Analysis of Impact for Closed Circuit Television

A thorough analysis on hydraulic fracturing in society, its impact on Social,

Cultural, Political, Economic, and Environmental impacts to be considered.

Social

Hydraulic fracturing continues to be a highly debated topic. In some circles, this

technology has been received and well excepted, while in other circles it has been fiercely

rejected. Like anything else in life, it has been feared and favored by some. Most people do not

like change, in this technology those stir that fear. The companies who are pushing through and

trying to sell this technology to the general public you Do have some valid points. However, the

feelings and attitudes from the communities who may be affected by have not been well

received. Since this technology is fairly new a lot of people I worried it may be affecting the

environment, particularly their water supply. It also doesn’t help coverage and news regarding

tainted water supplies in the United States. Prime example being Flint, Michigan.

According to the article, ACS Publications (2014) has found “potential risks for water

resources are identified: (1) the contamination of shallow aquifers with fugitive hydrocarbon

gases (i.e., stray gas contamination), which can also potentially lead to the salinization of shallow

groundwater through leaking natural gas wells and subsurface flow; (2) the contamination of

surface water and shallow groundwater from spills, leaks, and/or the disposal of inadequately

treated shale gas wastewater; (3) the accumulation of toxic and radioactive elements in soil or

stream sediments near disposal or spill sites; and (4) the over extraction of water resources for

high-volume hydraulic fracturing that could induce water shortages or conflicts with other water

users, particularly in water-scarce areas”.

 Cultural

 This is a really important section. Consider the elements that comprise the culture and
subcultures. Compare the United States' use of the technology with that of other nations
around the world. What is it about Americans that brings about innovation, or has
America declined in terms of technical innovation, scientific research, and development?
Look at advertising for the technology, the use of celebrities or stars or heroes, the
applications (e.g., sports and nanotechnology), and the values represented by the culture.
What has priority, and why? An example: IBM was spelled out in xenon atoms. Why
were these letters chosen instead of something else? What new words have been added to
our vocabulary from this technology? Horseless carriage was used long before the term
automobile. Wireless preceded Wi-Fi, and webcasting preceded podcasting. Broadcast
was a term adapted from agriculture long before it was used for radio and television.

Comparing the united states use of this technology with other nations such as Canada, gives

us an insight of the culture and subculture elements comprise this hot button topic. I would have

to agree that America as a nation doesn’t bring about technical innovation and development.

Canada comes in second to the United States with 1,919 active drilling rigs. Looking at

advertising for this technology you will notice there have been television and radio ads that help

to represent great value for this technology. However, antagonists will say the Unites States have

been affected by the hydraulic fracturing. There are people who are protesting because hydraulic

fracturing is not safe for the environment and is debatably making people get sick.

The negative cultural issue about hydraulic fracturing is people are getting really sick.

According Kiely’s (2014) study found the following: “New comprehensive analysis of scientific

studies to-date by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The health impacts include

respiratory problems, birth defects, blood disorders, cancer and nervous system impacts, raising

serious concerns for workers and people living closest to wells, as well as entire regions with

high volumes of oil and gas activity.” Not only hydraulic fracturing cause’s problems in heath

also it is affecting the water that we are drinking, gas, and oil. “The health risks from fracking

are not limited to what’s in our drinking water—oil and gas operations are also poisoning the air
we breathe,” said NRDC senior scientist Miriam Rotkin-Ellman. “While industry continues to try

to sweep the impacts of fracking under a rug, the science keeps revealing serious health threats—

for workers, families living nearby and entire regions with heavy oil and gas activity.”

The figure 1 below is a survey question that asked, “In general, would you say that you strongly
support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the extraction of natural gas
from shale deposits in Quebec/Michigan/Pennsylvania?”

The graph by Lachapelle, E. (2014, October 01) describes Public Opinion on Hydraulic Fracturing
in the province of Quebec, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Political

 Look at government policy, government intervention, government involvement (support

or lack of support, funding), both nationally and internationally. Consider Congress, the
president, the Supreme Court (decisions), the rate of change, liberalism, conservatism,
legislation, litigation, and so forth. What political factors are at work in the progression or
regression of the technology (e.g. lobbyists, special interest groups, partisan views, vocal
advocates, or spokespersons)? For example: The Americans with Disabilities Act was
designed to prevent discrimination and encourage accessibility to public facilities; it
 impacted architects, companies, organizations, and persons with disabilities through the
installation of ramps (wider doors, lower knobs and handles, larger restroom stalls), the
use of assistive devices in schools and in the workplace, hiring practices, and lawsuits
against employers, among other things.

Oil-and-gas companies that hydraulically fracture wells and trade groups that represent them

spent $747 million to lobby federal policymakers and contribute to lawmakers’ campaigns from

2001 through late 2011, Common Cause, the advocacy group, reported Thursday.

When speaking about the global aspect of hydraulic fracturing methane and carbon pollution are

two main gases that effect globalization. Methane is the most dangerous one because it warms

the climate much quicker than carbon does. Also, the local people that live near the area’s that

hydraulic fracturing causes even more problems not just pollution and health problems. Lastly,

Kiely (2014) found “they are also at risk for eye, nose and throat irritation, brain and nervous

system problems including headaches, lightheadedness and disorientation, blood and bone

marrow damage leading to anemia and immunological problems, reproductive system effects,

birth defects and harm to the developing fetus, and cancer.”

Lachapelle, E. (2014, October 01). Public Opinion on Hydraulic Fracturing in the province of

Quebec: A Comparison with Michigan and Pennsylvania. Retrieved January 23, 2018, from

http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/17/public-opinion-on-

hydraulic-fracturing-in-the-province-of-quebec-a-comparison-with-michigan-and-pennsylvania/

Work cites used in this paper

https://www.nrdc.org/media/2014/141216

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es405118y