Fracking & Radon: Will your home be affected?

Martin Freeman of

1.  

 

leading UK radon specialists PropertECO offers a balanced view on the impact

that fracking activity will have on radon levels in local buildings

 

 

With

the prospect of hydraulic fracturing (Fracking) being given the go-ahead, there

is an understandable concern about environmental impact and possible unintended

side effects.

 

Fracking

is used to extract shale gas from deep down. Shale gas is seen as a valuable

prospective fuel source that has the capacity to bring down energy costs for

homeowners and industry, reduce dependence on foreign energy supplies and thus

benefit the economy and national security. The United States has seen a

transformation of its energy costs since going hell-for-leather on shale gas

extraction, having sunk over 40,000 wells in the last year or so. Americans

have seen the real financial benefit of falling energy bills and attribute

their economic recovery in part to their new energy source. So it looks likely

that fracking will become a reality as a regular activity in various parts of

the UK.

 

But

there are unknowns and a growing debate in which it becomes increasingly

difficult to cut through the fog of the war of words between the 'for' and

'against' camps. Here, we try to give some balance to one aspect: will fracking

cause increased levels of radon in buildings or increase the number of

buildings that have dangerous levels of radon in them? This is an important

consideration because radon is the second highest cause of lung cancer after

smoking and currently kills around 2000 people in the UK each year.

 

Fracking

involves the hydraulic fracturing of the geology by creating pressure deep

under ground. Two earth tremors in 2011 near Blackpool were attributed to

fracking. Proponents of fracking are quick to point out that these tremors were

minor, of just 2.3 magnitude, picked up by instrumental means and rather less

than tremors that have occurred from the collapse of historic mine workings.

They suggest that a new 'traffic light' procedure system of seismic monitoring

in micro-wells will avoid risks from tremors and are of the opinion that, as

the hydraulic fracturing usually occurs between 3-4 kilometres under ground,

there is isolation from impact on the surface.

 

Those

who hold concern about unintended consequences of fracking focus on the method

and purpose of the operation: to fracture the geology to release shale gas

which is then substantially captured at a single point, at the annulus of the

well deep in the ground. Their concern is that a deliberately created

substantial geological disturbance may create pathways for the release of other

gases, including radon. Such releases would not necessarily be collected with

the shale gas but will have new pathways to reach the surface. It is suggested

that the very depth of the wells and the fracturing may have the effect of

producing a cone effect of emissions causing a wider area to be at risk at the

surface the deeper you fracture in certain types of geology.

 

The

validity of the various views is hard to establish at this early stage; the

customary default position of regulatory authorities is: 'There is no

scientific evidence…..' to establish a link between../ to establish that so

& so is or is not the case…. This position cannot safely be adopted until

more knowledge has been gained through experience in time and a balanced

precautionary approach is needed.

 

The

effects of radon are already widely documented and the link between radon

exposure and lung cancer deaths is proven. Radon kills and its incidence in

buildings should be reduced, something that government departments, regulators

and industry are working towards achieving. The radioactive gas comes from the

soil and when it enters building it causes a serious health risk if it

accumulates to excessive levels. The amount of radon in a building is

influenced by a combination of the local geology beneath it and the pathways

for the gas. A reasonable person may suppose that deliberate disturbance of

geology could result in changes to the local geology beneath buildings in the

area of fracking which could in turn cause them to become affected by increased

radon emissions. Put simply, if unscientifically: if you shake a fruit tree,

you can expect some fruit to fall from it.

 

Since

the only way to know if a building is affected by radon is to test the building

(radon cannot be seen or smelt), it seems reasonable to suggest that those who

are concerned about fracking in their area causing radon intrusion into their

home or workplace should test their building for radon before fracking

commences. If there is a radon problem already, this pre-dates any fracking but

should still be mitigated. Regardless of whether or not there was an initial

problem (and whether any mitigation work to the property was carried out),

repeat testing should be conducted at the property after the fracturing has

been done and the wells have been sunk in the area. If this becomes standard

practice, local resident groups may wish to pool their findings to establish a

probability as to whether the gas extraction activity has created a new problem

or exacerbated an existing one. Because radon testing is remarkably inexpensive

and simple (see http://www.properteco.co.uk/radon-gas/radon-test-kits-now-available.php)

this seems to be the best course of action in adopting a precautionary approach

for the present until sufficient data have been accumulated to define exactly

what side effects, if any, occur.

 

On matters of radon:  TO TEST IS BEST