Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

“Fracking is going to happen!” says Pittsburgh Authority at Rochester Medical School Talk. Dr. Bernard Goldstein, an environmental health researcher and professor of public health at the University of Pittsburgh, spoke in Rochester about the potential health implications of Marcellus Shale gas development. The talk, sponsored by the University of Rochester Medical Center, took place on July 20th and was well attended by students, faculty and community members. “This fracking issue is the most contentious public health concern that I have seen in my long career, says Goldstein. I don’t take a position on it but I will say I think they are going too fast and are doing things that are not backed up by research. We don’t know the effects of much of what will occur.”<p> <!--break--> <a href="http://www.eoh.pitt.edu/directory/bios/goldstein.asp">Dr. Goldstein</a> is an expert in air quality and environmental health. He currently leads the University of Pittsburgh’s <a href="http://www.chec.pitt.edu">Center for Healthy Environments and Communities</a>, which manages FracTracker, a public access learning tool on the health and environmental implications of shale gas development. <p> I want to respond to several of Dr. Goldstein’s remarks:<ul><li> That the health effects of hydro-fracking are not known </li ><li> That things are going too fast, not backed up by research so he cannot take a position on hydro-fracking.</li ><li> That fracking is going to happen and we are not in a position to move to a clean energy future.</li ></ul ><p> Dr. Goldstein is right in saying that the industry is going too fast, but judging by how rapidly gas drilling has changed the lives and landscape of much of Pennsylvania, as well as the extensive drilling accidents and water contamination in western states, many people who are involved in this issue believe that we have enough documentation of the dangers of the toxic chemicals used in “hydrofracking” and we don’t have the luxury of waiting for more research before taking a position. Dr. Goldstein is extremely cautious about drawing conclusions about the public health effects of fracking. “We are going to have hot spots”, states Goldstein. “These can happen just by chance. I’ve seen situations where several cases of brain cancer were reported in one high school causing concerns but there are other high schools where there is no cancer. The only thing you can do is to wait to see if the increase will continue. If it doesn’t it was only statistical anomaly; if it does, there is a public health crisis.</p ><p> This hesitancy to come to conclusions has been the stance of public officials regarding other chemicals in the environment, resulting in years of exposure to harmful toxins. Lead is the clearest example of this. The destructive effects of lead poisoning were known for 100 years before any regulations were put into place. Industry knew of the effect of lead paint on young children and of the effect of lead gas fumes long before they were ordered removed. Even then, millions of children suffered brain damage due to lax standards. It is only in recent years that we conclude that there is no safe level of exposure to lead. <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead">(The Nation)</a></p > Dr. Colburn, president of the Endocrine Disruptor Exchange in Colorado, gave written testimony on her research into chemicals used in hydrofracking before the House Committee on Oversight and government Reform in which she noted: <blockquote> “… a consistent pattern of health effects kept emerging. Taking into consideration that air and water were the most likely pathways of exposures, we broke out the chemicals into two groups: volatile chemicals and water soluble. From 68% to 86% of the volatile chemicals cause mild to severe irritation of the skin, eye, sinuses, nose, throat, lungs, and the stomach, and cause effects on the brain and nervous system ranging from headaches, blackouts, memory loss, confusion, fatigue or exhaustion, and permanent neuropathies. Many of these chemicals are called sensitizers; they can lead to the development of allergic reactions. 35% to 55% of the chemicals cause disorders that develop slowly such as cardiovascular, kidney, immune system changes, and reproductive organ damage and are toxic to wildlife.” <a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/colburn_testimony_071025.pdf">Colburn Statement (10/25/07)</a> </blockquote > Dr. Colburn points out that “medical practitioners have no way to link health effects such as these with an environmental contaminant”. Yes, the number of variables impacting people’s health (e.g. nutrition, environmental toxins, genetics) make it difficult to conclusively ascribe direct cause and effect relationships between environmental contaminants and a wide variety of health problems. But - the overwhelming incidence of people having good health before exposure to fracking chemicals and becoming very sick after exposure, make it critical to take a position and not wait for research. The cautious approach taken by Dr. Goldstein and some other health care professionals seems irresponsible in light of what we do know, such as: <ul><li> According to an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the spike in bromide salts in rivers receiving fracking wastewater has already put some public water providers in violation of federal safe drinking water standards. These salts are toxic and, when put through typical municipal wastewater treatment processing, create products that have been linked to cancer and birth defects. Millions of gallons of “treated” fracking wastewater are dumped into the Ohio River and its tributaries every day. The spike in bromide levels has coincided with the dramatic increase in hydrofracking activities over the last few years in this region. <a href="href">Physics Today</a> </li ><li> In April, a shale-gas well in northern Pennsylvania owned by Chesapeake Energy blew out during fracking, spilling thousands of gallons of fracking fluid on surrounding land. A similar event occurred in June 2010 at a well in that state operated by EOG Resources, and for 16 hours thousands of gallons of fracking fluid spilled over the surrounding fields. (also, physicstoday.org) </li ><li> While the existence of the toxic wastes has been reported, thousands of internal documents obtained by The New York Times from the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulators and drillers show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood. The documents reveal that the wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle. Other documents and interviews show that many E.P.A. scientists are alarmed, warning that the drilling waste is a threat to drinking water in Pennsylvania. Their concern is based partly on a 2009 study, never made public, written by an E.P.A. consultant who concluded that some sewage treatment plants were incapable of removing certain drilling waste contaminants and were probably violating the law. The Times also found never-reported studies by the E.P.A. and a confidential study by the drilling industry that all concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways. (NYTimes 2/27/11) </li ></ul ><p> It is widely known that the oil and gas industry has been given exemptions from the Federal Laws that regulate pollutants in our environment: the Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (sets standards regarding hazardous waste), Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (requires companies to report the release of significant levels of toxic substances), Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, which limits emissions of nearly 190 toxic air pollutants, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which exempts oil and gas from liability for clean-up costs of hazardous substances. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), enacted in 1969, The exemption, enacted by Congress in 2005, effectively shifts the burden of proof to the public to prove that such activities would be unsafe. ewg.org</a></p ><p> Why does the oil and gas industry need to be exempt from these laws if the process of hydrofracking is safe? <br /> Dr. Goldstein reported that the gas companies are doing their own research and are constantly improving their practice. But we don’t know their data or findings. He strongly suggests that governments and interested organizations work together to gather baseline data on all these measures of concern especially air and water quality. He says that without solid baseline data it will takes years more before we can learn the true effects of fracking on humans and on our environment. But don’t we have enough data to have serious concerns? If the gas companies were open to discussing these concerns, we might be able to develop trust in the process. But instead what people who have experienced problems with their water or polluted air is denial and refusal to take any responsibility. </p ><p> Dr. Goldstein began his talk by saying that “fracking is going to happen”, and that sustainable energy will not produce enough for our energy needs. (He produced no data to support his statement ) If we start now to seriously invest in sustainable energy, and give subsidies to the renewable industry instead of to fossil fuel companies, we can attain clean energy economy quickly. According to Mark Jacobson and Mrk Delucchi, Scientific American, November 2009: <ul><li> Analyzing only on-land locations with a high potential for producing power, they found that even if wind were the only method used to generate power, the potential for wind energy production is 5 to 15 times greater than what is needed to power the entire world. For solar energy, the comparable calculation found that solar could produce about 30 times the amount needed. The study further provides examples of how a combination of renewable energy sources could be used to meet hour-by-hour power demand, addressing the commonly asked question, given the inherent variability of wind speed and sunshine, can these sources consistently produce enough power? The answer is yes. </li ><li> Expanding the transmission grid would be critical for the shift to the sustainable energy sources that Jacobson and Delucchi propose. New transmission lines would have to be laid to carry power from new wind farms and solar power plants to users, and more transmission lines will be needed to handle the overall increase in the quantity of electric power being generated. </li ><li> Finally, they conclude that perhaps the most significant barrier to the implementation of their plan is the competing energy industries that currently dominate political lobbying for available financial resources. But the technologies being promoted by the dominant energy industries are not renewable and even the cleanest of them emit significantly more carbon and air pollution than wind, water and sun resources, say Jacobson and Delucchi. </li ><li> If the world allows carbon- and air pollution-emitting energy sources to play a substantial role in the future energy mix, Jacobson said, global temperatures and health problems will only continue to increase. <a href="http:www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030">Scientific American</a> </li ></ul ><p> Too much public history has to do with the cleanup of the disaster. Just note the BP disaster. Fracking has this potential. We can no more trust the gas companies to act responsibly than we could the lead industry and the oil companies. It was not science that stopped the bad practices it was the public outcry and the leadership of our public health officials. <br />

<p>“Fracking is going to happen!” says Pittsburgh Authority at Rochester Medical School Talk. Dr. Bernard Goldstein, an environmental health researcher and professor of public health at the University of Pittsburgh, spoke in Rochester about the potential health implications of Marcellus Shale gas development. The talk, sponsored by the University of Rochester Medical Center, took place on July 20th and was well attended by students, faculty and community members. “This fracking issue is the most contentious public health concern that I have seen in my long career, says Goldstein. I don’t take a position on it but I will say I think they are going too fast and are doing things that are not backed up by research. We don’t know the effects of much of what will occur.”<br /> <!--break--></p><p> <a href="http://www.eoh.pitt.edu/directory/bios/goldstein.asp">Dr. Goldstein</a> is an expert in air quality and environmental health. He currently leads the University of Pittsburgh’s <a href="http://www.chec.pitt.edu">Center for Healthy Environments and Communities</a>, which manages FracTracker, a public access learning tool on the health and environmental implications of shale gas development. </p><p> I want to respond to several of Dr. Goldstein’s remarks: </p><ul> <li> That the health effects of hydro-fracking are not known </li> <li> That things are going too fast, not backed up by research so he cannot take a position on hydro-fracking.</li> <li> That fracking is going to happen and we are not in a position to move to a clean energy future.</li></ul> <p> Dr. Goldstein is right in saying that the industry is going too fast, but judging by how rapidly gas drilling has changed the lives and landscape of much of Pennsylvania, as well as the extensive drilling accidents and water contamination in western states, many people who are involved in this issue believe that we have enough documentation of the dangers of the toxic chemicals used in “hydrofracking” and we don’t have the luxury of waiting for more research before taking a position. Dr. Goldstein is extremely cautious about drawing conclusions about the public health effects of fracking. “We are going to have hot spots”, states Goldstein. “These can happen just by chance. I’ve seen situations where several cases of brain cancer were reported in one high school causing concerns but there are other high schools where there is no cancer. The only thing you can do is to wait to see if the increase will continue. If it doesn’t it was only statistical anomaly; if it does, there is a public health crisis.</p> <p> This hesitancy to come to conclusions has been the stance of public officials regarding other chemicals in the environment, resulting in years of exposure to harmful toxins. Lead is the clearest example of this. The destructive effects of lead poisoning were known for 100 years before any regulations were put into place. Industry knew of the effect of lead paint on young children and of the effect of lead gas fumes long before they were ordered removed. Even then, millions of children suffered brain damage due to lax standards. It is only in recent years that we conclude that there is no safe level of exposure to lead. <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead">(The Nation)</a></p> Dr. Colburn, president of the Endocrine Disruptor Exchange in Colorado, gave written testimony on her research into chemicals used in hydrofracking before the House Committee on Oversight and government Reform in which she noted:<br /> <blockquote> “… a consistent pattern of health effects kept emerging. Taking into consideration that air and water were the most likely pathways of exposures, we broke out the chemicals into two groups: volatile chemicals and water soluble. From 68% to 86% of the volatile chemicals cause mild to severe irritation of the skin, eye, sinuses, nose, throat, lungs, and the stomach, and cause effects on the brain and nervous system ranging from headaches, blackouts, memory loss, confusion, fatigue or exhaustion, and permanent neuropathies. Many of these chemicals are called sensitizers; they can lead to the development of allergic reactions. 35% to 55% of the chemicals cause disorders that develop slowly such as cardiovascular, kidney, immune system changes, and reproductive organ damage and are toxic to wildlife.” <a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/colburn_testimony_071025.pdf">Colburn Statement (10/25/07)</a> </blockquote> Dr. Colburn points out that “medical practitioners have no way to link health effects such as these with an environmental contaminant”. Yes, the number of variables impacting people’s health (e.g. nutrition, environmental toxins, genetics) make it difficult to conclusively ascribe direct cause and effect relationships between environmental contaminants and a wide variety of health problems. But - the overwhelming incidence of people having good health before exposure to fracking chemicals and becoming very sick after exposure, make it critical to take a position and not wait for research. The cautious approach taken by Dr. Goldstein and some other health care professionals seems irresponsible in light of what we do know, such as: <ul> <li> According to an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the spike in bromide salts in rivers receiving fracking wastewater has already put some public water providers in violation of federal safe drinking water standards. These salts are toxic and, when put through typical municipal wastewater treatment processing, create products that have been linked to cancer and birth defects. Millions of gallons of “treated” fracking wastewater are dumped into the Ohio River and its tributaries every day. The spike in bromide levels has coincided with the dramatic increase in hydrofracking activities over the last few years in this region. <a href="href">Physics Today</a> </li> <li> In April, a shale-gas well in northern Pennsylvania owned by Chesapeake Energy blew out during fracking, spilling thousands of gallons of fracking fluid on surrounding land. A similar event occurred in June 2010 at a well in that state operated by EOG Resources, and for 16 hours thousands of gallons of fracking fluid spilled over the surrounding fields. (also, physicstoday.org) </li> <li> While the existence of the toxic wastes has been reported, thousands of internal documents obtained by The New York Times from the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulators and drillers show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood. The documents reveal that the wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle. Other documents and interviews show that many E.P.A. scientists are alarmed, warning that the drilling waste is a threat to drinking water in Pennsylvania. Their concern is based partly on a 2009 study, never made public, written by an E.P.A. consultant who concluded that some sewage treatment plants were incapable of removing certain drilling waste contaminants and were probably violating the law. The Times also found never-reported studies by the E.P.A. and a confidential study by the drilling industry that all concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways. (NYTimes 2/27/11) </li></ul> <p> It is widely known that the oil and gas industry has been given exemptions from the Federal Laws that regulate pollutants in our environment: the Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (sets standards regarding hazardous waste), Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (requires companies to report the release of significant levels of toxic substances), Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, which limits emissions of nearly 190 toxic air pollutants, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which exempts oil and gas from liability for clean-up costs of hazardous substances. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), enacted in 1969, The exemption, enacted by Congress in 2005, effectively shifts the burden of proof to the public to prove that such activities would be unsafe. ewg.org</p> <p> Why does the oil and gas industry need to be exempt from these laws if the process of hydrofracking is safe? <br /> Dr. Goldstein reported that the gas companies are doing their own research and are constantly improving their practice. But we don’t know their data or findings. He strongly suggests that governments and interested organizations work together to gather baseline data on all these measures of concern especially air and water quality. He says that without solid baseline data it will takes years more before we can learn the true effects of fracking on humans and on our environment. But don’t we have enough data to have serious concerns? If the gas companies were open to discussing these concerns, we might be able to develop trust in the process. But instead what people who have experienced problems with their water or polluted air is denial and refusal to take any responsibility. </p> <p> Dr. Goldstein began his talk by saying that “fracking is going to happen”, and that sustainable energy will not produce enough for our energy needs. (He produced no data to support his statement ) If we start now to seriously invest in sustainable energy, and give subsidies to the renewable industry instead of to fossil fuel companies, we can attain clean energy economy quickly. According to Mark Jacobson and Mrk Delucchi, Scientific American, November 2009: </p><ul> <li> Analyzing only on-land locations with a high potential for producing power, they found that even if wind were the only method used to generate power, the potential for wind energy production is 5 to 15 times greater than what is needed to power the entire world. For solar energy, the comparable calculation found that solar could produce about 30 times the amount needed. The study further provides examples of how a combination of renewable energy sources could be used to meet hour-by-hour power demand, addressing the commonly asked question, given the inherent variability of wind speed and sunshine, can these sources consistently produce enough power? The answer is yes. </li> <li> Expanding the transmission grid would be critical for the shift to the sustainable energy sources that Jacobson and Delucchi propose. New transmission lines would have to be laid to carry power from new wind farms and solar power plants to users, and more transmission lines will be needed to handle the overall increase in the quantity of electric power being generated. </li> <li> Finally, they conclude that perhaps the most significant barrier to the implementation of their plan is the competing energy industries that currently dominate political lobbying for available financial resources. But the technologies being promoted by the dominant energy industries are not renewable and even the cleanest of them emit significantly more carbon and air pollution than wind, water and sun resources, say Jacobson and Delucchi. </li> <li> If the world allows carbon- and air pollution-emitting energy sources to play a substantial role in the future energy mix, Jacobson said, global temperatures and health problems will only continue to increase. <a href="http:www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030">Scientific American</a> </li></ul> <p> Too much public history has to do with the cleanup of the disaster. Just note the BP disaster. Fracking has this potential. We can no more trust the gas companies to act responsibly than we could the lead industry and the oil companies. It was not science that stopped the bad practices it was the public outcry and the leadership of our public health officials. </p>

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion? http://rochester.indymedia.org/node/6980

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion? http://rochester.indymedia.org/node/6980

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?

Is Hydrofacking in New York State really a foregone conclusion?