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.
- Did you read the blog post above? The author is pointing out that there are informal studies that suggest there's a problem worth investigating, not jumping to kooky conclusions.
Everybody brings their own biases to any scientific study, and one powerful bias is to keep receiving your paycheck. I suppose you believe all those tobacco executives when they testified before Congress that cigarettes aren't bad for your health? After all, they worked in the industry; who would know better than them?
Not being an ostrich myself, I'd like to see some careful studies done by some reasonably independent scientists to find out exactly what consequences we can expect from having our state become the site of large-scale energy extraction. And I really wish that our legislators hadn't given the green light before finding out what the consequences might be. Of course the "conservative" thing to do here is just let the gas companies drill all they want because nothing really bad could possibly happen. Yeah, that's conservative.— Father Fan - The only thing in fracking fluid is water, some anti-bacterial agents (like in anti-bacterial soap), some anti-freeze, and sand. It is used all over the world in Off Shore Oil drilling because it is safe for marine animals if spilled. The concentrations of the chemicals are very low and not harmful.
A bigger source of disease in creeks and the pastures is all the goose and duck droppings. They cause multiple types of bacterial issues in animals and the infections can kill the livestock.— tina848 - doesn't take a genius to realize that when you take thousands of chemicals and place them in the ground that environmental impact follows. even a selfish, greedy and intellectually disingenuous conservative can see that.— slanted and enchanted
- @tina848 - You forgot to include volatile organic compounds such as benzene and toluene (among others). You also forgot to include harmful naturally occurring elements and compounds brought up from underground.
And yes, the concentrations of chemicals are around 0.5% of the fracking fluid ... but if 1 frack operation uses 1 million gallons (a low estimate), that's 5000 gallons of chemicals - does that sounds like a little bit of chemicals?— joeronimo - LOL....global cooling, global warming, peak oil, overpopulation, DDT, etc., etc., etc. Fracking is the new environmentalist scare tactic. We have been fracking for years and the technology and safety procedures continue to improve while also providing millions of jobs and lessening our dependence on foreign countries(who couldn't care less about the environment by the way). People in general(liberals and us "selfish, greedy conservatives") love the environment and wouldn't stand for its wontan destruction.....stop watching garbage like Gasland and actually try to educate yourself before you start hyperventilating!— cujat13
- LoL...What a joke of a report. Liberals are always trying to publish misinformation to confuse the general public.— Citizenc92
- These additives (listed in a U.S. House of Representatives Report[32]) include biocides, surfactants, viscosity-modifiers, and emulsifiers. They vary widely in toxicity: Many are used in household products such as cosmetics, lotions, soaps, detergents, furniture polishes, floor waxes, and paints,[33] and some are used in food products. Although some of the chemicals pose no known health hazards, some are known carcinogens, some are toxic, some are neurotoxins. For example: benzene (causes cancer, bone marrow failure), lead (damages the nervous system and causes brain disorders), ethylene glycol (antifreeze, causes death), methanol (highly toxic), boric acid (kidney damage, death), 2-butoxyethanol (causes hemolysis). Gamma-emitting isotopes (can cause cancer) are also included in the fluid. Some of the isotopes used are Gold-198, Xenon-133, Iodine-131, Rubidium-86, Chromium-51, Iron-59, Antimony-124, Strontium-85, Cobalt-58, Iridium-192, Scandium-46, Zinc-65, Silver-110, Cobalt-57, Cobalt-60, and Krypton-85.[25]
Who wouldn't want to drink that?— oakster - Oakster wins. Conservatives fail yet again. Keep making excuses, its what you all do best.— gordon7
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- "kelprod2 and psyrus are just paid shills for the drilling industry; they know what they are doing is wrong and they continue to promote it for money, which is subhuman." --- That was one of the most stupidest statements I've read yet on these boards. You think I am being paid by frackers? HA! In fact, I do not even recall saying that fracking was 100% safe. I just called out these "scientists" for their shoddy attempt at "science". The fact that many liberals rush to support these "researchers" show just how little they care for facts and just how far they are willing go to further their agenda.— psyrus
- Most stupidest? Anyway ...
If you read the report, you will see that the authors are not claiming a causal link - their message is twofold:
1) Injecting carcinogens and neurotoxins into the ground and water is inherently risky in regards to health
2) Given these documented cases of illness that occur soon after drilling operations, there needs to be a framework for complete studies.
The drilling companies don't even release every chemical used in fracking - and they are not required to report what naturally occurring elements/compounds return to the surface. Moreover, victims of contamination are bound to nondiscosure agreements, keeping the information private. How can anyone complete a study without that essential information?
— joeronimo - "Most stupidest?" --- Yes I was just being a bit silly. I didn't say their research was causal. I was simply responding to the blind liberalism of a frequent board troll. I agree that complete studies need to be done. The public needs to know what is going on in their own back yards. But releasing unproven research as fact is dangerous and irresponsible. — psyrus
- Credibility on the internet is apparently open to those who post most frequently and with the greatest ire. My wish is that the cloak of anonymity would be removed from all those who post on these articles. Judging by the frequency, the ire, and the timing of the posts by those who decry this article I would say that they are being paid to attempt to counteract a factual report. If you want to win the war against this sort of machine you will have to mobilize your time, your effort, and your money into organizations that are dedicated to protecting the public and our environment from the lobbyists who are posting on here.— skeptical1123
- So says the person who has the username of skeptical1123. You could have easily used your real name when you signed up and avoided looking like a hypocrite. I post on my different articles but I am usually drawn to the controversial ones. Its a personal preference. — psyrus
