Posted on 02/25/2015 10:38:18 AM PST by Citizen Zed
The first researchers to systematically document ill health in livestock, pets, and people living near fracking drill sites were Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald.
Bamberger, a veterinarian, and Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell University, used a case study approach-looking at individual households-to search for possible effects (Bamberger and Oswald 2012).
Many fracking chemicals are known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors or other classes of toxins (Colborn et al. 2011). Bamberger and Oswald's studies, carried out during the ongoing fracking boom, uncovered serious adverse effects including respiratory, reproductive, and growth-related problems in animals and a spectrum of symptoms in humans that they termed "shale gas syndrome".
(Excerpt) Read more at theecologist.org ...
Cornell eh? Research grants from Tom Steyer and Keith Olberman?
Using the fatally flawed Bamberger-Oswald “study” on hydraulic fracturing as the focal point, the author weaves a carefully constructed narrative that does everything from repeating common (and debunked) activist talking points to claiming America’s cows are being poisoned to death by oil and natural gas development.
Of course, the story would have been much different had the author included (instead of deliberately omitting) scientific assessments that weren’t tailor-made for an anti-natural gas crowd.
How do we know they were deliberately omitted? Well, to her credit, Elizabeth Royte (the author of the piece) reached out to Energy In Depth several weeks ago about this article. She acknowledged having read EID’s work on the subject, and then asked me some pointed (but fair) questions about potential impacts on livestock and crops from hydraulic fracturing. I sent her a detailed response, including links to studies (more on that below) that demonstrate little if any negative impact on health as a result of nearby shale development. I also emphasized that concerns about public health should always be taken seriously, and the industry naturally does exactly that. But I also cautioned that simply blaming impacts on the most convenient thing (i.e. hydraulic fracturing) without scientific evidence does not solve problems, nor does it encourage the proper kind of public dialogue to address concerns.
Unfortunately, Ms. Royte did not see fit to print any of that, choosing only to include a brief mention of the lack of scientific pedigree in the Bamberger-Oswald paper – which was promptly bracketed by ascribing fault to the natural gas industry for a supposed lack of disclosure.
So, what else didn’t make it into the report?
First of all, the flaws in the Bamberger-Oswald study have been publicly documented. Dr. Ian Rae, for example, a Co-Chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for the U.N. Environment Programme, called the study “an advocacy piece” written by individuals who “cannot be regarded as experts” in the subject about which they were writing. “It certainly does not qualify as a scientific paper,” Rae added. Rae also critiqued the journal that published the study – New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health – by saying “the refereeing process evidently was not very stringent.”
I shared all of this information with Ms. Royte, but Dr. Rae’s commentary on the Bamberger-Oswald paper was omitted entirely from the story.
Secondly, although the article purports to be part of an “investigative reporting” effort, there was clearly a lack of interest in discussing anything that deviated from the Bamberger-Oswald paper’s conclusions. Here are just a few items relating to health impacts from development that I shared with the author, who nonetheless did not see fit to print:
Denton County, Texas: An analysis by two public health experts found that, “even as natural gas development expanded significantly in the area over the past several years, key indicators of health improved across every major category during those times.” Denton County is situated atop the massive Barnett Shale, one of the largest natural gas fields in the United States.
Fort Worth, Texas: An air quality study conducted for the City of Fort Worth – the largest and most comprehensive of its kind to date – determined there were “no significant health risks” from shale development in the area. Fort Worth, located in Tarrant County, also sits atop the Barnett Shale.
Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, in two separate reports of air monitoring in Pennsylvania – one each for the northeastern and southwestern portions of the state – “did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.”
There are, of course, many more examples, including hard data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that undermine the suggestion that hydraulic fracturing is a grave threat to occupational or community health. Most of us also know about the AP investigation earlier this year, which found that activists’ claims about hydraulic fracturing causing cancer and other health problems had little or no basis in fact, much less scientific evidence.
So again, why were these examples omitted from the report? It’s really anyone’s guess. The one common denominator, however, is that none of them conforms to the notion that hydraulic fracturing is somehow a “tornado on the horizon” – as Sandra Steingraber, the lead-in voice to the Bamberger-Oswald paper, once put it. In fact, a sober review of these materials – and a proper weighting of the credibility of those who released the information – might even lead people to realize that claims about impending doom are hyperbolic and, in many cases, flat out untrue.
*As new research documents the fracking boom’s contribution to global climate change, it has become clear fracking’s climate impact is much greater than originally claimed (Howarth 2014; Schneising et al. 2014).*
Yeah, its always worse than they originally thought to get people worked up. I dont believe a word of it.
What fracking does to me is make oil and gas cheaper and prevents us from pumping more money into terrorist islamic hands.
*UPDATE* Cornell Veterinarians Go Into “Beast Mode” on Shale
http://energyindepth.org/national/cornell-veterinarians-go-into-beast-mode-on-shale/
UPDATE (4/6/2012, 1:15pm ET): Some intrepid research by the EID team has uncovered a meaningful critique of the Bamberger-Oswald paper, and the source is no slouch: Dr. Ian Rae, a professor at the University of Melbourne in Australia and a Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for the United Nations Environment Programme, says the paper is “an advocacy piece” that suffers from poor referencing, and the authors themselves “cannot be regarded as experts” in the field in which they are commenting. Rae’s full comments about the paper can be found here, but we’ve excerpted the most significant items below:
“It certainly does not qualify as a scientific paper but is, rather, an advocacy piece that does not involve deep…analysis of the data gathered to support its case.”
“The data in Table 2 are incomplete in that no dates or places are provided, and no references to other commentary on the events it reports, so it’s hard to assess the weight of the evidence. Surely there were reports to or by regulatory agencies. It could be that this is old evidence and that note has been taken of the hazards and appropriate regulations put in place to mitigate them. We just don’t know.”
“Contributions to the journal are said to be refereed, but the refereeing process evidently was not very stringent. For example, better refereeing would have forced the authors to provide the details I identified above as missing from their compilation. As well, it might also have curtailed some of the less-well supported statements and asked for more recent references to the scientific basis for expressions of concern that material dated to the 1960s and 1970s.”
“As far as I can see, neither [Bamberger nor Oswald] has a track record of investigation in environmental studies. This does not mean they are wrong to sound a note of concern, but it does mean that they cannot be regarded as experts in the field with broad experience and attainments.”
“I have not had time to read the articles in recent issues of the journal, but the titles show that they are advocacy pieces dealing with issues that are matters of concern, and for that reason are also extensively covered by other journals.”
—Original post from January 11, 2012—
When it comes to the issue of responsibly developing oil and natural gas resources from shale, we’ve seen a lot of wacky things come out of Ithaca, New York over the past couple years.
The primary recipient of millions of dollars every year of anti-shale advocacy provided by the Park Foundation (also based in Ithaca), Cornell University has become to anti-energy activists what “Linebacker U” was once to Penn State — with the debunked-ad-nauseum Howarth paper on shale emissions serving as the movement’s main playbook. Ithaca also happens to be the place from which outlets like the New York Times pull “data” on mineral leasing, notwithstanding the fact that no actual Marcellus development even takes place there.
So it was no surprise when a pair of veterinarians associated with Cornell wrote an article attacking shale development for its supposed link to animal health impacts. (One of the authors, Robert Oswald is a professor at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine; the other, Michelle Bamberger, received her doctorate from Cornell.)
Now, needless to say, we don’t have any bones to pick with veterinarians, and in fact the scientific research they provide on a daily basis is without question critical to us better understanding the natural world (plus, we love dogs). But the authors here did not produce a scientific assessment, a fact they freely admit in their article. Instead, Oswald and Bamberger chose to highlight a handful of personal testimonials that cannot be independently assessed or verified because they decided to keep all relevant details anonymous. Thus, we’re left with a 27-page unscientific article making bold assertions about oil and gas development, without a single shred of data or independent corroboration to back any of it up.
While the article contains many flaws, we’ve highlighted a few of the key problems below, all of which should raise serious doubts about the “scientific” nature of this particular article.
Right off the bat, the paper leads with a philosophical quote from Sandra Steingraber, who has described hydraulic fracturing as “the tornado on the horizon” that will destroy people’s ability to do everything, from local gardening to even riding a bicycle (Orion Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2010). Ms. Steingraber has also called for an end to all fossil fuels to “avoid human calamity.” With respect to shale development, Ms. Steingraber has stated: “If we mitigate fracking to kill fewer people, we’re still killing people” (The Vindicator, Jan. 10, 2012).
The authors assert that developing natural gas from shale is “moving forward without benefit of carefully controlled studies of its impact on public health” (p. 52). Aside from the fact that the authors readily admit in the paper that their own conclusions are not the result of controlled experiments, their claim is simply not true. For example, a study from earlier this year by the city of Fort Worth, TX, concluded there were “no significant health risks” from nearby shale development (July 2011).
A separate scientific assessment of the Barnett Shale in north Texas concluded: “[E]ven as natural gas development expanded significantly in the area over the past several years, key indicators of health improved across every major category during those times” (Oct. 19, 2011). The Barnett Shale is one of the most productive shale fields in the United States, with more than 15,000 producing wells.
Instead of seeking out the answer to a legitimate question – what, if any, are the health impacts of developing natural gas from shale? – the authors simply accuse the industry of taking a position “similar to the tobacco industry that for many years rejected the link between smoking and cancer” (p. 52). The report goes on to suggest that “epidemiologic studies [that] linked smoking to human health impacts…could be used to assess the health impacts of gas drilling operations on human beings” (p. 53). It seems the authors have already made up their minds.
The authors clearly admit that the study is not sound science: “This study is not an epidemiologic analysis of the health effects of gas drilling, which could proceed to some extent without knowledge of the details of the complex mixtures of toxicants involved. It is also not a study of the health impacts of specific chemical exposures related to gas drilling” (p. 53).
Later in the article the authors further concede: “By the standards of a controlled experiment, this is an imperfect study, as one variable could not be changed while holding all others constant” (p. 55). Instead, the article is merely a compilation of unsourced and unverifiable case studies.
The report conceals names and locations, which means independent review of the claims and parties involved cannot be completed; statements from the researchers about their findings are simply asserted as fact. Ironically, much of the paper is committed to critiquing the industry for not disclosing enough information to independently verify data.
Despite its lack of scientific bent, the authors nonetheless conclude definitively that their assessment “strongly implicates exposure to gas drilling operations in serious health effects on humans, companion animals, livestock, horses, and wildlife.” They go further and, without any scientific evidence, state that “a ban on shale gas drilling is essential for the protection of public health” (p. 72).
Calling for a ban on responsible oil and gas development without any scientific basis? Wait, we’ve heard this one before…
Again, those interested in the supposed health impacts of developing natural gas from shale should reference this assessment from October, in which two public health professionals studied conditions in the Barnett shale region of north Texas. Their conclusion? Even though the area has been one of the highest gas producing regions of the country, “key indicators of health improved across every major category.” That followed a study from last summer for the city of Fort Worth which “did not reveal any significant health threats” from shale development.
Links for the footnotes available at the source linked at the top.
Fracking murdered my border collie, and my stepmom!!
We must frack now before it is too late!
I have noticed an increase in the growth of my ear and nose hair since they started fracking. Coincidence? I think NOT.
Guess their checks from the Saudis cleared.
Most fracking "chemicals" are water and sand.
I'm sure there are known carcinogens, since those are everywhere. In fact, it's likely that I ate a pile of known carcinogens at lunch today. I don't see people picketing Applebee's over it.
lol
Aw Jeez!
You hear the same horse hockey about the oil sands mines in Ft. McMoney (McMurray). It has not kept the population down! There are 80k people living there. There are bound to be lay-offs due to low oil prices, but people keep coming.
What? The “environmentalists” and “ecologists” would fight against further expansion of the techniques of fracking, by using hyperbole and demonstrated untruths?
Can they not present a rational argument, founded in demonstrated effectiveness, as to the worth of fracking as a means of extracting wealth from the environment? Or is it enough for them that wealth should NOT, ever, be extracted from the dear Earth Mother?
As far as cows being poisoned by the effects of coming in contact with spilled or escaped petroleum or natural gas, this argument is virtually unchanged from horror stories that were circulated since the early days of oil exploration and extraction in Texas and Oklahoma. All that “damage” was rapidly debunked even back then, and still, like a dog to its own vomit, they keep on going back the the same unfounded and disproved rants.
I tried to find some info on this group,other than from their own sources(which will be biased) & couldn’t find much. What is known about them? It raises red flags when I see things advertised as “environmental” or “ecological”.
Puts a lot of money in the pockets of a lot of ordinary folks too.
That would require rejecting their own religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.