Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Barry D on February 12, 2018 at 12:30pm

Thanks for addressing the Fake News posted on your site.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on February 23, 2018 at 4:26pm

 

It is unclear why this researcher's work is to be discredited because of her position on fracking and her funding sources, while Energy In Depth is the single source cited here to refute the conclusions of her research.  EID is an industry funded publication which, according to sourcewatch.org, "is a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and dozens of additional industry organizations for the purpose of criticizing the documentary "Gaslands "(sic).

This is the pot calling the kettle a pot..

 

This new study was not “based on the same old flawed methodology and assumptions the researchers have repeatedly employed”.  In fact, the 2012 study cited here was an air quality study led by one Lisa McKenzie.  Beyond being conducted in the same state, and the attempt by EID to discredit it through their own 'methodology’, it bears no ties whatsoever to Dr. Nagel’s research.

 

"We chose varying amounts of the UOG mixture in order to mimic a range of human exposures to these chemicals," [Dr.] Nagel said, who also serves as an adjunct associate professor of biological sciences in the MU College of Arts and Science. "These results suggest that the mammary gland is sensitive to mixtures of chemicals used in unconventional oil and gas production. Determining whether these fracking mixtures affect human populations is an important goal, particularly as the number of fracking sites within human population centers increases."

The following quote from the press release should, to the reasonable reader, further establish the validity of the study and of its participants:

 The study, "Prenatal exposure to unconventional oil and gas operation chemical mixtures altered mammary gland development in adult female mice" was published in the journal Endocrinology. Coauthors of the study include: Laura N. Vandenberg and Sarah A. Sapouckey of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in Amherst, MA; and Christopher D. Kassotis of Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Research was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (Award: K22-ES025811, R21-ES026395 and R01-ES021394-04S1). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.

  But perhaps the salient point is simply that this study, as well as the others which EID attempts to discredit, openly state that their results are inconclusive, but indicate that further study is warranted: 

  

 “Additional, long-term studies are needed to evaluate these outcomes, the researchers said.”

From the aforementioned 2012 air quality study:

“Overall, we feel this study highlights interesting areas for further research and investigation, but is not conclusive in itself. We agree there is public concern about the effects of oil and gas operations on health, including birth outcomes.” 

-- Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

EID attempts to minimize the risk by quoting numbers which might fool those who wish to be fooled.  Here are some interesting numbers: While it may be true that fracking fluid is 99.5% water, the volume of fluid involved in fracking runs into the millions per well.  One half a percent of one million gallons is 5,000 gallons.  A modern low-dose birth control pill contains 20 micrograms, or 20 millionths of a gram of estrogen, but it can halt ovulation in an adult female human in its tracks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bullfrex on February 25, 2018 at 9:21am

Yes....these researchers depend on the grants issued by the anti fossil fuel folks to thrive....no secret there.

Talk about leaving the door open....“Additional, long-term studies are needed to evaluate these outcomes, the researchers said.”

Gave them just enough to keep the grant money coming, but short of any definitive conclusion or proof.....I am in the wrong business.

• ▶ Reply