Update on the Safety of Fracking: It’s Not Good News
Those of us who were around in the 1960s remember the revelation that smoking causes cancer—how it mounted slowly year after year, until it became irrefutable. This gradual increase in the evidence was due to the time required to study large populations of people over a period of many years.
It seems that fracking is headed in the same direction. As fracking expanded over the last decade from relatively unpopulated areas in the Midwest into the eastern states, (e.g., Pennsylvania), the data sets grew to the point we find ourselves now, i.e., knowledge that fracking is almost certainly connected with premature births, increased risk of asthma, as well as a combination of migraine headaches, chronic nasal and sinus symptoms, and severe fatigue.
The latest report, which came from researchers at Johns Hopkins University, has put the fracking industry in the same situation that the tobacco companies faced way ba
ck when: vigorously denying all ill-effects from their trade.
Of course, the fossil fuel industry is no stranger to this type of denial, as we learned earlier this year when it became clear that executives at ExxonMobil conspired—over a period of 35 years–to hide the truth about the connection between oil consumption and climate change. All that practice has made these folks and their squadrons of attorneys quite adept at telling this story.
Under the Bush II administration, it was made illegal for the EPA to study fracking. There is much that we don’t know about fracking and good reason to believe that, depending on various circumstances, it may be unsafe.
It is true Frank. In 2005 Fracking was also excluded from the EPA clean water regulations. This says to me that the industry knew that there were problems in this area but wanted to proceed anyway.
It is a familiar tactic used also with second amendment issues. Not only is limiting legislation not introduced but it becomes illegal to even study the issue.
It is the legislative equivalent of “don’t bother me with the facts because I have already made up my mind.”
Craig,
For someone so commendably fascinated by science and technology, you seem to wander off into most unscientific and illogical conspiracy theories.
All resource extraction contained health risks. Realistically, all scientific discovery entails risk. Fortunately, humans are not a risk adverse species.
Life itself is a matter of balancing risk versus benefit.
Over the years, well regulated, carefully monitored hydrofracturing has proved a safe and hugely valuable resource extraction method. Like all new technologies, its had some early learning experiences and as a result has developed better and safer practices.
Without unconventional energy production the US economy would be in deep recession, probably irretrievable economic and social decline.
I realize that some in the US, and many abroad, would enjoy the prospect of a ‘wicked’ US smote for being ‘unrighteous’, but those who would enjoy to see that much human suffering simply to justify a malevolent ideology or political fantasies are beneath contempt.
Fear mongering, by quoting half facts, distortions and associating totally unrelated examples to prevent progress is neither helpful nor environmentally beneficial.
All human technology has imperfections, if we exaggerate those imperfections with irrational fear mongering, we could never have survived as a species.
Today, you will probably drive your automobile (using fossil fuel), driving is an incredibly dangerous activity ! For the last 120 years as a society we have all enjoyed the benefits of automobile transport, despite the risks involved. We didn’t indignantly demand that the ‘evil’ motorist cease all automotive activity, we simply continuous devised better laws, regulations and technologies to minimize the risk, while increasing the benefits.
The report from Johns Hopkins University is full of quantification, and disclaimers. It’s neither conclusive nor definitive, much of its data is vague and speculative. As such it’s the perfect study to be used by fear mongers for extraneous political and ideological purposes.
Marcopolo,
I would feel much more comfortable with fracking if the EPA had not been banned from examining it.
Regarding automobiles, you can find very graphic articles about the horse pollution in large cities before automobiles became common. They simply could not keep cities clean. The horse manure would often be converted to dust which everyone had to breathe. It drifted everywhere. The manure also fed the flies which further added to health problems. When horses dropped dead, which was not an infrequent occurrence, they were often left to rot in the street and feed the flies until the city finally was able to pick them up. Cars were seen as welcome salvation from the horrors of horse manure and dead horses and were by far the lesser of evils.
Check out these links for more information:
http://www.banhdc.org/archives/ch-hist-19711000.html
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/29/the-horse-manure-problem/
https://enviroliteracy.org/environment-society/transportation/the-horse-the-urban-environment/
On PBS programs one often sees depictions of streets in late 19th century London. The streets and everything else look absolutely pristine. Unfortunately, reality was very different as can be seen by the above articles which, although about the U.S., would also accurately describe London and other large cities.
The descriptions can be used to educate people who would like to return to earlier times when the air was supposedly pure and clean.
Hi Frank,
Thank you for your links. I often quote the health and environmental problems with horse traffic as an example of improving technology.
I’m not sure what you mean by the US EPA not being allowed to study hydra-fracking, the EPA as recently as 2015 release a most comprehensive study which found ; “We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States”.
No one denies the elements of risk in any mining or extraction activity. The answer is not the sort of paranoid reaction of sort of Dr Stangelove’s Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper when concern with fluoride, but better regulation monitoring and safe practice.
Like all new technologies, fracking did have an early “cowboy” stage, with inadequate supervision and of course that inspired a massive, but ill informed, fear campaign that still continues despite the massive improvement in technology and application.
Marcopolo,
I’m quite certain that the EPA was prohibited from examining fracking. However, it may be that that has changed which, of course, is a good thing. Whether they are unbiased I don’t know.
It is very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to evaluate adequately the quality of the information we are getting. Thus, I am not about to condemn fracking in a blanket manner, but neither am I about to accept it without reservation.
Note the radically changing dietary recommendations coming from the federal government. It’s no wonder that many of us are confused. Whether governmental department evaluations of fracking are any more reliable I don’t know.
It’s true that we “fear-mongers” are, ourselves, terrified of the spectre of a future dominated by the consequences of our civilization’s actions here and now, and fossil fuel consumption looms large among them. Ridiculing us doesn’t change the facts.
Craig,
Legitimate concern is one thing, ill-informed, politically driven, Luddite resistance that would see hundreds of millions of your fellow citizens plunged into decades of economic despair, poverty and foreign domination is quite another.
Speaking of fossil fuel consumption looming large among your concerns, I hope you’ve been down to your local Chevrolet showroom to support your fellow US workers by ordering your new GM Bolt ?
Given your hatred of oil companies and fracking, you must be very eager to purchase this new ‘wunderkind’ from GM,
You are very fortunate to be an American living in California, as your fellow American will help you buy this amazing vehicle,(and testament to your environmental principles) for less than $60 per week, or outright for $24,000. (less than the price of your diesel VW).
In London I have a neighbor who loves Porsche. he even takes his collection to club track and race days. He is willing to pay 10,or even 15 times more to enjoy his passion. After being in my EV’s he has putting his name down for delivery of the first production electric Porsche in 2020.
My other (less wealthy) neighbor has admired my electric LERR for the last for years, and after several lifts to work in my Tesla S P85, decided to make a sacrifice and buy an EV. He was torn between the BMW or Tesla, but decided to go with the larger Tesla.
He and his wife are both Doctors, not a profession as highly paid as the US, and with three children at private school and a substantial mortgage the Tesla is a bit of a sacrifice, but they consider the principle worth the additional cost. (Bravo for them!).
So, what colour will you be ordering for your Bolt ?
Who made MarcoPolo the arbiter of legitimate vs. “ill-informed, politically driven, Luddite resistance?”
Craig,
“Who made MarcoPolo the arbiter of legitimate vs. “ill-informed, politically driven, Luddite resistance?”
Simple observation and unbiased, objective analysis ! It comes with the desire than the ability to analyze information without the prism of having to justify an ideological or political position.
Here’s something you should consider. EVERYBODY considers himself well informed and objective. Why is it logical to believe that you are unbiased and the critics of fracking aren’t? That’s not too compelling, IMO.
I have a “friend” on Facebook who reports that Obama supports ISIS, and makes any number of other equally asinine assertions. Guess what he replies when I point out that this is hateful nonsense? “I’m not hateful, only informed.” Oh hell, I didn’t know you were informed. Why didn’t you tell me that in the first place? LOL. I sure do believe you now…. 🙂
Re: the Bolt, I’m unconvinced that electric transportation has a net beneficial effect on the environment as long as coal is the go-to energy source for predictable, incremental lode during the night, which is the case here in the US.
Craig,
Boy, you’re a hard sell !
That’s a pretty disappointing observation. It’s the sort of cop out I would expect to hear from a Donald Trump supporter !
Now I might be wrong, but it appears less than 5% of California’s electricity is generated from Coal ! But what about refueling from your home solar system ?
Hmmm,…So, let’s see if I understand you correctly.
Basically, what you are saying is you have so little faith in the growth of renewable energy in your home state of California, that you would rather use 100% diesel as your fuel of choice, thereby avoiding the off-chance that once you may use a public charging facility that uses maybe 5% of electricity from coal generation ?!!
C’mon, does that make sense, even to you ?
You need to be aware of the fact that the “average grid mix” (which is about 30% coal nationally) is unimportant to the argument that EVs are good or bad for the environment. What matters is the grid mix that is associated with predictable increased loads at night, and that, sadly, is almost always coal. Ironically, this is true regardless of in what state one resides. Yes, California does not burn coal, but we buy and sell power to states that burn coal, and thus, when we charge our EVs at night, we’re setting off a chain reaction of power buying and selling that means that somewhere, a grid operator is burning more coal.
Perhaps electric transportation currently does not have a net beneficial effect. That is very difficult to evaluate because of the huge number of variables. However, if in the future, far less power comes from sources which emit CO2, then electric transportation will unquestionably be beneficial.
Even IF electric transportation is not currently beneficial, having it will advance the technology thereby increasing benefits in the future. From that standpoint, a good argument can be made for encouraging it.
Craig,
Let’s be honest, there will always be an excuse won’t there?
For years advocates like yourself castigated “big oil” and “Big Auto” for preventing the development of EV technology. Well, GM has finally produced an ‘affordable’ EV with an acceptable range, but that’s not enough to get you from out from behind the driving wheel of your diesel will it?
It’s always someone else’s fault. It’s the corrupting influence of “big oil ” money in politics. The coal industry, fracking, secret cabals, anything other than setting an example in your own life.
The claim that EV’s somehow encourage the use of coal, beggars belief ! It’s exactly the same sort of argument heard from Trump supporters, and “petrol heads”.
You could opt for a ” Green power ” supplier in California, but then other states might use some form of Coal fired power in their energy mix, even if they didn’t you would probably argue that China or Chile still uses coal !
You could buy yourself a power wall from Tesla and store surplus energy from your solar panels to charge your EV at night, or buy an $8 timer so your car charges in the early morning, etc..
But, that’s the thing isn’t it ? All new technology requires “first adopters”. Those who lead by example. Those who make the sacrifice to pioneer new technology for the betterment of the rest.
You can’t wait until conditions are “perfect”, or the “government’ does it for you. Talking isn’t enough, at some stage we all must show by our own choices where we stand.
This is just unfair childish bullcrap. I’ve been an early adopter of tons of technologies that are good for our planet; apparently, we both have. The constant attack for no reason makes you come off as stupid and mean, and I think of you as a much better person than that.
I think Craig would appreciate any color you would choose for the EV you purchase for him Marco.
Frank, re your “Perhaps electric transportation …is very difficult to evaluate because of the huge number of variables….”
Excellent points. While perhaps electric transportation is somewhat far from a discussion of fracking, there are economic and strategic reasons for electric cars as well as the environmental rational (both nationally and personally.) Because of the complexity I would agree that environmental reasons may be the least persuasive initially.
While Craig has a valid concern regarding night-time charging it does not seem dispositive. Perhaps it is a bit like someone starving in the wilderness saying that they couldn’t go fishing because they didn’t have a fishhook. … so you make one or create a trap or use your hands…
In the case of electric cars if we want their benefits we build them now and create a system / source of electricity that leverages the advantage of their simplicity, efficiency and lack of operating pollution and little to no maintenance.
Breath on the Wind,
That’s right, that’s a typical leftist whine. Someone else should pay for your principles !
Not you, never you. It’s always the responsibility of some other person (usually the taxpayer) to pay your way.
At some stage we have to be defined at to what we are for, not simply what we are against. Leading by example is better than endless hypocritical preaching.
Craig’s claim that an EV using coal fired power generation is worse than his diesel, is both spurious and inaccurate. Even if his power utility operated 100% power generation, the US EPA still rates and EV as contributing 4 times less CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.
Even the Union of Concerned Scientists admits even in the most unfavorable circumstance, an EV contributes less than half the emissions per mile of an ICE.
Despite his outrage at VW, and demand for more US manufacturing, Craig still won’t even consider buying even a hybrid or EREV, such as the GM Volt.
My neighbour’s Porsche cost 10 times the price of the average car, yet he is willing to pay for his passion.
If we believe, and want others to believe in our passion, we must lead by example and show the world we are prepared to support our principles in our own lives.
I’m getting a Prius the moment VW buys back my Jetta TDI.
Craig,
That’s great news ! Well done ! Although you may give the new GM Volt a test drive, and the Lexus CT 200h is worth considering.
I’d urge you to reconsider the Bolt, as it really does promise to be the breakthrough model the Renault failed to become.
Thanks. I remain diligent about adopting technology when it makes sense for both me and the planet. Like all decent people, I’m willing to make sacrifices for the common good, but there is a limit, obviously. I ask no more of anyone.
Craig,
I was an early adopter of the Prius, and it was an excellent vehicle. The plug-in gives more versatility and is certainly worth the added expense.
I would still urge you to consider the GM Volt (despite my annoyance at GM’s European policies). The Volt Gen 2 drives better, as does the BMW i3 (with the range extender), than the Prius, while the Lexus CT 200h I brought for my daughter is a really great car with luxury features.(even if not plug-in).
Still, I wished I lived in California where GM Bolt ownership makes real sense. I’m betting the Bolt will surpass the Tesla 3.
My son has purchased a BMW i8 as his garage in New York has a high volt charging post installed.
It’s great to be alive in a time when such exciting changes are occurring !
Welcome to the EV technology club 🙂
Craig, I have previously gone on perhaps “Ad nauseam” about my reservations with using natural gas. There is no reason to repeat them here. I do notice however that the symptoms you describe are similar to what was experienced with the recent California gas leak. While in that case the natural gas was already treated with detecting chemicals and stored, it does add to evidence of leaking gas in other fracking situations.
If natural gas is leaking from fracking wells or through the ground then we could have massively expanded the problem of climate change by pursuing the “solution” of substituting natural gas for coal and it would then look like a bargain with the devil. I have yet to see the results of any study that localized the problem in the wells (and potentially correctable) or as a consequence of fracking the ground (and therefore inherent in the process.)
To your credit you seem to keep an open mind on the possibilities. While it is generally awkward to have supported unhelpful “solutions,” while believing they are positive steps, we have witnessed too many cases of people in power or influence clamping down on descent and being unwilling to even entertain alternatives.
In those situations we suspect that there are extraneous reasons. Frequently it is that someone is being “paid off” and substituting private interests for public concerns. But when it comes to climate change personal hypocrisy is a secondary concern to global effects.
We deplore intentional, knowing coverups of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries. But it is the effect of fallacious facts and specious logic along with one sided compromises that should be our primary concern.
The symptoms I named are just the latest in a long chain that has emerged over the years. Some people argue, and it’s hard to refute, that the biggest scourge associated with fracking is the climate change caused by fugitive methane.
The scourge of fugitive methane could probably be greatly reduced with greater care and improved techniques. Of course that is not the only consideration.
You are correct; the industry is working on that very diligently.
Clearly pipes and wells are leaking. If this is the extent of the issue than a technological solution might be available. But fracking by its nature destabilizes the ground to release sequestered methane. If the destabilized ground is at fault then some portion of leaking methane is inherit in the process.
We need to determine asap the amount of methane leaks associated with each. Even if 75% of methane leaks are from pipes and the 25% balance is too high for fracking to be better than coal than it makes no sense to fix pipe leaks and expand fracking. Limiting the use of natural gas will be the only solution.
Presently, I am reading that if 3% to 5% of methane that is recovered is entering the atmosphere than natural gas loses green house gas benefits over the use of coal. Present information suggests numbers as high as 9%, but we are continuing to find sources of methane emissions.
The GM Bolt, with subsidies, will cost about $30K. Even if I had to replace my 2004 Mazda 3 now, it would make no sense for me to buy a car that expensive since I drive my car less than 2,000 miles per year. The Bolt could make sense for some people depending on how they would be using the car, but the price would have to drop significantly for it to make sense for low mileage owners.
The price of the Prius has dropped significantly to make sense for more drivers.
Hi Framk,
How much you pay for a GM Bolt depends on where you live. The amount of government subsidies and other incentives can drive the price of a GM Bolt below $25,000 in some states.
But is saving money the only motivation for environmentally minded people ? Isn’t the joy of owning a new, environmentally friendlier technology for personal transport worth a few dollars more ?
Think of the example you would be setting to your family, friends, neighbours and others in your community.
The Prius is a good little car, in it’s time it was a great car since it bore the brunt of the opprobrium and derision of anti-EV motorists and yet survived to sell more than 10 million.
Toyota’s hybrid technology, especially in the luxury Lexus brand, has proved very influential in making the EV technology acceptable to the general public.
The Prius is still a compromise, a good compromise but dated. GM’s Volt and other EREV’s and assorted plug-ins are better options.
Frank, at our time of life we should be seizing every opportunity to take part in the astonishing revolutions occurring in technology. Surely the satisfaction of owning a car that makes such a public positive environmental statement and commitment of support for American industry, is worth a few extra dollars.
But that’s just my opinion.
I do not want a car that could be interpreted as a status symbol. Also, since I drive my car only about 2000 miles per year, from the environmental standpoint it really makes no difference what I drive.
Hi Frank,
Status symbol ? Is that such a bad thing if the status you are seeking to convey serves as an inspiration and example to others to strive for a cleaner better environment ?
As I said in a previous posting, in your case it’s just matter of personal preference. I intended no criticism. My criticism is reserved for those advocates and activists who loudly express hatred and condemnation of ‘Evil” oil companies, yet when it comes to making a small personal sacrifice, instead choose to buy oil products.
(Please note, our friend Craig is now off my list, with his conversion from the dark side to EV technology 🙂
Marcopolo,
If I drove my car perhaps 20,000 miles per year I would surely consider getting a Priapus or EV since then doing so could make sense for both environmental and economic reasons. But for only 2,000 miles per year? No way!
I know several people who have a Prius and other people who have an EV or Chevrolet Volt. They seem very happy with them.
Regarding status symbols, it appears that in my extended family, just about everyone eschews them. A few years ago, I visited relatives of my late mother in Memphis (Tennessee, not Egypt). None owned an expensive car. All had nice, but not extravagant, houses. However, all were quite wealthy and could have afforded Beemers or Rolls Royces and lived in houses with a domestic staff. Although my means are much more modest, there are many people for whom a showy display of wealth is anathema.
Way back in 1971, I bought a Porsche 914. It was NOT expensive, although other Porsche models were very expensive. Because people assumed that I had spent a large amount of money to buy the car, I found myself telling people how little it actually cost. I could see the same thing happening if I bought an EV or hybrid costing > $30,000 which, for me, as a very good reason for not buying a car that costs that much.
I will not buy a car that costs much more than $20,000 and so far have not bought a car that costs even that much.
Hi Frank,
Thank you taking the time to share your thoughts.
As I say, how people choose to spend money is a matter of personal choice. Personally, I enjoy the aesthetic appeal, comfort,safety and new technology associated with higher priced automobiles, but that’s just a personal preference.
As I see it, if you only drive 2000 miles a year, the only justification I could offer for your buying an EV is ‘making a statement’, enjoying being part of the future, encouraging the manufacture of new technology, and setting an example.
“Status” is a philosophic concept that’s worthy of a fascinating discussion, but perhaps on another occasion.