Frack! Hydraulic Fracturing Concerns to the...

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING CONCERNS

Frack! Hydraulic Fracturing Concerns to the Public

Aaron D. Sweazy

Concordia University- Nebraska

Health Policy and Management

MPH525

Dr. Joseph Costa, DHSc., PA-C

June 14, 2014

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING CONCERNS

Table of Contents

Understanding Fracking...................................................................................................................1

Hypothetical Fracking Incident.......................................................................................................2

Global Warming and Fracking........................................................................................................3

Communicating With the Public.....................................................................................................3

Preventing Widespread Fear and Chaos..........................................................................................4

National Communication.................................................................................................................5

Making the Message Clear..............................................................................................................6

Measuring Compliance/Understanding...........................................................................................7

Persuasion Theory...........................................................................................................................8

Cultivation Theory of Mass Media..................................................................................................9

Mass Communication Theory..........................................................................................................9

Recommendations..........................................................................................................................10

Summary........................................................................................................................................11

References......................................................................................................................................12

FRACK! HYDRAULIC FRACTURING CONCERNS TO THE PUBLIC 1

Frack! Hydraulic Fracturing Concerns to the Public

Understanding Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, is what some may say is an

environmental nightmare of a procedure to retrieve gas and oil from shale rock. According to

the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, “The fracking process is created to increase

production to approximately 90 percent in all oil and gas wells in the United States.” (West,

n.d.). During the course of fracking absurd amounts of the water are transported and used in the

process. Fracking creates significant and costly environmental damage through the release of

carcinogenic chemicals which contaminate ground water, and by the creation of small tremors in

sensitive ground (BBC, 2013).

From an etiological standpoint, the use of sand in fracking is dangerous because it

contains Crystalline Silica which is an ingredient that is found in concrete. By inhaling the

Crystalline Silica over a set time continuously, a person has the increased potential of cancer

among other ailments. (Worstall, 2013)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) along with the Department of Energy

(DOE) and the Department of Interior (DOI) all have obeyed the laws set forth by the Secretary

of Energy Advisory Board Subcommittee on Natural Gas (even if the government is on

shutdown). These groups together are trying to create preventative measures, follow safe

practices, reduce energy imports and create unique gas resources. By showing responsibility

and these safe practices as well as creating a reduction of energy imports when it comes to

Fracking, this grouping of entities attempts to address the peak problems and as safe as possible

create unique shale gas resources. (Majumdar, Hayes, Perciasepe, 2012)

FRACK! HYDRAULIC FRACTURING CONCERNS TO THE PUBLIC2

Nationally, many individuals are not too pleased with how well things are going with

several of these aforementioned groups which are collaborating in the Fracking industry. There

is a failure to ensure environmental safety as ways around the system are being

established. Companies Using gas to frack-drill has exemptions from adhering to the rules of the

Underground Injection Control Program (UIC) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. (SDWA).

Money seems to be what leads in talks, so citizen welfare takes a rear seat. (Clean Water Action,

2013)

Hypothetical Fracking Incident

When trying to increase the flow of oil for manufacturing purposes, a company

erroneously contaminates the local water supply. The company doing the fracking, immediately

realizing their mistake calls the local water company and the water supply is shut off to the

community. There is an immediate concern about the highly toxic effects of the contaminate

drinking water because it may contain Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and cause cancer in

humans (U.S. Geological Survey, 2005). Before the water could be shut off, a small portion of

the community had ingested the water. Grievances were made of the water supply having a foul

taste and an unpleasant odor to it, and there was additional complaint of people having trouble

breathing the air when outside. Within the span of 12 hours, roughly nine adults and six children

were sent to the hospital with severe stomach ailments, nausea and complaints of joint pain. Lab

results showed uncharacteristically high amounts of radium in the patients who had consumed

the water and were complaining of bone pain, since it is used as calcium by the body and is then

placed in bones (Grossman, 2012).


Global Warming and Fracking

In every situation there seems to be a pro and con or a heads and tails; fracking it appears

may have both traits in relation to how it reacts with global warming. If raining

uncharacteristically becomes the norm, and the ground becomes saturated to the brink of not

being able to contain all the water, all life forms could be in grave trouble. This aforementioned

rain could then lead to flooding drilling sites and cause poisonous compounds and particle

emission from fracking supplies to seep into the overall water supply (Catskill Mountainkeeper,

n.d.). While negatives are commonly present with many in regards to fracking, some think it can

be helpful to our environment. A Climate Chiefs within the United Nations in April of 2014

came up with the conclusion fracking could be the key to decelerating the spread of global

warming due to proportions of carbon increasing becoming lower(Gosden, 2014).

Communicating With the Public

In the immediate aftermath of the contamination caused by the fracking, it is important to

disseminate facts from fiction to the community. In this situation it would be best to utilize the

Emergency Alert System (EAS) which is often used by local authorities to distribute vital

emergency material over television and radio, such as AMBER alerts and weather information

directed to precise regions(Federal Communications Commision: Public Safety and Homeland

Security Bureau, n.d.). Additionally, social media has a huge impact on lives, thus taking the

message to Twitter, Facebook, and even the local community’s respective pages for those sites

would help in making sure as many eyes see the information. It would be essential to

communicate with folks which have younger children as well. Personal knowledge shows many

schools and colleges (such as Concordia) have systems in place to send out text messages to

everyone that is a student or employee, or deliver a phone message to alert possibilities of


inclement weather, hostile threats, or other random incidents that may need immediate attention

(loss of power for example). By sending out a mass phone message or text there is a higher

likelihood more families and individuals are reached as well. Earning the trust of the local

community is the key during this very sensitive process as emotions could be high. If trust is

absent in the community the potential for rebellious individuals could happen, and result in a

higher abundance of safety being breached. A website should immediately be created through a

Community Involvement Branch (CIB) with frequently asked questions section explaining the

severity of the potential harms one may endure from fracking. The CIB would allow for citizens

to feel connected to the incident and value their opinion. Videos explaining things in greater

detail and a 24-hour online support should be available to answer any additional questions as

well.

Preventing Widespread Fear and Chaos

Before any of the pertinent information aforementioned goes to the public, there would

need to be a collection of experts from various backgrounds with knowledge of the potential

harms of the fracking contamination. The complete story of what happened needs to be told to

the public with no sugar-coating the situation. Sticking to the facts through the obtaining of

information in the areas which pose immediate danger or have already become contaminated and

presenting it to the public is a must. Additionally, samples should be taken to see if there is an

impact on flora or fauna in the area as well as the potential long term effects in the surrounding

eco-system. An immediate plan for community action should be made with the aid of the

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) or Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

creating a town forum with a daily set time and location would allow for the providing agency to

disseminate the facts to the public and answer any arising concerns. Status updates would be


given and contact information dispersed for citizens with concerns of health, personal property

that may be affected, and veterinary services in case of a domestic or farm animal falls ill. All

meetings should be video recorded and also have transcripts of it at completion. The town

meetings should be attached to social and local news media, as well as the local community’s

website for viewing by those who may have been absent or are incapable of leaving their homes

due to clean up or handicaps. A modified transcript of the meeting with just the important

details should be submitted for review to local newspaper outlets for publication in the following

morning paper. The transcripts should also have the potential of being translated if asked for by

non-English speaking individuals who wish to be informed of the overall situation as it stands.

National Communication

The immediate area is of concern, but national resources familiar with the situation would

warrant a welcome addition to help local and state administrations. The help is beneficial;

especially in case of contamination getting downstream or if nearby farm animals became

infected from drinking tainted water and then were packaged for human consumption. In the case

of tainted meat, poultry or eggs being potentially supplied to consumers, a recall would be

conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through their Food Safety

and Inspection Service (FSIS) branch (United States Department of Agriculture, 2014). The

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would need to be contacted about the

situation, so in turn they could utilize their Office of Communications to spread the word about

the potential dangers of illness that could occur from exposure to the residue in the ground or

water, and from fumes that may pollute the air. Due to the amount of chemical seepage into the

ground water, which could be infecting local flora and fauna, the United States Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS) would be called upon for their Agency for Toxic Substances


and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The ATSDR’s purpose is to aid the public by utilizing the top

science available, taking approachable public health movements, and contributing important

health information to help people avoid detrimental exposures and sicknesses linked to toxic

elements (Centers for Disease Control, 2014). If the exposure gets out of hand and the security

of the nation is definitely at risk. Then the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could

swoop in to inform the public of safety concerns and with the aid of the EAS, notify the citizens

of the country of up to the minute changes which could directly or indirectly be affected by the

domino effect of the fracking mishap.

Making the Message Clear

In the event of any high stressed event one has to realize the mind frame of those

immediately effected by the situation and act accordingly. Among key elements after garnering

the trust and proving credibility to those relying on you, giving those in disbelief the assertion

everything will be taken care of to ensure safety is maintained by all. Whether the message is

one-on-one, through social media, or in a town hall forum, it is vital to make sure the most basic

form of the English language is used. Plain language is important in the standpoint of education

of those in danger of contamination so everyone can understand the issue. If technical jargon is

used frequently it does no good if the “Average Joe” has no idea what is being said. Keep in

mind also some individuals may not speak English, so keeping it simple is the best and

furthermore keeping language plain as possible. The plain language recommendation comes via

way of the DHS as a result of confusion with technical terms used in the aftermath of such

disasters like the 9-11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina (Harwood, 2009). Furthermore, the DHS

has told first responding agencies they would not get funding through DHS grants if they didn’t

abide by the simple request.


Outside the realm of plain language, it is essential to get communication across agencies

and first responders using language which is direct and in the moment. One should state who or

what agency they represent, what purpose they are in the area for and how they will serve.

Stated in reverse, it seems like work has been completed and the community which is struggling

has no personal say in the matter at hand. Showing an active tone engages ears! In order for

the message to truly be understood, compassion for those in the communities must be present,

and those serving the communities as first responders and other agencies should become listeners

to get the full scope of the incident and to incorporate the component of human emotions into the

puzzle (Agency for Toxic Substances & Diseases Registry, 2005).

Measuring Compliance/Understanding

Measuring compliance versus communication with the public could be identified in a few

ways. The first way in my opinion is simply by comparison as when approaching someone on

the street and greeting them: “I'm lost can you help me find the grocery store?” How well do

they cooperate in a give and take scenario? Do they reply by saying, “take that left and then head

straight 3 blocks and turn right you will find the grocery store you are looking for”? They

fulfilled your expectations by giving you directions to finding the destination you were seeking.

If you ask the same questions and you run into people who just turn their nose up and walk away,

they are non-compliant. If you ask for directions and they don't care to help you because that's

not what their current task or job is, it is non-compliant. In relation to the fracking incident,

imagine if the ATSDR tells everyone that when the water comes back on it will need rationed.

Water additionally should be boiled for consumption and lawns are not allowed to be watered?

If a citizen decides to water his lawn and a fails to follow the directive of not doing so, he or she

is in non-compliance and they should have to face financial penalties and potential jail time for


endangerment of the local eco-system and not abiding by policy passed down from the ATSDR.

Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can hold the oil company in non-

compliance with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The EPA observes compliance with

core TSCA necessities through records examination as well as on-site investigations. Mobile

response units could monitor compliance to the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act on a regular

basis. By having the units available, the EPA helps assure protection of human health, and the

surrounding landscape isn’t damaged (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).

Persuasion Theory

In order to get compliance within the local economy, persuading them to make a correct

choice is imperative. Persuasion of the local community could be done through the delivering

of a message during a town hall or one-on-one. The message to the community could be “sugar-

coated” to make things more appealing in the situation, or it can be twisted in a way which scares

the community into action. The first scenario would show a “gain-frame” while the second is a

“loss-frame” (Parvanta & Parvanta, 2010). The first is a “gain-frame,” because you are framing

the ideas to the community in a positive light in which they believe a gain could befall them such

as, “The water will be turned on tomorrow, but we ask nobody to use it for 24 hours and because

of the hardship endured by all involved, your water bill for the next three months will be paid in

full.” Persuasion could also be taken to implant fear in the minds of the local community

through the “loss-frame”. An example of a “loss-frame” could be “The Water will be turned on

tomorrow, but we ask nobody to use it for 24 hours, because there is methane in the water line

and your house could explode and kill everyone inside.” By giving ultimatums, the local citizen

involved with the fracking have to think for themselves and are persuaded to believe they are in

control of the decision making.


Cultivation Theory of Mass Media

Cultivation theory was developed in 1977. Cultivation theory explains television has

the capability to impact our reality, and it is "chiefly accountable for our observations of

everyday standards and reality. Many individuals who watch an abundance of television

according to cultivation theory would see the potential harms of fracking as extremely

frightening through mean world syndrome (Littlejohn & Foss, 2009). So ultimately the

foundation of cultivation uses mass media so the individuals in the community or in harm’s way

of the toxic fracking aftermath could be coerced into leaving the area for safety. The target

population with cultivation theory would be the heavy television viewers because of the

sedentary lifestyle of the “couch potatoes.” Those barring much of an outside life will tend to be

derived from opinions from what they hear on television. Cultivation theory basically states the

tendencies of how things are depicted on TV are how we perceive them to be (The University of

Twente, n.d.).

Mass Communication Theory

When alerting the public of the oil contamination of area wells, land and air supply, there

are four key was of communication to a large population. In no particular order, there are social

scientific, normative, operational and everyday theories. In social scientific you could take a

theory such as “consumption of fracking inadvertently causes cancer” and then test it through a

course of tests analytically in a population and see if they come to fruition. Normative theory

would explain how different cultural backgrounds might view the negligence of the oil company

in the fracking. In the United States, the EPA might levy a fine down onto them, whereas in

Country “X” everyone involved might be imprisoned. Operation theory in essence deals with

the business end of things. The media can dictate results favorable to them in ratings for


example. If they chose to air a story about how three adorable kittens were found playing near

some spillover created by the fracking, and they were being nursed back to health, as opposed to

telling people everyone will die from exposure to fracking contaminations, then you could have a

happier audience which is more likely to follow your newscast the next time around. Everyday

theory is sometimes also referred to as common-sense theory. In this type of theory we create

frequent biases gained from a lifetime of media reporting. If you hear 20 times during your life

the Crystalline Silica can cause cancer, you are probably making the assumption it is not

beneficial to your health if you want to be cancer free(McQuail, 2005).

Recommendations

It is in my opinion that anyone who lives near a fracking site should be informed of all

potential dangers of the fracking and be given a number to call by the company doing the

operation in the event of an emergency. Additionally, there should be fresh water supplied to

those in the area, and compensation for any and all loss of land value as a result of a fracking

mishap. Theories in part should somewhat shape what is believed; however factual statistics

noting the immediate, potential, and long lasting harms of the fracking mishap sites should be

available to review by all members of a community within the area of impact. Those who are

compliant with the instructions and recommendations of the agencies involved with clean up

and first response should in theory be alright in the long run, just discomforted in the moment.

Additionally, the EPA along with the fracking company should come back periodically to check

on the contamination levels of soil and water in the area to assure residents the community is

safe to reside in.


Summary

Understanding the impact of a fracking disaster is important to those near sites. By

working with local authorities and national agencies, the risk of contamination by humans,

animals or vegetation can be kept at minimal. It is essential all lines of communication are open

as both a listener and a communicator. Common sense should dictate behaviors in and around a

fracking disaster site, but in the event they don’t, the thought process of those in question could

be brought up and contemplated through normative theory. Those involved need to be

cooperative to not only ensure their personal safety, but to minimalize the spread of

contamination to other communities. Through clear communication involving plain, non-

confusing terminology, risks can be greatly reduced and keep all involved cool, calm and

collected.


References

Agency for Toxic Substances & Diseases Registry (2005). Public Health Assessment Guidance

Manual (2005 Update) Appendix D: Guidelines For Effective Communication. In Public

Health Assessment Guidance Manual (2005 Update). Retrieved from

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHAManual/appd.html

Catskill Mountainkeeper (n.d.). Overview of Fracking. Retrieved June 14, 2014, from

http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/our-programs/fracking/gas-drilling-overview/

Centers for Disease Control (2014, June 9). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. .

Retrieved from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

Environmental Protection Agency (2012, June 13). Statutory Programs Compliance

Monitoring. . Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/index.html

Federal Communications Commision: Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (n.d.).

EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM [Press release]. Retrieved from

http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/eas/

Gosden, E. (2014, April 13). Fracking can be part of the solution to global warming, say UN

climate change experts. The Telegraph. Retrieved from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10763844/Fracking-can-

be-part-of-the-solution-to-global-warming-say-UN-climate-change-experts.html

Harwood, M., & Security Management (2009, November 30). DHS Wants First Responders to

Speak in Plain English. . Retrieved from http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/dhs-

wants-first-responders-speak-plain-english-006512


Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. [Google Books

version]. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?

id=McB1AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA332&lpg=PA332&dq=Infante,+D.A.,+Rancer,+A.S.,+

%26+Womack,+D.F.+(1997).+Building+communication+theory+(3rd+ed.).

+Prospect+Heights,+IL:

+Waveland.&source=bl&ots=PmTLoRibFw&sig=T4lIH8UuKsFePU7t-

pjO7s6htN0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DjWeU8GAOKrX8AGBs4GQAw&ved=0CCIQ6AEwA

Q#v=onepage&q=gerbner&f=false

McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory (5th ed.). [Google Books version].

Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?

id=7_eyvmCjzkoC&pg=PR4&dq=2009932171&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SHWfU6zmH8iMqgb

6jIHYAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=2009932171&f=false

Parvanta, S., & Parvanta, C. (2010). Chapter 8: Persuasive Health Communications: The Role of

Theory. [Google Books version]. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?

id=cyCSPtVfNHQC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=Remington+PL,+Nelson+De.

+Communicating+Epidemiological+Information&source=bl&ots=lBEvkuzZCa&sig=CG

R4MLWGuNVBV_FYiTDeKfPjeMI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8zOdU5u8DqnE8AGO84CgB

Q&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=persuasion&f=false (Reprinted from

Essentials of Public Health Communication, by C. Parvanta, D. E. Nelson, S. A.

Parvanta, & R. N. Harner, 2010, Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning)

The University of Twente (n.d.). CULTIVATION THEORY. Retrieved from

http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20Clusters/Media,%20Culture

%20and%20Society/Cultivation_Theory-1/


United States Department of Agriculture (2014). About FSIS. Retrieved June 14, 2014, from

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/informational/aboutfsis

West, L. (n.d.). What is Fracking, Hydrofracking or Hydraulic Fracturing. Retrieved from

http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/f/What-Is-Fracking-Hydrofracking-

Or-Hydraulic-Fracturing.htm

Frack! Hydraulic Fracturing Concerns to the...

Documents

Transcript of Frack! Hydraulic Fracturing Concerns to the...