Ever hear of the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project? I doubt it. This organization (known as SWPA-EHP) has been running a major study in the Washington Country area of Southwestern Pennsylvania to see if there is a link between drilling for natural gas using fracking and health problems suffered by the local residents. The latest results of their study were just released, and they are well worth reading.
Before discussing the actual results, it is worth noting how the study was done. SWPA-EHP looked for people with medical complaints that met certain criteria. First, they had to develop symptoms or see worsening of existing symptoms after drilling began in the area. (Over 700 gas wells have been drilled in the county.) Second, there had to be a plausible source of exposure of the individual. Third, the symptoms were not counted if the individual had another condition that was as likely to have cause the condition. This all may sound like great care being taken to get correct results, but actually, the study is skewed towards finding environmental problems for two reasons: a) no exposure to any byproduct of fracking had to be shown. All that was needed was a plausible source of exposure. That means that there is no way to connect the symptoms to exposure. b) More important, the study included people who self selected as folks suffering the effects of exposure to pollutants. Sure, if there was another explanation for the symptoms, the person was dropped, but absent another explanation that person was kept in the study. This means that someone who succumbed to the suggestion that pollution might be causing problems with psychosomatic symptoms is included in the final figures.
So after an almost three year effort, what did SWPA-EHP find? People who met the study criteria had skin rashes, nose bleeds, nausea, abdominal pain or breathing difficulties. But, after three years and 700 wells drilled and fracked in an area that is home to over a quarter of a million people, SWPA-EHP only found 27 people with symptoms that met the study criteria. Of these 27, only seven had possible exposure to water affected by fracking. Keep in mind that there is no evidence that any of these seven people were actually exposed to contaminated water; rather, it was just plausible that such exposure took place. Further, there is no way to know how many, if any, of the seven imagined their symptoms after reading alarmist stories about the horrors of fracking.
This is an amazing story as far as fracking is concerned. For years, the environmentalists have been screaming about the terrible water pollution that fracking causes. Now, a detailed study finds at most seven people who possibly were exposed to water pollution in a highly populated area where over 700 wells were drilled and fracked! It puts the lie once and forever to the claim that fracking causes water pollution.
It is also worth noting that the study itself says that the other twenty "cases" of symptoms were cause by natural gas pipeline pumping stations rather than by the wells themselves. While even this figure of 20 possible sets of symptoms is overstated for the reasons already discussed, the key point is that they have nothing, NOTHING, to do with fracking.
One other point is worth noting. The natural gas which is being produced by fracking is replacing coal in power plants and (to a lesser extent) diesel in trucks and busses. This means that particulate emissions across America are dropping lower each day due to this gas. Just think how many people with asthma are avoiding problems as a result of this lower pollution. Then let's consider the reduced emission of greenhouse gases. For the environmentalists, this is big news. Natural gas gives off 40% less of these gases than diesel. The comparison to coal is even better.
The truth is that this study, which was designed to condemn fracking, has shown the opposite result from what was expected.
Before discussing the actual results, it is worth noting how the study was done. SWPA-EHP looked for people with medical complaints that met certain criteria. First, they had to develop symptoms or see worsening of existing symptoms after drilling began in the area. (Over 700 gas wells have been drilled in the county.) Second, there had to be a plausible source of exposure of the individual. Third, the symptoms were not counted if the individual had another condition that was as likely to have cause the condition. This all may sound like great care being taken to get correct results, but actually, the study is skewed towards finding environmental problems for two reasons: a) no exposure to any byproduct of fracking had to be shown. All that was needed was a plausible source of exposure. That means that there is no way to connect the symptoms to exposure. b) More important, the study included people who self selected as folks suffering the effects of exposure to pollutants. Sure, if there was another explanation for the symptoms, the person was dropped, but absent another explanation that person was kept in the study. This means that someone who succumbed to the suggestion that pollution might be causing problems with psychosomatic symptoms is included in the final figures.
So after an almost three year effort, what did SWPA-EHP find? People who met the study criteria had skin rashes, nose bleeds, nausea, abdominal pain or breathing difficulties. But, after three years and 700 wells drilled and fracked in an area that is home to over a quarter of a million people, SWPA-EHP only found 27 people with symptoms that met the study criteria. Of these 27, only seven had possible exposure to water affected by fracking. Keep in mind that there is no evidence that any of these seven people were actually exposed to contaminated water; rather, it was just plausible that such exposure took place. Further, there is no way to know how many, if any, of the seven imagined their symptoms after reading alarmist stories about the horrors of fracking.
This is an amazing story as far as fracking is concerned. For years, the environmentalists have been screaming about the terrible water pollution that fracking causes. Now, a detailed study finds at most seven people who possibly were exposed to water pollution in a highly populated area where over 700 wells were drilled and fracked! It puts the lie once and forever to the claim that fracking causes water pollution.
It is also worth noting that the study itself says that the other twenty "cases" of symptoms were cause by natural gas pipeline pumping stations rather than by the wells themselves. While even this figure of 20 possible sets of symptoms is overstated for the reasons already discussed, the key point is that they have nothing, NOTHING, to do with fracking.
One other point is worth noting. The natural gas which is being produced by fracking is replacing coal in power plants and (to a lesser extent) diesel in trucks and busses. This means that particulate emissions across America are dropping lower each day due to this gas. Just think how many people with asthma are avoiding problems as a result of this lower pollution. Then let's consider the reduced emission of greenhouse gases. For the environmentalists, this is big news. Natural gas gives off 40% less of these gases than diesel. The comparison to coal is even better.
The truth is that this study, which was designed to condemn fracking, has shown the opposite result from what was expected.
No comments:
Post a Comment