↓ Skip to main content

A review of the public health impacts of unconventional natural gas development

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Geochemistry and Health, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 892)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
Title
A review of the public health impacts of unconventional natural gas development
Published in
Environmental Geochemistry and Health, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10653-016-9898-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. J. Saunders, D. McCoy, R. Goldstein, A. T. Saunders, A. Munroe

Abstract

The public health impact of hydraulic fracturing remains a high profile and controversial issue. While there has been a recent surge of published papers, it remains an under-researched area despite being possibly the most substantive change in energy production since the advent of the fossil fuel economy. We review the evidence of effects in five public health domains with a particular focus on the UK: exposure, health, socio-economic, climate change and seismicity. While the latter would seem not to be of significance for the UK, we conclude that serious gaps in our understanding of the other potential impacts persist together with some concerning signals in the literature and legitimate uncertainties derived from first principles. There is a fundamental requirement for high-quality epidemiological research incorporating real exposure measures, improved understanding of methane leakage throughout the process, and a rigorous analysis of the UK social and economic impacts. In the absence of such intelligence, we consider it prudent to incentivise further research and delay any proposed developments in the UK. Recognising the political realities of the planning and permitting process, we make a series of recommendations to protect public health in the event of hydraulic fracturing being approved in the UK.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 19 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Master 12 10%
Other 5 4%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 19 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 9%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Engineering 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 26 22%
Unknown 39 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2022.
All research outputs
#784,530
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Geochemistry and Health
#8
of 892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,615
of 425,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Geochemistry and Health
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 892 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.