Add this to the body of evidence suggesting that the unconventional oil and gas extraction technique known as fracking poses risks to public health.
In a study published Wednesday, researchers at the Yale School of Public Health looked at over 1,000 chemicals in hydraulic-fracturing fluids or wastewater, and found that over 150 of them were linked to potential reproductive or developmental harm.
Those chemicals include arsenic, benzene, lead, formaldehyde, and mercury.
Comment:
The study, published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental and Epidemiology, also underscores the many unknowns regarding the adverse effects of fracking.
The Yale team was able to obtain information on potential reproductive and developmental toxicity for a small portion 240 of the 1,021 chemicals; for the majority—76 percent—of the chemicals, no such information was available.
"Thus, we were able to evaluate reproductive and/or developmental toxicity for only 24% of chemicals," the researchers write.
While they obtained the list over over 1,00 chemicals from the EPA, the researchers point out that "the exact composition of fracturing fluids remains unknown because chemicals and their concentrations may be classified as confidential business information."
Comment: Which leads one to wonder - how much more toxic are these unknown chemicals, if those we do know about are so deadly? Does the industry fear even greater public outrage?
The "lack of a clear target list of chemicals" used in the fracking process, therefore, presents "a major challenge to conduct efficient and well-designed human exposure assessments," the study states.
Still, based on their study, the researchers write that the substances and processes used in fracking "indicate the potential for reproductive and developmental health risks."
"This evaluation is a first step to prioritize the vast array of potential environmental contaminants from hydraulic fracturing for future exposure and health studies," Nicole Deziel, senior author and assistant professor of public health, said in a media statement. "Quantification of the potential exposure to these chemicals, such as by monitoring drinking water in people's homes, is vital for understanding the public health impact of hydraulic fracturing."
"There's still many unanswered questions," she told the New Haven Register. "We (still) don't know what aspect of hydraulic fracturing is likely to be most harmful."
Seen at this [Link] is still another article on what becobe essentially one woman's epic battle with Encana and the Alberta Energy regulator.
Seriously walking her talk, Ernst has poured several hundred thousand dollars of her own money into this matter, and failing the acquisition of adequate legal representation in the Alberta legal community ultimately hired Klippensteins, a -highly- regarded Toronto law firm [Link] to handle her case. They think enough of the matter to have placed her on their home page.
Quoting:
"An Alberta woman's landmark eight-year battle over fracking regulation, water contamination and Charter rights will take centre stage in the Supreme Court of Canada Tuesday.
Jessica Ernst claims fracking contaminated the water supply at her homestead near Rosebud, about 110 kilometres east of Calgary. She is seeking $33 million in damages.
Ernst is also taking on the agency that regulates the energy industry in Alberta, claiming it has denied her the right to raise her concerns effectively and is shielded by unconstitutional legislation that bar citizens from suing it for wrongdoing.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Law at the University of Toronto have intervened in support of Ernst's position and the lawsuit could change the way the controversial technology of hydraulic fracturing is regulated in Canada.
Ernst's lawyers hope the Supreme Court will eventually rule that the Alberta Energy Regulator violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by limiting her ability to communicate with the agency.
Such a decision would punt Ernst's case back into Alberta's courts where it can continue its slow course. Ernst considers the regulator the most at fault in her famous and multi-pronged lawsuit.
"This case raises one of the most fundamental questions about the Charter -- can a government block an individual from seeking a remedy for a breach of their fundamental rights and freedoms?" said Cory Wanless, one of the lawyers representing Ernst. "From the perspective of protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians, it doesn't get any bigger than this."
In a "factum" prepared for the Supreme Court, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association argues that immunity clauses for regulators are an affront to government accountability and a licence to abuse power.
The Charter guarantees Canadians who believe their rights have been infringed the opportunity to seek an "appropriate and just" remedy from a "court of competent jurisdiction," writes the BCCLA.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association's brief says the Supreme Court "must consider the effect of granting absolute immunity through general statutory provisions, many of which are found in provincial statutes across Canada."
Government bodies responsible for a vast array of functions could potentially be insulated from any valid Charter claim, the association argues.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canadians from government rules and acts that violate basic human and democratic rights, including freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly
[ . . . ]"