"Research released Wednesday from the University of Pennsylvania found that as more wells were drilled in Northeastern Pennsylvania, hospital admission rates for cardiovascular events rose in the same areas.

The Penn study, published in the journal PLoS ONE, analyzed hospital discharge data for 93,000 inpatients, by zip code, between 2007 and 2011 in three counties in Pennsylvania's northeastern corner. Bradford and Susquehanna each had large increases over that time in wells that use [fracking]. Neighboring Wayne County had no gas development.

While hospital admission rates decreased slightly or remained constant overall, as they have nationwide, hospitalizations for cardiology were about 27 percent higher over five years among residents who lived in zip codes with more wells and more wells per square kilometer than among those whose zip codes had the least.

Neurology admissions also increased significantly for zips with more wells.


The studies only show links, not cause and effect."



Views: 2363

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Some interesting facts about this so called "report"

The County that had the highest incidence of inpatient hospitalization rates has no shale development (Wayne)

The County with the highest number of wells (Bradford) had the fewest inpatient occurences

One of the lead researchers is a well known anti fossil fuel activist and speaks regularly against their use and speaks against shale development (Poune Saberi).

Since 2007 the number of inpatient occurrences has been declining

Cardiovascular and neurologic disorders caused by outside sources take decades to develop. There haven't been decades of shale development.

That is also around the time that Herion came into the northern tier.

Barry D: you say that Wayne County had the highest hospitalization rate. What's your source? I didn't see that in the report at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.01... . They mention inpatient rates in Wayne County in the last paragraph of the Results section, but I didn't see your claim there.

You say that Bradford County had the fewest inpatient occurrences. Isn't that contradicted by table 2, which shows that Bradford County had the highest hospitalization count?

I googled Poune Saberi and what I found was a video demonstrating concern for the health of shale workers and nearby residents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdSntVkpVe0

The source was the unsanitized original report not the one that has been released to the public and which you posted. Typical leftist tactic, take out whatever information that does not fit the anti fossil fuel narrative.

Do a little research.

BTW - we better ban pickup trucks, I'm sure you agree.

Barry D: give us a link to your source, or a quote from your source, otherwise it's not a convincing argument. You stated 5 claims as "fact". I checked three of them and found contradictory evidence in each case. When you respond to questions with vague and sweeping words like "typical leftist tactic", it suggests you don't have good evidence.


As I stated, my source is the actual report that you cite. Just read it, it's obvious you have only read the sensational headlines.

For example - on page 14 is this little gem -

     "The precise cause for the increase in inpatient prevalence rates within specific medical categories remains unknown."

Or this beauty from their press release announcing the release of the study -

      "...the study does not prove that hydraulic fracturing actually causes these health problems."

Or from page 12 of the study -

“In our analysis, one particular zip code had extremely high inpatient prevalence rates compared to other zip codes. Thus, a sensitivity analysis was performed (data not shown). This zip code is located within Wayne County and had no active wells from 2007 to 2011.”

As a typical fractivist you cherry picked the information that supposedly supports your fallacious claim.

Barry D: ok, you found the same sentence that I mentioned earlier: in the Results section they discuss one zip code (not one county, as you mis-stated) with very high hospitalization rates. And in the following sentence the researchers say "Removal of this zip code from the analysis had little effect ... there was no change in inference". OK, Barry, what's your point?

So that's one of your "facts" rebutted. You haven't cited any evidence to back up the other four. Do you have any?

About your "discovery" that the report states that they haven't proven anything about causes: In case you didn't notice, neither the Philadelphia Inquirer reporter nor I said otherwise, we both pointed out that the study showed correlation but not causation.

Suggestion: You could be more persuasive if you didn't resort to straw man arguments.

Mission Control, it appears the Heckbert vortex is sucking everyone in...abort, abort, abort!

If you get sucked into Heckberts arguments then you put yourself into the category of I don't think for myself, I hear what I want to hear... regardless of facts. A correlation doesn't mean a fact.

I wish Paul would paste some of his previous photoshop propaganda(so obviously fake)... they show his true intention of misleading folks that don't understand much of anything.


I get your point.

But, I have a reason for responding to the false information posted by folks such as Paul.

Most of the people who use this site only read, they never engage. A casual reader seeing the nonsense posted by the anti fossil fuel folks might conclude that it is factual.

I just want to post the facts and show that these posts are nothing more than fear mongering.

" that the study showed correlation but not causation."

As I pointed out recently, this type of post is not meant to inform, it is meant to instill fear.

You are no more than a fear monger.


Correlation does not show cause.

Here is an example of a correlation ( I know this has been posted in the past).

I believe you will agree that there is a correlation between wind and the shaking of leaves on trees.

Based upon your posts we could conclude that every time the leaves shake the wind blows. Therefore, the shaking leaves cause wind.


© 2021   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service