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 David Perotto on February 2, 2014 at 5:10am

Mark,

So true. When you read every article covering the shale debate, the headline never matches the storyline. The liberal media find a negative sideline and use it to mislead the public. To validate your point above, my local newspaper (Rochester NY) put the title to a short article: "Fracking Supporters Impatient". As all of you know, NY is on its sixth year of its moratorium. The facts are that other states, such as Illinois, Michigan  and California accomplished their regs in short order. Our Joint Landowner Coalition sent a letter to Emperor Cuomo demanding an answer by February 13th. With all of these facts, I laughed out loud when reading this morning's headline. Before reading the article, I knew what the story would say and yet another example of liberal media bias.

 

We must call them out when they use these tactics and let the facts reveal themselves. Our "unbiased" press are not following their charter.

Permalink Reply by George Brown on February 2, 2014 at 8:18am

Since when do leftists care about unborn children anyway?

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on February 2, 2014 at 8:44am

George,

My brother's favorite saying is "save a whale, kill a baby"

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on February 2, 2014 at 12:39pm

George,

In the dictionary the synonym for leftist (environmentalist) is hypocrite.

Permalink Reply by Gas Boy on February 2, 2014 at 12:49pm

The title should read "Green Energy CFL's cause Mercury Poisoning".

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on February 2, 2014 at 1:15pm

Gas Boy,

Great thought, I have an alternative title CFL's Linked to Deaths Of Children !

Permalink Reply by gary smith on February 3, 2014 at 4:59am

could be these pollutants caused us to have fractivists/humanism.

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on February 3, 2014 at 6:27am

gary,

We all know that fractivism/extreme environmentalism is a mental disorder but I'm not sure of it's origin.

Permalink Reply by MJ on February 3, 2014 at 6:58am

I believe it began, in part, when we started to teach our kids political correctness, wishy washy indecision skills, acceptance of abberations in society, common core strategies that teach kids that 2+2=4 if and only if a panel of peers deem it so, etc, etc...If you hear a thing enough it becomes true.  I am glad there are people like you mark that are determined to expose the lies and bring truth to the helpless zombie masses that believe all the nonsense.

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on February 3, 2014 at 6:08pm

Thanks MJ,

But it isn't just me, it's all of us spreading the truth about this wonderful gift.

Your comments on common core are right on the money.

Permalink Reply by Gas Boy on February 5, 2014 at 4:55am

It all started in the 1950's when God was taken out of the schools, In the 1960's when "free love" became all the rage, when taxes were raised in the 1970's - now the Mother has to work to provide as well............It's been a slow but noticeable progression.

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on February 5, 2014 at 6:45am

GB,

The progressives say the reason for mom having to work is that the evil business owner under pays workers. When in reality it is the growth of government. since the 1960's taxes have doubled, we now pay almost half our income in taxes. Plus there are the hidden taxes and fees when buying products or using services.

Cut back on government and mom can stay home to take care of the kids (if she chooses of course).Now I realize that may sound sexist but I know many women who would prefer to work at home. Anyone who believes that stay at home moms don't work has never done it. Or perhaps the husband stays home because mom has the better job. Either way, families should not be forced to have both mom and dad work and it's big government taking more of your pay that forces both mom and dad to work.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service