Radical, I'm sure EM is well aware of the toxic overhead of fossil fuels. For example the estimated half a million deaths annually in China from air pollution. How many are there in the UK? It is good that you recognise this - few people here will admit that fossil fuels have such hidden costs (social costs some like to call them) but they will jump on any rise in winter excess deaths, which they will associate with renewables.

But just because there are dangers that are difficult to eliminate (and that we only recently recognise) from every tailpipe and smokestack, does that mean we should ignore the wilful creation of new ones?

EM. The "Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective" abstract is rubbish. It notes that a lot of chemicals are harmful.There are three things it does not mention. Strength, contact and existing regulations.
I worked in the chemical industry for 15 years, so can give two examples why this is nonsense.
A process involved dissolving metals in a cocktail of strong acids. It was deadly, so everything was kept well sealed. One of the acids was phosphoric acid. It is also present in Coke. It the active ingredient that will clean coins and rot your teeth if you drink too much and don't clean your teeth. But in the concentrations in Coke it is definitely not deadly.
Another product was an anti-caking added to salt before it was spread on the roads. The manufacturing process involved adding potassium ferrocyanide and then removing it. In the late 70s the Manchester Evening News was told that this deadly poison was getting on the road. The Managing Director held a press conference where he ate some salt with the anti-caking agent to demonstrate it was not a poisonous. The factory also used water. The waste water was put through an effluent plant, before being discharged into the canal at the side of the factory. This got out, so the MD held another press conference where he drank some of the water that came out of the effluent plant, to demonstrate that it was clean water.

Mike Jackson

You are right. The vast majority of the 200 odd Pennsylvania EPA notifications relate to poor surface handling of tracking fluid and recovered fluid. If the drilling industry could get their act together on this, they would be much more acceptable neighbours.

Regarding the recent EU statement, I aso agree. BH regulars have a bad habit of projecting opinions onto me. I regard properly done fracking as reasonably safe. The problems come from sloppy or negligent engineers. My objection to fracking is that at present gas prices it is uneconomic.

Kevin Marshall

You are discussing toxins, which are dose dependant. I was discussing a carcinogen, which has no lower safe limit.

Entropic man
I know this is an aside from the main topic, but National Benzole sold a 50/50 mixture petrol/Benzole up to the 1960s. Benzole had anti-knock properties. The product was sold in the UK from after WW1. As you seem to know something about it, is there any data on cancer rates for employees of National Benzole and their families? I have done a quick search but can't find anything, including lawsuits.

EM,

I have had a careful read of the paper "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status". I have found a number of problems with the survey which could indicate other factors not adequately controlled for account for the results. Alternatively there is also the strong possibility that reported health effects of living near the fracking sites are due to false perceptions of the risks engendered by scare stories. Anti-fracking environmentalists may be damaging people’s health and happiness through misinformation. I suggest ways in which the reported health effects from false perceptions might separated from actual health effects.

EM,
Rereading my comment of last night, even I have trouble making sense of it! So I will try again.

I have read through the paper "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status". It is fundamentally flawed, and the authors to some extent recognize this. The major finding was:-

The number of reported health symptoms per person was higher among residents living <1 km (mean 3.27 ± 3.72) compared with >2 km from the nearest gas well (mean 1.60 ± 2.14, p=0.02).

Think about it. There are twice as many reported health symptoms from people living near to fracked gas wells as more than 2km from it. If it was something in the air or the water, don’t you think a chemical analysis would have verified this?
Then you look at the numbers involved. It compared two groups each of about 60 households. They were not very similar. For instance, the average age was of those near the wells 7 years greater, and average household size .73 persons or 23% fewer. If people were being poisoned by the water or air they breathe, surely they would have noticed? Yet there is little difference in complaints about the water, and few complain about the air quality. Maybe they are being poisoned by something they cannot perceive and no chemical analysis can reveal?
There are two areas that could account for this. Firstly, biases within the study and low sample size. Secondly, it could be down to the scare stories. There is the stress involved in living close to something that pressure groups are claiming is poisoning the environment, along with a heightened awareness of minor health symptoms that leads to higher reporting. Think of the campaigns at Balcombe and Barton Moss. Locals might genuinely fear there is a business-funded conspiracy to cover up a real danger given the fanatical and hysterical protests. I look at the issue in more detail at my blog.

Kevin Marshall

Separating genuine damage from the placebo effect would need double blind trials.it won't happen. Setting up clandestine fracking sites in populated areas s to see if illness rates increase would be unethical.

SandyS

I vaguely remember National Benzole, but have no data. Didn't they stop using benzole in the 1950s?

Mike Jackson

I hate to see scarce capital poured into unprofitable holes in the ground.

Radical Rodent

You missed a previous sentence in which I said that I regard properly managed fracking as safe.

EM - You do not need to set up blind trials - just do proper testing. That is to fund testing of the water and the air and give the residents the results. If there is methane from deep underground or traces of fracking fluid then there could be a class action suit against the fracking companies. If there is not - but there are natural sources of contamination (such as natural methane near the surface) then the residents will be assured. Either way, there might be a case to connect more people up to the mains.
Similarly, proper long-term tests on air quality could be carried out, if they are not already being done.
I have already suggested that the survey should be repeated using the same methodology, but including those with mains water as well. If similar health effects are also reported as those who have supplies from ground-fed wells, then it is the stress factors that are likely to be causing it. The ethical route is to get a proper perspective on real problems, and reduce panic over non-problems.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2014/11/23/proximity-to-fracked-gas-wells-and-reported-health-status-study/

Does anyone find it interesting that EM set up a discussion on the safety aspects of fracking...only to9 concede that he believes it is safe, when properly regulated. Now his opposition is economic.

Some motto about cake comes into mind.

Duplicity is another way of expressing it.

Dishonesty is another.

Diogenes, Radical Rodent

If you have read my comments on past threads you would know my position.
In brIef, properly conducted fracking is safe but uneconomic. Poorly conducted fracking releases polluting chemicals into the surrounding environment with knockon effects on soil, surface water, groundwater and the local population.

Before you assure me that all fracking is safe, remember that Pennsylvania has issued 200+ notifications. Most relate to poor practice in well sealing and handling of fracking fluid and effluent. The problem would seem to be with the human factor rather than intrinsic to the technology.

Kindly stop projecting your prejudices onto me and read what I actually write.

EM

So now you are playing the victim card, repeatedly. iI this on the John Cook list of ways to engage with people who know more than you about the topic? At best, your style of argument is disingenuous. Some would say it is evasive. But you are friendly.

Radical Rodent

Look at the US experience. The way to make money in fracking is to trade leases as Chesapeake and Cuadrilla have done. Few of those actually selling gas have made a worthwhile return on their investment.

Entropic man,
Once the expense of creating the gas field extraction facility has been paid, then if not enough income to cover those costs and the subsequent running costs is available, the company will either go bankrupt or sell the asset for what it can get. This will continue until either a purchaser gets the asset for virtually nothing, and or the price of gas rises. In a free market the price will fluctuate around a price which gives a reasonable profit. It may well be too low in the USA at the moment, I'm not an expert. Due to the fact we haven't run out of any raw materials yet, high prices encourage more research, better extraction methods which increase production and return the price to a pre-shortage level. A farming acquaintance once said "you never get high prices for 3 years". By which he meant after the first poor harvest prices rose after the planting for the next year was well underway, by the next planting everyone who could piled in to take advantage of the high prices with predictable results. In the days of high subsidies the markets were distorted and the infamous EU Mountains and Lakes were the result. All in the name of food security, which is not that secure. If the world is cooling and there is a threat to the current supplies of grain from Canada, USA, Ukraine and other long term sources prices will rise and other nations/farmers will seize an opportunity.

In the same way government meddlers find energy markets irresistible, so along with green/eco activism it's hard to predict where it will go. Personally I feel that despite all the problems the UK will end up using Shale Gas which has been safely extracted and the price will reduce or stabilise in real terms. In order to extract it safely in terms of public perception then the EU price may well have to be higher than world/US prices.

There is an extra complication in the US.

When you buy a production lleas on a shale gas or oil play,you have five years to develop it or lose it,at which point you lose your money. This leads to a lot of trading in leases and a lot of rushed drilling as investors how good money after bad. The result is a glut of gas.

The result is a lot of money made by Chesapeake selling leases, a lot of money made by drilling companies drilling wells financed by other peoples' money and a lot of investors forced to produce gas at an uneconomic price to pay interest on their loans.

Few sensible UK investors are likely to be inspired by that mess.

Perhaps the only sensible shale gas model here is Grangemouth, who plan to produce gas locally for their own use as a feedstock.