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:
Views: 5351
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gas Boy on
-
O.K...................just like 'the scientific data" says that "climate change" is occurring as well. Data can be and is manipulated to be whatever those that want the conversation to be.
-
-
regardfig studies. the problem is when industry pays a university or a lab
to conduct a test , if the results are favorable to the industry, the AD
clam bad study the industry paid for the results..
And of course when the Park foundation pays for a study and results
are favorable to the AD, the pro drilling people cry foul.
So I suppose we have to wait for the long awaited EPA tests to get published --whenever.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on -
RE: "So I suppose we have to wait for the long awaited EPA tests to get published"
Sadly, the EPA too has become politicalized.
Recently in Colorado, the USGS (United States Geological Survey) stepped in and discredited an EPA report claiming pollution .... it turns out that the manner in which the EPA drilled monitoring wells was the source of the pollution that they measured ..... in the words of the Great Swamp Sage POGO .... "We have met the enemy and he is us!".
JS
-
-
Jack: epa results probbly going to be long time in coming. Kind of like the NY state
health tests. If they had a smokinig gun, they would surely announce it.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on
-
Up & growing field of forensic chemistry claims they can now determine the time of contamination if contamination does exist and tie it to, or dismiss current activity.
-
-
lot of rock in Colorado. might be radon gas.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on
-
Here’s another scientific study that concluded “We identified significant concentrations of four well- characterized chemicals: benzene, formaldehyde, hexane, and hydrogen sulfide. Benzene was detected at sample locations in Pennsylvania and Wyoming. Concentrations exceeded health-based risk levels by as many as several orders of magnitude.” Benzene is a carcinogen.
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069X-13-82.pdf
related, more readable
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/10/141030-dange...
-
Permalink Reply by Barry D on
-
You really should read these articles that you post. The following are quotes I pulled from the second one:
"Scientists say the research is far from and more is urgently needed."
"Researchers associated with the September and April studies, for instance, noted that their findings don't prove that gas production caused the health problems."
Association does not equal causation.
You also left out that there were other possible sources for the chemicals in the air.
It's amazing to me that they allow you to teach.
-
-
Before anyone should dismiss the NIH study, they should've read it. But, unless someone's trained in methods, they're not going to be able to understand it.
While correlation doesn't equal causation, unless someone's willing to make the argument that birth defects cause the creation of gas wells, the causal direction can only go in one direction.
PRO: They control for a number of factors such as smoking, alcohol, education levels, altitude, mother's age, etc.
CON: Probably should've also included family income, and possibly some indicator for length of time mother's family had been living rurally.
PRO: Large number of observations
CON: no geographic variation (only in Colorado)
PRO: Strong statistical significance
CON: Should've spent more time on the effects of drilling activity (semi-truck and heavy machinery pollution), but this would be a somewhat different research question
The end result is that they found evidence that something is happening around Colorado natural gas wells that is correlated to an increased likelihood of birth defects. This doesn't mean that it's the final say on this issue, but unless someone's going to criticize the data or methods (I personally would've used a probit model, I think) there's not a lot that they can say about it.
I do find it humorous that a guy who clearly doesn't know math and who works for an industry trade group is talking about how it's been discredited, but doesn't give any peer-reviewed evidence it.
You guys might not like the guy who posted this originally, but the study itself isn't nearly as flawed as what some are making it out to be.
-
Permalink Reply by David Perotto on
-
So Nathan what do you have to say about the state of Colorado saying this:
Birth anomalies not linked to common cause, investigation concludes
DENVER – An investigation by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment of 22 reported anomalies in unborn children in Garfield County found no common underlying cause.
Dr. Larry Wolk, department executive director and chief medical officer, said, “Our investigation looked at each reported case and concluded they are not linked to any common risk factors.”
Department epidemiologists looked at more than a dozen factors including each mother’s place of conception and current address; drinking water source (municipal and well); proximity to active oil and gas wells; proximity to each other; the age, health, and family history of the mothers; the mother’s use of medications, supplements, tobacco, alcohol, caffeine and other substances; each mother’s prior pregnancies and deliveries; and ethnicity. While there were different risk factors identified for individual cases, no pattern emerged to suggest a common risk factor for the reported anomalies.
The cases, reported by Women’s Health and A Woman’s Place – two clinics located in Glenwood Springs, were from mothers with residences spread over a wide geographic area, not isolated in any single community. The department was asked to investigate due to the number of prenatal ultrasounds showing very rare congenital anomalies reported in late 2013.
The department’s birth defects registry mainly tracks birth defects after children are born. The study was unique in that it looked at unborn children with birth defects detected by ultrasound early in pregnancy. Therefore, a number of additional factors should be considered, including the limitations of the ultrasound as a diagnostic tool, observer variability, and the timing of the ultrasound. It is possible one of these variables may have accounted for an impression that there is a higher number of anomalies. In addition, because prenatal ultrasounds are not typically monitored by the state, there is no way to know if these cases represent a higher number than normal.
In addition, there was no single or common type of birth anomaly reported. Types of anomalies varied and included cardiac anomalies, commonly diagnosed autosomal trisomies, other suspected chromosomal anomalies and molar pregnancies.
Dr. Wolk said, “There is no state or federal registry of pre-birth anomalies that would show whether the cases referred to the department are greater or less than the number of cases occurring in the general population. While some may have expected the investigation would identify one or two risk factors that link these cases, no such link was found. It is natural to look at even a single birth anomaly and ask why. But sadly, birth anomalies do occur.”
This doesn't fit your narative, does it???
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Droske on
-
Yes and eating turkeys causes winter.
What study? By whom? Verified by anyone else?
Other possible reasons for the supposed correlation investigated? IE the women closest to the wells possibly lived in rural areas where they were less likely to have adequate prenatal care, drank water from unsafe wells, more likely to be drug/alcohol/tobacco users, suffered from more stress due to economic reasons and on and on.
-
-
David, What you posted only has 22 observations, which isn't a large enough sample size. Plus, there's no mention of their data or methodology. Also, you can't discredit a large-N study by using what is essentially a case study. I'm not saying there's no value to what the state agency did, but from what you posted it wouldn't hold up as a scientific study.
Richard, I don't know where even to start with your post. Read the article before you post would be my recommendation. If you had, you'd have seen that they controlled for most of what you put out as alternative causes. As an FYI, I'm almost positive that NIH grants are peer-reviewed. I've never worked on one since I don't do medical research, but all the federal agencies I've had experience with require peer-review. Also and FYI, those reviewing it are all PhDs and experts in their fields. I know there's a movement in the US to discredit scientific research, but that doesn't change how the research field functions.
If there are, indeed, substantial health risks associated with proximity to gas wells we should all take heed of them, since I assume that many here do live near wells. This isn't a pro-drilling vs. anti-drilling debate, but a health debate that could affect those living near wells. Like I said, unless you've got an issue with the hypothesis testing or the data (which are available from the NIH website), then you don't really have anything to say about this study. Just because you might not like the results doesn't mean that the study is invalid.
Top Content
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
pig dung replied to Theresa Kolk's discussion 'What's going on in your area?? any info???' in the group Tioga County, PApig dung replied to Theresa Kolk's discussion 'What's going on in your area?? any info???' in the group Tioga County, PA
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
