Sandra Steingraber, environmentalist: ‘Fracking is one of the worst US technologies since the atomic bomb’

The path to activism for biologist Sandra Steingraber, 66, began when, as a student, she was diagnosed with bladder cancer. It was the same disease that had claimed her aunt. However, as an adopted child, she knew it wasn’t genetics that had caused their shared misfortune. And so, she wondered: perhaps it was because they shared the same environment?

Her search for an answer led to a seminal book, Living Downstream (1997), in which she combined her scientific knowledge with cancer registries and toxic waste inventories. The biologist discovered that she wasn’t alone: she was part of a large group of people in a community with high levels of cancer, due to the fact that they were all drinking from the same contaminated water wells.

Since then, the Illinois-born Steingraber has balanced science and activism. For the past 15 years of her career, she has focused on studying and raising awareness about the health and environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing, popularly known as “fracking.” This consists of a series of hydrocarbon extraction techniques — which use a mixture of millions of liters of water with sand and chemical additives — to break up rocks containing natural gas and oil. That’s what recently brought her to Mexico, where the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking and other environmental organizations have organized a forum with legislators from the Labor Party and the ruling National Regeneration Movement (Morena). They aim to propose legislation to prohibit these practices… just as the government is considering returning to them, in order to increase the country’s dwindling oil reserves.

“Hydraulic fracturing was invented in the United States. This has led us to become the world’s leading exporter of natural gas, in a time of climate emergency,” she reflects. “So, I feel the need to apologize, because I think it’s the worst technology that my country has ever exported.”

Worse than the atomic bomb?

She laughs. “One of the two worst.”

Question. You’ve mentioned several times that fracking is one of the ugliest words in the English language.

Answer. It’s a word that feels horrible to say: [the process] makes the world a more horrendous place. It releases substances that, while trapped underground, don’t harm anyone. But when we fracture rocks, we release radiation and heavy metals like arsenic — which cause leukemia and [other types of cancer] — and we remove drinking water from the ecological cycle. In a time of climate emergency, it’s an immoral practice.

Q. Mexico and PEMEX, the state-owned oil company, are currently considering resuming hydraulic fracturing, with the idea of obtaining natural gas. How do you assess this project?

A. If Mexico uses it again, it will be a bad decision. Not only because of the practice itself, but also because of natural gas, which is one of the biggest environmental villains. Even those of us in the scientific community haven’t paid enough attention to the damage this gas does to the climate and our health.

Q. Since 2012, you’ve been publishing Compendium of Scientific, Medical and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking and Associated Gas and Oil Infrastructure. It’s now in its ninth edition. How has this scientific evidence evolved in recent years?

A. When we published the first edition, we had 65 studies on hydraulic fracturing, which showed the harms and dangers of this practice. We put them all together… and it was like putting together a puzzle with missing pieces. In the second edition, there were 150 studies. In the third, 400. And they all pointed in the same direction: hydraulic fracturing cannot be carried out safely, [regardless] of any laws or regulations. Today, there are 2,500 studies, with each new piece confirming the previous ones. This compendium was instrumental in convincing the then-governor of New York to ban hydraulic fracturing in 2012.

Q. As one of the leaders of this political process, what lessons can similar movements learn from your experience?

A. I’ve seen that it’s always much easier to debate and explain science in places where the industry hasn’t yet taken hold. Once there’s economic dependence, it’s much harder to impose a ban. [This is because] legislators are pressured by companies, who have their own propaganda, their own data… they’re a very powerful lobby.

Q. When the Mexican government announced that it would reconsider the practice of fracking to increase oil reserves, it insisted that there are new, more environmentally friendly techniques that consume less water.

A. The same thing was said in the United States. They used [this argument] to allow these techniques to reach areas where there was public opposition. Ultimately, the water was still contaminated.

Let me talk about science for a moment. When rocks are fractured — in addition to the contaminants — a large amount of salt is released, which mixes with the water. This makes it corrosive to the steel pipes used for hydraulic fracturing. So, the water must be treated before it can be reused for another fracture. Then, the contaminants make that water corrosive to the membranes used for desalination. Doing this on a large scale is too expensive for the industry.

Q. What do you do with the contaminated water?

A. The current practice is to pump it back into the ground, into what are called injection wells. And this is one of the main causes of earthquakes associated with hydraulic fracturing.

There’s no good solution for this type of waste. And, as a scientist, I’ve never seen evidence that you can use this type of water forever and not generate waste. It doesn’t work that way.

Q. You always speak as a scientist, but you’re also an activist. Doesn’t speaking from a political position undermine the objectivity and credibility of the science behind it?

A. As a scientist, I’m very proud of my ability to analyze data objectively, leaving aside my political views. But when this process is over — if I have evidence that harm will occur — I feel obliged not only to publish it in an article, but also to warn the public.

My role model is Albert Einstein. He was a scientist, but also an activist, warning of the dangers of Nazism or the atomic bomb. It’s necessary to bring the data to politicians so that they can make the right decisions. If science is combined with legislation, we can build a better world for all.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition