3.3.4 Public health No assessment or evaluation of health risks has been carried out. The assessment of health risks is deferred to the site specific EIAs. Only direct pathways for impacts on human health are discussed. Indirect pathways, e.g. uptake of chemicals through soils into edible plants and the inhalation by livestock, to be consumed by communities, are not considered. Measures proposed to mitigate Community Health impacts are inadequate; they appear to be aimed at to convince the population that they are not at risk rather than doing anything ‘trying about the risk’. No evidence is presented to support the idea that risk associated with exploration wells is of a much smaller scale compared to production phase operations. It is commonly accepted that history contains many examples where we have been proven wrong because of expectations of linear associations between cause and effect. Not only are the chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing, potentially radioactive drill cuttings and other project inputs and outputs if concern with regard to potential health impacts, but their by-products, wastes and their possible combinations and interactions would be of concern. While cancer is a main concern, exposure to ionising radiation may lead to health consequences other than cancer. There is no discussion on the impact of operations on the waste stream, its Shell’s region’s capacity for landfill and hazardous waste management. 3.3.5 Heritage There is a paucity of information on heritage. The heritage of this region is very poorly understood. Apart from Prince Albert and Graaff Reinet, no heritage inventories of heritage assets of the rural towns and intervening farmland have been drawn up for the Karoo. There are very few archaeological studies; those that exist cover a minute fraction of the concession areas. It is noted that qualified specialists would be consulted should fossils or other artefacts be encountered during drilling. This measure is far too little, far too late: investigations should be proactive or else run a high risk of significant losses.
3.3.4 Public health No assessment or evaluation of health risks has been carried out. The assessment of health risks is deferred to the site specific EIAs. Only direct pathways for impacts on human health are discussed. Indirect pathways, e.g. uptake of chemicals through soils into edible plants and the inhalation by livestock, to be consumed by communities, are not considered. Measures proposed to mitigate Community Health impacts are inadequate; they appear to be aimed at ‘trying to convince the population that they are not at risk rather than doing anything about the risk’. No evidence is presented to support the idea that risk associated with exploration wells is of a much smaller scale compared to production phase operations. It is commonly accepted that history contains many examples where we have been proven wrong because of expectations of linear associations between cause and effect. Not only are the chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing, potentially radioactive drill cuttings and other project inputs and outputs if concern with regard to potential health impacts, but their by-products, wastes and their possible combinations and interactions would be of concern. While cancer is a main concern, exposure to ionising radiation may lead to health consequences other than cancer. There is no discussion on the impact of Shell’s operations on the region’s waste stream, its capacity for landfill and hazardous waste management. 3.3.5 Heritage There is a paucity of information on heritage. The heritage of this region is very poorly understood. Apart from Prince Albert and Graaff Reinet, no heritage inventories of heritage assets of the rural towns and intervening farmland have been drawn up for the Karoo. There are very few archaeological studies; those that exist cover a minute fraction of the concession areas. It is noted that qualified specialists would be consulted should fossils or other artefacts be encountered during drilling. This measure is far too little, far too late: investigations should be proactive or else run a high risk of significant losses.