Public Health England's draft report on shale gas extraction

Abstract

Mistaking best practices for actual practices

Public Health England’s troubled trail

“…34 An editorial in The BMJ warned that while the review had been "rigorous in its presentation of the evidence" there were "problems with its conclusions … Unfortunately, the conclusion that shale gas operations present a low risk to public health is not substantiated by the literature." 35 The conclusion that Public Health England should have drawn was that "the public health impacts remain undetermined and that more environmental and public health studies are needed." 35 To members of the House of Commons Health Committee, which took PHE's leadership to task the following month, the decision to prioritise fracking over many more pressing public health issues seemed perverse.…”

“…35 The conclusion that Public Health England should have drawn was that "the public health impacts remain undetermined and that more environmental and public health studies are needed." 35 To members of the House of Commons Health Committee, which took PHE's leadership to task the following month, the decision to prioritise fracking over many more pressing public health issues seemed perverse.…”

Extreme energy, ‘fracking’ and human rights: a new field for human rights impact assessments?

“…Indeed, for those UK residents living near proposed fracking sites, such as Preston New Road and Roseacre in Lancashire, Public Health England's (PHE) 25 June 2014 report was so inadequate in its coverage that there is some suggestion that it amounted to 'gross scientific misconduct '. 192 A robust interdisciplinary human rights-based investigation seeking health indicator data would go well beyond PHE's meagre review of just 25 publications, 193 up until their arbitrary cut-off date of December 2012, as there have been over 90 relevant reports published since. Many of these reports were considered in the New York State Department of Health's far more comprehensive report, which was instrumental in New York State recently issuing a moratorium on all fracking development on the basis that the public health risks were too great.…”

Unconventional natural gas development and human health: thoughts from the United States

“…We acknowledge concerns from Australia 1 and argue that if UGD (particularly from shale) continues to expand, the health and environmental impacts must be adequately addressed. Specifically, UGD policies should be informed by empirical evidence based on actual experience rather than theoretical solutions and the assurance of best practices 2 …”

“…Specifically, UGD policies should be informed by empirical evidence based on actual experience rather than theoretical solutions and the assurance of best practices. 2 Hazards, risks and exposure pathways A significant part of the UGD controversy focuses on the hundreds of toxic chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. Fracturing fluids contain organic and inorganic chemicals known to be health damaging.…”