1. The Fracking Science Compendium (2018) 5th edition CHPNY & PSR
  2. The Lancet Countdown Report (2018)
  3. Scotland’s Moratorium on Fracking
  4. Fracking – minding the gaps. Hawkins (2015)
  5. MedAct Report
  6. PSE database
  7. Summary of The Fracking Science Compendium (2018) CHPNY & PSR
  8. Overview of Fracking Science Compendium V6 (2019)

  1. Concerned Health professionals of New York and Physicians for Social Responsibility Compendium V5
    Compendium of Scientific, Medical and Media findings, Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas & Oil Extraction) 5th Edition March 2018 Produced by CHPNY (Concerned Health Professionals of New York) and PSR (Physicians for Social Responsibility)
    Click here or on LOGO belowThis compendium is a fully referenced compilation of the evidence outlining the risks and harms of fracking. It brings together findings from the scientific and medical literature, government and industry reports, and journalistic investigation.

  2. The Lancet Countdown Report (2018)


    The Lancet Countdown is an international, multidisciplinary research collaboration which tracks progress on health and climate change, publishing annually in The Lancet.‘Climate change undermines the foundations of good health, affecting populations around the world, today. Whether through extremes of weather, the spread of infectious disease, or threats to food and water security, these effects are disproportionately felt by those who are most vulnerable, and people in low- and middle-income countries.Implementing the Paris Agreement depends on enhanced engagement from the public and policymakers. Health professionals have an important role to play, ensuring that climate change is understood as an issue that is central to health and wellbeing.

    Climate Change Impacts, Exposures and Vulnerability
    Indicators and headline findings

    • Indicator 1.1: Between 2000 and 2016, temperatures rose by 0.9oC where people are living, nearly double the average across the globe.
    • Indicator 1.2: Between 2000 and 2016, the number of vulnerable people exposed to heatwave events has increased by around 125 million.
    • Indicator 1.3: Global physical labour capacity in populations exposed to temperature change has decreased by around 5.3% between 2000 and 2016.
    • Indicator 1.4: Annual weather-related disasters have increased by 46% from 2000 to 2013.
    • Indicator 1.5: Development and global health efforts over the last 50 years are at risk of being undermined by climate change.
    • Indicator 1.6: Vectorial capacity for the transmission of dengue has increased by 9.4% (Aedes aegypti) and 11.1% (Aedes albopictus) due to climate trends since the 1950s.
    • Indicator 1.7: The number of undernourished people in 30 countries vulnerable to climate change and highly dependent on regional food production has increased from 398 million in 1990 to 422 million in 2016.
    • Indicator 1.8: Globally, climate change alone has directly forced at least 4,400 to migrate and over 1 billion people may be at risk of migration by the end of the century, without further action.’


  3. Scotland impose Moratorium – the evidence

    Watterson & Dinan (2018) Public Health and Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Including Fracking: Global Lessons from a Scottish Government Review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29617318

    ‘Scottish Energy Minister Fergus Ewing announced that there is to be a moratorium on granting consents for unconventional oil and gas developments in Scotland whilst further research and a public consultation is carried out. The decision came days after the UK Government voted against a moratorium.In particular Mr Ewing set out that the Scottish Government will:

    • Undertake a full public consultation on unconventional oil and gas extraction
    • Commission a full public health impact assessment
    • Conduct further work into strengthen planning guidance
    • Look at further tightening of environmental regulation.

    Mr Ewing said:
    “We should never close our minds to the potential opportunities of new technologies – but we must also ensure that community, environmental and health concerns are never simply brushed aside. This government will not allow that to happen and I hope the actions I have announced today will be widely welcomed as proportionate and responsible.”

    Notes to editors: The Scottish Planning Policy relating to onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction states:

    • Confirmation that the concept of buffer zones should be applied to all proposals for the first time;
    • Putting in place an additional requirement for risk assessments to be prepared, using a source-pathway-receptor model, to ensure a transparent and evidence-based approach to assessing whether proposed buffer zones are acceptable;
    • Making explicit that buffer zones will be assessed by the planning authority and statutory consultees, with a strong expectation that planning permission should be refused if they are unacceptable;
    • Ensuring that operators are upfront about their plans and that communities are consulted on all unconventional gas developments, including close involvement in the risk assessment process;
    • Requiring a fresh planning application (and public consultation) if permission was not sought for hydraulic fracturing but developers subsequently intend to undertake this process.

    The independent Expert Scientific Panel published their report in July 2014 saying that more evidence is needed into the effects of unconventional extraction oil and gas.’

  4. Fracking – Minding the Gaps; Joanne Hawkins; Research Report 2015


    The PhD study examining the various regulations covering unconventional gas extraction in the UK. The evidence shows the regulations are incomplete and unlikely to be effective. New regulations are typically reactive so that it takes a significant problem to be observed before a further regulation is considered and eventually imposed. There was no regulation on seismic events until a series of events were induced at Preese Hall causing damage to the well bore. Currently Cuadrilla is working to loosen the restrictions to enable their activities that have triggered a series of events that caused the repeated cessation of fracking.‘Reports, such as those conducted by the Royal Society and Public Health England, have expressed the opinion that if a ‘robust’ regulatory system is in place the risks associated with fracking can be reduced and controlled. Such claims have been repeated by political figures.  The next section discusses whether the assumption that a ‘robust’ regulatory system exists in England is justified by examining whether current controls effectively translate and map onto the operation of a new technology and industry in England.Assertions that any risk to the environment and health from exposure to emissions related to fracking are expected to be low are highly dependent on the ‘proper operation’ of activities and the imposition of ‘proper regulations’.  As this article will show, this assumption regarding the current regulatory structure is misplaced and uncertainty renders defining ‘proper operation’ standards problematic.At present gaps emerge as a result of a lack of coherence and uncertainty surrounding the applicability of regulations as well as through the application of inappropriate thresholds. These are compounded by the lack of regulatory expertise and experience and the questionable capacity of regulatory authorities to fulfil their assigned roles. Maintenance of the current approach and controls will leave areas exposed to potential environmental and health damage.At present, the framing of shale gas and fracking activities as low risk is based on the assumption that a robust regulatory system is in place. This article has shown that this is not the case and that regulatory change is needed. Such a change requires recognition of the fact that the current regulation does not fit the technology and processes it is trying to control. Until this fact is acknowledged and addressed, the regulation governing fracking will continue to be inadequate.’

  5. MedAct Report – Health and Fracking: The Impacts and Opportunity Costs/Letter in BMJ from experts accompanying the report


    This report written by British doctors and experts reviews the health and environmental risks of fracking.
    An open letter in the British Medical Journal by leading public health experts and researchers about the MedAct report states: “The arguments against fracking on public health and ecological grounds are overwhelming. There are clear grounds for adopting the precautionary principle and prohibiting fracking”

  6. Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy database of scientific studies and analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on fracking

    The independent experts group Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy has compiled a database of the peer-reviewed scientific studies about unconventional oil and gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing.Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy has also done an analysis of the scientific understanding of the public health and environmental impacts of these processes. They find that, “The study analyses all peer-reviewed scientific literature on shale and tight gas development, and reveals that the great majority of science contains findings that indicate concerns for public health, air quality and water quality.”

  7. Summary of The Fracking Science Compendium (2018) CHPNY & PSR
    Extracts from Concerned Health Professionals of New York

    Introduction to and extracts from the Compendium of Scientific, Medical and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction) (5th Edition) March 2018

  8. Overview of Fracking Science Compendium V6 (2019)

    Overview of Fracking Science Compendium V6
    New in the reports section is a link to Concerned Health Professionals of New York v6 who encouraged and support us over the years.In addition we have taken chunks of their introduction chapters to give a flavour of what is contained within CHPNY v6.
    We will post further examples of the papers and data they have reported on over the next weeks then send out our cut down compilation in due course. Plenty to go at but if you have a cut down version it may prove useful if talking to colleagues. The full 361 pages is a big ask of anyone. Let alone following up all the references to read the originals.
    1 Herring, S. C., Christidis, N., Hoell, A., Kossin, J. P., Schreck III, C. J., & Stott, P. A. (2017). Explaining extreme events of 2016 from a climate perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99(1), S1–S157. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-ExplainingExtremeEvents2015
    1485 Finkel, M. L., & Law, A. (2011). The rush to drill for natural gas: A public health cautionary tale. American Journal of Public Health, 101(5), 784-785. doi: 0.2105/AJPH.2010.300089is a long journey. I hope some will find my short cut acceptable.My previous study of CHPNY V1 convinced me it was not necessary to read every single paper in full but some stand out and need to be quoted so I checked all those.
    But, as I say, ‘Dont trust me, I am a Doctor’ so please do your own reading and delving.