Literature DB >> 26424064

Unconventional natural gas development and human health: thoughts from the United States.

Madelon L Finkel1, Jake Hays2, Adam Law2.   

Abstract

If unconventional gas development (UGD) continues to expand in Australia, the potential health and environmental impacts should be adequately addressed and preventive public health measures should be implemented. The United States has embraced UGD and has decades of experience that could be beneficial to Australia as stakeholders debate the potential benefits and harms of the technique. Additional research on the health impacts of UGD is necessary. Baseline and trend morbidity and mortality data need to be collected to assess changes in population health over time. To date, few health or epidemiological studies have been conducted, so it remains difficult to assess actual health outcomes. In the absence of scientific consensus, there are two possible risks: failing to develop unconventional natural gas when the harms are manageable; or developing it when the harms are substantial. Many government bodies around the world have chosen to minimise the risk of the latter until the impacts of UGD are better understood. Policies should be informed by empirical evidence based on actual experience rather than assurance of best practices. There is a strong rationale for precautionary measures based on the health and environmental risks identified in the scientific literature.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26424064     DOI: 10.5694/mja15.00231

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  2 in total

Review 1.  A review of the public health impacts of unconventional natural gas development.

Authors:  P J Saunders; D McCoy; R Goldstein; A T Saunders; A Munroe
Journal:  Environ Geochem Health       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 4.609

2.  Toward an Understanding of the Environmental and Public Health Impacts of Unconventional Natural Gas Development: A Categorical Assessment of the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature, 2009-2015.

Authors:  Jake Hays; Seth B C Shonkoff
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.