Have your say on fracking health impacts


A researcher is asking for help with an investigation into the impacts of fracking on social health and well-being.

Sophie Grinnell, a PhD student at Liverpool John Moores University, needs people to complete a questionnaire. The online survey takes about 10 minutes to complete.

Ms Grinnell has a background in environmental engineering and has spent the past 14 years as a research on health inequalities.

She said:

“These impacts are not the usual environmental ones frequently talked about, but the effects upon a person’s health and well-being.

“I hope that this questionnaire will provide a national, or even international overview of these health impacts, to enable a large and effective theme analysis to take place.”

Link to questionnaire

32 replies »

  1. Just read through the questionnaire – it is very badly constructed. I tried to fill in as accurately as I could – but it made too many assumptions and led me to answers I did not want to be forced in to, so I aborted the form filling. I have been involved in similar things before for CCS and energy technologies – so I do have some experience here. If Ms Grinnel wishes to discuss further I am happy to assist- but if she does not get this bit right the rest will be worthless.

  2. Same here – e.g. Q1a .. media/internet sources are complex and it would need time to review the origins to be meaningful (rather than just saying ‘internet’ or ‘media’). I have viewed nearly all of those types of info sources listed, usually using the internet as an access tool.

  3. I believe it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding social health impacts when many of the impacts are associated with [edited by moderator] misinformation from anti-frack groups (now confirmed by the ASA). In fact, all “social health” and “social license” claims have been forever tainted by the FoE scandal.

  4. “Have your say on Fracking Health Impacts!” What a daft headline…as NO health impacts from NO Shale Gas Fracking to any measure has occurred in the UK, who can possibly comment ! Cancer/Asthma/Water Contamination has never been proven anywhere that is Fracking at present!

  5. Maybe you should read some of these reports.

    These world leading organisations, headed by professors, doctors of science, medicine and engineering that all say fracking is dangerous.

    Just Google any of the following below, (as it reads) to read their reports. Links to any of the following can be provided, if required.

    NOBEL PEACE PRIZE winners, ( PSR ) Physicians For Social Responsibility, fracking

    DEFRA, fracking report


    BREAST CANCER FUND, fracking

    BREAST CANCER UK, fracking

    STOP CANCER NOW, Fracking and your health, 24 February

    PREVENT CANCER NOW, Fracking shale gas and health, a case for precaution.

    CAPE’s position statement on fracking , June 2014.


    headlined…. Toxic Chemicals, Carcinogens, skyrocket near fracking sites.

    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL fracking ….. public health England’s draft report on shale gas extraction. The BMJ.

    Maybe you would also like to comment on the article published on the Guardian Newspaper 30th March 2015, HEADLINED. ….. Doctors And Academics Call For Ban On Inherently Risky Fracking.

    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY fracking …. scientific review reveals public health and data gaps.

    PHYSICIANS, SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR PUBLIC HEALTHY ENERGY ( PSE ) fracking ……. and read the many reports published by them regarding the dangers of fracking.

        • You are obviously wrong, Phil. The EPA disagrees with you, and so does the ASA. You have yet to provide a single study that proves a causal relationship between fracking and systemic health impacts. Best of luck!

        • I see, Phil. Seems that you will have to spend time “educating” the hundreds of scientists with the EPA, RAE, Royal Society, BGS, IMech, EASAC, and all the Geological Societies of Europe. I’m sure they will love to hear from you!

          • That’s your job now peeny, as you’re claiming the knowledge to call them out on all their findings. Please enlighten all those professional groups. Oh yes, what were your credentials again?

            • They’ve already been called out, Phil. You’re so far behind the information flow it isn’t funny! But it’s not me calling them out. It’s people with lots of credentials who actually respect the scientific method.

            • OK just give one example of were the BMJ (on this subject) has been called out by a group with even more credentials. Are you sure you haven’t just made this all up? This sounds a bit like Trump saying ‘We know this must be true because I’ve said it so many times’.

      • hballpeenyahoocom, are you trying say that all these world leading organizations headed by prominent Professors and Doctors of science, medicine and engineering are just guessing and are all just talking of the top of their heads when they warn of the serious impacts and dangers of fracking ?
        Are they wrong ?

        • Jackthelad, If you look closely at the studies, you will note that almost all of them are in fact supported by activist, anti-fracking groups. Personally, I don’t think this matters much, as long as the science is good, but it is worth keeping in mind. These are not unbiased reports, they are propaganda.

          All the same, if any one of them contained a single shred of evidence that fracking caused systemic damage to human health, our regulatory apparatus would shut the industry down. The EPA spent five years studying these 900 reports, as well as thousands of other reports, gathering data, and initiating its own studies, and was unable to prove that fracking causes systemic damage. Instead, they were only able to say that fracking can cause damage, just as any industry can. They also noted that they had only found “isolated” incidents where fracking (not really fracking, but fracking-related activities) had caused damage – these were mostly because of spills and poor well completions.

          It doesn’t matter WHO says what, Jackthelad. What matters is WHAT they say.

          The science simply does not support the contention that fracking represents a systemic danger. It can be dangerous, if not done correctly (again, not necessarily fracking, but gas extraction operations) and this is what supporters have said all along.

          • Maybe these are all having imaginary fracking nightmares hballpeenyahoocom.

            If you want to see some of the nightmares that possibly await the UK as a consequence of this extreme form of energy extraction.

            Then I suggest you look where it is already taking place.


            Californians Against Fracking


            • Jack, there are plentiful scare stories about fracking made by anti-frack groups. These extremists have shot themselves in the foot in my view by going too far in the past. They’ve played very fast and loose with the facts in films such as Gasland, and they’ve lost all credibility with the mainstream, similar to how FoE has in the UK.

              The simple fact is that gas extraction carries costs. It isn’t perfect. Oil extraction carries costs. Copper extraction does too. Rare earth mineral extraction is costly. You get the point – any extraction technology is going to have an impact. All industrial operations have impacts too. We as a society must judge whether those costs are too high relative to the benefits. Fracking supports the health and welfare of approximately 300 million Americans. It makes our lives better every single day – not only providing power and warmth, but providing hundreds of thousands of jobs, trillions to the economy, energy security for the nation, and dramatically lower carbon emissions for our environment. While it isn’t perfect, it has been overwhelmingly good for our country, and this is why we continue to extract gas using the technology.

              And we’ve done a lot of it. We’ve been fracking for over 50 years, and we’ve been using HVHF slickwater fracking in commercial applications for over 25 years. If the technology were as disastrous as the anti-frackers want you to believe, the bodies would literally litter our country.

          • hballpeenyahoocom in reference to the EPA study you quite.

            Maybe you missed this.

            US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) article headline, EPA Findings In Fracking Water Pollution Disputed By Its Own Scientists, 19th November 2015.
            EPA’s Abandoned Wyoming Fracking Study One Retreat Of Many. ProPublica.

            EVEN the EPA with its very questionable fracking study, which many say missed the elephant in the room. STILL managed to find evidence of pollution to water aquifers.

            • Jack, they found something that was already well known. Nothing new. But that’s the point – they didn’t find what your 900 studies said they should. They didn’t find any causal link between fracking and negative health impacts. That’s because there aren’t any. Believe me, the anti-frackers are just as loud in America as in the UK, and they pushed the EPA hard every single step of the way for over five years, but the EPA simply couldn’t find evidence.

            • Peeny, we’ve been through all this before. The ‘EPA simply couldn’t find evidence’ is not true. That the EPA couldn’t publish their findings in any way that could be used in a court of law is more to the point. Their remit would get breached a soon as any pronouncement could be seen to work against Federally sanctioned exemptions for certain kinds of pollution.

              Effectively the EPA had their organs removed (eviscerated) by the republican dominated congress and senate in recent years. Let’s see if they don’t get extinguished altogether, with their pesky guidelines, now that big oil & gas is going to be in charge of nearly everything. I see the USA’s national parks are next up for O&G exploitation under Trump.

  6. It’s fair to say that taking her respondants from readers of this board is hardly going to give her an unbiased sample!

    • Not sure shale watcher … what way would you call it? There appear to me to be at least as many frack-heads here as anti-frackers, although many of those are more interested in their investment portfolios than any impacts (so probably wouldn’t bother with such a survey anyway).

  7. Why on earth do a “study” on something that has not happened YET in the UK? ANY response would be speculation, She might as well just use Google,That’s where most of the “facts” on this site come from! Bit like doing a study in the UK on impact of moon exploration.
    Just supports my previous point that this issue, and global warming generally, has become a huge gravy train and becomes tainted because of this.
    Not sure I see your point about “investment portfolios”, PhilipP. I would suggest most of the supporters I see comments from are interested in the tax payers money being efficiently invested in the UK energy sourcing so that more tax payers money becomes available for other expenditure.

  8. I don’t want to shock you Martin but human beings are quite similar abroad to human beings here and while they have eyes and ears to witness the sort of industrial practices and impacts that the industry we’re talking about wants to roll out here, there is much to be learned from those situations. Likewise those latest high volume techniques that have proved profitable in the States and Canada (and elsewhere) are the inevitably the practices that will be employed here if any profits are to be made at all. Do you honestly think that its all going to be completely different and that the UK is going to re-invent the whole process of shale fracking? Study the moon if you like but I think I’ll learn more from real case studies, and so will anyone interested in health impacts.

    Close your eye’s Paul and Martin – a couple more case studies (health related)… others will be interested:

    Cue peeny with cries of ‘extremists!’

  9. Just on my way out to research the activities of the KKK in the UK, because it seems, what happens in US has to be what happens in UK!

    • Cool. Could you report back on how totally different shale rock is in the UK while you’re at it, and how totally different the processes for extracting natural gas will be Martin? … (just trying to help you back on topic)

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.