New York bans fracking after health report


#1

New York announced today that it will ban fracking after that state’s health department issued a report saying the practice poses health risks.

New York Environmental Commissioner Joseph Martens said Wednesday he will issue an order early next year, extending a six-year-old halt to fracking in the state.

Martens made his comments after the state’s Health Commissioner, Howard Zucker, said there is not enough scientific information to conclude that fracking, which involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into a well to extract oil or gas, is safe.

“The potential risks are too great, in fact not even fully known, and relying on the limited data presently available would be negligent on my part,” Zucker said.

The New York State Health Department report can be found here.


#2

Interesting. They are banning it because “there is not enough scientific information to conclude that fracking, which involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into a well to extract oil or gas, is safe.”

I wonder if they have ever looked into the health effects of petroleum, which is generally very safely isolated from human activity deep underground until it is brought to the surface? I wonder why they have not banned ALL completion and production techniques.

Peace

Tim


#3

A bit off tapic: Everything, including breathing, can be bad for your health. :stuck_out_tongue:


#4

After all, as long as they can get fuel from other states and nations that will use fracking, why bother?

Classic NIMBY.

ICXC NIKA


#5

What a crock of an excuse to be modern-day enviro-Luddites.


#6

Is anyone here who is slamming this report an expert on fracking technology and qualified to evaluate its health risks? I can understand questioning the report. But to arrogantly dismiss it as nonsense is - well - arrogant.


#7

If we’re not allowed to talk about it if we’re not experts on fracking technology and qualified to evaluate its health risks, then why are you here talking about it? By your own standards, state your own credentials in both fields or give it up.

These people have had a ban on it for six years, and despite all of their enviro-consciousness (and likely healthy budgets despite unemployment in the frackable areas) they just can’t figure out whether fracking is hazardous to people or not, so they’re going to ban it some more. Are none of them experts on fracking technology and health risks? Don’t they know anybody who is that they could hire to find out?

It’s political. No doubt Cuomo gets campaign money from environmental PACs.


#8

Please read my second sentence.


#9

I haven’t read the whole report, but I have read several pages from it. They cite study after study in which there is no conclusive evidence of health impacts from gas wells or fracking.

So I guess they’re telling the truth in a way. They really don’t have a good reason to say it’s safe or unsafe, either one, because some of the studies were inconclusive, some they saw were flawed for this reason or that.

Six years to come up with “we don’t know”. They don’t want to know. I would wager that a person who is neutral on the subject could come up with fifty studies by reputable sources in a day and a half that would justify a pretty likely conclusion. These guys took six years to come up with nothing that, to them, tells them anything.


#10

Oh I get it now. If one questions the report, that’s okay. But if one arrogantly dismisses it, one is arrogant. In other words, if one is arrogant, one is arrogant.

Missed the overall effect of your statement, and apologize for doing it. I’m puzzled by it, but okay.


#11

Or you can just read the report, and laugh. How’s this conclusion for showing the conviction of their finding. They clearly found nothing conclusive, or even indicative.
They are stalling for political purposes, as others indicated.

Conclusions – Health and Environmental Literature
**The science **surrounding HVHF shale-gas development and public health risks is only just beginning to emerge. Many of the published reports investigating environmental and health implications of HVHF activities are preliminary or exploratory in nature. As a result, the available science on HVHF currently **is limited and **largely suggests hypotheses about potential impacts that need further evaluation.

Health impacts that **have been reported to be potentially associated **with exposure to HVHF activities include a variety of acute or self-limiting signs and symptoms such as skin rash or irritation, nausea or vomiting, abdominal pain, breathing difficulties or cough, nosebleeds, anxiety/stress, headache, dizziness, eye irritation, and throat irritation. Other outcomes that have been reported as potentially associated with HVHF exposure include low birth weight and some congenital defects.

I found it interesting that they admit TX has been doing this for over 60 yrs, and they had no negative evidence to reference.


#12

Frack, baby, frack.

If the Marcellus shale will not be fracked, that just raises the price for those who will frack.

ICXC NIKA


#13

I am very glad there will be no frackin’ in NYS. Just look at Oklahoma and their swarms of earthquakes…frackin’ earthquakes.


#14

A 2012 report from the Department of Interior using United States Geological Survey (USGS) calls BS on frackin’ earthquakes.

USGS’s studies do not suggest that hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking,” causes the increased rate of earthquakes [of magnitude 3.0 and larger]. USGS’s scientists have found, however, that at some locations the increase in seismicity coincides with the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells.

Translation? Fracking may cause rumbling around the drilling areas, but it doesn’t cause the sorts of earthquakes people are talking about in Oklahoma and elsewhere.

Does fracking cause big earthquakes? NO


#15

An expert? No, I’m not an expert. I have some experience with fracking, specifically the chemicals used in fracking as I used to work in that industry, but I’m not an expert. I also deal with environmental risk on a daily basis as part of my job. I understand the science behind risk evaluations. I’m not an expert, but I know more than probably 95% (at least) of the general public.

I can understand questioning the report. But to arrogantly dismiss it as nonsense is - well - arrogant.

Arrogant to you, but not to me. Did you read what the NY commissioner said? HE, not me or anyone on this thread, said that there is not enough evidence to prove that fracking is safe. Does that mean that there is evidence that it is harmful? No, it doesn’t. This is a political move and is not based on science.

Ask yourself, or better yet, ask the commissioner, what are the health risks associated with petroleum? Do the research and then ask the commissioner why the state of New York allows known carcinogens to be moved from a place where they can’t possibly hurt anyone to a place where many people are exposed.

Peace

Tim


#16

earthjustice.org/features/oklahoma-and-fracking
And some say it is yet to be determined if these earthquakes are a natural phenomenon or man-made via fracking.
My feeling is that fracking is causing earthquakes in Oklahoma. :twocents:


#17

Well, maybe. But there are huge tectonic plates in Ok moving past each other, that run a lot deeper than any fracking wells do. I would very much question whether fracking can move one of those plates so as to cause a “true” earthquake. Some have theorized, in reference to the San Andreas Fault in Cal, that perhaps earthquakes could be made more frequent but less destructive by “lubricating” between the plates with water so they move more frequently and smoothly. I don’t think anyone has tried doing it, though.

Now, I would be less doubtful about a purely local disturbance. I think it’s generally believed that the collapse of sinkholes in Florida, for example, is caused by changes in the water tables below. Those changes, I assume, are withdrawal of residential and industrial water; probably also re-routing of water channels to accommodate development.

But even if fracking does not replace volume for volume (and I don’t know that) causing shifts deep underground, I would think any disturbance of that sort would be very local.


#18

dcbureau.org/201206157397/natural-resources-news-service/epa-refuses-to-release-seismic-data.html
hitting close to home


#19

Well, Oklahoma is located ON a tectonic plate (North America), but it is far from a plate margin, so that has nothing to do with the Oklahoma earthquakes.

I would very much question whether fracking can move one of those plates so as to cause a “true” earthquake. Some have theorized, in reference to the San Andreas Fault in Cal, that perhaps earthquakes could be made more frequent but less destructive by “lubricating” between the plates with water so they move more frequently and smoothly. I don’t think anyone has tried doing it, though.

There are no tectonic plate margins in Oklahoma like the San Andreas Fault, but there are faults. Earthquakes are not limited to plate margins.

It is possible that fracking could create problems, but I don’t tend to think so. Most of the earthquakes seem to be associated with injection wells and that involves much larger volumes of liquids than fracking does.

Peace

Tim


#20

it appears you’re right. The diverse geological features of Ok have faults, but are not, themselves, plate margins. koco.com/news/oklahomanews/okc/expert-weighs-in-on-likelihood-of-massive-oklahoma-earthquake/22819596

Still, it does appear there is not particular evidence that fracking has any more to do with it than pumping oil did or does.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.