Public Health England’s draft report on shale gas extraction
BMJ 2014; 348 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2728 (Published 17 April 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g2728
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Very little is spoken about the 'cocktail' of chemicals which are injected as part of the 'fracking' process.
Aluminium salts are included in this cocktail and there do not appear to be any precautions taken against high levels of aluminium waste entering surface or ground waters or indeed potable waters.
We are already subject to a burgeoning body burden of aluminium. I do not consider it wise to add to this through fracking.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor,
We write as concerned health professionals who seek to draw the public’s attention to the dangers associated with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom, as highlighted by a recent report published by Medact.
Fracking is an inherently risky activity that produces hazardous levels of air and water pollution that can have adverse impacts on health. The heavy traffic, noise and odour that accompanies fracking, as well as the socially disruptive effects of temporary ‘boomtowns’ and the spoilage of the natural environment are additional health hazards.
Such risks would be magnified in the UK where fracking is projected to take place in closer proximity to more densely populated communities; and where there are concerns about the effectiveness of the regulatory system for onshore gas extraction.
But in addition to this, shale gas is not a clean source of energy. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas in its own right, and when burnt, produces carbon dioxide. Shale gas extraction would undermine our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and be incompatible with global efforts to prevent global warming from exceeding two degrees centigrade.
The arguments against fracking on public health and ecological grounds are overwhelming. There are clear grounds for adopting the precautionary principle and prohibiting fracking.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Robin Stott, Co-Chair, Climate and Health Council
Professor Sue Atkinson CBE, Co-Chair, Climate and Health Counci
Professor Hugh Montgomery, UCL
Professor Maya Rao OBE
Professor Martin McKee, LSHTM
Dr Clare Gerada, GP and former Chair of RGCP
Dr Christopher Birt, University of Liverpool and Christie Hospital, Manchester
Professor John Yudkin, Emeritus Professor of Medicine, UCL
Dr Sheila Adam, former Deputy Chief Medical Officer
Professor Klim McPherson, Chair of the UK Health Forum
Dr John Middleton, Vice President UKFPH
Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, KCL
Helen Gordon, Board Member, Climate and Health Council
Dr Frank Boulton, Medact and Southampton University
Dr Sarah Walpole, Academic Clinical Fellow
Professor Allyson Pollock, QMUL
Dr Julie Hotchkiss, Acting Director of Public Health at City of a York Council
Professor Jennie Popay, Lancaster University
Competing interests: No competing interests
Public Health England’s review of potential public health impacts of shale gas extraction – reply to editorial by Law et al1
John Harrison and Paul Cosford, Public Health England
Law et al1 comment on Public Health England’s (PHE’s) draft report of October 2013, “Review of the potential public health impacts of exposures to chemical and radioactive pollutants as a result of shale gas extraction”2. In addition to this editorial, three of the same authors concurrently provided a review of public health risks associated with shale gas exploitation3. The conclusions of Shonkoff et al3 are consistent with those of PHE’s draft report in terms of the risks identified and the need for further monitoring of emissions and assessment of health impacts. Law et al1 compliment the thoroughness of PHE’s review. However, they question the conclusion that currently available evidence indicates that potential risks to public health from exposures to emissions associated with the process of shale gas extraction are low if the operations are properly run and regulated.
We welcome the conclusion that our draft report provided a thorough assessment of the peer reviewed literature. We agree that there is limited information available currently and that more studies are required, including health surveillance. The report responded to emerging public concern and requests for advice from national and local agencies. It took account of available information published up to December 2012, focusing on the potential public health impact of direct emissions of chemicals and radioactive material resulting from the extraction of shale gas. It is currently being updated to take account of new information published up to January 2014 and will be reissued shortly.
We remain of the view that risks from the extraction process should be low if operations are properly run and regulated. Particularly relevant in support of this assessment is a joint review published in 2012 by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering4. They concluded that the health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation.
Concern has been raised in the USA and Canada that public health agencies are not engaged with industry and policy makers responsible for shale gas exploitation5,6. In the UK, public health bodies are involved in both planning and permitting of industry, acting as independent consultees7,8. If shale gas extraction goes ahead, PHE expects to work with regulators to help ensure that appropriate environmental monitoring is undertaken before commencement of, during and after completion of operations and that health surveillance and epidemiological studies are undertaken as appropriate. With our operational autonomy and freedom to publish on issues relating to the nation’s health and wellbeing, we will make our advice clear, and identify publicly if it is not acted upon.
A specific criticism of the PHE report by Law et al1 was that insufficient account was taken of the possibility of drilling in densely populated areas. In fact, the report addressed the important issue of potential cumulative releases from multiple well-sites concentrated in small areas. It is clear that proximity to people’s homes will be a consideration in the siting of wells, in terms of emissions to air and wider issues of noise, visual impact and other factors affecting health and wellbeing. PHE will engage with local authorities and their Directors of Public Health to consider potential health impacts as part of the planning and environmental permitting processes which will be needed for applications to start extraction.
The PHE report explicitly excluded consideration of wider public health issues including green house gas (GHG) emissions and climate change and neither Law et al1 nor Shonkoff et al3 addressed this topic. However, others have begun to analyse the effect of inclusion of shale gas in energy provision in the UK, including a recent report from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) by MacKay and Stone9. They assess the overall carbon footprint from shale gas as being comparable to that from gas extracted from natural sources, lower than for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and substantially lower than for coal. They conclude that the principal effect of UK shale gas production would be to displace imported LNG or possibly piped gas from beyond Europe and the net effect on UK GHG emission rates is likely to be small. However, they also noted that the production of shale gas could increase global cumulative GHG emissions if the fossil fuels displaced by shale gas are used elsewhere. MacKay and Stone9 expressed the view that new fossil fuel exploitation is likely to lead to an increase in cumulative GHG emissions and therefore the risk of climate change if global climate policies as advocated in the UK are not implemented internationally.
In standing by the conclusion of our report2 that risks from the process of shale gas extraction will be low if operations are properly run and regulated, we would like to emphasise that this was a considered judgment rather than a “leap of faith” as suggested by Law et al1. We have identified those aspects of operations that we consider to pose the greatest risks. We have made a number of recommendations for the control of risks, as have others4,9. If shale gas extraction does take place, we will work with regulators to help ensure that environmental monitoring and health surveillance programmes are implemented appropriately. We agree with Kovats et al10 on the potential for Health Impact Assessments (HIA) to play a role in informing policy and local planning processes, considering all issues associated with shale gas extraction which may affect health, including GHG emissions and climate change. PHE will seek to support HIAs and will continue to evaluate evidence on health risks associated with shale gas extraction and related technologies.
1 Law A, Hays J, Shonkoff SB, Finkel ML, Public Health England’s draft report on shale gas extraction: mistaking best practices for actual practices. Brit Med J 2014;348:g2728
2 Kibble A, Cabianca T, Daraktchieva Z, Gooding T, Smithard J, Kowalczyk G et al Review of the potential public health impacts of exposures to chemical and radioactive pollutants as a result of shale gas extraction. PHE-CRCE-002, 2013 www.hpa.org.uk
3 Shonkoff SB, Hays J, Finkel ML, Environmental public health dimensions of shale and tight gas development. Environ Health Perspectives 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307866
4 The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing. 2012. raeng.org.uk/shale
5 Goldstein BD, Kriesky J, Pavliakova B, Missing from the table: role of the environmental public health community in governmental advisory commissions related to Marcellus Shale drilling. Environ Health Perspectives 2012. 120:483-6.
6 New York Health Professionals, Letter to New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo, Oct. 5, 2011. 2011.
7 Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Regulatory Roadmap: Onshore oil and gas exploration in the UK regulation and best practice. 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-roadmap-onshore-oi...
8 Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (DCLG, 2013). Planning Practice Guidance for Onshore Oil and Gas. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...
9 MacKay DJC, Stone, TJ, Potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with shale gas extraction and use. Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2013.
10 Kovats S, Haines A, Depledge M, Wilkinson P, Fleming L, Shonkoff SB, Scovronick N, The health implications of fracking. Lancet 2014.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Rebutting and Responding to Criticisms of the Medact Report on Fracking and Health
The Medact report Fracking and Health has been challenged and criticised by the UK onshore oil and gas industry; and a number of pro-fracking individuals via social media. In addition, a news item published by The Times falsely claimed that the Medact report had been written by an ‘activist’.
Today, Medact has published a rebuttal to these criticisms. All substantive criticisms were looked at in detail, but none gave reason to change the conclusions and recommendations of the Medact report.
We also note that a number of criticisms were bogus and spurious which suggest a failure to carefully read the Medact report; a wish to incorrectly suggest that the Medact report is full of errors; or an intention to muddy the waters and create (even more) misunderstanding about fracking amongst the public and policy-making community.
A clear, transparent and evidence-based debate about fracking is important. While it is entirely legitimate for those with vested interests in the shale gas industry to express their views; the general public and government officials need to be clear about which voices are potentially conflicted and which are not.
Visit - http://www.medact.org/news/medact-rebuttal-fracking-and-health/ - to read the full rebuttal.
Competing interests: No competing interests