Natural Gas Development Linked to Birth Defects.

After reading the title you might wonder if I have gone over to the dark side of anti shale development. Not to worry the pro development force is still strong within me,

Usually my posts are in reaction to something an anti development person has posted. Recently I have been trying to be a bit more "pro-active. So it is with this issue.

The anti crowd regularly takes a piece of information twists it and presents it as proof of the dangers of oil and gas development. The subject of a recent article on the Huffington Post (there's a surprise) was a study conducted in Colorado. The conclusion of the writer (not the study) was that "...children born near greater densities of natural gas development sites... have an increased risk of some birth defects.". Sounds scary doesn't it. There's more; "The study... notes that pollutants - like toluene, xylenes and benzene- released by some natural gas drilling operations (again the writers words not from the study) are suspected teratogens or mutagens and are known to cross the placenta, raising the possibility of fetal exposure...".

Oh my god ! The children ! Call out the EPA and shut this horrid industry down, right ? No, the lead author of the study states "... the study doesn't definitively prove that natural gas causes anything". Further,"More research is needed to discover whether natural gas projects pose a threat to unborn children..." What ? But the author of the article would have us all believe that it does.

The facts are these - the study found substances in the water, never, I repeat never linked them to oil and gas operations because there are other industrial operations along the stretch of river they studied and the scope of the study did not include finding the source. The study never concludes that the substances found in the water were from oil and gas operations, or that they were found in sufficient quantities to be a health risk.

So here we have an anti oil and gas activist writer twisting facts to suit his anti oil and gas agenda. The part I found particularly repugnant was that he used the old tactic of making the story about children/the unborn. I mean who doesn't want to protect children? But the fact is that there is no proof that any children or fetus' were/are at risk due to oil and gas development. It's just a tactic a trick.

I write about this because the stories have begun to circulate on the extreme environmentalist web sites and blogs about unborn children being harmed by oil and gas development. The writers on these sites claim to have proof (they don't). I jsut wanted you to be aware; it's just a matter of time before one of our anti shale friends posts it on this site. This is just another purple squirrel story. The Sky Is Falling ! The Sky Is Falling!

Views: 1565

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gas Boy on February 5, 2014 at 1:10pm

exactly!

Permalink Reply by gary smith on February 3, 2014 at 1:03pm

that was my point. hahahaha

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 3, 2014 at 8:33pm

Marik;

good post and I agree with your analysis.   But I suggest that you change the period at the end of the title to a question mark to show that the conclusions are not fact but are contrived.

Good job pointing how they manipulate statistics to get the desired result.

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on February 4, 2014 at 12:05am

Thanks Jim,

But there is no " i " in my name.

Permalink Reply by Buddy on February 3, 2014 at 8:57pm

Dear Mark, 

I, for one, appreciate your recent efforts to go beyond just answering  extremists and their crazy claims by holding the activists accountable with your pointed and researched answers.  I love how you can easily pin down their arguments to the drivel that they are.  You are one person who no longer is going to allow sensationalists to go unanswered.  I wish I had command of all the information that you do, but since I don't,  I appreciate you and others answering ridiculous suppositions with calm facts and reality. Obviously environmentalists thrive on drama and turmoil while my and my country's economic future and security (not to mention my rights as a landowner) depend on stability, LAW, and best practices being used in scientific innovation.   I don't have a crystal ball to see what  MIGHT eventually happen in my little area of Clarion and Venango Counties, but I do know if we eventually see success, we will have people like you to thank for it.  Thank you.

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on February 4, 2014 at 12:03am

Buddy,

Thanks for the kind words.

Sadly I have a command of the information because I have no life.
Just kidding, it's like a hobby.

Permalink Reply by MJ on February 4, 2014 at 8:16am

Must not have been too much PBR, I had to get out the dictionary on that one Chip.  Just messin..

Permalink Reply by aktony on February 4, 2014 at 4:58pm

Posted on Naturalgasforums.com

http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/colorado-health-department-disa...


State public health officials in Colorado have publicly disavowed the latest paper from a team of researchers whose work is routinely cited by political activist groups that want to ban hydraulic fracturing.


In fact, the public could “easily be misled” by the research team’s latest work, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) said in a statement to the media.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 5, 2014 at 10:25am

And people in the oil and gas industry have high paying jobs with good benefits, including healthcare. Good healthcare leads to better health for all, especially babies and mothers. Good paying jobs means better nutrition, less stress,  less alcoholism, less spouse abuse, less abandonments, less violence.   I am betting that the good far out weighs any possible bad.

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on February 5, 2014 at 10:52am

Jim,

This study is meant to misinform just as the one in Fort Worth,TX. In that study the researchers found that people living in that county had higher amounts of substances such as benzene in their blood. They concluded it was due to oil and gas activity in the area. The health department followed and found that the majority of those folks with benzene in their blood were also smokers. There were no significant levels of benzene etc in non-smokers. The researchers had a pre-conceived conclusion prior to the start of the study. The study was meant to support that conclusion so that all other sources of contamination were ignored.

So it is with the study of birth defects. The researchers ignored all other possibilities for the birth defects. That's why the health department was so quick to come out and dis-associate itself from the study.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service