subscribe: Posts | Comments

Fracking: not so good for us

1 comment

notice of fracking dangers, letters to MPs, David Cameron, MPs sent formal warnings about fracking and their duty of care. That means not doing any harm.

Environmental campaigners have hand-delivered warnings to every UK MP pointing out that they could be in breach of their code of conduct by supporting fracking.

The MPs’ Code of Conduct says: ‘Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.’

‘Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest.’

Personally-addressed copies of the notice were delivered to the House of Commons mail room for 649 MPs. The group also visited Downing Street to serve a legal notice on the Prime Minister.

So far, no attempt has been made to assess the health and environmental impact of fracking at an industrial scale in the UK. The risks and impact of multiple wellpads with up to sixty boreholes need to be modelled and examined.

So each notice to each MP was accompanied by a copy of a report by the charity Medact on the health impacts of fracking.

Medact is a charity for health professionals and others working to improve health worldwide, and the report reviews fracking and its associated activities through a comprehensive public health lens.

Proponents of fracking have argued that it can be conducted safely and will bring benefits in the form of: a) energy that is cleaner in climate terms than coal and oil; b) greater energy security; c) lower energy prices; d) more energy diversity and competition; and e) local employment and economic development.

However, fracking has proven to be controversial and there are serious concerns about its safety and impact on the environment.

Fracking and its associated activities create multiple actual and potential sources of pollution.

Leaks of gas can occur across the entire process of extraction, treatment, storage and transportation.

There are also emissions from diesel engines, compressors and heavy transport vehicles; as well as the potential release of silica into the air.

Oxides of nitrogen, hydrogen sulphide, formaldehyde, benzene, ethylene, toluene, particulate matter and ground-level ozone are among the more significant airborne health hazards.

Surface and ground water can also be contaminated by gas, fracking fluid, or wastewater which consists of original fracking fluid combined with a range of new materials generated from underground (including lead, arsenic, chromium, cadmium; and naturally occurring radioactive material).

The effects on peoples’ health of these different hazards vary depending on the type and pattern of human exposure, but they include increased risks of cancer, respiratory disease and birth defects.

And there are several concerns about the adequacy and capacity of the regulatory system, and while the degree to which these concerns represent serious deficiencies is debatable, it is clear that no assurance can be given that the system is adequately robust and protective of human and ecological health.

As recently as 2008, there was only a handful of studies on the health effects of fracking. There are now more than 450 peer reviewed publications and ‘a significant majority indicate potential risks or actual adverse health effects associated with shale gas development’.

This report recommends halting shale gas development in the UK until a more detailed health and environmental impact assessment has been carried out.

The report also finds that, at present, the regulatory system for fracking is insufficiently clear, complete or robust. These deficiencies are accentuated by indications that the capacity of regulators are being eroded by budget and staff cuts.

Several jurisdictions in different parts of the world have concluded, on the basis of existing evidence, that the risks and harms associated with fracking outweigh the potential benefits. France and Bulgaria have banned the process outright.

New York State in the USA effectively prohibited shale gas development, citing public health risks as the primary reason.

According to Howard Zucker, New York State Health Commissioner, ‘the potential risks (to health) are too great, in fact not even fully known, and relying on the limited data at present available would be negligent.’

This is the second time MPs have received formal warnings about fracking and their duty of care.

In January 2015, during the passage of the Infrastructure Act, Jojo Mehta, of Frack Free Five Valleys, mailed letters to them containing a warning about risks and harms of fracking.

This time she was joined by the Lancashire anti-fracking campaigner, Gayzer Frackman. He was on the 22nd day of a hunger strike in Whitehall – calling for a ban on fracking.

And they were joined by Emily Shirley, of Safety in Fossil Fuel Exploitation Alliance, and Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party.

Mehta said: “All public servants in the UK have a duty of care and that is to act in the public interest.

“It means not doing any harm.

“So if they continue to promote fracking in the knowledge that it can bring harm then that can constitute a breach of their duty of care and their code of conduct.”

“We delivered to House of Commons mail room so that we know that they will actually be delivered to each of our MPs.

“That means that they have legally been served. Legally they cannot claim that they have not seen these reports.

“They cannot claim that they did not know that fracking is dangerous.”

Gayzer Frackman, who spoke at the inquiry into Cuadrilla’s applications to frack in Lancashire, said: “My community has been living in fear now for over two years and these are just regular ordinary people.”

“I don’t want any other community to have to go through it.

“We still have a chance to end it in this country. There’s been no fracking going on for over five years now and that’s just down to communities.

“They’re the backbone, they’re the people that work many hours a day. Why? Because they’re fighting for their communities and they’re fighting for their children’s futures.”

  1. Excellent report thank you. Great activism too. I shall continue to put pressure on my MP who considers me naive to be concerned about fracking. Any practice that can put fresh water supplies at risk must be done, if at all, with considerable care. Not possible with the cloth-eared lot currently in post.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *