Equally important are questions about the impact of as many as 200 diesel-fueled trucks each day bringing water to the site and then removing the wastewater. In addition to the normal diesel emissions of trucks, there are also problems of leaks of the contaminated water.
"We need to know how diesel fuel got into some people's water supply," says Diane Siegmund, a clinical psychologist from Towanda, Pa. "It wasn't there before the companies drilled wells; it's here now," she says. Siegmund is also concerned about contaminated dust and mud. "There is no oversight on these," she says, "but those trucks are muddy when they leave the well sites, and dust may have impact miles from the well sites."
Research "strongly implicates exposure to gas drilling operations in serious health effects on humans, companion animals, livestock, horses, and wildlife," according to Dr. Michelle Bamberger , a veterinarian, and Dr. Robert E. Oswald , a biochemist and professor of molecular medicine at Cornell University. Their study , published in New Solutions, an academic journal in environmental health, documents evidence of milk contamination, breeding problems, and cow mortality in areas near fracking operations as higher than in areas where no fracking occurred. Drs. Bamberger and Oswald noted that some of the symptoms present in humans from what may be polluted water from fracking operations include rashes, headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and severe irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. For animals, the symptoms often led to reproductive problems and death.
Significant impact upon wildlife is also noted in a 900-page Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) conducted by New York's Department of Environmental Conservation, and filed in September 2011. According to the EIS, "In addition to loss of habitat, other potential direct impacts on wildlife from drilling in the Marcellus Shale include increased mortality . . . altered microclimates, and increased traffic, noise, lighting, and well flares." The impact, according to the report, "may include a loss of genetic diversity, species isolation, population declines . . . increased predation, and an increase of invasive species." The report concludes that because of fracking, there is "little to no place in the study areas where wildlife would not be impacted, [leading to] serious cascading ecological consequences." The impact, of course, affects the quality of milk and meat production as animals drink and graze near areas that have been taken over by the natural gas industry.
Research by a team of scientists from Duke University revealed "methane contamination of shallow drinking water systems [that is] associated with shale-gas extraction." The data and conclusions , published in the May 2011 issue of the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, noted that not only did most drinking wells near drilling sites have methane, but those closest to the drilling wells, about a half-mile, had an average of 17 times the methane of those of other wells.
Before a Congressional hearing , Michael Krancer, Gov. Tom Corbett's DEP secretary, claimed studies that showed toxic methane gas in drinking water were "bogus," and specifically cited as "statistically and technically biased" the Duke University study . Two of the study's researchers fired back. In an OpEd article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Robert Jackson and Avner Vengosh suggested, "Rather than working to discredit any science that challenges his views, the secretary and his agency should be working to get to the bottom of the science with an open mind."
As if water pollution wasn't bad enough, fracking operations may also impact the air and increase greenhouse gas levels. A team of researchers from Cornell University determined that the leaking of methane gas into the air from fracking operations could have a greater negative impact upon the environment than either oil or coal. In the May 2011 issue of the peer-reviewed Climatic Change Letters, environmental biologist Dr. Robert Howarth, engineer Dr. Tony Ingraffea, and ecology researcher Renee Santoro, conclude , "The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years."
The response by the industry and its political allies to the scientific studies of the health and environmental effects of fracking "has approached the issue in a manner similar to the tobacco industry that for many years rejected the link between smoking and cancer," say Drs. Bamberger and Oswald. Not only do they call for "full disclosure and testing of air, water, soil, animals, and humans," but point out that with lax oversight, "the gas drilling boom . . . will remain an uncontrolled health experiment on an enormous scale."
Dr. Helen Podgainy, a pediatrician in Coraopolis, Pa., says she doesn't want her patients "to be guinea pigs who provide the next generation the statistical proof of health problems as in what happened with those exposed to asbestos or to cigarette smoke."
[Assisting on this series, in addition to those quoted within the articles, were Rosemary R. Brasch, Eileen Fay, Dr. Bernard Goldstein, and Dr. Wendy Lynne Lee. Dr. Walter Brasch 's current book is Before the First Snow , a critically-acclaimed novel that looks at what happens when government and energy companies form a symbiotic relationship, using "cheaper, cleaner" fuel and the lure of jobs in a depressed economy but at the expense of significant health and environmental impact. The book is available at amazon.com and from the publisher, Greeley & Stone .]
1 | 2