British study: Fracking is indeed a “low risk to public health,” so can we please get started already?

posted at 2:01 pm on November 1, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

The United Kingdom is in an absolute uproar over the major spike in gas and electricity prices with which they will be faced this winter, but despite Brits’ dramatically rising energy bills and the 1,300+ trillion cubic feet of natural gas the British Geological Survey estimates they are currently living on top of just waiting to be tapped, vehement opposition from their factions of determined eco-radical has been standing in the way of any exploratory drilling.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has thrown his whole-hearted support behind hydraulic fracturing, promising to help build generous provisions into the tax code to help encourage natural gas development, in the hopes of spurring an Americanesque shale oil and gas boom replete with lots of jobs and lower electricity prices. None of that has much helped to quell the local anti-fracking protests centered around the wildy exaggerated claims that the decades-old drilling technique can cause groundwater pollution and earthquakes, and unfortunately, I doubt this will calm their hysteria either — but perhaps it will do some extra good with the general public, via Reuters:

The risks to public health from emissions caused by fracking for shale oil and gas are low as long as operations are properly run and regulated, the British government’s health agency said on Thursday.

Public Health England (PHE) said in a review that any health impacts were likely to be minimal from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves the pumping of water and chemicals into dense shale formations deep underground. …

Since there is currently no fracking in Britain, the PHE report examined evidence from countries such as the United States, where it found that any risk to health was typically due to operational failure.

“The currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to emissions associated with the shale gas extraction process are low if operations are properly run and regulated,” said John Harrison, director of PHE’s center for radiation, chemical and environmental hazards.

No kidding. Self-proclaimed environmentalist types need to wrap their heads around the fact that, sure, any and every form of energy comes with risks and tradeoffs, but in the case of hydraulic fracturing, these risks are minimal and can be safely contained with innumerable trickle-down benefits. The basis of their argument is based off of their collective gut reaction against bringing more fossil fuels into the commercial world, but the renewables that Britain’s eco-radicals are promoting in fracking’s stead are leading to skyrocketing energy prices all over the rest of Europe and are losing support in the midst of these ongoing tough economic times. It’s time to get on board with fracking.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

He hates the environment.

PappyD61 on November 1, 2013 at 2:06 PM

If worst comes to worst, we can eat the environmentalists and burn their clothing for warmth.

That should get us through this winter.

BobMbx on November 1, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Environmentalists want “skyrocketing energy prices” because it will make people use less. They don’t want plentiful supplies, either.

Steven Den Beste on November 1, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Sophie and Bmore, for you.

Schadenfreude on November 1, 2013 at 2:24 PM

One thing Liberals don’t like to talk about is that their Scandinavian social democracy utopias are largely founded on a large amount of wealth gained from exploiting natural energy resources (1/3 of Norway’s budget is funded from energy production and even they couldn’t stop themselves from going bankrupt in the 90′s).

gwelf on November 1, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Environmentalists want “skyrocketing energy prices” because it will make people use less. They don’t want plentiful supplies, either.

Steven Den Beste on November 1, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Yes, in fact the best outcome for them is a world where energy of any kind costs too much for anyone but the very wealthy government elites, and everyone else needs subsidies to get by.

An Obamacare for energy in effect; more slaves for the plantation.

slickwillie2001 on November 1, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Enviro-freaks should be sent to the nearest cave.

GarandFan on November 1, 2013 at 2:39 PM

No kidding. Self-proclaimed environmentalist types need to wrap their heads around the fact that, sure, any and every form of energy comes with risks and tradeoffs, but in the case of hydraulic fracturing, these risks are minimal and can be safely contained with innumerable trickle-down benefits. The basis of their argument is based off of their collective gut reaction against bringing more fossil fuels into the commercial world, but the renewables that Britain’s eco-radicals are promoting in fracking’s stead are leading to skyrocketing energy prices all over the rest of Europe and are losing support in the midst of these ongoing tough economic times. It’s time to get on board with fracking

The so-called environmental movement is a source of perpetual disappointment to me. I wish it actually cared more about the environment before it cared about just any other leftist cause you happen to name. I try pointing out that even if these alternate energy source worked that they too would have issues associated with them. It’s like they can’t even hear me.

I want to conserve the environment beside a deeply capitalist world. They think socialism will save the environment. I keep thinking the ecology itself functions more decentralized like a free market and not like command economuy socialism. It seems like environmentalists would want a model of the economy that more mirrors the ecology. And given its track record of socialism it just seems dumb to think socialism will help the environment.

thuja on November 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM

“Self-proclaimed environmentalist types need to wrap their heads around the fact that, sure, any and every form of energy comes with risks and tradeoffs, but in the case of hydraulic fracturing, these risks are minimal and can be safely contained with innumerable trickle-down benefits. The basis of their argument is based off of their collective gut reaction against bringing more fossil fuels into the commercial world”

And why are they against hydrocarbons? Because energy is the lifeblood of capitalism and it’s Achilles heel. James Delingpole authored a book about this called “Watermelons”, green on the outside, red on the inside.

http://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409

Viator on November 1, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Fracking has been around for a long, long time. Even the Sierra club endorsed it back in the day. Then one day, the technology and energy costs made it feasable for fracking to become scalable. Once it became clear that low cost energy was available to poor urban families (read: black), these lilly-white eco guys started changing their tune. Soon enough, fracking was no longer considered an “alternative” energy.

If you look at their marketing for Africa, they throw the precautionary principle in your face and demand that Africans use alternative energies that minimize their footprint. In other words, they want the poorest people on the planet to use the most expensive and most unreliable forms of energy production. And we’re the bad guys?!?

Go on the offense with this, everyone.

pt on November 1, 2013 at 2:55 PM

2nd Portly Gentleman: What may we put you down for, sir?

Scrooge: Nothing, sir.

1st Portly Gentleman: Ah, you wish to remain anonymous.

Scrooge: I wish to be left alone, sir! That is what I wish! I don’t make myself merry at Christmas and I cannot afford to make idle people merry. I have been forced to support the establishments I have mentioned through taxation and God knows they cost more than they’re worth. Those who are badly off must go there.

2nd Portly Gentleman: Many would rather die than go there.

Scrooge: If they’d rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. Good night, gentlemen.

Whether it’s protectionist trade policies or Eco-Marxism, the ones who suffer the most are the very ones progressives always purport to represent. To paraphrase Lady Thatcher, the left would rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich.

Knott Buyinit on November 1, 2013 at 5:28 PM

If worst comes to worst, we can eat the environmentalists and burn their clothing for warmth.

That should get us through this winter.

BobMbx on November 1, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Mmmmm. Long Pork. The new white meat.

Solaratov on November 1, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Gotta love how these “progressives” want us to live like pre- historic cavemen. If it was up to them we would all live in freaking huts foraging for what little food is around.

tom2789 on November 2, 2013 at 11:21 PM