Oil Industry Accused of Spreading Disinformation About Hydraulic Fracturing

In a pointed response to recent pro-fracking commentary, environmental advocates are challenging what they describe as industry disinformation regarding hydraulic fracturing in Ohio’s state parks and public lands.

A February 4 opinion piece published in The Canton Repository titled “Don’t buy into fracking scare tactics. It’s good for Ohio” has drawn criticism from Save Ohio Parks, a grassroots organization working to protect public lands from oil and gas development.

Melinda Zemper, a board member of Save Ohio Parks, has identified several problematic claims in the original opinion piece. She first defends the credentials of the organization’s founding member, Randi Pokladnik, describing her as “a chemist holding a doctorate degree in environmental science” and “one of Ohio’s most accurate, articulate experts on forest biodiversity and carbon capture and sequestration.”

Zemper counters accusations that Save Ohio Parks aims to hinder economic development by opposing fracking under state parks, suggesting instead that “supermajority lawmakers in our state have done a pretty good job of doing that on their own.”

The economic benefits of fracking in Ohio have fallen dramatically short of projections, according to Zemper. She cites a 2011 promise from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services that fracking would create 204,000 jobs in the state. However, the Ohio River Valley Institute’s “Frackalachia” study presents a starkly different reality: after 15 years of fracking activity, Ohio’s eight most heavily fracked counties have actually experienced declines in net jobs, income, and population since the so-called fracking boom began.

Health and environmental concerns represent another significant aspect of the fracking debate. Zemper references the “Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking,” now in its ninth edition. This comprehensive document compiles 2,000 abstracts from peer-reviewed global scientific and medical research. According to Zemper, physician reviewers of this compendium have concluded there is “no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health directly or without imperiling climate stability upon which human health depends.”

The regulatory framework governing fracking operations has also come under scrutiny. Zemper points to the “Halliburton loophole,” established in 2005, which exempts oil and gas operations from most major environmental laws. This regulatory gap allows companies to avoid disclosing the use of unregulated chemicals, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), by invoking trade secret protections.

Waste management presents additional hazards, according to Zemper. She characterizes fracking waste brine as “toxic and often radioactive,” noting that excessive radium exposure is known to cause cancer. Furthermore, as radium decays, it produces radon—which Zemper identifies as the second-leading cause of lung cancer in Ohio, behind only smoking.

The debate over fracking in Ohio highlights broader tensions between energy development and environmental protection playing out across the United States. While industry advocates tout economic benefits and energy independence, environmental groups like Save Ohio Parks emphasize long-term public health risks and ecological damage.

This controversy unfolds against a backdrop of increasing scrutiny of fossil fuel development nationwide, as concerns about climate change intensify and renewable energy alternatives become increasingly viable. For Ohio residents, the outcome of this debate could have lasting implications for both the state’s economy and the preservation of its natural resources for future generations.