. P., & Van Wart, M. R. (2013). Human
... U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of
While methane is not a rare contaminant in drinking water wells, the fracking process seems to allow more methane to seep into the wells. A study headed by Duke University’s Robert B. Jackson, a professor of Environmental Sciences, shows that in Pennsylvania, drinking water wells within one kilometer of fracking sites contain nearly six times more methane than in wells farther away (Banerjee). Methane, no matter where it is contained, is flammable, thereby posing a risk for explosion, which is not good for homes. Reports show that a fracking site in Dimock, Pennsylvania caused methane to leak into a water well, where it detonated, leading to even further contamination of other water wells and homes (Henheffer 30). The domino effect presented here raises fear in critics of fracking, who seek only to stop the process from happen-
Fracking can cause harm to people, animals, and nature. When they drill into the ground they are pumping chemicals to extract the gas and oil, and this contaminates the water sources around it. “An editorial on gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale in the Post-Star, a newspaper in Glens Falls, New York, contends, “New York state simply can’t take the risk. There are plenty of places to find fuel. It’s not so easy to find a new water supply for 17 million people.”” (Hydrofracking
EnergyFromShale.org shows the fluid mixture is comprised of 90% water, 9.5% propping agents such as sand, and 0.5% chemical additives. Some of the chemicals found in this mixture are: sodium chloride, ethylene glycol, borate salts, sodium carbonate, guar gum, and isopropanol. Proponents of fracking will lead you to believe that the chemicals used are essentially harmless, and found in such small amounts as to have negligible side effects. On the CDC website, ethylene glycol is described as an odorless liquid with a sweet taste. When ingested it breaks down into toxic compounds. A person’s central nervous system, heart, and kidneys are affected. Large amounts of ethylene glycol can be deadly. While many say that the 0.5% amount of chemicals used is such a small amount, they are traceable amounts. Additionally, drilling companies are supposed to treat the fracking fluid before it is injected into the ground, left to dissipate, or released into surface water. The EPA claims that flowback is properly treated before it is disposed of, and that it is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. After treatment, the EPA Underground Injection Control program is supposed to regulate the flowback being injected underground to dispose of it (epa.gov.,
The environmental danger taken by offshore drilling is very straight forward, made clear by oil spills such as the recent BP oil spill and the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 off the shore of Alaska. In the circumstances of the Exxon Valdez spill up to 250,000 sea birds died, over 2,800 sea otters and thousands of other animals], (figures from the BP oil spill are not yet concluded), having had a heavy strike on the regional wildlife and directing to a ban on all offshore drilling in America, until George Bush overturned it in 2008 to this repeal was a misjudgment because two years later there was the Deepwater Horizon spill. In this way, offshore drilling ruins ecosystems and fish supplies which creates a wasteland of a shoreline among southern USA.
Natural Gas - The process of getting natural gas through drilling might cause the groundwater to be contaminated. The way that transport natural gas might disturb the environment
Imagine a world where fresh and clear water was a luxury. Imagine water so contaminated with chemicals that every plant it comes into contact with dies. As the trees begin to die, oxygen levels drop. As the vegetation dies, wildlife begins to die out. The polluted water which flows through the ground into wells causes instant contamination. As the water flows out of the sink, one can strike a match and light the liquid on fire. Showering in these chemicals is out of the question. Fresh water has become a comfort, rather than a given. Could planet Earth survive this existence? If hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking, were deemed legal, this question may be put to the test. Fracking is a process in which chemicals, sand and water are used in “high volumes… to fracture gas-bearing layers of rock” (Dolesh 2). As the rock breaks, natural gas is released and then collected to be used as energy. The United States is currently sitting on a gold mine of natural gas which could stimulate our ever declining economy. The question is what price are we willing to pay for a temporary fix? Fracking is a dangerous process that should be deemed illegal due to its harmful short and long-term environmental effects.
Ed. Kathleen Daniel et al. Austin, TX: Holt, 2003. 282-86. The. Print.
Fracking has become a highly controversial and publicized topic due to rising concerns and growing analysis into the mutual benefits of hydraulic fracturing to retrieve natural gas and oil reserves. With concerns of water pollution, mismanagement of toxic waste and irreversible
Numerous reports have been given on the dangerous affects of hydraulic fracturing. One such affect that has been noticed is that drinking water wells near the fracturing sites have been contaminated. During the hydro-fracking process, injected fluids that help to break and keep open the rock bed where the natural gas is kept, have “been known to travel three thousand feet from the well (Goldman).” This fluid could have the potential to enter and contaminate any water well for homes around hydraulic fracturing sites. This incident is one of the major problems that people want to figure out and know about before they allow a fracturing site by them. It has been the most feared outcome of having a fracking site nearby, and it is highly appropriate. One site in Wyoming had this happen, “…in August, EPA reported that eleven of thirty-nine drinking-water wells near a Wyoming hydraulic fracturing operation were contaminated with chemicals used in the fracturing process (Hobson EPA).” In Pennsylvania, another such case occurred, “There have already been severe pollution cases in Pennsylvania, mo...
...i. "Environmental Pathways Of Potential Impacts To Human Health From Oil And Gas Development In Northeast British Columbia, Canada." Environmental Reviews 20.2 (2012): 122-134. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.