From 2005 to 2009, it has been estimated that oil companies, in well over 13 states in America, have injected millions of gallons of hazardous or carcinogenic chemicals into the wells in the area. These chemicals "used by companies during a drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, which involves the high-pressure injection of a mixture of water, sand and chemical additives into rock formations deep underground," are becoming a public health hazard to the population.
This process of hydrofracking is under investigation by epidemiologist, environmentalists, and policy makers alike. It has been made a concern that the use of these chemicals could potentially find their way out of a well bore, due to events such as above-ground spills, underground failures of well casing, or migration through layers of rock, and into nearby sources of drinking water. Ingredients found in these dumpings were extremely toxic, including benzene and lead. Other harmful fluids that contained at least one toxic or carcinogenic chemical were also found in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas in larges volumes.
With the oil shortage occurring in our world today, should oil companies cease to carry out this process? Without it, tapping into large reserves of natural gas in our country will not be possible, thus our economy based upon oil might experience a decline. However, if water is contaminated as a consequence to this action, the endangerment that millions of people will be subjected to can result in serious damages to health. Much of the identified contaminated water has been cycled through waste plants that are not designed to filter out waste containing these such chemicals. The debate still continues in Congress whether or not the hydrofracking has the potential to poison the water supply, and if so, the legislation that needs to be discussed to place regulations on oil companies and the process of hydrofracking.
The financial implications that this article has highlight what I consider to be a key problem in public health, which is the tendency to look at immediate financial concerns without examining those in the future. Yes, it may be more expensive for companies to adjust their procedures or cease them altogether, but I would imagine that this blow to the economy would be less than the long-term cost of treating so many people exposed to carcinogenic chemicals.
ReplyDeleteI would be curious to see the exact numbers the how many people were affected by this operation, as well as a comparison to oil companies in other countries to see if they have similar problems. If it's possible for companies to extract the resources that they need without the technique of hydrofracking, that seems like something that would be worth investing in.
This really highlights the importance of various disciplines working together, without researchers to examine the problem, gather data, and work with policy makers, the issue could easily go unchecked.
This topic seems to point to an even larger global health problem that even goes beyond the chemical polluting of oil companies via hydrofracking. Our current use of oil in the United States is far from sustainable, both in terms of availability of natural resources and impact on the environment which seem likely to cause large-scale health issues in the future. Perhaps one question to consider would be not how to keep oil prices low without harmful practices such as hydrofracking, but how to move away from such vast oil consumption all together. If more of a focus were on alternative energy sources and convenient mass transit options, we might be able to mitigate both environmental health issues affecting us today and those looming in the distance.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of these previous comments; this article brings up a lot of issues in our country today about oil and the practices of oil companies. Oil companies are simply unwilling to invest in finding alternatives to the dangerous chemicals because it will cost more out of their pocket. If hydrofracking leads to serious health consequences in a community, then I believe their practices will be looked at more closely and they will be forced to change. Oil companies have been heavily scrutinized recently and I believe it makes sense to have an organization or group that monitors the practices of these companies to make sure they are protecting the health of people at the same time. They make plenty of money to be able to operate in the safest and healthiest way possible, rather than simply the most efficient
ReplyDelete