Environmental health impacts of unconventional natural gas development: A review of the current strength of evidence

Abstract

Rapid global expansion of unconventional natural gas development (UNGD) raises environmental health concerns. Many studies present information on these concerns, yet the strength of epidemiological evidence remains tenuous. This paper is a review of the strength of evidence in scientific reporting of environmental hazards from UNGD activities associated with adverse human health outcomes. Studies were drawn from peer-reviewed and grey literature following a systematic search. Five databases were searched for studies published from January 1995 through March 2014 using key search terms relevant to environmental health. Studies were screened, ranked and then reviewed according to the strength of the evidence presented on adverse environmental health outcomes associated with UNGD. The initial searches yielded >1000 studies, but this was reduced to 109 relevant studies after the ranking process. Only seven studies were considered highly relevant based on strength of evidence. Articles spanned several relevant topics, but most focussed on impacts on typical environmental media, such as water and air, with much of the health impacts inferred rather than evidenced. Additionally, the majority of studies focussed on short-term, rather than long-term, health impacts, which is expected considering the timeframe of UNGD; therefore, very few studies examined health outcomes with longer latencies such as cancer or developmental outcomes. Current scientific evidence for UNGD that demonstrates associations between adverse health outcomes directly with environmental health hazards resulting from UNGD activities generally lacks methodological rigour. Importantly, however, there is also no evidence to rule out such health impacts. While the current evidence in the scientific research reporting leaves questions unanswered about the actual environmental health impacts, public health concerns remain intense. This is a clear gap in the scientific knowledge that requires urgent attention.

Sustainability lessons from shale development in the United States for Mexico and other emerging unconventional oil and gas developers

“…They found "many chemicals used during the fracturing and drilling stages of gas operations may have long-term health effects that are not immediately expressed". On the topic of further research, Werner et al [64] stated that the literature does not allow for any negative health impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing to be ruled out. McKenzie et al [65] and McKenzie et al [66] suggested that the impact of atmospheric emissions on human health warrant further study, emphasizing that they potentially have non-trivial effects on maternal health.…”

Environmental Impact Assessments and Hydraulic Fracturing: Lessons from Two U.S. States

“…The groups also enumerated problems with the mitigation efforts, explaining that the "DOGGR cannot assure that the limited set of mitigation measures it mentions will be enforceable, even at sites where it will serve as Lead Agency, because it has not clearly specified which measures it intends to enforce." [69] Additionally, although there is evidence of significant [70] impacts to health [71][72][73], no separate public health study was conducted [14].…”

Fracking and Mortgage Default

“…While these findings suggest that fracking activity may lead to adverse health outcomes, the evidence for a strong causal link between fracking and health is quite limited (Mitka (2012), Werner et al (2015)). However, even if there is not a substantially elevated direct health risk, the industrial activity involved in creating a well could generate additional trucking volume with its own health risks (Mathews (2015), Graham et al (2015)).…”