Birth defects near oil and gas wells

A study of 125,000 births in Colorado: “What we found was mothers with the most [oil or gas] wells around their homes, and closest to their homes, had a 30 percent higher chance of having congenital heart defects than mothers with no wells around their homes”.

good news: American Petroleum Institute will be funding health studies:

http://www.alleghenyfront.org/story/more-study-needed-fracking-and-...

primary source:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3984231/

Views: 5351

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard Droske on December 2, 2014 at 4:12pm

Your mother must have lived near a well. Eating turkeys causes winter. Why no link to the actual study?

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on December 2, 2014 at 5:20pm

Why, was he a big baby?

The link is there, in the post, but I'll share it here:

This is a link for the study

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on June 4, 2015 at 5:40am

Fracking linked to low birth weight babies

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fracking-linked-to-low-birth-weight-bab...

excerpts:

University of Pittsburgh researchers analyzed the birth records of more than 15,400 babies born in Pennsylvania's Washington, Westmoreland and Butler counties between 2007 and 2010. Women who lived close to a high number of natural gas fracking sites were 34 percent more likely to have babies who were "small for gestational age" than mothers who did not live close to a large number of such wells, the study found. …

The study, published online June 3 in the journal PLOS One, does not prove that living close to a high concentration of natural gas fracking sites caused lower birth weights, but does show the need for further investigation, the researchers said.

"Our work is a first for our region and supports previous research linking unconventional gas development and adverse health outcomes," study co-author Bruce Pitt, chair of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health's Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, said.

"These findings cannot be ignored. There is a clear need for studies in larger populations with better estimates of exposure and more in-depth medical records," he added. …

"Developing fetuses are particularly sensitive to the effects of environmental pollutants. We know that fine particulate air pollution, exposure to heavy metals and benzene, and maternal stress all are associated with lower birth weight," Pitt said.

The study:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.01...

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on June 4, 2015 at 5:43am

Regarding the need for more studies of the health effects of fracking, Pennsylvania’s Act 13 had, at one time, allocated money for a health registry of fracking-related health cases, an idea favored by public health experts. But State Senator Joe Scarnati and others opposed the idea. Drew Crompton, Scarnati’s chief of staff, called the shale health registry potentially “inflammatory and unnecessary”. So funding for the health registry was cut from Act 13. Meanwhile, starting around 2010, doctors in Washington County reported that “patients started coming in with what looked like acne on their faces”.

http://publicsource.org/investigations/amid-shale-rush-health-quest...

Permalink Reply by craig on June 4, 2015 at 7:36am

If there is a problem I believe everyone, including pro drilling folks, would like to know.

Paul, if you want to save the world from itself why not spend the rest of your life bike riding and kayaking and let the educated scientists do their job. Of course that means once your bike and kayak wear out you will be out of luck because gas and oil is what it takes to make most all items.

Permalink Reply by Barry D on June 6, 2015 at 3:05am

All of those complaints were investigated and found to be anecdotal in nature only.

Way to go again.

Only presenting the information that supports your fallacious position.

Permalink Reply by craig on June 4, 2015 at 7:26am

This study doesn't past mustard because of one glaring fact...

The results are not compared to birth weights previous to any drilling within the same area. That comparison needs to be done to validate any results. I would actually like to see the numbers in comparison.

Also, IF Paul is really concerned about birth weights he would know that birth weights across the spectrum have been decreasing in the last two plus decades.

From an actual peer reviewed paper: 

"More recently(1990 onward), U.S. national surveillance data suggest that this upward trend in mean birth weight is reversing."

Or try this link if you are too lazy to google :

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405274870442320457501747126758...

For Pete's sake folks, use your brain before swallowing garbage studies!

Permalink Reply by Barry D on June 6, 2015 at 3:03am

This study was also debunked.

Wat to go Paul, only presenting one side of the discussion.

Permalink Reply by Gregory Wrightstone on June 4, 2015 at 11:05am

This is just another example of pseudo-scientists and actual scientists prostituting themselves to promote a political agenda.

Expect the next "scientific study" released by Pitt to link the recent and sudden increase in unicorn miscarriages to fracking.

Permalink Reply by Rich on June 4, 2015 at 2:00pm
They all need to go to china to do research on pollution the worlds biggest polluter!! Paul to fight a fire you have to have a fire! There are no problems here except for the one you are trying to make. Grow up
Permalink Reply by Barry D on June 6, 2015 at 2:57am

There you go again Paul.

Posting an article you obviously haven't read.

Even the author of the study admits, in the article, that the study did not look at any other source for the birth defects other than a possible tie to oil and gas wells.

Further, the Colorado Dept. of health has issued several statements criticizing the study for it's shoddy work and fallacious conclusion .

The basis of the conclusion of the study is that there are birth defects in areas where there are oil and gas wells ( the study never even tires to find a connection other than the wells exist in proximity to new born children).

Guess what ? There are also Wall Marts, Burger Kings, gas stations, hair salons and any number of other businesses in proximity to unborn children. I suppose we could conclude that the closeness of a Walmart and it's concentration of "Walmartians" is the the possible reason for birth defects.

The Colorado health authorities point out that they have reviewed the issue of birth defects and their initial conclusion is that it has more to do with pre-natal care than any other reason.

It's amazing to me that you teach students. Would you accept this type of shoddy work from them?

BTW - No disrespect is meant to Walmart or Burger King. I use them as examples only because they are in just about every area of the country. I did not mean to insinuate that those companies or there facilities are in any way connected to birth deffects. It's just as silly to imlicate those facilities as it is to implicate oil and gas wells.

Now, the Walmartians on the other hand...

Permalink Reply by Barry D on June 6, 2015 at 3:13am

What do Colorado health officials think of this study ? Read below.

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20140209/NEWS01/302090067

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service