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 Nathan Henceroth on
-
There are no p-scores listed, so I don't know how you can say it was significant.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on
-
We need more scientific studies to check the health effects on oil and gas workers. How many of them have gotten sick? The following is from http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175695/ . This report is not peer-reviewed science, but it's concerning.
[Randy, age 49, from Portage, PA] climbed into large vats to squeegee out the remains of fracking fluid. He also cleaned the huge mats laid down around the wells to even the ground out for truck traffic. Those mats get saturated with “drilling mud,” a viscous, chemical-laden fluid that eases the passage of the drills into the shale. What his employer never told him was that the drilling mud, as well as the wastewater from fracking, is not only highly toxic, but radioactive.
In the wee hours of a very cold day in November 2011, he stood in a huge basin at a well site, washing 1,000 mats with high-pressure hoses, taking breaks every so often to warm his feet in his truck. “I took off my shoes and my feet were as red as a tomato,” he told me. When the air from the heater hit them, he “nearly went through the roof.”
Once at home, he scrubbed his feet, but the excruciating pain didn’t abate. A “rash” that covered his feet soon spread up to his torso. A year and a half later, the skin inflammation still recurs. His upper lip repeatedly swells. A couple of times his tongue swelled so large that he had press it down with a spoon to be able to breathe. “I’ve been fried for over 13 months with this stuff,” he told me in late January. “I can just imagine what hell is like. It feels like I’m absolutely on fire.”
-
-
Here's a video interview with Randy Moyer. I recommend 0-3:20 and 9:20-11:30 in particular.
-
-
excerpts of book review
The Real Cost of Fracking: How America’s Shale Gas Boom Is Threatening Our Families, Pets, and Food
by Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald
"The strategy of including animals in their research was based on the supposition that the shorter lifecycles and higher exposure of animals to contaminants makes them “early warning systems” for environmental hazards.
…
The book is organized around the firsthand experiences of the animals and people behind seven of these case studies. These experiences include the loss of calves and the imposition of a herd quarantine due to a wastewater spill, bulls and Newfoundland dogs with ongoing reproductive problems, and horses on steroids due to respiratory problems. The authors meet children with elevated arsenic levels, adults experiencing dramatic weight loss, and whole families suffering from “shale gas syndrome” (their name for the combination of burning eyes, sore throat, headaches, nosebleeds, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin rashes often experienced by the people in their case studies). Some residents cannot enter their homes without becoming seriously ill and others have lost their animal breeding or farming-based livelihoods.
…
Fracking operations are often located on or near farms. Thus pasture, cropland, streams, ponds, and wells are all at risk of contamination by toxins used or released during fracking. It is known that leaks and spills can occur during well drilling, high pressure hydraulic fracturing, or waste transportation. Exposure routes also include leaky well casings and intentional farmland waste storage or disposal. Animals can drink contaminated water and graze contaminated pasture. Crops can be grown on contaminated soil. Furthermore, poor air quality can impact animal health. Air quality is impaired by the increased road traffic, open wastewater lagoons, chemicals released during intentional gas flaring, and ongoing presence of benzene at drill sites."
http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/real-cost-of-fracking-...
-
Permalink Reply by David Perotto on -
Paul,
Take cover, the sky is falling. No don't use scientific knowledge nor real world experience to doubt this truth. Instead, trust me i have done my research. So go take cover and quick! Don't reappear on the site while you are at it.
-
Permalink Reply by Barry D on
-
These people have been fear mongering for years ( and that's all it is). All of their stories are anecdotal and have no scientific work to support them.
On the other hand, I have just completed a two week study myself, where I visited 53 well sites.
The results? No pollution whatsoever ! Trust me !
David is correct, this is nothing more than a perfect example of the "Chicken Little Syndrome".
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on
-
Paul,
Whether I agree or not, I appreciate the information that you provide here, just as I welcome the information regarding drilling and production from those in the know. I see no harm in airing both sides of an issue.
From a statement by Dr. Larry Wolk, the CDPHE’s Chief Medical Officer and Executive Director :
"Overall, we feel this study highlights interesting areas for further research and investigation, but is not conclusive in itself."
Beneficiaries of the boom would like us to believe that this negates the study. Instead, it means that the study shows some indication that further study is warranted.
Conversely, it is interesting that the same study showed both an increase in birth weight and a decrease in premature births.
This just in: Big babies cause gas wells.
Who knew?
-
Permalink Reply by Thomas Rockwell on
-
Dan,
I appreciate thy comments. A little more of that attitude would make this site more palatable.
-
Permalink Reply by Barry D on
-
This "study" is a perfect example of the misuse of statistics.
i.e. every time the leaves shake the wind blows, therefore the shaking leaves cause the wind.
-
Permalink Reply by David Perotto on
-
Exactly how I feel. I , for one, am very tired of this anti-fracing tactic. Shout the lie long enough and to the right people- it then becomes mainstream. This has been going on for far too long. I don't accept any of Paul's Junk Science posts. Just saying that cattle have nose bleeds from fracing does not mean it is so. Prove it to me, and not by these scientists with predetermined outcomes in their studies. These "scientists" should be held to some kind of standard that compels them to conform to proper standards.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on
-
It would seem that any detractor to O&G development is indicted as having an ulterior motive for stating their position.
What are they up to?
What other, unuttered motive might one have in speaking out amidst the roar of corporate capital?
The industry wants us to believe that the ecologists have a hidden agenda (Communism), and that the pro-drill crowd is only interested in keeping your family warm.
The study at issue is only a statistical analysis (albeit a rigorous one), but isn't statistical analysis the EKG of O&G?
(Gotta love them TLA's)
-
Permalink Reply by Dexter Green on -
Science driven by agendas is not science. It's merely paid propaganda. The industry funds their own studies because nobody else will. The anti crowd funds their own studies because they want to create social change and they use their money and influence to make that happen. Anyone who believes either side unquestioningly is unfit to have a conversation about the subject.
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
