Radioactive contamination from fracking wastewater spills

A Duke University study of fracking wastewater spills in North Dakota has found high levels of selenium, lead, ammonium, and other toxic compounds. High levels of radium 226, radioactive with a half-life of 1600 years, were also found. The researchers observed that pipeline leaks were responsible for half of the spilled wastewater, with the remainder coming from valves, connections, tank leaks, and tank overflows.

“Unlike spilled oil, which starts to break down in soil, these spilled brines consist of inorganic chemicals, metals and salts that are resistant to biodegradation,” said Lauer, a Ph.D. student who was lead author of the study. “They don’t go away; they stay. This has created a legacy of radioactivity at spill sites.”

Their study concluded: "The resistance of inorganic contamination to biodegradation and its consequential persistence in the environment suggest that contamination from brine spills in North Dakota will continue to impact nearby water resources for years to come. To fully understand the impacts of brine spills in North Dakota, future research should evaluate additional spill sites, analyze organic contamination in addition to inorganic elements, assess the impacts downstream of spill sites, including risks to drinking water sources, and conduct a comprehensive assessment of long-term ecological and possible human health impacts."

http://drcinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ND-brine-spill.pdf

"Brine Spills Associated with Unconventional Oil Development in North Dakota"

Nancy E. Lauer, et al, Environmental Science and Technology journal

http://oilpatchdispatch.areavoices.com/2016/04/27/spill-contaminati...

Views: 2793

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robert Bond on May 15, 2016 at 2:07pm

Actually sun exposure causes many cases of cancer.  I do not think that is a joking matter. 

A lot of radon gas in peoples basements and mines.  That is not able to be blamed on drilling.

Permalink Reply by Jack Young on May 15, 2016 at 3:29pm

There are domestic water wells with similar radium levels in many parts of the country. So this is a genuine issue, but one that seems to get very little attention. If you really care about radiation, you should be posting on domestic water well sites too, as there are far more people who are impacted there than in otherwise empty North Dakota. You can post here too, of course - but please don't try to make it sound like this is a gas industry-specific problem.

Permalink Reply by Mike Fulper on May 25, 2016 at 4:55am

Radiation  ??  Radioactive  ??

From the ground ? .. so what.. been there millions of year....

The REAL problem is the US GOVT....

From 1945 to 1955 the US GOVT....Radiated  EVERYONE in the USA...

Everyone born after 1945  has had their Thyroid and all glands and brain

tissue... RADIATED......

That's why there is so much Cancer in KIDS.....

Those born before all this Govt Radiation took effect... do not have as much

cancer....

So if you want to complain about Radiation.....call your Democrat Politicians...

All this radiation came on the Democrats watch....Roosevelt and Truman...

Add the Radiation that came West from the Jap power plant.. and BING

More Radiation......

"Some of the concentrations of radium found in North Dakota were 64 becquerels per liter of water (World Health Organization guideline for safe levels of radium 228 are 0.1 becquerels per liter). So these levels were over 100x worse than threshold levels of radiation. So ND got high doses."

World Health Organization.  ??? ..... that is a NGO   

Another United Nations piece of crap

NGO.... means NON   GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

Which means it is a ... NON GOVERMENTAL ORGANIZATION....!!!

which means... it is PURE BS....

I have a CDV-700 Model 6  and a few days after the Jap power plant

explosion the "background" radiation was TRIPLE from what it was before..!

I wouldnt worry about Radium.....not a problem....

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on May 25, 2016 at 5:23am

Mike: Can you write your thoughts in a coherent paragraph and back it up with links to reputable sources?

Permalink Reply by Mike Fulper on May 25, 2016 at 5:56am

"links to reputable sources " ?

mmmmm.... US History 101....

I'm pretty sure the Jap Nuclear Power Plant explosion made the

Newspapers...

Explain what a 'coherent paragraph" is...

I missed that part in school.. to busy ogling the girls... sorry...

You can catch up on your Radiation from Atomic bombs in the

USA.. on the History channel.......

Probably wasn't in your text books in school..  ?

Permalink Reply by Jon on June 21, 2016 at 4:42pm

So normal rock salt that comes from deep within the earth does not have low doses of radioactive material in it by default?

Permalink Reply by Thomas Lilli on June 24, 2016 at 8:00am
Anyone who has purchased a home in PA has had to do a Radon test.

"Radon is a chemical element with symbol Rn and atomic number 86. It is a radioactive, colorless, odorless, tasteless[2] noble gas, occurring naturally as a decay product of radium. Its most stable isotope, 222Rn, has a half-life of 3.8 days. Radon is one of the densest substances that remains a gas under normal conditions. It is also the only gas under normal conditions that has no stable isotopes, and is considered a health hazard due to its radioactivity. Intense radioactivity has also hindered chemical studies of radon and only a few compounds are known".

Radon is just part of life in PA and if it is a function of Radium, than it came from the ground and was not injected into the ground.
Permalink Reply by Barry D on June 24, 2016 at 10:52am

Thomas,

Thanks for that explanation.

Radium and radon are naturally occurring. They are what is known as NORM - Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material.

The important word is, Natural.

The other important point that you make is that radon can be dealt with.

All of us are exposed to NORM each and every day, from various sources (the sun being one of the sources. We all survive.

So it is with drilling waste from shale development. Trace amounts of NORM are sometimes found in this waste. The important word is sometimes. It is not a true threat to human health as long as it is disposed of properly.

The point here is that Paul is a fear monger. He knows that the word radioactive raises the attention of uninformed readers. So he uses it to instill fear into readers hoping they will join his misguided campaign against shale development.

In general, there is no overwhelming health concern surrounding the NORM "sometimes" found in drilling waste.

This is a straw dog issue.

Permalink Reply by Barry D on May 16, 2016 at 12:27am

Once again,

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

The radioactivity associated with produced waters, drill cuttings etc. is no more dangerous than the radioactivity found in sunlight.

Notice the qualifiers used by Chicken Little, "some", "high concentrations" etc.

In "some" instances "high concentrations " of sun light causes cancer. "High concentrations" of radon found in soil and ground water causes cancer. And, the general public is far more likely to have health issues related to over exposure to the sun and radon than any radioactivity related to oil and gas activity.

If radioactivity were a significant  issue in the oil and gas industry, then there would be an epidemic of cancer and other health issues found in oil and gas workers. But there is not such an epidemic.

Chicken Little here, is just continuing his fear mongering campaign which is typical of far left environmental whackos.

Instead of enjoining us all in substantive discussion he chooses to dwell in the sewer of fear mongering.

Just look away nothing to see here.

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on May 17, 2016 at 3:11am

Robert Bond & Jack Young: Yes, radon gas is unhealthy, radium in well water is a concern, as is drunk driving, smoking, etc.

To keep this relevant to the Marcellus shale, the gas industry, and fracking, you'll recall the countless times the gas industry has claimed that fracking has never contaminated drinking water. They would say "the fracking is going on a mile underground! Somebody tell me how the fracking chemicals are going to get from way down there up into the aquifer, which is way up here!"

And then a realist observes impoundments of fracking wastewater on the surface, leaking into streams. And a farmer sees some of his cattle dying when they drink the polluted pond water. And a geologist points out that underground gas pressure (from the natural gas, remember?) can cause flows of liquids and gases to the surface, passing through the aquifer. And a petroleum engineer admits that many cement jobs are flawed and that casings corrode over time, resulting in leaks. And a frustrated DEP staffer tells you how far behind they are on finding hundreds of thousands of abandoned gas wells in Pennsylvania.

The question is not "are there dangers in the world?". The relevant question is "Are fracking and related gas industry practices safe enough, or are they endangering public health? Are they making things worse?"

The results of this paper suggest that the answer is "the industry is leaving long-lasting toxic and carcinogenic compounds in the environment, due to frequent spills" and "we need to study this more to see how much of these toxins is getting into drinking water".

Permalink Reply by Barry D on May 17, 2016 at 3:25am

Hey Chicken Little,

Is this the same Duke University that performed a study that claimed  "fracking" was polluting ground water? A study that was completely debunked due to sloppy procedures.

Is this the same Duke University that performed a study that claimed there was increased fugitive methane related to shale activity? Again, a study that was completely debunked.

As you state, the study suggests, but doesn't prove.

Further, the industry, in response to environmental extremists such as yourself, pointed out that the process of "fracking" itself has never polluted ground water. That claim is completely true.

Instead of accepting that FACT, you extremists then morphed your argument to claim any pollution associated with oil and gas activity was proof that "fracking" causes pollution.

Even a fifth grader understands how specious that claim is. Obviously you are not smarter than a fifth grader.

All industry has issues that need to be addressed. But making silly claims, as you have, detracts from a substantive serious discussion.

BTW, regulations are already in place to deal with "spills" accidental or intentional. If you believe that those regulations need to be strengthened then that is the discussion to be had.

Instead, you keep calling for the banning of hydraulic fracturing which is silly and doesn't address the actual issue you present in this post.

Permalink Reply by paleface on May 18, 2016 at 12:16am

If you walk down a creek bed checking rocks with one of the Govt. surplus radiation detectors it beeps consistently.Hot rocks are everywhere. 

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service