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 Ragnars Repo on November 1, 2014 at 3:20am
Breaking news! Being alive increases chance of death by 100%.
Permalink Reply by lynn on November 1, 2014 at 11:02am

The statement says that 'mothers with the closest wells had a higher incidence of congenital heart defects than mothers with no wells.'  Doesn't say how long the mothers have lived near those wells and whether or not they had the defects when they moved there.  Specifics matter-didn't they try this same statistical strategy in TX until doctors refuted their findings?

Permalink Reply by Barry D on November 1, 2014 at 1:50pm

lynn,

The major flaw in this study is that the researchers didn't look at any other sources. In fact the elad researcher admits it, she was once quoted as saying they knew the source they were looking to find how large it was.

Can anyone say PRECONCEIVED CONCLUSION !

Permalink Reply by Barry D on November 1, 2014 at 1:46pm

Yes, and the correlation of wind and shaking leaves might have you believe that the shaking leaves on tress causes wind.

This study has been totally debunked. It is so bad the Department of Health in Colorado has gone out of it's way not only to disassociate itself from but has become a part of the debunking.

Once again you post nonsense. Sad as usual.

Permalink Reply by Jack Young on November 1, 2014 at 3:18pm

As I remember, this study was pretty completely discredited by others in the field soon after publication. If you don't control for other factors, you can come up with almost any conclusions you want.

It's a little discouraging that this guy keeps posting stuff but never acknowledges the weaknesses of the stuff he posted previously. It doesn't sound like he actually listens to the reaction or does any additional research on his own when challenged. Kind of a waste reading his stuff after a while.

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on November 1, 2014 at 6:05pm
Yes Jack discredtited by the state of Colorado health department. They have publicly stated this study is without merit. Energy in depth has chronicled this sham, created by these environmental nut cases. Here is the link: http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/colorado-health-officials-rebuk...

So Paul, why do try to mislead people?? Is it because the facts are not on your side.
Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on November 2, 2014 at 5:51am

The article you cite, David, is primarily about a Glenwood Springs fetal abnormality study, which involved 22 fetuses. This statewide study by McKenzie study involves 125,000 babies: much larger sample size, and therefore more statistical significance.

Here in Pennsylvania, we could proceed with more confidence if there were more studies of the health effects of gas drilling, but apparently Act 13 stripped out such funding: http://publicsource.org/investigations/with-no-health-registry-pa-d... . We need to change the laws to create a registry of gas-and-fracking-related health cases so we can check for such issues.

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on November 2, 2014 at 11:43pm
So these so called scientists churn out papers claiming defects. These claims are scientifically debunked. Same group releases a new study and we are supposed to give it credence? Got love you environmentalists, shout a lie enough times until someone believes it. Lies and mistruths don't stand in this forum. Nice try, next time try honesty.
Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on November 3, 2014 at 1:05am

Well said, David.  But remember:

Kim Jong-un has an "honesty" unique to himself.  The "honesty" of militant Islamic radicals (did you watch 60 Minutes last evening?) is unrecognizable by normal, decent people.  Likewise, San Francisco liberals (the OP spent time there) have an "honesty" all their own.  The OP is simply an extremest who, by posting here, also has become a revealed gadfly.

People with the OP's mindset lack the ability to see reality clearly.  They must be defeated the only way possible:  politically.  Tomorrow would be a good day to carry the fight against his kind forward.  You want a clearer picture of what Pennsylvania will become under Wolf's leadership?  Read this guy's threads and posts again.  The OP and Wolf believe all the same stuff.  The OP will tell you forthrightly what he thinks.  Wolf cannot do that . . . because he wants to win!

Permalink Reply by Barry D on November 3, 2014 at 6:36am

The lack of a health registry does not prevent research.

Your point is nonsense once again.

Permalink Reply by craig on November 1, 2014 at 6:05pm

He doesn't care. He needs to be part of the attempt to spread BS all over, to discredit an industry for his own ulterior motives and personal satisfaction. That is all. What a waste of an human being. IF he truly was concerned there would be a few less important issues that could be addressed that could actually make a difference.

Permalink Reply by jason irvine on November 2, 2014 at 1:03am
Garbage. The study needs to take into account alot that it doesn't.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service