Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
News

New evidence of contaminants from fracking

Emily Hughes
CMAJ August 08, 2017 189 (31) E1025-E1026; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1095459
Emily Hughes
CMAJ
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

New evidence has emerged indicating that wastewater from fracking contains compounds harmful to human health. Fracking, a controversial technique for extracting oil and gas, involves injecting a water mixture deep into the ground to force open existing fissures. The process produces wastewater containing a number of contaminants.

New evidence published July 12 in Environmental Science and Technology suggests that wastewater treatment plants do not effectively remove a number of these contaminants — some of which are known carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting compounds. These pollutants are discharged to surface water and may end up in the drinking water of downstream communities.

The research team, led by Dr. William Burgos, who is a professor of environmental engineering at Pennsylvania State University, studied contaminants in sediment layers in the Conemaugh River Lake in western Pennsylvania. This lake receives treated wastewater from fracking at the Marcellus Shale. Burgos’ team took core samples from the lake bottom to obtain an historical assessment of contaminants that had accumulated. Peak levels of contaminants were found in the sediment layer dated between 2008 and 2012, coinciding with the time period when the oil and gas industry moved from conventional drilling to fracking of the Marcellus Shale.

Their analysis detected elevated levels of organic compounds, radionuclides, salts and metals. The top two organic compounds were surfactants and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. The surfactants, nonylphenol ethoxylates, are suspected of being endocrine disrupting, the polyaromatic hydrocarbons are known carcinogens.

Figure

Carcinogens from fracking found in waterways.

Image courtesy of drnadig / iStock

Radium, a radionuclide found in the sediment, is also a known human carcinogen. Burgos told CMAJ, “the highest concentration [of radium measured in solids] was five picocuries per gram… which is at the threshold for having to segregate it and consider it a potentially radioactive waste.”

But according to Burgos, elevated bromide levels measured in the sediment may be the biggest reason for concern. “If we as a society start to add bromide to our surface water, we run the risk of exposing ourselves to elevated concentrations of [carcinogenic] brominated disinfection by-products,” he said. “We think that the bromide levels in the surface waters are — as far as in the human health impact realm — the potentially most direct.”

Should people living in communities downstream from wastewater treatment plants be concerned? Burgos says if he lived in Pittsburgh, he would monitor quarterly reports from the water authority. “Maybe I would use something like a carbon filter on the water before I drank [the water], in the hopes that these disinfection by-products, because they are organic compounds, might adsorb to the carbon and I could remove them.” Communities closer to the wastewater treatment plants may have more reason to worry, he added.

This study adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that fracking may adversely affect human health. A Yale Public Health Analysis in January 2017 reviewed the chemicals released into the air and water as a result of fracking — 55 chemicals were identified that may cause cancer, including 20 that have been shown to increase the risk of leukemia and lymphoma.

Previously, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) told CMAJ that the shale gas industry is taking steps to alleviate public health concerns. CAPP has funded an air monitoring system in BC, and has lobbied government to mandate the disclosure of chemicals used. In 2012, both BC and Alberta made disclosure mandatory.

In Pennsylvania, tighter regulations on fracking wastewater came into effect in 2011. Burgos and colleagues noted a reduction in the levels of harmful contaminants in the sediment layers dated after those regulations came into effect. Agencies could do more to ensure that these regulations are enforced, notes Burgos.

The question of synergistic effects of co-occurring fracking pollutants on health outcomes has yet to be explored. “The [full] impact of that layer of sediment with elevated concentrations of all of these pollutants to ecosystem services that the lake provides or to human health is essentially unknown at this point,” says Burgos. “It’s an open question.”

Footnotes

  • Posted on cmajnews.com on July 20, 2017.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 189 (31)
CMAJ
Vol. 189, Issue 31
8 Aug 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
New evidence of contaminants from fracking
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
New evidence of contaminants from fracking
Emily Hughes
CMAJ Aug 2017, 189 (31) E1025-E1026; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1095459

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
New evidence of contaminants from fracking
Emily Hughes
CMAJ Aug 2017, 189 (31) E1025-E1026; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1095459
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Resignations at Canada’s drug pricing panel raise independence questions
  • Provinces accept federal health funding deal
  • Feds propose $196B health funding deal with few strings attached
Show more News

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire