Fracking, a shorthand term for hydraulic fracturing that is also used to refer to the larger operations of unconventional oil and gas extraction, is a process in which a high-pressure liquid (usually a mix of water, sand, and chemicals) is pumped deep into shale rock to create large fissures that allow the release of oil and natural gas.
Proponents of the technology say it has reduced America’s reliance on coal and foreign oil production, lowered gas and oil prices, created thousands of jobs, and revitalized local economies. Opponents of fracking say it contaminates groundwater, creates noise and air pollution, triggers earthquakes, and impacts pregnancy outcomes and children’s health.
Dr. Nicole Deziel, PhD, MHS, is a Yale School of Public Health Associate Professor of Epidemiology (Environmental Sciences) and an expert on environmental contaminants. She has extensively studied the environmental and human health impacts of fracking, which scientists have shown can lead to migraine headaches, severe fatigue, difficulty breathing, and poor pregnancy and birth outcomes. Deziel’s research has found that Pennsylvania children living near fracking sites at birth were two to three times more likely to be diagnosed with leukemia between the ages of 2 and 7 than those who were not exposed to the technology.
Deziel recently took a moment to discuss the latest science surrounding fracking and its potential risks to human and environmental health.
What should people know about fracking and its impact on health?
ND: There's a strong body of evidence documenting that increased exposure to fracking impacts human health. The strongest evidence relates to fracking’s impact on children’s health, including perinatal outcomes, such as low birth weight, preterm births, congenital anomalies, asthma, and even childhood cancers. Two studies have found an increased risk of childhood cancers. With such limited research, the available evidence is not conclusive, but it is certainly suggestive.
With continuing exposure, there may be other negative health outcomes related to fracking that emerge over time. For example, adult cancers. We just don't know if there is an association yet because not enough time has elapsed. And issues of environmental disparities are important as numerous studies have found that communities with high proportions of people with low incomes, or high numbers of people of color, are more likely to be located near fracking sites or fracking waste disposal areas.
There's a strong body of evidence documenting that increased exposure to fracking impacts human health.
Dr. Nicole Deziel, PhD,
How does fracking relate to the intensified storms, heat waves, and other environmental changes communities are experiencing?
ND: In addition to the potential impacts to nearby communities, fracking can impact all of us by contributing to climate change. Natural gas is a fossil fuel and its combustion releases greenhouse gases. Natural gas essentially is methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases, and there have been several studies documenting leaks and emissions of methane during fracking operations. So, it's impacting regions as a bigger phenomenon.
Are there any renewable energy sources that would be a good alternative to fracking?
ND: Increasing use of renewables like wind and solar is critical. We need to be responsible with our energy transition because nothing is done without any impact on the environment. So, being careful about mining rare earth metals for batteries and dealing responsibly with other types of waste and materials generated from these processes is important. We don't want to trade one hazard for another. In addition, we must be alert to issues of equity in access to clean and affordable energy sources.
Would increased regulations surrounding fracking help reduce the environmental and human health risks?
ND: Certainly. One option is to increase the distance between drilling operations and people's homes and schools via required setbacks. Many of the current setbacks are not reflective of the latest scientific evidence and are not sufficiently protective. Some states have setbacks of a few hundred feet, which is less than the length of a football field. States like California have looked at the latest evidence and passed new setback policies to increase the distance between the drilling and residential areas. New York has a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, as do some other areas, so there is precedent.
What can people do in the short term to reduce the health risks associated with fracking?
ND: One of the challenges with the fracking industry is that it is regulated at the state level, so there are differences in policies and public health protections depending on where people live. Passing new evidence-based setback regulations and other policies in the short term while pursuing new sources of renewable energy in the long term seems realistic.
In the absence of evidence-based policies, the burden unfairly falls on individuals in the impacted areas. While water filters, sound-blocking windowpanes, and indoor air cleaners offer some options for reducing hazards in the home, they are expensive and require maintenance, thereby exacerbating issues of injustice. These controls also don’t address the release of greenhouse gases and climate change. So, we really need to be working towards policy solutions that ensure our homes and communities are safe from harmful contaminants and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.