Health Professionals Release Compendium of Studies on Risks of Fracking

Here's a great resource for someone who wants a list of health studies related to unconventional drilling. A few days ago the Concerned Health Professionals of NY and the Physicians for Social Responsibility released their third edition of the Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction).

 "The Compendium," say the authors, "succinctly summarizes key studies and other findings relevant to the ongoing public debate about unconventional methods of oil and gas extraction." It will be useful for people who want to "grasp the scope of the information about both public health and safety concerns and the economic realities of fracking that frame these concerns." For those who want to delve deeper, there are plenty of references to reviews, studies, and articles. Readers wanting more can dive into this fully searchable citation database of peer-reviewed journal articles pertaining to shale gas and oil extraction housed over at PSE Healthy Energy.

The report highlights health risks ranging from air and water pollution as well as risks associate with a newly emerging problem: leakage of methane and other toxic gases from compressors, pipelines, and other infrastructure.

In a letter to NY governor Andrew Cuomo and NY Dept. of Health commissioner Howard A. Zucker, the authors of the study note that more than 100 new peer-reviewed studies on the impacts of drilling and fracking have been published since New York’s high volume fracking ban was announced in December 2014.

They state that the evidence compiled in their report makes clear that residents of New York (and other places) are at risk from gas infrastructure projects. "As with hydrofracking, the evidence available to date confirms that New York’s DOH and DEC were right to note the potential for harmful air impacts, environmental impacts, and other risks from infrastructure," they write. "Compressor stations and pipelines are both major sources of air pollutants, including benzene and formaldehyde, that create serious health risks for those living nearby while offering little or no offsetting economic benefits."

Compressor stations in particular, are pretty much permanent facilities that pollute the air 24 hours a day with emissions and noise.  The health professionals cite particular concerns over a maintenance procedure known as "blowdown", which can last for hours, releasing plumes of gas into the air. These have been associated with short term effects such as nosebleeds, burning eyes and throat, skin irritation, and headache, and the health professionals are concerned about long-term effects such as asthma, heart disease, neurological effects and cancers.

The authors of the Compendium noted, in their comments to the press, that "the pace at which new studies and information are emerging has rapidly accelerated in the past year and a half: in the first few months of 2014, more studies were published on the health effects of fracking than in 2011 and 2012 combined." More than 80 percent of the available studies on the impacts of shale gas development have been published since January 2013, they say. In 2014, 192 peer-reviewed studies on the impacts of fracking were published, and in the first six months of 2015, another 103 studies appeared. "Given the rapidly expanding body of evidence related to the harms and risks of unconventional oil and gas extraction, we plan to continue revising and updating the Compendium approximately every six months," say the authors, noting that the studies cited in this third edition are current through July 31 of this year.

So, who funds this Compendium project? No one. The group states that the Compendium is written "utilizing the benefit of the experience and expertise of numerous health professionals and scientists who have been involved in this issue for years."

More Gas Wells = More Hospital Visits

Bradford County, PA

A new study out of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine shows that people who live near hydraulically fractured wells end up in the hospital more than people who don't live near wells.

Researchers used databases that contained more than 198,000 hospitalizations (including multiple hospitalizations for the same person) for the years between 2007 - 2011. They looked at the top 25 medical categories cited, and the patient's proximity to active wells.

What they found: people living in Bradford and Susquehanna counties ended up in the hospital more frequently than residents of Wayne county. Both Bradford and Susquehanna Counties saw a significant increase in drilling activity over the same five-year period, whereas Wayne County had no drilling activity due to a ban on drilling in the Delaware River watershed.

 The biggest difference was found in hospitalizations for heart conditions and neurological illness. Where there was a well density greater than 0.79 wells/square kilometer, residents experienced a 27% increase in cardiology visits compared to where there were no wells. Residents living near wells also experienced higher rates of hospitalization for cancers, dermatological problems, and a host of other health problems.

 Senior author, Dr. Reynold Panettieri told the press that this study is one of the most comprehensive ones, to date. But there are still questions. "At this point, we suspect that residents are exposed to many toxicants, noise, and social stressors due to hydraulic fracturing," he said. But he cautioned that more study is needed to determine how specific toxicants or combinations might increase the hospitalization rates. For example, cardiac issues could be related to a variety of environmental stressors, including air pollution resulting from diesel exhaust and fine particulate matter, like the sand used in fracking.

While they can't say that fracking causes heart attacks, the authors do say that the increased hospitalizations over such a short time suggest that health care costs of fracking must be considered when looking at economic impacts/benefits of unconventional gas and oil drilling.

The Real Cost of Fracking

Earlier this week I had the pleasure of talking with Michelle Bamberger, a veterinarian and co-writer of the newly-published book, The Real Cost of Fracking (Beacon Press, Aug 2014). Like many living in Ithaca, Michelle Bamberger and her co-researcher, Robert Oswald had never heard about fracking until about five years ago. That’s when they learned that their property was surrounded by leased land and that their land, even without a lease, could be drilled under through a process called compulsory integration.

They were concerned about potential threats to air and water, to local wineries, tourism, and agriculture. But their involvement with veterinary medicine made them keenly aware of what was happening to animals and livestock in drilling areas. Upon hearing stories about cattle and other animals becoming sick and dying after exposure to drilling fluids, they began documenting health problems -  just as they would do when tracing a new disease. What they learned was that too often the people living in the homes and on the farms experienced health symptoms as well.

Bamberger and Oswald published their findings about impacts of gas drilling on human and animal health in a peer-reviewed journal a couple of years ago. But, says Bamberger, “we realized early on that there are a lot of people who would never pick up a scientific article.” So she and Oswald began writing a book that would reach a broader audience.

The Real Cost of Fracking: How America’s shale gas boom is threatening out families, pets, and food is a collection of case studies from Pennsylvania – families and farmers who have seen their animals and children suffer, watched their homes and land lose value, seen their retirement dreams shatter and, in one case, have become shale gas refugees. The book is well-documented, with lots of notes, well-indexed, well-grounded in science – and at the same time very readable.

In the beginning, Bamberger and Oswald outline the difficulties faced by scientists who are trying to study health impacts related to drilling. They discuss baseline water testing, safe drinking water standards, and challenges of air testing. Then they delve into individual case studies. In one chapter they tackle issues of farming and food supply; in another they examine issues of environmental justice.

“We wanted to take our scientific writing and turn it into an interesting story,” Bamberger says. Reading a chapter leaves you asking: if that were me, what would I do?

One caveat the authors put forth at the beginning of the book is that they do not use the real names of the people whose stories they share. While the names are made up, the stories are not, “but each of these stories represents hundreds of similar cases in this country,” Bamberger says.

Collecting information presented a number of challenges for the researchers – from the physical difficulties of reaching some of the locations to obtaining information. One of the obstacles to their research was non-disclosure statements. In many cases where drilling contaminated water wells, the drilling company would require homeowners to sign a statement pledging that they would not talk about their water contamination or any settlement issues before providing drinking water to the home.

The biggest problem with non-disclosure statements, says Bamberger, is that they inhibit the ability of health officials and state regulators to obtain important information about an incident.

Focusing on the health of pets and livestock may seem an odd way to document human health impacts, but Bamberger explains that animals are often the “sentinels” that indicate problems exist. Think: canary in a coal mine. While people head off to work and school, livestock and pets remain on the farm or in the home all day long, exposed to contaminants in air and water. Animals also have higher rates of reproduction and shorter gestation periods than humans, so problems with birth defects often show up earlier, Bamberger points out.

But sentinels can’t replace monitoring – and that’s what’s needed in shale gas country says Bamberger. She points to what happened after the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico: the FDA stepped in because of concerns about seafood absorbing chemicals from the spill. They monitored for oil dispersants and other chemicals – and continue to monitor seafood. But there’s no monitoring of milk, meat or vegetables in and around gas wells, even where there have been spills on pastureland. At almost every meeting she's been to, Bamberger says someone asks whether the food from Pennsylvania farms in gas drilling areas is safe.

As far as whether New York should allow fracking, Bamberger says there’s a lot of science that shows we’re not ready. “Scientists are raising red flags,” she says, “but no one is listening. The government’s not listening. We should get it right before we go further.”

Health Workers told to Put a Lid on it

fracking a well near a home in PA

Over the past few years many Pennsylvania residents living in the gas fields have registered a number of health complaints. They've called everyone from their own doctors to the state's Department of Health. The response: nothing.

Now we know why.The people charged with protecting the public health were told to zip their lips when it came to issues on Marcellus Shale Drilling. Two retirees from the PA Dept. of Health recently spoke to the media and said they were specifically instructed not to return phone calls from residents with health concerns. They were also told they couldn't speak about drilling and health issues at public meetings and were given a list of "buzzwords" identifying issued about which they were to remain silent. Read more here.

Meanwhile, a scientist at the University of Texas, Arlington, is collecting samples from more than 500 private wells to determine whether drilling for oil and gas - and burying chemical waste generated by the O&G exploration - is contaminating groundwater. The project is NOT sponsored by the state environmental regulators, nor is it sponsored by the gas industry. Looks like UT Arlington is shelling out the expenses for this all on its own.

Researcher, Kevin Shug, can't say anything about these samples - the data isn't in yet. However, in a 2013 analysis of samples from 100 wells in the Barnett Shale  he found that one third of the wells had elevated levels of heavy metals including arsenic and selenium.

So, while scientists are investigating health impacts, health professionals can't talk about it.

Colorado Doctor Uses Biomonitoring to Show Drilling Impacts

Can blood tests show the impacts of gas and oil drilling? That’s a question one Colorado doctor hopes to answer. Dr. John Hughes, of Aspen Integrative Medicine recently tested the blood of several Carbondale residents, according to a recent article in the Aspen Daily News. He tested ten people for a range of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene – compounds found in air samples in many drilling areas. His preliminary results found low levels of xylene but, as reporter Nelson Harvey puts it, “no VOC concentrations above federal health thresholds”.

Hughes is looking at this as a baseline, as two gas companies intend to develop 18 gas leases in the area. He’s trying to generate some health data prior to drilling.

Hughes compared the Carbondale samples with blood samples from ten residents in Erie, where close to 17,000 gas wells have already been drilled. He found high levels of ethylbenzene – around 118 parts per billion (ppb) – in the blood of nine Erie test subjects. All of those residents  lived between 300 and 1,800 feet from gas wells, and the highest levels ethylbenzene that Hughes detected was found in people living closest to wells.

By contrast, none of the samples from Carbondale residents showed high levels of ethylbenzene.

The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for ethylbenzene notes that the chemical; “may cause adverse reproductive effects and birth defects … (and) may cause cancer…” That data is based on animal testing.

According to the Centers for Disease Control &Prevention (CDC) National Biomonitoring Program, the median ethylbenzene level in adult’s blood was 0.060 ppb, although residents in high density urban areas may have ethylbenzene levels twice that high. “Workers in the petroleum industry and those with solvent exposure can have blood ethylbenzene levels that are several hundred times higher than those in the general population,” notes the report.

At this time, finding “measurable” levels of ethylbenzene in the blood doesn’t automatically mean the chemical is causing adverse health effects. That data hasn’t been gathered yet. But  biomonitoring studies are important, as they can  provide health officials with reference values when determining whether people have been exposed to higher levels of ethylbenzene than are found in the general population.

And that is exactly what Hughes is doing: using biomonitoring to establish a baseline for Carbondale residents and, if he can continue, study the environmental exposures associated with drilling.

Bad Air, Bad Water, Bad Health

Fracking a well near home in PA

Yesterday NY State Senator David Carlucci told the press that the state senate is considering a delay of fracking until some health studies are complete. He told AP reporter Michael Gormley, "We have to put science first; we have to put the health of New Yorkers first."

Meanwhile:

• NY  Dept. of Health Commissioner Dr. Nirav Shah is still working on the health review that should determine whether the final draft SGEIS (Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement) adequately identifies potential public health impacts of fracking;
• Geisinger Health System in PA is studying the impact of Marcellus shale gas mining on health;
• DEP investigators have found two new cases in Dimock, where methane concentrations in private water wells pose an explosion hazard.

But while the NY legislators await results from those studies, there is a wealth of data indicating that gas drilling is not healthy for children and other living things. Especially living things that depend on breathing.

Consider: Pennsylvania recently completed an air pollution study. The overall results weren’t bad. But pollution from shale gas activity has brought pollution to areas that were previously unpolluted.

This reflects what’s been happening in rural areas out west. Vernal, UT saw high levels of ozone and other pollutants resulting from gas drilling. And last July, Sublette County and portions of Lincoln County WY were declared to be in marginal “non-attainment for ozone” under the Clean Air Act. That means they exceeded the federal 8-hour average threshold of 75 parts per billion (ppb), a standard meant to protect human health.

Certainly these impacts aren’t going to hit everyone equally. “Healthy” people in Fort Worth, TX for example may not feel any ill effects, but susceptible populations – children, elderly, people with chronic respiratory and/or cardiac problems – will feel the impacts. And, as has happened in a number of cases, one neighbor’s well may be contaminated while another well escapes harm – at least for a while.

As a wise and compassionate teacher reminded those who were blessed: care for the least of these (who are not so blessed)… for whatever you do for them, you do for me.

Landowners Threaten to Sue NY if there's No Fracking

New York has done it again: missed another fracking deadline. And this time the Joint Landowners Coalition of NY (JLCNY) is putting its feet down; they're going to sue the state for not allowing fracking.

Why?Because, says JLCNY attorney Scott Kurkoski, "We've been denied all economic benefit to our property."
At issue is the delay of promulgating fracking regulations because, well, the Commissioner of Health is still working on a health study to determine whether - and how - highly industrialized unconventional drilling requiring high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing affects the public health. And the governor is waiting for him to complete the study before he decides whether or not to permit fracking.

This doesn't faze the JLCNY because.... well, because  apparently economic gain trumps health. The idea that the state might want to ensure that public health is not endangered is, to the JLCNY, a "takings". The fact that gas may not even be worth extracting doesn't seem to enter this equation.

Ensuring the health of the public now and for future generations apparently doesn't enter the equation either. Because, says JLCNY president Dan Fitzimmons, the "futures of our children, our communities and everything..." will be taken away if gas drilling isn't allowed.

Ironically, gas drilling IS allowed in NY. It's just one kind of gas drilling that isn't - and, by god, that's the kind JLCNY wants or it will sue. All they're lacking are the plaintiffs.


Meanwhile, other landowners who would prefer to breathe clean air, drink pure water, provide healthy pasture and forage for livestock, and grow nutritious food, wonder if drilling on their neighbor's land might not deny them "all economic benefit" to their property.