Fracking Effects On Children 's Health

For the past twenty to thirty years, hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as fracking, has been the number one source of natural gas, oil, and energy in the United States. The process of fracking is that a well is built above the ground and then a drill digs several thousand feet deep into the ground to extract the oil and natural gas that is trapped inside of rock formations. Fracking is very controversial because of the cost of the process and the environmental “threats” that it poses. From methane emissions to earthquakes, fracking has been accused to be linked with several environmental issues. To prevent any environmental dangers, states place regulations and boundaries that energy companies have to follow in order to build a well and keep it up and running. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) also works with states to help regulate these wells. More importantly, fracking in the United States is very important and acts as a bridge to the future. While it may be argued that hydraulic fracturing is not beneficial to the economy and harmful to the environment, fracking in the United States should not be banned because fracking is not only imperative to the growth of jobs and the economy, but it also does not put the surrounding environment in danger.

Bob Weinhold, a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists, has been investigating environmental health issues since 1996. He continues to expose the public to the consequences of environmental abuse. His article “The Future of Fracking,” analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their efforts made to regulate and improve the current state of toxic air emissions produced by hydraulic fracturing sites in the United States. Weinhold successfully presents technological and economic benefits of oil and natural gas drilling but counters these successes by considering the damage that current fracking sites and future fracking sites have on human and environmental health. The information he

Fracking has become a nation wide debate and one that doesn’t seem to have an end. The state of North Carolina is one of the most involved areas of the fracking process. “North Carolina is sitting on top of large natural gas reserves (WRAL 1).” For this reason, many natural gas companies come to North Carolina for business. This helps the states economy because it produces more income and creates more jobs. The only problem is that the hydraulic fracking process has a reputation of contaminating local drinking water. This causes controversy with the citizens in cities such as Raleigh. Many cities welcome fracking while others try to completely ban it. The worst problem with fracking is that there seems to be no alternatives for it.

In “Fracking” authors Michael D. Holloway and Oliver Rudd cover the technology and methods of hydraulic fracturing while explaining the consequences it has on our health, agriculture, and the planet. The two set out to expose the truths and fallacies regarding impacts of the controversial topic. Throughout the book excerpt, the authors reiterate their goal of not making false claims; “the goal is to educate and share insight.” The authors work to relieve the public of common hydraulic fracking related misconceptions brought on by the media. While the majority of citizens opposed to fracking report contamination to their water source and air, the authors’ collected studies reveal that these problems are not unique to fracking; they occur whenever

The advocates of fracking support the process because it has the potential to boost U.S. jobs based on cheaper industrial inputs. However, according to “Fracking: Do the Economics Justify the Risks?” those concerned with fracking focus on the negative environmental impact on air and water quality and its potential to delay adoption of more expensive sustainable energy sources. In order to shed light on the degrees of this debate, the Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative held a seminar titled “Fracking, Environmental Policy, and Economic Growth,” by Sarah Light. Due to the fact that there are many concerns about hydraulic fracturing on both sides of the debate, Light intended to acquire attention on the disagreement about policy choices and the facts bringing about those

Over the past decade oil and gas producers have increasingly used hydraulic fracturing also known as fracking to extract oil and gas from the earth. Most people believe fracking is a new process but it has been around for over 100 years. Modern day fracking began in the 1990’s when George P Mitchell created a new technique by combining fracking with horizontal drilling. Since then, U.S. oil and gas production has skyrocketed. But the “new” perception of fracking leads people to incorrectly believe that fracking is temporary and that it somehow harms the environment. The truth is fracking is a reasonable energy solution if oversight and safeguards are used. In the last ten years fracking has improved conditions in the U.S. in three

Respiratory problems have been created by fracking pollution. “Impacts of can include asthma attacks, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing and lung disease. Levels of pollutants high enough to cause respiratory problems, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children, have been found both close to fracking sites and in regions with intense oil and gas activity.” We must guard the air we breathe because we are going to the be the ones who will get harmed by it. Exposure to pollutants such as hydrogen sulfide and VOCs can cause neurological problems with ranges from a headache and dizziness to loss of consciousness and seizures. “Multiple studies have measured benzene levels close to fracking sites that are higher than the thresholds set to protect people from these impacts.” These are the problems that a lot of people living near the fracking wells have to face. A number of PAHs and VOCs have been found to interfere with fetal and child development resulting in dangerous harm to the developing brain, nervous system, and heart. “Because even short-term exposures to these pollutants at critical moments of development can result in long-lasting harm, health experts have identified this as a threat to communities living in close proximity to fracking sites.” These impacts can change a child’s entire life with the child having many kinds

The mismanagement of the practice has the potential to create environmental damage such as water contamination, radioactive spills, and increased seismic activity that could cost thousands in dollars in damage. Furthermore, the unintended consequences of fracking can have detrimental effects on the environmental. The potential for water contamination can pose both an immediate and long term risk to environmental stability, including landscape distortion, inhabitability and ecological displacement. This contamination of drinking water can also be detrimental to the human environment, limiting the amount of safe water available for both the residential and commercial human environment. With the increase of fracking, the level of disapproval for the practice has only mounted. Concerns including overconsumption of

Citing the documentary “Gasland”, the article brings to account instances in the past where people who lived close to fracking sites had experienced sickness and foul-smelling water. The documentary had then influenced New York State’s decision to ban fracking. By citing this documentary, the article makes the reader to not fully accept the given conclusion. Without going into great detail, the article mentions a couple of environmental groups questioning of the legitimacy of the study, considering that the study uses data generated by oil and gas companies. This also brings to question the limitations of the data used. The article reads unbiasedly towards both sides of the fracking industry, it recognizes the conclusions of the EPA study but still lets the reader know that there is still a lot that has not been explored in the topic.

This debate covered the controversial issue of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The two sides that can be taken within this debate are, Bruce McKenzie Everett’s side or John Rumpler’s side. Everett believes that hydraulic fracturing is completely worth it, due to the fact that the economic benefits outweigh the negative impacts on our environment. While Rumpler argues that there are very crucial tolls fracking is taking on our environment, and also our health. Throughout the article there are 6 question proposed to each person. The first, and maybe most important, question asked is ‘is fracking safe?’ Everett responds first by saying that nothing in the world is entirely safe, and then continues to nullify the multitude of threats fracking

In recent years, the subject of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking has been a constant subject of interest in the news media. The pros and cons of fracking are passionately debated. However, the public should become educated on the subject of fracking prior to choosing a side of the argument. In the scholarly article, “Super Fracking,” published in 2014, by Donald L. Trucotte, Eldridge M. Moores, and John B. Rundle, a detailed description of fracking is provided, followed by their analysis of current issues surrounding the controversy. According to Trucotte, Moores, and Rundle, fracking saves the consumer money. The wellhead cost to produce natural gas in January of 2000 was two dollars and sixty cents per one thousand cubic feet. At an alarming rate, the cost at the wellhead to produce natural gas had risen to eight dollars per one thousand cubic feet by January of 2006. Comfortingly, the wellhead cost dropped to two dollars and eighty-nine cents by the end of 2012. Impressively, gas production increase and price decrease over the time period are a result of fracking. In their article, Trucotte, Moores, and Rundle describe in great detail that hydraulic fracturing, most commonly referred to as fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth to fracture the layers of rock so that a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the oil or natural gas inside. This method of fracking has been used commercially for the last fifty years.

The new presidency is focused on obtaining more natural resources through fracking in order to become energy independent. Fracking is the process of obtaining natural resources, like oil and natural gas, by drilling into the ground using a mixture of water, chemicals, and sand. However, the presidency has not considered the ill health effects on children. Research has indicated that fracking can pollute the surrounding water and air with dangerous chemicals, which can be detrimental to the health of children. Children are more vulnerable to the damaging effects of fracking chemicals because they are anatomically, physiologically, and developmentally different from adults. Research is still nascent, but possibly risking the health of children

Fracking is hurting homeowners and communities. Fracking is turning neighbors against each other. One could be getting paid thousands of dollars to frack on their own property while both of them share the pain equally. Many homeowners who live close to a fracking pad, even people who don’t drink the water, experience headaches, persistent coughs, nausea and memory loss (‘Fracking’ for Natural Gas Continues to Raise Health Concerns). Not to mention many of the fracking chemicals are known carcinogens. With health effects like these it is no surprise that homes within 1.5 kilometers sell for 10% less. Furthermore, within a kilometer the number increases to 22% (McManon).

The fracking industry in its entirety, although surrounded by a shroud of controversy, is an economic stimulator that many do not acknowledge. The potential replacement of coal for efficient and clean energy would not be possible if it weren’t for the utilization of hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, and horizontal drilling. To consider fracking as only a danger to the environment would be an overstatement while saying fracking only provides natural gas and nothing else is an understatement. It’s important to consider all of the potential benefits that fracking gives to the economy and how its minor environmental destruction could lead to an economic reconstruction. Although fracking has a negative connotation with most people,

Fracking has actually changed out future as we know it, and has made it possible for many things. Fracking will make the world run on natural fossil fuels for much longer, which is also better for the environment and us. In 2015, the U.S. reached its all time high in oil production in 14 years and is only expected to continually rise. Oil production in the U.S. is one of the main sources of jobs for people living in the U.S. (Nunez, 2013). Fracking is a good way to employ U.S. citizens and is also a good way to get natural ways of oil production. As we all