143
closest to the activity, they tend to be robust and young, and may not be the most
strongly affected. This could perhaps be addressed by assessing workers in other
industries that might be exposed to similar chemicals as a baseline to normalize the
results. The highest risk populations are not likely to be health young workers however, but the very young, the very old, and those who are sick, chronically ill, or
otherwise health-compromised.
The size and makeup of the exposed population is not well-understood. There
should be less exposure with greater distance from the drill rig, but in many cases,
this may depend on the specific toxicity of the substance released and the transport
path. For example, populations along the route to a disposal well could be exposed
to frack chemicals leaking from the haulage trucks, even though they may be located
quite distant from the fracking site. Sub-groups such as small children, pregnant
women, and ailing older people may react more adversely to exposures than the
general population of healthy, younger people.
Exposure monitoring methods need long-term study designs, dedicated instrumentation, and possibly new technologies to more accurately characterize population exposures to toxic chemicals from unconventional oil and gas development.
Other potential health risks to nearby populations may include noise, vibration, and
bright lights on the worksite during drilling, fracking, and production operations.
These activities can result in elevated stress levels and a lack of sleep for affected
nearby residents, and have been largely un-investigated.
Researchers outside of North America have made the case that differences in
cultures, demographics, geology, and regulations invalidate the use of U.S. evidence
concerning the environmental and health risks of shale development and fracking in
places like the European Union (Prpich and Coulon 2018). The authors recommend
that Member States of the EU fund and carry out their own research, and not rely on
U.S. results. Investigations in Europe should focus on developing comprehensive
environmental baselines and filling existing gaps in human health studies to assess
population exposure risk prior to the potential development of European shale
resources. This argument has some validity, and could be applied to other nations as
well. Thus, countries wishing to develop their own shale resources, such as China,
Australia, Pakistan, Argentina, etc. should run national assessments based on risk
factors related to contaminant sources, transport pathways, and exposed populations
that are unique to each nation.
A firm in Washington, D.C. called Resources for the Future (RFF) recently
attempted to produce a review of the scientific literature to summarize the state of
the science for health effects from fracking (Krupnick and Echarte 2017). They
concluded that the existing technical literature does not provide any strong evidence
linking fracking to specific health impacts. This agrees with similar conclusions
from the Institute of Medicine workshop (Institute of Medicine 2014), the federal
multi-agency assessment (USDOE 2015), and preliminary findings of the Health
Effects Institute (HEI 2019). The RFF report also stated that the scientific literature
has not established workable exposure routes and toxicology by which fracking
could result in potential health effects, and concluded that no immediate public
8.1 Human Health
closest to the activity, they tend to be robust and young, and may not be the most
strongly affected. This could perhaps be addressed by assessing workers in other
industries that might be exposed to similar chemicals as a baseline to normalize the
results. The highest risk populations are not likely to be health young workers however, but the very young, the very old, and those who are sick, chronically ill, or
otherwise health-compromised.
The size and makeup of the exposed population is not well-understood. There
should be less exposure with greater distance from the drill rig, but in many cases,
this may depend on the specific toxicity of the substance released and the transport
path. For example, populations along the route to a disposal well could be exposed
to frack chemicals leaking from the haulage trucks, even though they may be located
quite distant from the fracking site. Sub-groups such as small children, pregnant
women, and ailing older people may react more adversely to exposures than the
general population of healthy, younger people.
Exposure monitoring methods need long-term study designs, dedicated instrumentation, and possibly new technologies to more accurately characterize population exposures to toxic chemicals from unconventional oil and gas development.
Other potential health risks to nearby populations may include noise, vibration, and
bright lights on the worksite during drilling, fracking, and production operations.
These activities can result in elevated stress levels and a lack of sleep for affected
nearby residents, and have been largely un-investigated.
Researchers outside of North America have made the case that differences in
cultures, demographics, geology, and regulations invalidate the use of U.S. evidence
concerning the environmental and health risks of shale development and fracking in
places like the European Union (Prpich and Coulon 2018). The authors recommend
that Member States of the EU fund and carry out their own research, and not rely on
U.S. results. Investigations in Europe should focus on developing comprehensive
environmental baselines and filling existing gaps in human health studies to assess
population exposure risk prior to the potential development of European shale
resources. This argument has some validity, and could be applied to other nations as
well. Thus, countries wishing to develop their own shale resources, such as China,
Australia, Pakistan, Argentina, etc. should run national assessments based on risk
factors related to contaminant sources, transport pathways, and exposed populations
that are unique to each nation.
A firm in Washington, D.C. called Resources for the Future (RFF) recently
attempted to produce a review of the scientific literature to summarize the state of
the science for health effects from fracking (Krupnick and Echarte 2017). They
concluded that the existing technical literature does not provide any strong evidence
linking fracking to specific health impacts. This agrees with similar conclusions
from the Institute of Medicine workshop (Institute of Medicine 2014), the federal
multi-agency assessment (USDOE 2015), and preliminary findings of the Health
Effects Institute (HEI 2019). The RFF report also stated that the scientific literature
has not established workable exposure routes and toxicology by which fracking
could result in potential health effects, and concluded that no immediate public
8.1 Human Health