FRACKING and HEALTH
[ http://sehn.org/fracking-and-health/ ]
SEHN Networker Volume 19 (1) Spring 2014
Concerned Health Professionals of New York respond to a study that exposes the endocrine-disrupting properties of several chemicals used in fracking. The larger coalition in New York working to keep their communities safe from fracking's harm, New Yorkers Against Fracking, was co-founded by SEHN Board Member Emeritus Sandra Steingraber.
Dear Friends in Environmental Health,
Attached (at end of article) is a statement released by Concerned Health Professionals of New York in response to the new study by Nagel et al. in Endocrinology. This paper describes the endocrine-disrupting abilities of a dozen commonly used fracking chemicals and also reports estrogen-and androgen-disrupting activity in water samples collected near fracking sites in Colorado.
These include samples taken from the Colorado River itself, whose watershed is intensely drilled and which provides water to 30 million people.
Here in the United States, pregnant women, infants, children, and breast cancer patients live everywhere that drilling and fracking operations occur. No requirement exists for the screening of endocrine-disrupting chemicals used in these operations, nor even for basic disclosure of their identity. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are biologically persistent, potent in small doses, and capable of exerting time-delayed health effects that are not always immediately apparent after exposure. As Phil Landrigan and others have demonstrated, the developmental effects of population-wide, early life exposures always carry with them high medical costs.
For these and other reasons, it seems to me, the ethical response on the part of the environmental health community is to reissue a call that many have made already: hit the pause button via a national moratorium on high volume, horizontal drilling and fracking and commence a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment with full public participation.
Instead of merely praising the public health triumph of a nationwide ban on leaded paint and leaded gasoline at the beginning of our powerpoint presentations, I am suggesting that we stage a reenactment.
Beyond that, there are other messages for us to ponder:
Given these findings in Colorado, what are the possible public health effects of opening for fracking the Delaware River basin, which is a source of drinking water for at least 15 million people?
What are the implications of intensive drilling in the Susquehanna River basin, which provides 45 percent of the freshwater to the Chesapeake Bay area?
What are the implications of opening up for drilling and fracking the heavy forested public lands near Washington DC?
And what are our responsibilities in both documenting human harm and in working to prevent it?
This study also makes it clear for me that endocrine disruption is not solely a public health issue relevant to the materials economy. It is also part of the struggle to reform our energy system. Indeed the two are inextricably intertwined: it is the shale gas boom-with all the EDC's involved in the extraction process-that is now driving the resurgent boom in plastics and farm chemicals manufacturing-with all the EDC's so created. This cheap abundance of petrochemicals undermines our collective efforts to bring about meaningful toxic chemical reform and investments in green chemistry and sustainable agriculture, while the cheap abundance of natural gas undermines efforts to decarbonize our energy system and address climate change in meaningful ways.
You will also find our statement along with a searchable archive of information on the health effects of shale gas development at
[ www.concernedhealthny.org ]
The response can be viewed here:
[ http://sehn.org/fracking-and-health/ ]
Sandra Steingraber, PhD
Distinguished Scholar in Residence
Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences
Ithaca College
Co-founder, Concerned Health Professionals of New York, New Yorkers Against Fracking.
FRACKING AND HEALTH
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
FRACKING AND HEALTH
by Oscar » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:53 pm
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9135
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Study - Proximity to Fracking Increases Risk of Birth Defec
by Oscar » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:56 pm
New Study Shows Proximity to Fracking Sites Increases Risk of Birth Defects
[ http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/30/study-fr ... h-defects/ ]
Brandon Baker | January 30, 2014 11:05 am |
The dangers of fracking [ http://ecowatch.com/category/news/energ ... racking-2/ ] are no secret, but a study released this week shows the devastating impact the process can have on babies before they even have a chance to live their lives.
The unborn children of pregnant women who live within a 10-mile radius of fracking sites [ http://ecowatch.com/2013/09/24/fracking ... -colorado/ ] are far more susceptible to congenital heart defects (CHD), according to Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential Proximity to Natural Gas Development in Rural Colorado, the latest study from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH) and Environmental Health Perspectives’ (EHP). [ http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1306722/ ]
The study examined data from 124,842 rural Colorado births from 1996 to 2009.
“We observed an association between density and proximity of natural gas wells within a 10-mile radius of maternal residence and prevalence of CHDs and possibly neural tube defects,” the study reads.
Gary Wockner, director of Clean Water Action’s Colorado program, had a more direct interpretation of the study.
[ http://www.cleanwateraction.org/feature ... o-director ]
“These findings suggest that fracking causes babies to be deformed—the more we learn about fracking, the worse it gets,” he said. “If you live near a fracking site and you want to have a healthy baby, you should consider moving.”
According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 26 percent of the more than 47,000 oil and gas wells in the state are located within 150 to 1000 feet of a home or other type of building that is intended for human occupancy.
“What’s most shocking is that this extremely dangerous industrial process of fracking has been allowed to occur with virtually no regulation and no study of the public health impacts,” Wockner said. “This study is revealing the terrible truth about fracking—it is a public health hazard, the breadth of which we are only beginning to know about.”
The six researchers listed on the study say they restricted the analysis to rural towns of 50,000 or less in 57 counties—those with less potential for other pollution sources like traffic, congestion and industry. Essentially, more wells in a given area increase the risk of birth defects. The group would not conclude that “a positive association” exists between fracking sites and early chances of a child birth impacted fetal growth, though both were listed among outcomes that occurred.
“Studies in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming and Oklahoma have demonstrated that natural gas development (NGD) results in emission of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from either the well itself or from associated drilling processes or related infrastructure, i.e., drilling muds, hydraulic fracturing fluids, tanks containing waste water and liquid hydrocarbons, diesel engines, compressor stations, dehydrators and pipelines,” the study reads.
“Some of these pollutants [e.g., toluene, xylenes, and benzene] are suspected teratogens or mutagens and are known to cross the placenta, raising the possibility of fetal exposure to these and other pollutants resulting from NGD. Currently, there are few studies on the effects of air pollution or NGD on birth outcomes.”
Other findings and birth defects include:
Endocardial cushion defect
Pulmonary valve atresia and stenosis
“Births to mothers in the most exposed tertile (> 125 wells/mile) had a 30 percent greater prevalence of CHDs than those with no wells in a 10-mile radius.”
Wockner said a citizens’ revolt against fracking is ongoing near Denver, with cities 0f more than 400,000 people voting to effectively ban fracking. He believes these results will change that.
[ http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/06/huge-ele ... -movement/ ]
“The results of this study will continue to escalate that revolt, and rightly so,” he said. “Fracking is a dangerous industrial process that uses cancer-causing chemicals—it has absolutely no place near communities where families live, work and play.”
[ http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/30/study-fr ... h-defects/ ]
Brandon Baker | January 30, 2014 11:05 am |
The dangers of fracking [ http://ecowatch.com/category/news/energ ... racking-2/ ] are no secret, but a study released this week shows the devastating impact the process can have on babies before they even have a chance to live their lives.
The unborn children of pregnant women who live within a 10-mile radius of fracking sites [ http://ecowatch.com/2013/09/24/fracking ... -colorado/ ] are far more susceptible to congenital heart defects (CHD), according to Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential Proximity to Natural Gas Development in Rural Colorado, the latest study from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH) and Environmental Health Perspectives’ (EHP). [ http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1306722/ ]
The study examined data from 124,842 rural Colorado births from 1996 to 2009.
“We observed an association between density and proximity of natural gas wells within a 10-mile radius of maternal residence and prevalence of CHDs and possibly neural tube defects,” the study reads.
Gary Wockner, director of Clean Water Action’s Colorado program, had a more direct interpretation of the study.
[ http://www.cleanwateraction.org/feature ... o-director ]
“These findings suggest that fracking causes babies to be deformed—the more we learn about fracking, the worse it gets,” he said. “If you live near a fracking site and you want to have a healthy baby, you should consider moving.”
According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 26 percent of the more than 47,000 oil and gas wells in the state are located within 150 to 1000 feet of a home or other type of building that is intended for human occupancy.
“What’s most shocking is that this extremely dangerous industrial process of fracking has been allowed to occur with virtually no regulation and no study of the public health impacts,” Wockner said. “This study is revealing the terrible truth about fracking—it is a public health hazard, the breadth of which we are only beginning to know about.”
The six researchers listed on the study say they restricted the analysis to rural towns of 50,000 or less in 57 counties—those with less potential for other pollution sources like traffic, congestion and industry. Essentially, more wells in a given area increase the risk of birth defects. The group would not conclude that “a positive association” exists between fracking sites and early chances of a child birth impacted fetal growth, though both were listed among outcomes that occurred.
“Studies in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming and Oklahoma have demonstrated that natural gas development (NGD) results in emission of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from either the well itself or from associated drilling processes or related infrastructure, i.e., drilling muds, hydraulic fracturing fluids, tanks containing waste water and liquid hydrocarbons, diesel engines, compressor stations, dehydrators and pipelines,” the study reads.
“Some of these pollutants [e.g., toluene, xylenes, and benzene] are suspected teratogens or mutagens and are known to cross the placenta, raising the possibility of fetal exposure to these and other pollutants resulting from NGD. Currently, there are few studies on the effects of air pollution or NGD on birth outcomes.”
Other findings and birth defects include:
Endocardial cushion defect
Pulmonary valve atresia and stenosis
“Births to mothers in the most exposed tertile (> 125 wells/mile) had a 30 percent greater prevalence of CHDs than those with no wells in a 10-mile radius.”
Wockner said a citizens’ revolt against fracking is ongoing near Denver, with cities 0f more than 400,000 people voting to effectively ban fracking. He believes these results will change that.
[ http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/06/huge-ele ... -movement/ ]
“The results of this study will continue to escalate that revolt, and rightly so,” he said. “Fracking is a dangerous industrial process that uses cancer-causing chemicals—it has absolutely no place near communities where families live, work and play.”
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9135
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Eco-Investigators Fracking Air Pollution Poisoning Families
by Oscar » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:58 pm
Eco-Investigators Say Fracking Air Pollution Is Poisoning Families in Texas
[ http://truth-out.org/news/item/18973-ec ... s-in-texas ]
Monday, 23 September 2013 10:00 By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report
Cameron Cerny moved with his mother and father to Karnes County in southern Texas 10 years ago. The 15-year-old boy used to take long bike rides through the country with his mother, Myra, but they don't take rides together much anymore. Karnes County is in the heart of the oil-rich Eagle Ford Shale formation, which has become a relatively new hotspot for intensive oil drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Since 2010, 18 oil wells were drilled or fracked within a mile from the Cernys' home, and a total of 37 existing wells, along with processing facilities and a wastewater injection well, operate within two miles of their home.
"[There's] loud trucks all day, there's smells that just smell horrible," Cerny told environmental investigators in July. "Nose bleeds all the time because of [this] stuff, in the middle of the night."
As oil production increased in their area, the Cernys and other residents began smelling odors described as "bad, terrible, chemical" and "rotten egg." They soon associated health problems such as headaches, nausea, rashes, burning eyes and nosebleeds with the bad odors.
In 2012, the Cernys and other residents filed a total of 30 air quality complaints with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), but, after the agency failed to provide them with an adequate response, the Cernys reached out to the environmental advocacy group Earthworks. The group's team of investigators, who had already investigated the health impacts of fracking in Pennsylvania, made some startling discoveries.
Officials Evacuate Fracking Facilities
Records requests filed by the investigators revealed that TCEQ field workers had visited facilities emitting pollution near the Cernys' home in 2012 on several occasions, and twice the officials evacuated themselves due to high levels of pollution in the air, according to a report released by Earthworks.
On March 1, 2012, TCEQ officials visited the Yosko Number 1 production facility, operated by the Marathon Company about a mile from the Cerny home. The officials evacuated after detecting volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a pollutant commonly released by oil and gas operations, at dangerously high levels.
"The recon team evacuated the area quickly to prevent exposure . . . this facility is less than a mile from the Complainant's residence," the TCEQ workers wrote in their field report.
In a statement to Truthout, TCEQ spokeswoman Lisa Wheeler said that Marathon employees were present when TCEQ investigators took the high VOC reading near the source of a leaking valve, and a repair team was radioed to the site.
It's not uncommon for regulatory officials to evacuate during investigations to protect their own safety, and they absolutely should, according to the Earthworks report. The regulators did email Marathon after the March 1 evacuation to notify the company that the Yosko facility should be shut down or repaired because a valve was leaking pollution, but Earthworks points out that TCEQ did not fine or issue a violation to the company for the leak.
Wheeler told Truthout that Marathon reported to TCEQ on March 5 that a valve leaking VOCs at the Yosko facility was repaired on March 1, the day of the evacuation during the TCEQ investigation.
A similar scenario played out on June 15, 2012, at another Marathon facility near the Cernys' home called Sugerhorn, when TCEQ officials were unable to take air pollution samples after their handheld safety devices detected dangerous amounts of VOCs in the air, according to the Earthworks report.
After receiving complaints of "nose bleeds," "rashes" and "eye irritants" from the Cernys later that summer, TCEQ officials visited the Sugerhorn site on August 15 and used special cameras to identify pollution emissions from venting petroleum tanks. On September 5, TCEQ inspectors informed Marathon that a flare, which burns off gases collected during the oil production process, was not burning.
In December 2012, Marathon alerted TCEQ that, during 12-hour periods on August 15 and September 5, the petroleum tanks and failed flare let loose carcinogenic chemical gases such as benzene, along with levels of VOCs and hydrogen sulfide, that exceeded permitted levels by up to 500 times.
Marathon was supposed to report such problems within 24 hours, but failed to do so for four months. TCEQ issued violations for late reporting and unauthorized discharge, but the agency did not collect any fines or issue penalties, Earthworks claims. Instead, Marathon simply informed TCEQ that its employees were given special trainings.
Failure to Notify Residents of Fracking Pollution
MORE:
[ http://truth-out.org/news/item/18973-ec ... s-in-texas ]
[ http://truth-out.org/news/item/18973-ec ... s-in-texas ]
Monday, 23 September 2013 10:00 By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report
Cameron Cerny moved with his mother and father to Karnes County in southern Texas 10 years ago. The 15-year-old boy used to take long bike rides through the country with his mother, Myra, but they don't take rides together much anymore. Karnes County is in the heart of the oil-rich Eagle Ford Shale formation, which has become a relatively new hotspot for intensive oil drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Since 2010, 18 oil wells were drilled or fracked within a mile from the Cernys' home, and a total of 37 existing wells, along with processing facilities and a wastewater injection well, operate within two miles of their home.
"[There's] loud trucks all day, there's smells that just smell horrible," Cerny told environmental investigators in July. "Nose bleeds all the time because of [this] stuff, in the middle of the night."
As oil production increased in their area, the Cernys and other residents began smelling odors described as "bad, terrible, chemical" and "rotten egg." They soon associated health problems such as headaches, nausea, rashes, burning eyes and nosebleeds with the bad odors.
In 2012, the Cernys and other residents filed a total of 30 air quality complaints with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), but, after the agency failed to provide them with an adequate response, the Cernys reached out to the environmental advocacy group Earthworks. The group's team of investigators, who had already investigated the health impacts of fracking in Pennsylvania, made some startling discoveries.
Officials Evacuate Fracking Facilities
Records requests filed by the investigators revealed that TCEQ field workers had visited facilities emitting pollution near the Cernys' home in 2012 on several occasions, and twice the officials evacuated themselves due to high levels of pollution in the air, according to a report released by Earthworks.
On March 1, 2012, TCEQ officials visited the Yosko Number 1 production facility, operated by the Marathon Company about a mile from the Cerny home. The officials evacuated after detecting volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a pollutant commonly released by oil and gas operations, at dangerously high levels.
"The recon team evacuated the area quickly to prevent exposure . . . this facility is less than a mile from the Complainant's residence," the TCEQ workers wrote in their field report.
In a statement to Truthout, TCEQ spokeswoman Lisa Wheeler said that Marathon employees were present when TCEQ investigators took the high VOC reading near the source of a leaking valve, and a repair team was radioed to the site.
It's not uncommon for regulatory officials to evacuate during investigations to protect their own safety, and they absolutely should, according to the Earthworks report. The regulators did email Marathon after the March 1 evacuation to notify the company that the Yosko facility should be shut down or repaired because a valve was leaking pollution, but Earthworks points out that TCEQ did not fine or issue a violation to the company for the leak.
Wheeler told Truthout that Marathon reported to TCEQ on March 5 that a valve leaking VOCs at the Yosko facility was repaired on March 1, the day of the evacuation during the TCEQ investigation.
A similar scenario played out on June 15, 2012, at another Marathon facility near the Cernys' home called Sugerhorn, when TCEQ officials were unable to take air pollution samples after their handheld safety devices detected dangerous amounts of VOCs in the air, according to the Earthworks report.
After receiving complaints of "nose bleeds," "rashes" and "eye irritants" from the Cernys later that summer, TCEQ officials visited the Sugerhorn site on August 15 and used special cameras to identify pollution emissions from venting petroleum tanks. On September 5, TCEQ inspectors informed Marathon that a flare, which burns off gases collected during the oil production process, was not burning.
In December 2012, Marathon alerted TCEQ that, during 12-hour periods on August 15 and September 5, the petroleum tanks and failed flare let loose carcinogenic chemical gases such as benzene, along with levels of VOCs and hydrogen sulfide, that exceeded permitted levels by up to 500 times.
Marathon was supposed to report such problems within 24 hours, but failed to do so for four months. TCEQ issued violations for late reporting and unauthorized discharge, but the agency did not collect any fines or issue penalties, Earthworks claims. Instead, Marathon simply informed TCEQ that its employees were given special trainings.
Failure to Notify Residents of Fracking Pollution
MORE:
[ http://truth-out.org/news/item/18973-ec ... s-in-texas ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9135
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Canadian "reviews" of hydraulic fracturing
by Oscar » Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:25 pm
Canadian "reviews" of hydraulic fracturing
----- Original Message -----
From: magog
To: premier@gov.ab.ca ; JV Anglin ; Brian Mason ; Duncan, Linda - M.P. ; Sorenson, Kevin - M.P. ; Prime Minister/Premier ministre ; danielle@wildrose.ca ; info@scienceadvice.ca ; David Swann ; amamail@albertadoctors.org ; health.ahcipmail@gov.ab.ca ; AHS.Corp@albertahealthservices.ca ; james.talbot@gov.ab.ca ; jason.hale@wildrose.ca ; minister.energy@gov.ab.ca ; Minister@ec.gc.ca
Cc: Jessica Ernst
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:37 PM
Subject: Canadian "reviews" of hydraulic fracturing
Dear Elected / Appointed Officials, Alberta's Chief Medical Officer of Health, Canada's Chief Public Health Officer (Email address not provided on Canadian Government Website, sent via [ http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/contact_cpho-eng.php#email ] and Council of Canadian Academies Panel to Understand the Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction
Is it possible that Mr. Peter Kent intentionally directed the two Canadian "reviews" of hydraulic fracturing to ignore health impacts? The comments by physician Angela LeGresley of New Brunswick at the first link are excellent and well worth 7 minutes of your time. The link to the Colorado Health study she mentions I included below for your convenience. I respectfully request that the two federal "reviews" include health impacts. Otherwise, they'll be meaningless. The panel for the Council of Canadian Academies was just selected recently so there is time to include review of the health impacts (and lack of appropriate "study") completely, honestly, with due diligence, integrity and courage. So what if Mr. Harper fires you for exposing the truth? At least you will sleep well at night.
Jessica Ernst
- - - - - -
WATCH: Episode 1- New Brunswick Government Shale Gas Session, Dr. Angela LeGresley
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhFxqAIy ... ure=relmfu ]
7:09 Min. byCCNBActionTV, July 12, 2012
“I made it known that I was a physician…I made my health concerns known and stood up despite being very intimidated surrounded by oil and gas industry people and politicians.”
… “If they have an abundance of peer-reviewed studies, health impact assessments, etc., all the kind of things that would reassure me, and I need more than regulations to reassure me, I need, as a physician I need more than that…if they have this kind of thing, they should be giving it to me I think. They should be responding to my letters, they should be calling me.”
… “I would just encourage them if they had that information to get a hold of me but, I know that most of the peer-reviewed information has only started in April 2011 and that’s why we need a lot more of it, we need more studies, and that’s why we cannot go forward right now. We need a moratorium. The Moncton City Hospital physicians have voted for a moratorium.” [Standing ovation]
… “You probably already know that The [New Brunswick] College of Family Physicians have also voted for moratorium and I would be willing to say that there are going to be more physicians following this.”
… “Try to get answers, I’m not sure how to get them to respond….”
… “We need health impact assessments, not just environmental impact assessments, there is only one that I know of, and that was in Colorado.”
… “I think the people have spoken.”
… “It’s not just a few little wells, they need to frac a lot”
… “I will sleep well at night, knowing that I spoke up.” [Standing ovation]
- - - - -
New Brunswick College of Family Physicians seek hydro-fracking moratorium
Doctors seek hydro-fracking moratorium, New Brunswick College of Family Physicians writes letter to legislature
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-bruns ... orium.html ]
by CBC News, April 25, 2012
Doctors are worried the potential risks outweigh the benefits, president Dr. Anick Pelletier stated in a recent letter to members of the legislature on the issue. “By this letter, we are urging you to protect our valuable resources and the public’s health by putting a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing development in New Brunswick until further research can prove that the benefits clearly outweigh the risk of this practice,” Pelletier wrote. The group, which represents about 700 family doctors in the province, is concerned about the potential contamination of public water supplies, as well as possible air pollution or toxic spills, she said.
- - - - - -
Air emissions near natural gas drilling sites may contribute to health problems
[ http://www.news-medical.net/news/201203 ... blems.aspx ]
by News-Medical.net, March 19, 2012
“Our data show that it is important to include air pollution in the national dialogue on natural gas development that has focused largely on water exposures to hydraulic fracturing,” said Lisa McKenzie, Ph.D., MPH, lead author of the study and research associate at the Colorado School of Public Health. The study will be published in an upcoming edition of Science of the Total Environment. “The report, based on three years of monitoring, found a number of potentially toxic petroleum hydrocarbons in the air near the wells including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene. Benzene has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a known carcinogen. Other chemicals included heptane, octane and diethylbenzene but information on their toxicity is limited.”… “The greatest health impact corresponds to the relatively short-term, but high emission, well completion period.” That’s due to exposure to trimethylbenzenes, aliaphatic hydrocarbons, and xylenes, all of which have neurological and/or respiratory effects, the study said. Those effects could include eye irritation, headaches, sore throat and difficulty breathing.
- - - - -
Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources
[ http://www.erierising.com/human-health- ... resources/ ]
by Lisa M. McKenziea, Roxana Z. Wittera, Lee S. Newmana, John L. Adgatea, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado,
March 19, 2012, erierising
Results: Residents living ≤ ½ mile from wells are at greater risk for health effects from NGD than are residents living > ½ mile from wells. Subchronic exposures to air pollutants during well completion activities present the greatest potential for health effects. The subchronic non-cancer hazard index (HI) of 5 for residents ≤ ½ mile from wells was driven primarily by exposure to trimethylbenzenes, xylenes, and aliphatic hydrocarbons. Chronic HIs were 1 and 0.4. for residents ≤ ½ mile from wells and > ½ mile from wells, respectively. Cumulative cancer risks were 10 in a million and 6 in a million for residents living ≤ ½ mile and > ½ mile from wells, respectively, with benzene as the major contributor to the risk.
- - - - - -
Fracking Moratorium Urged By U.S. Doctors Until Health Studies Conducted
[ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-0 ... ucted.html ]
by Alex Wayne, January 9, 2012, Bloomberg
Gas producers should set up a foundation to finance studies on fracking and independent research is also needed, said Jerome Paulson, a pediatrician at George Washington University School of Medicine in Washington. Top independent producers include Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK) and Devon Energy Corp. (DVN), both of Oklahoma City, and Encana Corp. (ECA)of Calgary, according to Bloomberg Industries.
“We’ve got to push the pause button, and maybe we’ve got to push the stop button” on fracking, said Adam Law, an endocrinologist at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, in an interview at a conference in Arlington, Virginia that’s the first to examine criteria for studying the process.
… The industry, though, hasn’t disclosed enough information on chemicals used, Paulson said, raising concerns about tainted drinking water supplies and a call for peer- reviewed studies on the effects.
… “We need to understand fully all of the chemicals that are shot into the ground, that could impact the water that children drink,” Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a phone interview. The industry is trying “to block that information from being public,” he said. The gas industry has used hydraulic fracturing for 65 years in 30 states with a “demonstrable history of safe operations,” said Chris Tucker, a spokesman for Energy In Depth, a Washington-based research and advocacy group financed by oil and gas interests, in an e-mail. Drilling in shale deposits in the eastern U.S. began in 2004. Gas drillers have to report to the U.S., state and local authorities any chemicals used in fracking that are “considered hazardous in high concentrations” in case of spills or other emergencies, Tucker said. Those reports don’t include amounts or concentrations, he said. The industry created a public website last April for companies to voluntarily report lists of chemicals used in individual wells, including concentrations. Colorado and Wyoming have passed laws requiring drillers to file reports to the website, Tucker said.
Despite those disclosures, U.S. officials say they don’t know all of the hazards associated with fracking chemicals. “We don’t know the chemicals that are involved, really; we sort of generally know,” Vikas Kapil, chief medical officer at National Center for Environmental Health, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the conference. “We don’t have a great handle on the toxicology of fracking chemicals.” The government has found anecdotal evidence that drilling can contaminate water supplies. In December, the EPA reported that underground aquifers and drinking wells in Pavillion, Wyoming, contained compounds that probably came from gas drilling, including glycols, alcohols, benzene and methane. The CDC has detected “explosive levels of methane” in two wells near gas sites in Medina, Ohio, Kapil said. He said he wasn’t authorized to take reporters’ questions after his presentation. Fluids used in hydraulic fracturing contain “potentially hazardous chemical classes,” Kapil’s boss, Christopher Portier, director of The National Center for Environmental Health, said last week. The compounds include petroleum distillates, volatile organic compounds and glycol ethers, he said. Wastewater from the wells can contain salts and radiation, Portier said. … A moratorium on fracking pending more health research “would be reasonable,” said Paulson, who heads the Mid- Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the Environment in Washington, in an interview. … Tucker called the CDC’s participation in the conference “disappointing,”
- - - - -
Alberta Health CEO Bayliss steps down
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/alberta ... steps-down
by Darcy Henton, December 8, 2006, Edmonton Sun
Since he took the province’s top health officer job in 2000, he has been involved in health issues like infectious diseases, water quality and food safety. Bayliss, who oversees health region medical health officers, says the critical issue in public health today is the inequity and disparity of health status. He says the poorest and least educated Albertans are the most prone to chronic diseases. Bayliss serves on the Alberta Water Council, the Pan-Canadian Public Health Network Council and the Council for Chief Medical Officers of Health.
Permalink to: Alberta Health CEO Bayliss steps down
- - - - -
Investigators say an accumulation of gases appears to have caused the explosion that destroyed the Rosebud water tower and sent a Wheatland County employee to hospital
[ http://www.strathmorestandard.com/Artic ... &e=2417633 ]
by Strathmore Standard, January 27, 2005
Tracy Gooler, Wheatland County constable and manager of protective services, said that the county’s water operator, John Garvin, was endeavoring to thaw out an inlet supply line, to the portable water reservoir in Rosebud, with a propane tiger torch at about 2:30 p.m. “He had done his checks,” Gooler said, adding that when the match was struck to light the torch, an explosion occurred. … Gooler said the operator was unable to detect the gases by smell and did not use a detection device. Garvin sustained non-life threatening, but fairly substantial injuries, including two broken wrists and some burns to the face and hands. … Alberta Environment and Occupational Health and Safety are working with the county to ensure standards are met and continue investigation into the mishap.
Permalink to: Investigators say an accumulation of gases appears to have caused the explosion that destroyed the Rosebud water tower and sent a Wheatland County employee to hospital
Above summaries posted at
[ www.ernstversusencana.ca ]
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst
Box 753 Rosebud, Alberta T0J 2T0
1-403-677-2074
- - - - -
On 7/20/2012 3:20 PM, magog wrote:
Dear Elected / Appointed Officials, Alberta's Chief Medical Officer of Health, Canada's Chief Public Health Officer (Email address not provided on Canadian Government Website, sent via [ http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/contact_cpho-eng.php#email ] and Council of Canadian Academies Panel to Understand the Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction
Link Between Low Birth Weight and Fracking, Says New Research
[ http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united- ... 67746.html ]
by Kristen Meriwether, July 19, 2012, Epoch Times
“A mother’s exposure to fracking before birth increases the overall prevalence of low birth weight by 25 percent,” said Elaine L. Hill, Cornell University doctoral candidate and author of the working paper, “Unconventional Natural Gas Development and Infant Health:
Evidence from Pennsylvania.” Hill also found a 17 percent increase in “small for gestational age” births, and reduced health scores. She spoke at a fracking forum hosted by Sen. Tony Avella in New York City Wednesday. Hill’s paper looked at birth measures, including birth weight and premature birth, for those born in Pennsylvania starting in 2003, before fracking began. The study used data through 2010 and focused on those living up to 1.5 miles from gas development sites. Pennsylvania increased its unconventional natural gas wells from 20 in 2007 to 4,272 by the end of 2010.
… Hill’s working paper will not be published until it passes a peer review—a huge risk for a doctoral student who does not share the same protection as a tenured professor. “I think the courage she is showing today in coming forward and speaking truth to power should be matched by other acts of courage by members of our own state government,” Sandra Steingraber, distinguished scholar in residence for the department of environmental studies at Ithaca College, said before Hill’s testimony.
Steingraber said she believes Hill’s paper should be peer reviewed, but also feels science is having a tough time keeping up with the rush to get new fracking measures in place. Hill said it may take up to two years to finish the review process, at which time new fracking regulations will likely already be in place.
“My study is robust across multiple specifications and it indicates that our future generation may be seriously harmed. I couldn’t possibly value my career over their well-being,” Hill said by email on Thursday.
… “According to current estimates, a single low birth weight infant costs society, on average, $51,000 during the first year of life,” Hill said, adding that that did not include long-term costs for the child or decrease in parental earnings.
- - - - -
The hidden health risks of fracking, Nurses demand disclosure of chemicals used in natural gas drilling
[ http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-0 ... atural-gas ]
by Katie Huffling, July 19, 2012, Baltimore Sun
Imagine you are a nurse working in an emergency room, and a worker on a gas fracking well comes in covered in chemicals used in the drilling process. You call the gas company to find out what chemicals are being used to help in your assessment of possible health risks to your patient, and even yourself, but find out they don’t have to disclose this information. Or, imagine you are a public health nurse in a community with many natural gas fracking wells, and you notice complaints of well-water contamination. How can you assess the extent of the issue without baseline data on water quality or knowledge of the chemicals used in the fracking process? As nurses, we strongly support our right to know in order to protect the health of our communities and the environment.
That’s why the American Nurses Association House of Delegates last month passed a resolution highlighting the important role nurses play in advocating for the health of their patients and communities when faced with fracking. As the number of natural-gas fracking wells has increased exponentially over the past 20 years, the public’s right to know what chemicals are used in this process has become imperative to protect the public health. Fracking chemicals now being found in our water supplies have been linked to cancer and kidney, liver and neurological damage. Nurses working in rural areas are also describing how the quality of life in rural communities is being destroyed by drilling, well operations and truck traffic associated with fracking. Because fracking is fairly new in many areas, statutory or regulatory processes have not adequately ensured health and environmental safety. In areas where fracking is taking place, the public is looking to nurses and other health care providers for answers. However, health care workers do not have access to vital chemical information. A new report evaluating how states are dealing with fracking concludes that “no state is requiring enough upfront collection of baseline data and ongoing monitoring of drilling operations to ensure adequate protection of local water supplies and public health.”
… States should not allow gas companies to claim blanket “trade secret” exemptions to avoid releasing chemical information. This loophole hampers the ability of health care professionals to monitor for exposures and health effects. If it doesn’t get fixed, then companies can claim any chemical is a trade secret, and disclosure becomes a farce. Pepsi and Coke publish the ingredients in their products on every can; the producers of fracking chemicals can do the same without revealing exact formulas that would put a company at a competitive disadvantage. Companies don’t want to disclose the chemicals because they know the substances are dangerous, and the industry knows the public would want to stop their use.
REPORT: The Right to Know, the Responsibility to Protect: State Actions Are Inadequate to Ensure Effective Disclosure of the Chemicals Used in Natural Gas Fracking
[ http://www.ombwatch.org/naturalgasfrackingdisclosure ]
- - - - - -
above summaries posted at
[ www.ernstversusencana.ca ]
Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst
Box 753 Rosebud, Alberta T0J 2T0
1-403-677-2074
= = = = =
Frackers fund university research that proves their case.
As the United States enjoys a natural gas boom from hydraulic fracturing, producers are taking a page from the tobacco industry playbook: funding research at established universities that arrives at conclusions that counter concerns raised by critics. Bloomberg News
[ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-2 ... -case.html ]
- - - - - -
The Fracking Boom: Missing Answers : NPR
[ www.npr.org ] › News › Science May 16, 2012
Many residents of Dish, Texas, blame the fracking operations that surround their tiny town for a host of health problems — from nosebleeds to ...
- - - - -
Stop fracking in Canada
[ www.canadians.org/fracking ]
The Council of Canadians opposes fracking because of its high water use, its high carbon emissions, its impacts on human health, the disruption it causes to ...
- - - - -
For Pennsylvania's Doctors, a Gag Order on Fracking Chemicals
[ www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012 ... ../255030/ ]
27 Mar 2012 – A new provision could forbid the state's doctors from sharing information with patients exposed to toxic—and proprietary—fracking solutions.
Air emissions near fracking sites may pose health risk, study shows ...
[ www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120319095008.htm ]
19 Mar 2012 – In a new study, researchers have shown that air pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing or fracking may contribute to acute and chronic health ...
- - - -
Fracking could pose health threat - Telegraph
[ www.telegraph.co.uk ]Earth › Environment
19 Mar 2012 – Fracking could pose health threat. The controversial drilling process known as "fracking" may release harmful gases into the atmosphere which ...
- - - -
Fracking Concerns Turn To Worker Health Hazards And Potential ...
[ www.forbes.com/.../fracking-concerns-tu ... -hazards... ]
22 Jun 2012 – To-date, concerns surrounding hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking, have been focused mainly on environmental risks. Now it ...
- - - - -
Fracking Wells' Air Emissions Pose Health Risks, Study Finds ...
[ www.businessweek.com/.../fracking-wells ... health-r... ]
19 Mar 2012 – Chemicals released into the air when natural gas is produced by hydraulic fracturing may pose a health risk to those living nearby, the ...
----- Original Message -----
From: magog
To: premier@gov.ab.ca ; JV Anglin ; Brian Mason ; Duncan, Linda - M.P. ; Sorenson, Kevin - M.P. ; Prime Minister/Premier ministre ; danielle@wildrose.ca ; info@scienceadvice.ca ; David Swann ; amamail@albertadoctors.org ; health.ahcipmail@gov.ab.ca ; AHS.Corp@albertahealthservices.ca ; james.talbot@gov.ab.ca ; jason.hale@wildrose.ca ; minister.energy@gov.ab.ca ; Minister@ec.gc.ca
Cc: Jessica Ernst
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:37 PM
Subject: Canadian "reviews" of hydraulic fracturing
Dear Elected / Appointed Officials, Alberta's Chief Medical Officer of Health, Canada's Chief Public Health Officer (Email address not provided on Canadian Government Website, sent via [ http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/contact_cpho-eng.php#email ] and Council of Canadian Academies Panel to Understand the Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction
Is it possible that Mr. Peter Kent intentionally directed the two Canadian "reviews" of hydraulic fracturing to ignore health impacts? The comments by physician Angela LeGresley of New Brunswick at the first link are excellent and well worth 7 minutes of your time. The link to the Colorado Health study she mentions I included below for your convenience. I respectfully request that the two federal "reviews" include health impacts. Otherwise, they'll be meaningless. The panel for the Council of Canadian Academies was just selected recently so there is time to include review of the health impacts (and lack of appropriate "study") completely, honestly, with due diligence, integrity and courage. So what if Mr. Harper fires you for exposing the truth? At least you will sleep well at night.
Jessica Ernst
- - - - - -
WATCH: Episode 1- New Brunswick Government Shale Gas Session, Dr. Angela LeGresley
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhFxqAIy ... ure=relmfu ]
7:09 Min. byCCNBActionTV, July 12, 2012
“I made it known that I was a physician…I made my health concerns known and stood up despite being very intimidated surrounded by oil and gas industry people and politicians.”
… “If they have an abundance of peer-reviewed studies, health impact assessments, etc., all the kind of things that would reassure me, and I need more than regulations to reassure me, I need, as a physician I need more than that…if they have this kind of thing, they should be giving it to me I think. They should be responding to my letters, they should be calling me.”
… “I would just encourage them if they had that information to get a hold of me but, I know that most of the peer-reviewed information has only started in April 2011 and that’s why we need a lot more of it, we need more studies, and that’s why we cannot go forward right now. We need a moratorium. The Moncton City Hospital physicians have voted for a moratorium.” [Standing ovation]
… “You probably already know that The [New Brunswick] College of Family Physicians have also voted for moratorium and I would be willing to say that there are going to be more physicians following this.”
… “Try to get answers, I’m not sure how to get them to respond….”
… “We need health impact assessments, not just environmental impact assessments, there is only one that I know of, and that was in Colorado.”
… “I think the people have spoken.”
… “It’s not just a few little wells, they need to frac a lot”
… “I will sleep well at night, knowing that I spoke up.” [Standing ovation]
- - - - -
New Brunswick College of Family Physicians seek hydro-fracking moratorium
Doctors seek hydro-fracking moratorium, New Brunswick College of Family Physicians writes letter to legislature
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-bruns ... orium.html ]
by CBC News, April 25, 2012
Doctors are worried the potential risks outweigh the benefits, president Dr. Anick Pelletier stated in a recent letter to members of the legislature on the issue. “By this letter, we are urging you to protect our valuable resources and the public’s health by putting a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing development in New Brunswick until further research can prove that the benefits clearly outweigh the risk of this practice,” Pelletier wrote. The group, which represents about 700 family doctors in the province, is concerned about the potential contamination of public water supplies, as well as possible air pollution or toxic spills, she said.
- - - - - -
Air emissions near natural gas drilling sites may contribute to health problems
[ http://www.news-medical.net/news/201203 ... blems.aspx ]
by News-Medical.net, March 19, 2012
“Our data show that it is important to include air pollution in the national dialogue on natural gas development that has focused largely on water exposures to hydraulic fracturing,” said Lisa McKenzie, Ph.D., MPH, lead author of the study and research associate at the Colorado School of Public Health. The study will be published in an upcoming edition of Science of the Total Environment. “The report, based on three years of monitoring, found a number of potentially toxic petroleum hydrocarbons in the air near the wells including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene. Benzene has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a known carcinogen. Other chemicals included heptane, octane and diethylbenzene but information on their toxicity is limited.”… “The greatest health impact corresponds to the relatively short-term, but high emission, well completion period.” That’s due to exposure to trimethylbenzenes, aliaphatic hydrocarbons, and xylenes, all of which have neurological and/or respiratory effects, the study said. Those effects could include eye irritation, headaches, sore throat and difficulty breathing.
- - - - -
Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources
[ http://www.erierising.com/human-health- ... resources/ ]
by Lisa M. McKenziea, Roxana Z. Wittera, Lee S. Newmana, John L. Adgatea, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado,
March 19, 2012, erierising
Results: Residents living ≤ ½ mile from wells are at greater risk for health effects from NGD than are residents living > ½ mile from wells. Subchronic exposures to air pollutants during well completion activities present the greatest potential for health effects. The subchronic non-cancer hazard index (HI) of 5 for residents ≤ ½ mile from wells was driven primarily by exposure to trimethylbenzenes, xylenes, and aliphatic hydrocarbons. Chronic HIs were 1 and 0.4. for residents ≤ ½ mile from wells and > ½ mile from wells, respectively. Cumulative cancer risks were 10 in a million and 6 in a million for residents living ≤ ½ mile and > ½ mile from wells, respectively, with benzene as the major contributor to the risk.
- - - - - -
Fracking Moratorium Urged By U.S. Doctors Until Health Studies Conducted
[ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-0 ... ucted.html ]
by Alex Wayne, January 9, 2012, Bloomberg
Gas producers should set up a foundation to finance studies on fracking and independent research is also needed, said Jerome Paulson, a pediatrician at George Washington University School of Medicine in Washington. Top independent producers include Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK) and Devon Energy Corp. (DVN), both of Oklahoma City, and Encana Corp. (ECA)of Calgary, according to Bloomberg Industries.
“We’ve got to push the pause button, and maybe we’ve got to push the stop button” on fracking, said Adam Law, an endocrinologist at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, in an interview at a conference in Arlington, Virginia that’s the first to examine criteria for studying the process.
… The industry, though, hasn’t disclosed enough information on chemicals used, Paulson said, raising concerns about tainted drinking water supplies and a call for peer- reviewed studies on the effects.
… “We need to understand fully all of the chemicals that are shot into the ground, that could impact the water that children drink,” Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a phone interview. The industry is trying “to block that information from being public,” he said. The gas industry has used hydraulic fracturing for 65 years in 30 states with a “demonstrable history of safe operations,” said Chris Tucker, a spokesman for Energy In Depth, a Washington-based research and advocacy group financed by oil and gas interests, in an e-mail. Drilling in shale deposits in the eastern U.S. began in 2004. Gas drillers have to report to the U.S., state and local authorities any chemicals used in fracking that are “considered hazardous in high concentrations” in case of spills or other emergencies, Tucker said. Those reports don’t include amounts or concentrations, he said. The industry created a public website last April for companies to voluntarily report lists of chemicals used in individual wells, including concentrations. Colorado and Wyoming have passed laws requiring drillers to file reports to the website, Tucker said.
Despite those disclosures, U.S. officials say they don’t know all of the hazards associated with fracking chemicals. “We don’t know the chemicals that are involved, really; we sort of generally know,” Vikas Kapil, chief medical officer at National Center for Environmental Health, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the conference. “We don’t have a great handle on the toxicology of fracking chemicals.” The government has found anecdotal evidence that drilling can contaminate water supplies. In December, the EPA reported that underground aquifers and drinking wells in Pavillion, Wyoming, contained compounds that probably came from gas drilling, including glycols, alcohols, benzene and methane. The CDC has detected “explosive levels of methane” in two wells near gas sites in Medina, Ohio, Kapil said. He said he wasn’t authorized to take reporters’ questions after his presentation. Fluids used in hydraulic fracturing contain “potentially hazardous chemical classes,” Kapil’s boss, Christopher Portier, director of The National Center for Environmental Health, said last week. The compounds include petroleum distillates, volatile organic compounds and glycol ethers, he said. Wastewater from the wells can contain salts and radiation, Portier said. … A moratorium on fracking pending more health research “would be reasonable,” said Paulson, who heads the Mid- Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the Environment in Washington, in an interview. … Tucker called the CDC’s participation in the conference “disappointing,”
- - - - -
Alberta Health CEO Bayliss steps down
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/alberta ... steps-down
by Darcy Henton, December 8, 2006, Edmonton Sun
Since he took the province’s top health officer job in 2000, he has been involved in health issues like infectious diseases, water quality and food safety. Bayliss, who oversees health region medical health officers, says the critical issue in public health today is the inequity and disparity of health status. He says the poorest and least educated Albertans are the most prone to chronic diseases. Bayliss serves on the Alberta Water Council, the Pan-Canadian Public Health Network Council and the Council for Chief Medical Officers of Health.
Permalink to: Alberta Health CEO Bayliss steps down
- - - - -
Investigators say an accumulation of gases appears to have caused the explosion that destroyed the Rosebud water tower and sent a Wheatland County employee to hospital
[ http://www.strathmorestandard.com/Artic ... &e=2417633 ]
by Strathmore Standard, January 27, 2005
Tracy Gooler, Wheatland County constable and manager of protective services, said that the county’s water operator, John Garvin, was endeavoring to thaw out an inlet supply line, to the portable water reservoir in Rosebud, with a propane tiger torch at about 2:30 p.m. “He had done his checks,” Gooler said, adding that when the match was struck to light the torch, an explosion occurred. … Gooler said the operator was unable to detect the gases by smell and did not use a detection device. Garvin sustained non-life threatening, but fairly substantial injuries, including two broken wrists and some burns to the face and hands. … Alberta Environment and Occupational Health and Safety are working with the county to ensure standards are met and continue investigation into the mishap.
Permalink to: Investigators say an accumulation of gases appears to have caused the explosion that destroyed the Rosebud water tower and sent a Wheatland County employee to hospital
Above summaries posted at
[ www.ernstversusencana.ca ]
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst
Box 753 Rosebud, Alberta T0J 2T0
1-403-677-2074
- - - - -
On 7/20/2012 3:20 PM, magog wrote:
Dear Elected / Appointed Officials, Alberta's Chief Medical Officer of Health, Canada's Chief Public Health Officer (Email address not provided on Canadian Government Website, sent via [ http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/contact_cpho-eng.php#email ] and Council of Canadian Academies Panel to Understand the Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction
Link Between Low Birth Weight and Fracking, Says New Research
[ http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united- ... 67746.html ]
by Kristen Meriwether, July 19, 2012, Epoch Times
“A mother’s exposure to fracking before birth increases the overall prevalence of low birth weight by 25 percent,” said Elaine L. Hill, Cornell University doctoral candidate and author of the working paper, “Unconventional Natural Gas Development and Infant Health:
Evidence from Pennsylvania.” Hill also found a 17 percent increase in “small for gestational age” births, and reduced health scores. She spoke at a fracking forum hosted by Sen. Tony Avella in New York City Wednesday. Hill’s paper looked at birth measures, including birth weight and premature birth, for those born in Pennsylvania starting in 2003, before fracking began. The study used data through 2010 and focused on those living up to 1.5 miles from gas development sites. Pennsylvania increased its unconventional natural gas wells from 20 in 2007 to 4,272 by the end of 2010.
… Hill’s working paper will not be published until it passes a peer review—a huge risk for a doctoral student who does not share the same protection as a tenured professor. “I think the courage she is showing today in coming forward and speaking truth to power should be matched by other acts of courage by members of our own state government,” Sandra Steingraber, distinguished scholar in residence for the department of environmental studies at Ithaca College, said before Hill’s testimony.
Steingraber said she believes Hill’s paper should be peer reviewed, but also feels science is having a tough time keeping up with the rush to get new fracking measures in place. Hill said it may take up to two years to finish the review process, at which time new fracking regulations will likely already be in place.
“My study is robust across multiple specifications and it indicates that our future generation may be seriously harmed. I couldn’t possibly value my career over their well-being,” Hill said by email on Thursday.
… “According to current estimates, a single low birth weight infant costs society, on average, $51,000 during the first year of life,” Hill said, adding that that did not include long-term costs for the child or decrease in parental earnings.
- - - - -
The hidden health risks of fracking, Nurses demand disclosure of chemicals used in natural gas drilling
[ http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-0 ... atural-gas ]
by Katie Huffling, July 19, 2012, Baltimore Sun
Imagine you are a nurse working in an emergency room, and a worker on a gas fracking well comes in covered in chemicals used in the drilling process. You call the gas company to find out what chemicals are being used to help in your assessment of possible health risks to your patient, and even yourself, but find out they don’t have to disclose this information. Or, imagine you are a public health nurse in a community with many natural gas fracking wells, and you notice complaints of well-water contamination. How can you assess the extent of the issue without baseline data on water quality or knowledge of the chemicals used in the fracking process? As nurses, we strongly support our right to know in order to protect the health of our communities and the environment.
That’s why the American Nurses Association House of Delegates last month passed a resolution highlighting the important role nurses play in advocating for the health of their patients and communities when faced with fracking. As the number of natural-gas fracking wells has increased exponentially over the past 20 years, the public’s right to know what chemicals are used in this process has become imperative to protect the public health. Fracking chemicals now being found in our water supplies have been linked to cancer and kidney, liver and neurological damage. Nurses working in rural areas are also describing how the quality of life in rural communities is being destroyed by drilling, well operations and truck traffic associated with fracking. Because fracking is fairly new in many areas, statutory or regulatory processes have not adequately ensured health and environmental safety. In areas where fracking is taking place, the public is looking to nurses and other health care providers for answers. However, health care workers do not have access to vital chemical information. A new report evaluating how states are dealing with fracking concludes that “no state is requiring enough upfront collection of baseline data and ongoing monitoring of drilling operations to ensure adequate protection of local water supplies and public health.”
… States should not allow gas companies to claim blanket “trade secret” exemptions to avoid releasing chemical information. This loophole hampers the ability of health care professionals to monitor for exposures and health effects. If it doesn’t get fixed, then companies can claim any chemical is a trade secret, and disclosure becomes a farce. Pepsi and Coke publish the ingredients in their products on every can; the producers of fracking chemicals can do the same without revealing exact formulas that would put a company at a competitive disadvantage. Companies don’t want to disclose the chemicals because they know the substances are dangerous, and the industry knows the public would want to stop their use.
REPORT: The Right to Know, the Responsibility to Protect: State Actions Are Inadequate to Ensure Effective Disclosure of the Chemicals Used in Natural Gas Fracking
[ http://www.ombwatch.org/naturalgasfrackingdisclosure ]
- - - - - -
above summaries posted at
[ www.ernstversusencana.ca ]
Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst
Box 753 Rosebud, Alberta T0J 2T0
1-403-677-2074
= = = = =
Frackers fund university research that proves their case.
As the United States enjoys a natural gas boom from hydraulic fracturing, producers are taking a page from the tobacco industry playbook: funding research at established universities that arrives at conclusions that counter concerns raised by critics. Bloomberg News
[ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-2 ... -case.html ]
- - - - - -
The Fracking Boom: Missing Answers : NPR
[ www.npr.org ] › News › Science May 16, 2012
Many residents of Dish, Texas, blame the fracking operations that surround their tiny town for a host of health problems — from nosebleeds to ...
- - - - -
Stop fracking in Canada
[ www.canadians.org/fracking ]
The Council of Canadians opposes fracking because of its high water use, its high carbon emissions, its impacts on human health, the disruption it causes to ...
- - - - -
For Pennsylvania's Doctors, a Gag Order on Fracking Chemicals
[ www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012 ... ../255030/ ]
27 Mar 2012 – A new provision could forbid the state's doctors from sharing information with patients exposed to toxic—and proprietary—fracking solutions.
Air emissions near fracking sites may pose health risk, study shows ...
[ www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120319095008.htm ]
19 Mar 2012 – In a new study, researchers have shown that air pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing or fracking may contribute to acute and chronic health ...
- - - -
Fracking could pose health threat - Telegraph
[ www.telegraph.co.uk ]Earth › Environment
19 Mar 2012 – Fracking could pose health threat. The controversial drilling process known as "fracking" may release harmful gases into the atmosphere which ...
- - - -
Fracking Concerns Turn To Worker Health Hazards And Potential ...
[ www.forbes.com/.../fracking-concerns-tu ... -hazards... ]
22 Jun 2012 – To-date, concerns surrounding hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking, have been focused mainly on environmental risks. Now it ...
- - - - -
Fracking Wells' Air Emissions Pose Health Risks, Study Finds ...
[ www.businessweek.com/.../fracking-wells ... health-r... ]
19 Mar 2012 – Chemicals released into the air when natural gas is produced by hydraulic fracturing may pose a health risk to those living nearby, the ...
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9135
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Drilling for Certainty: The Latest in Fracking Health Studie
by Oscar » Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:38 pm
Drilling for Certainty: The Latest in Fracking Health Studies
[ http://www.propublica.org/article/drill ... th-studies ]
ProPublica surveys some recent research on potential health implications of hydro fracking.
by Naveena Sadasivam ProPublica, March 5, 2014, 12:02 p.m.
For years, environmentalists and the gas drilling industry have been in a pitched battle over the possible health implications of hydro fracking. But to a great extent, the debate — as well as the emerging lawsuits and the various proposed regulations in numerous states — has been hampered by a shortage of science.
In 2011, when ProPublica first reported [ http://www.propublica.org/article/scien ... gas-fields ] on the different health problems afflicting people living near gas drilling operations, only a handful of health studies had been published. Three years later, the science is far from settled, but there is a growing body of research to consider.
Below, ProPublica offers a survey of some of that work. The studies included are by no means a comprehensive review of the scientific literature. There are several others that characterize the chemicals in fracking fluids, air emissions and waste discharges. Some present results of community level surveys.
Yet, a long-term systematic study of the adverse effects of gas drilling on communities has yet to be undertaken. Researchers have pointed to the scarcity of funding available for large-scale studies as a major obstacle in tackling the issue.
A review of health-related studies published last month [ http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es404621d ] in Environmental Science & Technology concluded that the current scientific literature puts forward “both substantial concerns and major uncertainties to address.”
Still, for some, waiting for additional science to clarify those uncertainties before adopting more serious safeguards is misguided and dangerous. As a result, a number of researchers and local activists have been pushing for more aggressive oversight immediately.
The industry, by and large, has regarded the studies done to date — a number of which claim to have found higher rates of illness among residents living close to drilling wells — as largely anecdotal and less than convincing.
“The public health sector has been absent from this debate,” said Nadia Steinzor, a researcher on the Oil and Gas Accountability Project at the environmental nonprofit, Earthworks.
Departments of health have only become involved in states such as New York and Maryland where regulators responded to the public’s insistence on public health and environmental reviews before signing off on fracking operations. The states currently have a moratorium on fracking.
New York State Health Commissioner Nirav Shah is in fact conducting a review of health studies to present to Governor Andrew Cuomo before he makes a decision on whether to allow fracking in the state. It is unclear when the results of the review will be publicly available.
Other states such as Pennsylvania and Texas, however, have been much more supportive of the gas industry. For instance, Texas has been granting permits for fracking in ever increasing numbers [ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140 ... nts?page=5 ] while at the same time the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the agency that monitors air quality, has had its budget cut substantially.
1. An Exploratory Study of Air Quality near Natural Gas Operations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2012.
The study, performed in Garfield County, Colo., between July 2010 and October 2011, was done by researchers at The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a non-profit organization that examines the impact of low-level exposure to chemicals on the environment and human health.
In the study, [ http://endocrinedisruption.org/chemical ... -pollution ] researchers set up a sampling station close to a well and collected air samples every week for 11 months, from when the gas wells were drilled to after it began production. The samples produced evidence of 57 different chemicals, 45 of which they believe have some potential for affecting human health.
In almost 75 percent of all samples collected, researchers discovered methylene chloride, a toxic solvent that the industry had not previously disclosed as present in drilling operations. The researchers noted that the greatest number of chemicals were detected during the initial drilling phase.
While this study did catalogue the different chemicals found in air emissions from gas drilling operations, it did not address exposure levels and their potential effects. The levels found did not exceed current safety standards, but there has been much debate about whether the current standards adequately address potential health threats to women, children and the elderly.
- - - - -
NOTE: ***Numerous LINKS available at original URL below***
- - - -
MORE:
[ http://www.propublica.org/article/drill ... th-studies ]
[ http://www.propublica.org/article/drill ... th-studies ]
ProPublica surveys some recent research on potential health implications of hydro fracking.
by Naveena Sadasivam ProPublica, March 5, 2014, 12:02 p.m.
For years, environmentalists and the gas drilling industry have been in a pitched battle over the possible health implications of hydro fracking. But to a great extent, the debate — as well as the emerging lawsuits and the various proposed regulations in numerous states — has been hampered by a shortage of science.
In 2011, when ProPublica first reported [ http://www.propublica.org/article/scien ... gas-fields ] on the different health problems afflicting people living near gas drilling operations, only a handful of health studies had been published. Three years later, the science is far from settled, but there is a growing body of research to consider.
Below, ProPublica offers a survey of some of that work. The studies included are by no means a comprehensive review of the scientific literature. There are several others that characterize the chemicals in fracking fluids, air emissions and waste discharges. Some present results of community level surveys.
Yet, a long-term systematic study of the adverse effects of gas drilling on communities has yet to be undertaken. Researchers have pointed to the scarcity of funding available for large-scale studies as a major obstacle in tackling the issue.
A review of health-related studies published last month [ http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es404621d ] in Environmental Science & Technology concluded that the current scientific literature puts forward “both substantial concerns and major uncertainties to address.”
Still, for some, waiting for additional science to clarify those uncertainties before adopting more serious safeguards is misguided and dangerous. As a result, a number of researchers and local activists have been pushing for more aggressive oversight immediately.
The industry, by and large, has regarded the studies done to date — a number of which claim to have found higher rates of illness among residents living close to drilling wells — as largely anecdotal and less than convincing.
“The public health sector has been absent from this debate,” said Nadia Steinzor, a researcher on the Oil and Gas Accountability Project at the environmental nonprofit, Earthworks.
Departments of health have only become involved in states such as New York and Maryland where regulators responded to the public’s insistence on public health and environmental reviews before signing off on fracking operations. The states currently have a moratorium on fracking.
New York State Health Commissioner Nirav Shah is in fact conducting a review of health studies to present to Governor Andrew Cuomo before he makes a decision on whether to allow fracking in the state. It is unclear when the results of the review will be publicly available.
Other states such as Pennsylvania and Texas, however, have been much more supportive of the gas industry. For instance, Texas has been granting permits for fracking in ever increasing numbers [ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140 ... nts?page=5 ] while at the same time the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the agency that monitors air quality, has had its budget cut substantially.
1. An Exploratory Study of Air Quality near Natural Gas Operations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2012.
The study, performed in Garfield County, Colo., between July 2010 and October 2011, was done by researchers at The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a non-profit organization that examines the impact of low-level exposure to chemicals on the environment and human health.
In the study, [ http://endocrinedisruption.org/chemical ... -pollution ] researchers set up a sampling station close to a well and collected air samples every week for 11 months, from when the gas wells were drilled to after it began production. The samples produced evidence of 57 different chemicals, 45 of which they believe have some potential for affecting human health.
In almost 75 percent of all samples collected, researchers discovered methylene chloride, a toxic solvent that the industry had not previously disclosed as present in drilling operations. The researchers noted that the greatest number of chemicals were detected during the initial drilling phase.
While this study did catalogue the different chemicals found in air emissions from gas drilling operations, it did not address exposure levels and their potential effects. The levels found did not exceed current safety standards, but there has been much debate about whether the current standards adequately address potential health threats to women, children and the elderly.
- - - - -
NOTE: ***Numerous LINKS available at original URL below***
- - - -
MORE:
[ http://www.propublica.org/article/drill ... th-studies ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9135
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests