SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A gas flare is seen at an oil well site on outside Williston, North Dakota. (Photo: Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
Bolstering Public Health Fears, Harvard Study Finds Elevated Airborne Radiation Levels Downwind of US Fracking Sites
"If you asked me to go and live downwind [of fracking sites], I would not go," said the lead author of the new study.
Oct 14, 2020
A study released Tuesday by a team of scientists from Harvard University found that airborne radiation levels downwind of U.S. fracking sites are significantly elevated compared to background levels, providing further evidence that the drilling practice poses a threat to public health as well as the climate.
Published in the journal Nature Communications, the study detected the largest increases in airborne radiation levels near drilling locations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, states with high concentrations of fracking sites.
"Our results suggest that an increase in [particle radioactivity] due to the extensive [fracking development] may cause adverse health outcomes in nearby communities," warned the study, which found that locations within 12 miles downwind of 100 fracking sites have around 7% higher radiation levels compared to background levels.
The impact of fracking on airborne particle radioactivity "decreases gradually along with an increasing downwind distance" from oil and gas wells, the researchers noted.
Petros Koutrakis, the lead author of the study, toldThe Guardian that "if you asked me to go and live downwind [of fracking sites], I would not go. People should not go crazy, but I think it's a significant risk that needs to be addressed."
\u201cNEW HARVARD STUDY: \n\nUS #fracking wells bring radioactive particles up from the shattered shale bedrock and spew them into the air. \n\nResearchers found increases in downwind radioactivity 12 miles away from wells.\n\n#Fracking = Pandora\u2019s box of horrors https://t.co/Rwo6pSmtIy\u201d— Dr. Sandra Steingraber (@Dr. Sandra Steingraber) 1602679373
The new study comes as fracking continues to figure prominently in the 2020 presidential race, with President Donald Trump openly celebrating the destructive practice and Democratic nominee Joe Biden vowing not to completely ban it if elected--a stance that has drawn the ire of environmental activists and progressive lawmakers.
"Fracking is bad, actually," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted after Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Biden's running mate, said during last week's vice presidential debate that a Biden administration "will not ban fracking."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A study released Tuesday by a team of scientists from Harvard University found that airborne radiation levels downwind of U.S. fracking sites are significantly elevated compared to background levels, providing further evidence that the drilling practice poses a threat to public health as well as the climate.
Published in the journal Nature Communications, the study detected the largest increases in airborne radiation levels near drilling locations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, states with high concentrations of fracking sites.
"Our results suggest that an increase in [particle radioactivity] due to the extensive [fracking development] may cause adverse health outcomes in nearby communities," warned the study, which found that locations within 12 miles downwind of 100 fracking sites have around 7% higher radiation levels compared to background levels.
The impact of fracking on airborne particle radioactivity "decreases gradually along with an increasing downwind distance" from oil and gas wells, the researchers noted.
Petros Koutrakis, the lead author of the study, toldThe Guardian that "if you asked me to go and live downwind [of fracking sites], I would not go. People should not go crazy, but I think it's a significant risk that needs to be addressed."
\u201cNEW HARVARD STUDY: \n\nUS #fracking wells bring radioactive particles up from the shattered shale bedrock and spew them into the air. \n\nResearchers found increases in downwind radioactivity 12 miles away from wells.\n\n#Fracking = Pandora\u2019s box of horrors https://t.co/Rwo6pSmtIy\u201d— Dr. Sandra Steingraber (@Dr. Sandra Steingraber) 1602679373
The new study comes as fracking continues to figure prominently in the 2020 presidential race, with President Donald Trump openly celebrating the destructive practice and Democratic nominee Joe Biden vowing not to completely ban it if elected--a stance that has drawn the ire of environmental activists and progressive lawmakers.
"Fracking is bad, actually," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted after Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Biden's running mate, said during last week's vice presidential debate that a Biden administration "will not ban fracking."
A study released Tuesday by a team of scientists from Harvard University found that airborne radiation levels downwind of U.S. fracking sites are significantly elevated compared to background levels, providing further evidence that the drilling practice poses a threat to public health as well as the climate.
Published in the journal Nature Communications, the study detected the largest increases in airborne radiation levels near drilling locations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, states with high concentrations of fracking sites.
"Our results suggest that an increase in [particle radioactivity] due to the extensive [fracking development] may cause adverse health outcomes in nearby communities," warned the study, which found that locations within 12 miles downwind of 100 fracking sites have around 7% higher radiation levels compared to background levels.
The impact of fracking on airborne particle radioactivity "decreases gradually along with an increasing downwind distance" from oil and gas wells, the researchers noted.
Petros Koutrakis, the lead author of the study, toldThe Guardian that "if you asked me to go and live downwind [of fracking sites], I would not go. People should not go crazy, but I think it's a significant risk that needs to be addressed."
\u201cNEW HARVARD STUDY: \n\nUS #fracking wells bring radioactive particles up from the shattered shale bedrock and spew them into the air. \n\nResearchers found increases in downwind radioactivity 12 miles away from wells.\n\n#Fracking = Pandora\u2019s box of horrors https://t.co/Rwo6pSmtIy\u201d— Dr. Sandra Steingraber (@Dr. Sandra Steingraber) 1602679373
The new study comes as fracking continues to figure prominently in the 2020 presidential race, with President Donald Trump openly celebrating the destructive practice and Democratic nominee Joe Biden vowing not to completely ban it if elected--a stance that has drawn the ire of environmental activists and progressive lawmakers.
"Fracking is bad, actually," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted after Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Biden's running mate, said during last week's vice presidential debate that a Biden administration "will not ban fracking."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.