BAN in NY and MORATORIUM in Quebec Food and Water Europe reports: Both the provincial government of Quebec and the state of New York rules out fracking, after having implemented separate reviews of the environmental impacts of fracking. They happened to make their decision public around the same time and come to the same decision: A ban in NY and an indefinite moratorium on fracking in Quebec. It is very interesting to read how similar their conclusions are. Both studies identify significant impacts from fracking, but also highlight that there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with [fracking]. The Quebec report also draws attention to the challenge of large-scale fracking in an area with an above-average population density and with good agricultural land (pp. 17-18). While the precautionary principle is not put forward as a guiding principle in these 2 studies, it is clear that the decision to ban fracking is very much guided by this principle. The available evidence in combination with the uncertainties warrants a ban on fracking. A ban or moratorium is the only possible decision available to policy-makers, if governments accept the precautionary principle as well as implement a broad, in-depth study on the impacts of fracking. Quebec Bureau daudiences publiques sur lenvironnement (environment agency): bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/rapports/publications/bape307.pdf New York state Department of Health: health.ny.gov/press/reports/docs/high_volume_hydraulic_fracturing.pdf The Executive Summary of the NY Department of Health Review: HVHF is a complex activity that could affect many communities in New York State. The number of well pads and associated HVHF activities could be vast and spread out over wide geographic areas where environmental conditions and populations vary. The dispersed nature of the activity magnifies the possibility of process and equipment failures, leading to the potential for cumulative risks for exposures and associated adverse health outcomes. Additionally, the relationships between HVHF environmental impacts and public health are complex and not fully understood. Comprehensive, longterm studies, and in particular longitudinal studies, that could contribute to the understanding of those relationships are either not yet completed or have yet to be initiated. In this instance, however, the overall weight of the evidence from the cumulative body of information contained in this Public Health Review demonstrates that there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF, the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures in reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect public health. While a guarantee of absolute safety is not possible, an assessment of the risk to public health must be supported by adequate scientific information to determine with confidence that the overall risk is sufficiently low to justify proceeding with HVHF in New York. The current scientific information is insufficient. Furthermore, it is clear from the existing literature and experience that HVHF activity has resulted in environmental impacts that are potentially adverse to public health. Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public health from HVHF and whether the risks can be adequately managed, HVHF should not proceed in New York State.
Posted on: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:55:36 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015