National Geographic News
A homeowner holds a sample of fracking-affected water.

A homeowner in Granville Summit, Pennsylvania, holds up a glass of tap water containing high levels of methane, a concern for those who live near fracking sites. Studies examining health effects from fracking are under way as New York State considers whether to allow the practice.

Photograph by Mark Thiessen, National Geographic

Katherine Hobson

for National Geographic News

Published April 1, 2013

New York State's review of high-volume hydraulic fracturing has taken more than four years—and it's not over yet.

Right now, all eyes are on the state's health commissioner, Nirav Shah, who has said that he will tell Governor Andrew Cuomo within weeks whether the Department of Environmental Conservation's plan for "fracking" would be sufficient to protect human health. Then it's up to the governor to make a final decision on whether to permit the technique, which involves pumping large volumes of water mixed with chemicals into rock far underground in order to release natural gas. (See related quiz: "What You Don't Know About Natural Gas.")

The combination of hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling has ushered in a new era of natural gas production in the United States, particularly in states such as Pennsylvania and Texas. New York, which sits on part of the same shale formation that has fueled Pennsylvania's gas boom, issued a moratorium on high-volume hydraulic fracking in 2008.

Shah's decision isn't likely to settle the contentious debate, but the state's inclusion of health effects in its decision-making process adds relatively new complexity to an already thorny issue. While several studies have examined the environmental impact of fracking—from its ability to cause earthquakes to the potential contamination of drinking water by methane gas or industry fluids—the direct impact on health has received only limited scientific attention so far. The chief concerns: how drinking water, air quality, and ambient noise levels might be affected by the processes and chemicals used in fracking, and in turn how they might affect human health, said Robert Jackson, a professor of environmental sciences at Duke University. (See related stories: "International Agency Calls for Action on Natural Gas Safety" and "Good Gas, Bad Gas")

Some health experts say there simply isn't enough evidence yet to judge whether the drilling process could harm those who live or work near natural gas wells. The studies on health outcomes that have been done are small and not very rigorous, said Madelon Finkel, professor of clinical public health at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City. "People are coming in and saying, 'I have this, this and this, and I didn't have that condition before fracking, so it must be from that,'" she said. "Without properly done epidemiological studies, it becomes a he-said, she-said [situation]. We really do need well-designed studies to focus on a multitude of factors." Finkel and her colleagues are trying to obtain funding for a study of health outcomes in southwestern Pennsylvania. (See related story: "Methane on Tap: Study Links Pollution to Gas Drilling.")

A lack of money has been one of the obstacles to studying the health effects of fracking, said Jackson, who co-authored 2011 research and policy recommendations for fracking. Another stumbling block has been determining what exactly to study. An uptick in asthma symptoms, for example, would be apparent very soon after changes in air quality. But other conditions, such as cancer, would take years after exposure to develop, were they to occur, Jackson said. And some conditions are so rare that it would require very large studies to detect any increase.

Some larger, more rigorous studies are planned or in progress. One of them is from Pennsylvania-based Geisinger Health System, which treats hundreds of thousands of people who live near the Marcellus shale, the huge underground rock formation that feeds Pennsylvania's shale gas production. (About 20 percent of the Marcellus formation lies in the southwestern part of New York State.) (See related story: "Natural Gas Nation: EIA Sees U.S. Future Shaped by Fracking.")

Geisinger has the advantage of longtime electronic medical record use. Researchers are hoping to use that data, along with records from Pennsylvania's Susquehanna Health and Guthrie Health, and the state's department of health, to study a variety of health outcomes. Early studies are focusing on asthma exacerbations and pregnancy outcomes, wrote Brian Schwartz, a professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University who is involved with that research, in an email.

Geisinger's records are valuable because they cover people living over a wide swath of the state and include detailed health information from before and after drilling started in 2006, wrote Schwartz. Such a study "allows us to look at many different health outcomes across a large geography and over a long period of time in a way that is relatively efficient," he wrote. In addition to examining asthma control and pregnancy outcomes, researchers from Geisinger and other institutions are planning other health studies based on the same data. The entire initiative could take as long as 20 years, and results from the earliest studies aren't due for at least a year.

Health-focused studies also are being conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the University of Pennsylvania. But none of this research will be completed in time for Shah to weigh their final results in his review process. Researchers say some of the findings from the studies in progress would likely be applicable to all or most fracking sites, while others—say, those for air quality, which would depend on wind patterns—might be less easily generalized.

Karen Moreau, executive director of the New York State Petroleum Council, a division of the American Petroleum Institute, said the real health threat in the region of New York known as the southern tier, where the drilling would take place, is unemployment. Fracking would bring much-needed jobs and money—and the health benefits associated with wealth—to the area, she said.

As for any signals of health problems from other areas, "we certainly don't see anything that would suggest the kinds of studies that some organizations are proposing," Moreau said. "This is a decades-old energy development method with an outstanding record of safety and environmental protection." (See poll: "Has Fracking Changed Our Energy Future for Better or Worse?")

Cuomo hasn't said when he will make a decision on fracking in New York. When—and if—conclusive health-study results come in, and what they will reveal, is up in the air. "I think the stakes are very high," said Weill Cornell's Finkel. "If you're going to drill, you have to take into account the safety of the environment and of health before you drop your well." And at this point, she said, "we are not truly understanding the consequences."

This story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy Challenge.

Oliver Henry
Oliver Henry

The first well was "fracked" in 1949, so if there is little DATA to draw upon to study, the fact that there is little DATA speaks for the industry itself. 63 years would have to have caused massive piles of health, accident and environmental DATA, "IF" the process were unsafe. The only thing I have drawn from this whole debate is that there are too many "chicken-little's" running about. May I add, "Put a sock in it!"

Thomas Kelly
Thomas Kelly

This seems to be the age of controversy  Everywhere, its all, "Is this ethical? Is this safe?" I wonder why this wasn't ever debated as much as it is today in past times.

Kit Tyler
Kit Tyler

I have trouble believing the claims of an industry lawyer who doesn't seem to know we are talking about High Volume Horizontal Hydrofracturing when she claims "This is a decades-old energy development method with an outstanding record of safety and environmental protection." The combination of technologies used by HVHF has been used for less than ten years, with the industry admitting they are learning as they go along. Her claims of safety and environmental protection ring a little hollow as the spills, accidents, emissions, blow outs, and violations continue to rack up nationwide. But as the industry likes to intone, "There's risk in everything" and they are very willing to externalize those risks on communities and families. 

Ms. Moreau doesn't see any health problems that need studying, while health professionals are sounding the alarm regarding the lack of information and the unknown effects people are being subjected to by being forced to live in the middle of an industrial grid of well pads, pipelines, compressor stations, and all the associated activities involved. Why did this industry need exemptions from the rules that govern industries? Why do they make affected residents sign non-disclosure agreements in order to get supplied with clean water when their wells go bad? Why are we seeing legislation in state after state gagging physicians and preventing them from sharing information about the chemicals that could be causing the myriad health symptoms that seem to follow this industry? Why the constant attacks on independent scientific studies that are identifying problems? 

Why does the industry ignore its own studies that show the failure rate of casings and the fact they can't prevent these failures? Those casings that pierce our aquifers are supposed to protect them from not only the toxic material injected into the well bore, but from all the radioactive and toxic material that exists in the shale beds now. Industry spokespersons like to tout the 'miles of rock' overlaying the shale that prevent contamination. Those same miles of rock that are now pierced with thousands of rusting and shrinking cement and steel straws and will become conduits to the one precious resource we can't live without: water. 

So, Ms. Moreau. do I listen to a paid industry cheerleader who can't get her own facts right, or do I believe the health professionals and independent scientists and economists who are warning us about the devastating effects your fossil fuel industry will leave behind when the gas in gone? I think you know my answer.

 (And no folks, it won't be one hundred years. )

Todd Brown
Todd Brown

Methane is relatively insoluble in water.  It is less soluble at higher temperature.  It would be fairly easy to put a bubbler to percolate the water and drive off the methane or to install a heater to reduce the level of dissolved methane in the water before the water reaches the tap.  

My biggest question is water did the water look like before fracking?  How soft was the water or what dissolved ions were in place already?  I'm just concerned these home owners never had great water quality and now have found someone to blame.  Remember the coal miners that suffered from black lung and blamed the coal dust, but while being interviewed the coal miners were puffing away on cigarettes, what really caused black lung and the same for the claim of decreased water quality post fracking.  Furthering the analogy the coal miners complained about safety conditions while at the same time vocally protest the move away from coal as an energy source.  If a gas company is offering you money for you gas rights, instead sell them your land and move to somewhere with better water.

Robert Taylor
Robert Taylor

Based on the current science on this issue and in particular the situation in Pennsylvania, your leading picture should show a glass of crystal clear, perfect water unaffected by hydraulic fracturing. Additional photos should show bottles of very expensive luxury bottled waters to represent the wealth and prosperity that new technologies for oil and gas extraction are bring to the United States.

Bob Taylor

Ann Tifrack
Ann Tifrack

@Robert Taylor Yeah right. Tell that to these people:

Supporters of this industry lie over and over again online in comment sections.  They are no different from the tobacco supporters who said smoking was perfectly safe.

Extreme energy extraction such as fracking will hasten climate change even further and it is not fair to future generations that we have broken the planet for them.  But Robert you can go back to sticking your head in the sand.

Robert Taylor
Robert Taylor

@Ann Tifrack @Robert Taylor If I understand you correctly:

1. There is a list on the internet of  bad things that happened to people and animals near oil and gas wells - goats are sick, people get headaches, fatigue, dizziness, nausea from the air - therefore fracking is dangerous. Science to establish cause and effect is not important or interesting.

2. I am a liar

3. The real problem with fracking is not that it causes water pollution, but rather that it is highly effective at extracting fossil fuels which worsens global warming.

Bob Taylor, Industry supporter (I like cheap fast transportation, safe plentiful food, a home that is warm in the winter and cool in the summer, the electricity needed to power the computer that I am using to write this, and  a host of other wonderful things.)

Recent Energy News

See More at The Great Energy Challenge »

The Big Energy Question

Share Your Opinion »

The Great Energy Challenge

The Great Energy Challenge is an important National Geographic initiative designed to help all of us better understand the breadth and depth of our current energy situation.

Energy News, Blog and Interactive Features »