Animals are dying in gas-drilling country. Are humans next?
What do 17 dead cows, seven stillborn puppies, an anorexic horse, and a delirious child have in common? Unfortunately, there's no punch line to this one.
Animals are dying in gas-drilling country. Are humans next?
Jonathan Purtle, Doctoral candidate in public health. Works at Drexel's Center for Nonviolence and Social Justice
What do 17 dead cows, seven stillborn puppies, an anorexic horse, and a delirious child have in common?
Unfortunately, there’s no punch line to this one. According to research published recently in New Solutions, a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on environmental and occupational health policy, they’re all suspected casualties of drilling for natural gas.
As we described in previous posts, a range of health risks have been associated with hydraulic fracturing and other parts of the extraction process, such as the chemicals that are injected deep underground and the natural, but toxic, compounds that rise to the surface. Industry-friendly policies, however, have prevented high-quality public health studies that are needed to accurately measure the impact. The missing research, in turn, stymies regulatory policies to protect the public’s health.
Lacking sufficient data to conduct an epidemiological investigation, the authors of the dead-cows study (veterinarians Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald, who is on the faculty at Cornell University) reviewed 25 recent cases where health problems among animals, and their owners, were suspected of being linked to natural gas drilling. They interviewed animal owners in six states affected by gas drilling: Colorado, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Since many of the individual cases are in litigation, however, details about who, where, and when are omitted from the published article.
Nevertheless, they make for compelling reading:
In one case, fluid used in hydraulic fracturing was accidently released into a cow pasture—apparently killing 17 otherwise healthy cows in one hour. (The industry frequently points out that such fluid is 99.5% water and sand ... )
Another case describes a series of events at two homes that were exposed to a large amount of natural gas drilling wastewater. First, a horse suddenly developed “anorexia” and neurological abnormalities, and died of liver failure. Then a dog, having previously delivered three healthy litters, birthed a fourth in which one puppy was stillborn and another had a cleft palate. In her fifth litter, seven puppies were stillborn and an eighth died with 24 hours; some were hairless. Last was a child, who began to suffer fatigue, severe abdominal pain, confusion, and delirium. After the child was hospitalized, a toxicology test revealed arsenic poisoning.
And then there is the natural case-control cow study: A farmer had three different pastures of cattle in an area with intense natural gas drilling. In each pasture, the cows drank from a different water source—60 from a creek, 20 from hillside runoff, 16 from a pond. Over a three-month period, 21 of the cows that drank from the creek suddenly died. Of the 39 the creek-drinking cows who survived, 16 failed to reproduce that spring and many had calves that were stillborn or had abnormalities such as eyes with unmatched colors. The health of the cattle in the other two pastures was unaffected.
The report presents many other cases. As the authors clearly state, the observational study lacks the scientific rigor of controlled experiments or robust epidemiological research. While the cases presented are largely anecdotal, the study provides the most comprehensive account to date of the health impacts of natural gas drilling (previous studies have focused on environmental impacts—a related, but different question).
As acknowledged by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, much more research is needed to make a case that natural gas drilling causes public health problems. That means, of course, that such research actually needs be conducted—a process that could be aided by laws mandating the full disclosure of chemicals used under all circumstances, and by regular testing of water, air, and soil before, during, and after the extraction takes place.
Scientific research often takes years to establish cause and effect, and government routinely acts to protect the public’s health when many people potentially could be harmed while waiting. Indeed, we all make decisions based on anecdotal evidence. I took an umbrella to work on Wednesday because it looked cloudy and felt like rain.
I didn’t want to wait for peer-reviewed weather data—or a soaking.
Read more about The Public's Health.
Keep trying...I am sure some environmental group will find a 3 headed martian and blame "drilling". Ridiculous. Keep trying...— kelprod2- This silly denial of factual information on fracking is a typical Republican response. But once it comes to accepting a gas well near their own homes, these same Republicans scream like stuck pigs. By then, of course, it's too late. — ahab
- "Downed cows" are nothing new in the NE where the drilling and fracking is being done. I worked with a large animal vet which serviced mainly dairy cows in Bradford and Wyoming Co's. It was common to have a "downed cow" for various reasons. End result was the cow was sent to the slaughter house in Wyalusing if he was still able to stand, and to the dog food plant if he died. Enjoy your steaks folks.— dogman5
- When more than 1/3 of a herd of 60 cows dies abruptly, that's certainly something new on any farm. The big question here is why aren't more systematic studies being done? There's this big new industry moving into our state. Anybody think that it won't leave any footprint at all? OK, so what kind of footprint can we expect? The new impact fee bill seems designed to make it as hard as possible to find out, and his story suggests that isn't a great thing. — Father Fan
- kelprod you know you are a moron... right?— the juke
- Nothing new here. Between this issue and polluted water, etc have reported over the years where has occurred or is ongoing.— woodin
- Thank you for giving a voice to this important peer-reviewed article by veterinary experts. The natural case-control cow study is particularly compelling, showing the devastating effects of contaminated creek water.
If the anecdotal evidence does not raise concern to you, then there is at least one important takeaway: Industry and the government (insofar as there is a difference) simply do not monitor the health effects of their actions. The lack of acknowledgement, accountability, and responsibility makes atrocities possible - and legal.— joeronimo - Its nice that they can continue to promote the liberal agenda without having FACTS to back up their claims. They even said that they lack sufficient data and high quality health studies. But who needs facts when you can just publish conjecture in an attempt to scare the public?— psyrus
- Since when is caring about the water you drink a concern only for liberals? Conserving the environment is an inherently conservative position. And it seems to me that the take-away from this story is that spending the time and money required to get better data is not a waste. So why aren't our legislators supporting this kind of study? — Father Fan
Comment removed.- Stop trolling. You have no clue of what you are talking about. When the scientists tell you that they have no facts to back up their claim, its not science. Publishing incomplete data in an attempt to scare the public is disgusting. If the animals died on the full moon one can also ludicrously make a case that it was the full moon that killed them. Science isn't based on causality or conjecture, its based on sound research and facts. Just because these problems happened in a fracking area doesn't mean fracking caused the problems. — psyrus
- Peer reviewed - just like the crony, grant seeking group of 'scientists' pushing the anthropomorphic global warming hoax.— JerryCurlan
- Peer reviewed - just like the crony, grant seeking group of 'scientists' pushing the anthropomorphic global warming hoax.— JerryCurlan
- Buy a clue, Jerry. You want a great big grant from the NSF or National Geographic Society? Come up with some solid data that supports a different model for the decades long trend of increasing average global temperatures. Good luck with that. — Father Fan
- Just like the power lines that cause cancer; just like the vaccines that cause autism. All junk sciene at best and out and out fraud at worst. If you spent one day working in a civil law office, you know you can find any "expert" to say anything. I am much less concerned with the authors' pedigree and much more concerned with their predisposition on the issues. I must have missed that in the article. But if it were an industry study concluding that there was no connection you can bet your bottom dollar the "impartial" authors of this article would point out (repeatedly) that the authors "work or were hired by the fracking industry." Show me the vetting job on the auhtors of this study. Won't happen.— SammyMaudlin
