As a public health official in the United States of America, l strongly support the campaign on the banning of fracking. Over time, research has been done on impacts in health by fracking, which can also be termed as hydraulic fracturing. This is a process where gases and oils are extracted from the earth by drilling wells low in-depth and injection of liquids and chemical mixtures at high pressure (Denchak 2019). Some of the significant negative effects brought about by fracking are lack of stability in the climate, local community destructions, and large amounts of radioactive and toxic waste (Hauter 2015). Now the main question being, whether or not fracking should stop; the answer is that despite all the benefits it brings about, it still is too risky and should be banned.
Despite the increase in resource availability, gas extraction from shale, the risks to health, and the environment are too high. It is not certain that fracking improves air quality (McKibben 2014). It remains unknown of fracking impacts on cumulative health for not only the workers but also nearby residents. However, it is certain that natural gas has only relative benefits since it is not only an unrenewable source of energy but also not purely clean (Wibhey 2015). Therefore, it is not considered a way to clean up air since sources like wind, geothermal, and solar produce no harmful airborne particles. Fracking is a threat to human health through water supply contamination.
Over time, several citizens have reported that tap water is flammable and bubbly, which was concluded as a case of methane increase (Lustgarten 2011). This has resulted in the occurrences of blowouts that happened to be hazardous to the environment. There is a lack of trust in the company’s involvement since they hold back from giving full disclosure of the chemicals involved during this fracking process, which some being termed as a classified secret (Wibhey 2015). Despite the state trying to impose regulations, out in the field, many are those who pinch pennies, and therefore many notices of violation at sight are received, which has little effect. It concludes that the impact made by enforcement is little to none.
Another one of the major impacts of fracking is in the health sector. Fracking has been associated with pre-term births, fatigue, migraines, asthma (Stone 2017), sinus, and nasal symptoms, skin disorders, and high-risk pregnancies. In the interest of public health protection, policymakers should be concerned about these health impacts. Gorski goes ahead to say that, although numerous health impacts have been documented, those that should be of major concerns are pregnancies and birth outcomes (Marusic 2015). It has been confirmed that there are increased chances of a woman living close to fracking sites to give birth to a child whose birth rate is lower than average in addition to having a child who has a low health index for an infant (Steingraber 2019).
One can argue that the burning of coal, which contributes to people’s death in thousands, can be replaced by fracking as a new way to supply natural gas. Fracking is said to save lives through the reduction in the emission of sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide. Even though coal can be displaced by fracking in regions such as North Carolina and West Virginia, it may not be the case in Texas and the West, resulting in an uncertain improvement in regional air quality (Wibhey 2015). It is also important to realize that the dynamics surrounding the quality of air in the operations of fracking are not fully comprehensive, and therefore, its impacts on nearby residents remain unknown.
The contamination of the supplies of drinking water, many may not view it as a deal-breaker but simply as issues of technicality as well as integrity. This may be justified by the fact that drinking water is at different levels compared to the deposits of oil and gas in the ground. In addition to that, the issue of flammable water can be justified by the reality of its existence over a hundred years in some of these regions (Wibhey 2015). However, it has been proven that this process contaminates the resident’s drinking water, and this has been proven by the blowouts that have happened so far.
Just as a coin has two sides, fracking has pros and cons (Robert 2011). As much as the positive impacts seem beneficial to the economy and the environment, once one looks close enough, a loophole becomes visible, and one can tell that the cons surpass the pros. Fracking not only impacts the environment negatively but also the health of the nearby residents on a long term basis (Horton 2019). Fracking does more harm than good and should, therefore, be banned for the benefit of everyone.