SINCE OPENING THE SUBJECT OF FRACKING THREE WEEKS AGO, I have found myself buried in a literature on the subject simultaneously huge and profoundly dispiriting.

To begin to grasp the enormity of the problems and dangers involved in the explosive growth of fracking as one of the central components of America’s energy development present and future is a startling experience. When one realizes how pitifully inadequate are our knowledge and understanding of those problems and dangers — or more accurately, how ignored their existence — it becomes a deeply depressing experience. When one adds to this the realization that just a decade ago deep underground shale supplied only 1 percent of America’s natural gas, a figure that has exploded to 30 percent today, the magnitude of this rapid transformation — coupled with the magnitude of the potential risks and the paucity of basic knowledge — come together to form one extraordinarily dangerous gamble.

An October 2011 Scientific American piece, “Safety First, Fracking Second,” frames this succinctly: “Drilling for natural gas has gotten ahead of the science needed to prove it safe. …

“Fracking is already widespread in Wyoming, Colorado, Texas and Pennsylvania. All these states (and those that have rushed to join them since this 2011 report!) are flying blind. A long list of technical questions remains unanswered about the ways, for example, the practice could contaminate drinking water, the extent to which it already has, and what the industry could do to reduce the risks.

“Public fears are growing about contamination of drinking-water supplies from the chemicals used in fracking and from the methane gas itself. Field tests show that those worries are not unfounded. A Duke University study published in May found that methane levels in dozens of drinking-water wells within a kilometer (3,280 feet) of new fracking sites were 17 times higher than in wells farther away. Yet states have let companies proceed without adequate regulations.”

Quite obviously, the states must begin to provide more effective oversight, and the federal government should step in, too. To date the record of the states is abysmal.

On the negative side of the oversight issue (well, another huge negative side!), we have the notorious Halliburton Loophole. This was established in a 2005 law, at a time when the GOP controlled Congress and Dick Cheney was both vice president and energy policy head honcho. (Obviously by sheer coincidence, Cheney had, just prior to his veep role, been the chief executive of Halliburton, the world’s largest provider of fracking services.) The loophole exempted fracking from requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, a move that, considering what we have learned about the effects of fracking, would generously be described as myopic. The EPA is currently engaged in formulating hydraulic fracturing standards, nearly a decade late yet still vigorously opposed by the industry.

Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of fluids, including toxic chemicals, into oil or gas wells at very high pressure. Other forms of underground injection are regulated to protect drinking water, but that well-greased Halliburton fracking exception slid through. Special illuminating note: Notwithstanding its pledges, Halliburton did not even live up to its voluntary commitment to frack without diesel fuel. Despite agreeing to stop using diesel fuel when fracking in its agreement with the EPA, between 2005 and 2007 Halliburton used 807,000 gallons of diesel fuel as a fracturing fluid. (By coincidence Cheney was still vice president at this time, his guiding hand firmly at the tiller of energy policy!)

An April 2011 Cornell Chronicle report, “Natural gas from fracking could be ‘dirtier’ than coal, Cornell professors find,” also sharply questions the Cheney-Halliburton happy scenario of that sunny fracking future.

“Extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale could do more to aggravate global warming than mining coal, according to a Cornell study published in the May issue of Climatic Change Letters …

“While natural gas has been touted as a clean-burning fuel that produces less carbon dioxide than coal, ecologist Robert Howarth warns that we should be more concerned about methane leaking into the atmosphere during hydraulic fracturing.

“‘Natural gas is mostly methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas, especially in the short term, with 105 times more warming impact, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide (CO2),’ Howarth said, adding that even small leaks make a big difference. He estimated that as much as 8 percent of the methane in shale gas leaks into the air during the lifetime of a hydraulic shale gas well — up to twice what escapes from conventional gas production.”

Another professor cited in the report, Tony Ingraffea, said scientists were avoiding being “hyperbolic.”

“‘We’ve tried to be conservative all along,” he said. …

“‘We do not intend for you to accept what we’ve reported on today as the definitive scientific study in regards to this question. It’s clearly not … ‘What we’re hoping to do with this study is to stimulate the science that should have been done before. In my opinion, corporate business plans superseded national energy strategy.’”

To cap this chapter in the triumph of accumulation over humanity, I bring your attention to a report this month from the School of Medicine, University of Missouri Health System, “MU Researchers Find Fracking Chemicals Disrupt Hormone Function”:

“University of Missouri researchers have discovered that an oil and natural gas drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing uses chemicals that can disrupt the body’s hormones. The researchers found that the endocrine-disrupting chemicals used in the process could interfere with a class of hormones that includes testosterone and estrogen. The findings were published in the journal Endocrinology.

“The researchers have found greater hormone-disrupting properties in water located near hydraulic fracturing drilling sites than in areas without drilling. They also found that 11 chemicals commonly used in the controversial ‘fracking’ method are endocrine disruptors.

“Endocrine disruptors interfere with the body’s endocrine system, which controls numerous body functions with hormones such as the female hormone estrogen and the male hormone androgen. Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, such as those studied in the MU research, has been linked by other research to cancer, birth defects and infertility.

“‘More than 700 chemicals are used in the fracking process, and many of them disturb hormone function,’ said Susan Nagel, Ph.D., associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and women’s health at the MU School of Medicine. ‘With fracking on the rise, populations may face greater health risks from increased endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure.’

“‘Fracking is exempt from federal regulations to protect water quality, but spills associated with natural gas drilling can contaminate surface, ground and drinking water,’ Nagel said. ‘We found more endocrine-disrupting activity in the water close to drilling locations that had experienced spills than at control sites. This could raise the risk of reproductive, metabolic, neurological and other diseases, especially in children who are exposed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.’”

Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.