Natural gas flares from Marcellus shale wells in Tioga County, Penna.

From an Article by Sarah Boden, WESA Public Radio, Pittsburgh, August 2, 2019

A new study finds that pregnant women living near hydraulic fracking activity in Pennsylvania are more likely to develop depression and anxiety.

“These are vulnerable women who are growing another human being inside of them,” said Joan A. Casey, the study’s lead author and an environmental health scientist at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.

Casey and her colleagues conducted the study with 7,715 research volunteers; all were expectant mothers within the Geisinger Health System, which serves much of central Pennsylvania.

“Basically … if we took 100 women and we expose them to the higher levels of fracking activity during pregnancy, four of them would develop anxiety or depression that otherwise would not have developed it,” she said.

The Independent Petroleum Association of America said in an e-mail that it takes issue with the fact the study didn’t look at environmental data.

“While these epidemiological studies claim to find possible connections based on limited data sets and assumptions, the reality here in Pennsylvania is that study after study of actual air and water sampling near these sites continue to show that shale development is being done in a way that’s protective of public health,” wrote spokesperson Nicole Jacobs.

Casey pointed out that increased traffic connected to fracking can degrade local air quality, while increasing sound pollution and other commotion in a community.

Part of the reason these mothers experienced adverse mental health issues, she said, could be due to concerns around environmental impacts, paired with a lack of control surrounding the changes.

“Mothers have reported feeling like they can’t keep their children safe,” she said. “We can’t say we’re 100 percent sure that these women are developing anxiety or depression during pregnancy as a result of living near unconventional natural gas development in the Marcellus shale, but I don’t have another explanation for what we’re observing here.”

Casey said her team controlled for a variety of factors including age, race, whether a volunteer smoked and socioeconomic status. Even after taking these factors into account, women that were living closer to a greater number of fracking wells appeared to be at an elevated risk for developing anxiety and depression.

While the study found that a woman’s depression or anxiety issues did not lead her to giving birth prematurely or having a baby with low birth weight, Casey said a mother’s mental health still affects her child.

“There is quite a bit of evidence that women who have anxiety or depression during pregnancy are at an elevated risk of postpartum depression,” she said. “We’ve all seen the literature on how postpartum depression is can be very serious and can affect both the mother the husband or father of the child as well as the child’s development.”

The Department of Health and Human Services says pediatric developmental issues related to maternal post-partum can include speech delays, behavioral and social problems, problems with mother-child bonding, shorter height, risk of obesity, and a child feeling agitated or crying more.

The study was published in the journal “Environmental Research.”

Ethics and Extreme Extraction: Local Reflections on Global Issues

By S. Tom Bond, Retired Chemistry Professor & Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV

Ethics is an increasing issue in unconventional resource extraction.  Taken individually, the issues which have been heard from the beginning have had an ethical component.  The complaints include destruction of aquifers, air pollution, reduction of property values, costs deferred to the public including roads, record room crowding, traffic (including emergency vehicles) held up, mud slides and so on.

These have largely been thought of as individual matters and as a loss to individuals.  They have been shrugged off by business and government, and largely ignored by the general public which feels little involvement and powerless to stop the well funded extraction companies, supported by endless public relations ploys and advertising.

As understanding diffuses (slowly) to the public at large,  and more and more people come to know someone involved, the unifying theme of ethics becomes stronger.  People are not without empathy.

Another slowly dawning awareness was discussed by Professor Garrett Hardin in an article published in Science, the Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, all the way back in 1968.  This article is well worth the readers time if not familiar with the phrase “tragedy of the commons.” It is the perception that in reality much of the physical world belongs to all of us.  All of us in the present, and all who follow.  Life is short, and while we live and die in the present, we are bound, for our descendant’s sake, to plan for the extended future as far as we can see it.   It is gross incompetence in the use of our minds to ignore that responsibility.  It is ethical bankruptcy.  It is properly the stuff of ethics and religion.  It is a threat to civilization.

Not only has the fossil fuel industry continued trading human lives for profit, but, since it is difficult to convince free people to poison their own water sources or blow up their own backyards, it has increasingly killed democracy in order to keep killing people for profit. is part of of an article titled, ” The Church Should Lead, Not Follow on Climate Justice.”  The author spoke at a conference at Harvard Divinity School, “Spiritual and Sustainable: Religion Responds to Climate Change.” And, in June he will join many global thinkers at a process theology conference on climate change in Claremont, California.  Although his emphasis is on climate change brought about in considerable part by burning fossil fuels, much of the argument applies to other aspects of extreme extraction.

This is once religion and science stand shoulder to shoulder. Science takes time, but is coming. Three quarters of the available studies on the impacts of shale gas development were published in the two years 2013 and 2014. The number of peer reviewed studies doubled between 2011 and 2012 and then doubled again between 2012 and 2013 while in 2014 there were at least 154 peer reviewed studies, according to Brian Davey in an unfavorable book review of a poorly written book.

Global warming is well established and there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of scientists working on it.  The various kinds of contamination from mountaintop removal and fracking are being studied also, and doubtless they will be attacked by the greedy in the same way as climate change.  But public knowledge is growing.  Private knowledge, I will call it, of the victims, has always been around. And the public has growing understand of these processes.

One of the older groups, headquartered in San Francisco, has this to say: “The Regeneration Project is an interfaith ministry devoted to deepening the connection between ecology and faith. Our goal is to help people of faith recognize and fulfill their responsibility for the stewardship of creation. We do this through educational programs for clergy and congregations that achieve tangible environmental results and impact public policy.  [We are] committed to a process of personal, institutional, and societal transformation starting at the grassroots level. We believe that addressing environmental concerns from a faith perspective merits our attention because the moral authority that religion carries is the necessary ingredient for wide social and political change.

A very active offshoot of this group is Interfaith Power and Light.  They provide Faith-based resources, such as Earthkeeping, including congregational resources and green sermons; information on climate change science and climate change policy.  They also provide tools to calculate home and congregational carbon footprints and examples of energy efficient improvements.  A database of State incentives for renewables and efficiency is made available.

Interfaith Power and Light is trying to develop awareness of the situation among a wide variety of congregations, many different churches are involved.  The Ohio Interfaith Power and Light is located in Columbus. A page containing their activities this month is located here.

The Presbyterians have the Stewardship of Creation Ministry Team in West Virginia. An affinity group of the Presbytery Mission Committee, the members of the team share concerns for caring for God’s creation. Team members serve the presbytery as educators, motivators, and facilitators of action to protect God’s Creation. They provide a specific “theological foundation” here, and provide specific steps for the congregation to protect the environment.

Another important movement is sponsored by the Appalachian Preservation Project, LLC.  Their philosophy statement includes “As a social enterprise, we apply commercial strategies that are intended to maximize improvements for people and the environment.”

It publishes two blogs, the Appalachian Chronicle and The Barrick Report.  The first provides news on land and water problems, how government and industry affect the ecology, public health and safety of the people of Appalachia, and suggests places people can get help.  The Barrick Report focuses on analysis and reports on emergency management and community preparedness.  This provides insight on local, regional, state and national efforts at disaster preparedness.

Appalachian Preservation Project recently held the Earth Day week conference, “Preserving Sacred Appalachia: Gathering, Acting, and Speaking in Unity.” It was held April 20th and 21st at the St. John’s XXIII Pastoral Center in Charleston, WV.  This conference was sponsored by St. Luke’s UMC in Hickory, N.C.  Partners included the Sierra Club – West Virginia chapter and West Virginia Interfaith Power & Light.

Also, there is comic relief if you look for it hard enough.  At least one such article results from philosophers splitting the same hair too many times, and several that one can smell the oil and gas or coal dust on the money that paid for the article. The industry has plenty of money to pay for many such excursions, of course. The energy industry receives half a trillion dollars in subsidies, world wide.  According to a graph in this article, roughly 70% of the half a trillion is for oil and gas.

This may be considered a payment to destabilize climate, if you think about it. It certainly encourages the use of gasoline and natural gas, to say nothing more about coal!

The NIMBY Well Pad -- In Your Back Yard?

PETITION — “No Drilling Under the Ohio River”

Petition by Robin Mahonen, Ohio County, WV

The Wheeling Water Warriors and multiple other concerned groups call on you to stop plans to drill under the Ohio River.

The Ohio River provides drinking water to over 3 million people, and 10% of the population of the United States lives in the Ohio River Valley. The Ohio River is 981 miles long, and runs through six states: Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois, and is the largest source of water for the Mississippi River, which flows to the Gulf of Mexico. This intracoastal waterway needs to be kept safe from hydraulic fracturing, which has caused the contamination of numerous water sources in our region, and which is also implicated in increased seismic activity and earthquakes.

West Virginia is already overrun with fossil fuel extractive industries which pollute our air, land and water and negatively disrupt our lives. Our state is unparalleled in its natural resources, and yet we are among the poorest states in the country. We believe that corporate interests have prevailed over the best interests of the citizens of this state. We are told there is an economic crisis which requires us to drill under the river. Clearly, if our communities are polluted, our public health is ravaged, our environment devastated, and we are not reaping the economic benefits which we were promised for this sacrifice, it is not a sacrifice we are willing to make.

In the wake of the recent MCHM water crisis and other contaminations in our state just this year, we must act now to prevent wild, wonderful West Virginia from becoming an industrial wasteland, preserve our river, and our precious water resources.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NOTE: Over 3,570 individuals have already signed this Petition, with a target for 5,000 likely to be achieved within a few days.  This is a great risk to the people of the Ohio valley and to the environment if such drilling and fracking takes place.  Already, there has been the incident at Natrium where gas well drilling has interrupted a salt well of Axiall Chemical, formerly PPG Chemicals.  The earthquakes of the Youngstown area in Ohio are another indicator of trouble.  If the WV Governor and WV-DNR persist, then an environmental impact assessment would be an essential first step, but none has been done!  DGN

The Petition is here —  https://www.change.org/p/randy-c-huffman-no-drilling-under-the-ohio-river

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Families sick from fracking exposure turn to concerned scientists

From an Article by Lisa Song, Inside Climate News, July 23, 2014

Like people in other regions transformed by the shale energy boom, residents of Washington County, Pennsylvania have complained of headaches, nosebleeds and skin rashes. But because there are no comprehensive studies about the health impacts of natural gas drilling, it’s hard to determine if their problems are linked to the gas wells and other production facilities that have sprung up around them.

A group of scientists from Pennsylvania and neighboring states have stepped in to fill this gap by forming a nonprofit—apparently the first of its kind in the United States—that provides free health consultations to local families near drilling sites. Instead of waiting years or even decades for long-term studies to emerge, the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project (SWPA-EHP) is using the best available science to help people deal with their ailments.

“As far as unconventional natural gas drilling goes, we are the public health service of the United States right now,” said Michael Kelly, the media liaison for the EHP.

David Brown, a toxicologist and the group’s co-founder, said government agencies haven’t done enough to study, analyze and mitigate the risks people face from drilling.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection—which oversees the oil and gas industry—has no ongoing or planned health studies, though it is researching air and water quality at certain sites, Scott Perry, the agency’s director of oil and gas management, said at a media event last month. None of the hundreds of millions of dollars in impact fees the state has collected from the industry since 2011 has gone to state or local health departments.

InsideClimate News contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Health multiple times over a two-week period to ask how it manages the public health risks of unconventional gas drilling. The agency did not provide any answers, even though two spokespeople—Yasmin Coleman and Tom Hostetter—said the department would respond to the questions.

A governor-appointed commission recommended in 2011 that a health registry be created to track Pennsylvanians living near drilling sites. But no registry has been established. In June, the news organization StateImpact Pennsylvania reported that two former employees of the health department were told to avoid talking about Marcellus shale activity, and to stop returning phone calls from people concerned about drilling impacts.

EHP does not advocate for or against shale development. Too often, said Brown, residents who are sick end up “neglecting themselves” by spending all their energy trying to stop drilling in their backyards instead of seeking medical help.

Based in McMurray, a small community about 15 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, EHP’s services are available to anyone who makes an appointment at the clinic, where the staff of five will: (a) explain what scientists know and don’t know about the risks and impacts of shale gas development, (b) provide tips on how to reduce exposure to natural gas activities, perhaps by using indoor air filters or keeping daily logs of symptoms, odors and wind direction, and (c) lend simple air monitors so residents can track the air quality inside their homes to determine when and how often they are exposed to certain air pollutants.

When people blame their health problems on gas drilling, the EHP staff sifts through the clues to find the most probable explanation by taking into account a patient’s medical history, their proximity to shale activity and other industrial sites. In addition to the clinic staff, seven other EHP scientists based across New England provide support.

EHP’s nurse practitioner, Suann Davison, meets one-on-one with patients and also conducts house calls in and around Washington County. When health problems are likely linked to drilling, patients may be referred to pulmonologists or other specialists.

If someone lives 20 miles from the nearest well, their symptoms probably aren’t related to shale gas, said EHP director Raina Rippel. The link would be much stronger for a resident downwind of a gas well who develops new respiratory problems or worsening pre-existing symptoms after the drilling starts.

“If we can document there was a probable exposure and absence of a more likely explanation, like an underlying medical problem, then I think it helps us define it as more than just self-reported health impacts,” said Rippel.

Davison said her patients usually have a combination of symptoms including respiratory problems, rashes and lesions, irritated eyes, nosebleeds, numbness, tingling, headaches, nausea and vomiting. These symptoms have been linked to some of the chemicals emitted during shale development, including formaldehyde, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds. Other compounds may be linked to water pollution.

Davison was attracted to EHP in part because of its neutral stance on gas drilling. “We’re not saying frack or don’t frack…I wanted to care for members in this community,” she said. “I’m not an environmentalist.”

EHP was launched in 2011 with a grant from the Heinz Endowments, a Pittsburgh-based philanthropic organization that funds educational, cultural and community efforts, with a particular focus in Southwest Pennsylvania. The group also receives support from the Pittsburgh and Claneil Foundations.

Philip Johnson, senior program officer of the Heinz Endowments’ environment program, began paying attention to the potential health risks of fracking in 2009, when he noticed a sharp increase in complaints from Western Pennsylvania residents.

“We realized we had a potential public health threat. Typically what happens when new threats emerge is you need information and data flows to separate anecdotes from empirical evidence…And there were really no intervention models like this we were aware of in the country,” he said.

Heinz Endowments approached some public health experts for help. As part of the planning for what eventually became EHP, they interviewed residents, studied the available scientific research and toured communities near drilling sites.

Rippel, the EHP director, remembers being shocked at the size of a processing plant they visited in Houston, Pennsylvania. She said it took up about as much space as a football field and looked like a refinery. “It [was] almost reminiscent of a Houston, Texas kind of scene,” she said.

Amelia Pare, a plastic surgeon in Washington County, said what EHP is trying to do is “laudable” and “the most positive thing we have. But it’s nowhere near enough…It’s a drop in the bucket for what’s really needed.”

Pare has lived in Southwest Pennsylvania for 15 years. Four or five years ago, she noticed patients coming in with strange symptoms, including lesions on their face. Most were poor and lived in areas with gas drilling. Pare began searching for guidelines and practical tips that could help her patients.

If someone comes in with a skin problem that could be linked to drilling, what medical tests should she run? What experts should she turn to, and which specialists would be willing to see her patients, many who are on Medicaid? But she found few satisfactory answers, despite contacting everyone she could think of—poison control, her state legislators, national representatives, the Pennsylvania medical society, the Pennsylvania health department, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“There’s no one doing research on this.” Pare said EHP would have more of an impact if it went door to door collecting urine samples and tested them for exposure to fracking-related compounds. “The Heinz [Endowments] puts a lot of money into this, but not a lot has changed…The people that run [EHP] need to be more courageous. You’ve got to go out and test people.”

Kelly, the EHP media liaison, said that kind of research is beyond the scope of EHP, which has an annual budget of about $750,000. Instead, the peer-reviewed research the group publishes is usually an outgrowth of its public health service.

In March, four EHP scientists published a paper explaining that the air monitors used by most state regulators rarely detect toxic emission spikes in shale fields. Some of the data for that study came from simple air monitors EHP developed with scientists at Carnegie Mellon University. Local residents used the monitors to track concentrations of particulate matter—a respiratory irritant—inside their homes. The results showed dramatic but fleeting spikes throughout the day.

EHP has also analyzed data from 27 patients whose symptoms were likely caused by shale drilling activity. Rippel said the patients were screened to eliminate other probable causes, and that the results could help other health professionals working with patients in drilling regions. EHP presented the cases at a science conference last summer and is preparing the data for peer-reviewed publication.

This report is part of a joint project by Inside Climate News and the Center for Public Integrity.

Secret Toxic Chemicals Are Used in Fracking

From the Letter of June 30, 2014 to: E. Christopher Abruzzo, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rachel Carson State Office Building, 400 Market Street. Harrisburg, PA 17101

I am writing in regard to decisions that your office will be making about unconventional natural gas extraction (UGE). Some of these decisions may relate specifically to children, such as decisions about setbacks between UGE sites and schools. Other decisions may relate to UGE in a broader sense. As a physician with significant expertise in environmental health*, I want to point out that there is no information in the medical or public health literature to indicate that UGE can be implemented with a minimum of risk to human health.

In this very new area of research, there are very few articles in the public or peer-reviewed literature that do indicate that there are health problems and there are a number of other pieces of data that suggest that UGE is fraught with negative health outcomes. Elaine Hill at Cornell University compared pregnancy outcomes from a group of mothers who lived in proximity to active wells to outcomes in mothers who lived near wells currently under permit but not yet developed. The results showed an association between shale gas development and incidence of low birth weight and small for gestational age (25% and 18% increased risk).

McKenzie and colleagues looked at the relationship between proximity and density of gas wells to maternal address and birth defects, preterm birth and fetal growth. Two approximately even exposure groups were formed for births in rural Colorado between 1996 and 2009: zero wells within ten miles and one or more wells within ten miles. For women residing with one or more wells within ten miles, women were then categorized into three groups of increasing number of wells within ten miles. Women in the highest exposure group, with greater than 125 wells per mile, had an elevated risk of births with congenital heart disease (CHD) and neural tube defects (NTD). A risk for both CHD and NTD increased with increasing number of wells. The authors cited chemicals such as benzene, solvents and air pollutants as previously established associations between maternal exposure and CHDs and NTDs.

It is also very clear that there are adverse mental health outcomes associated with UGE in addition to the physical health problems noted above. A community study by Ferrar and colleagues found that the predominant stressor of citizens impacted by shale gas drilling in Pennsylvania was a concern for their health. The majority of persons interviewed felt that their health concerns were largely ignored and the most common health complaint of community members was stress. Noise can also be a source of stress for residents near UGE activities. Well pad operations, when set up, are industrial facilities often running 24 hours a day near homes, schools and public areas, creating unhealthy noise levels for the surrounding area.

Although noise is a part of our daily life, with typical conversations occurring at sounds levels between 55-60 decibels (dbA), annoyance to noise can begin to occur at sound levels around 55 dbA, school performance begins to decline at 70 dbA, and sleep is disturbed at anywhere from 35-60 dbA. For well pads, noise levels have been shown to be 89-90 dbA at 50 feet from the pad, 60-68 dbA at 500 feet and 63-54 dbA at 1,000 feet from the pad. Stressors may also include odors, such as from the rotten egg smell of hydrogen sulfide released by unconventional gas extraction operations.

In addition to individual health, UGE activities can impact population health and create community wide changes. A health impact assessment done in Battlement Mesa, CO found that unconventional gas extraction activities create community-wide impacts, including an increased transient worker population and a decreased use of public outdoor areas. The assessment also found increased crime rates and rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and although crime rates and STIs cannot be directly correlated with UGE activities, they are none the less real community changes that coincided with the introduction of UGE. Other identified health impacts include: increased traffic accidents, decreased use of outdoor space and reduced physical activity, increased stress, a decline of social cohesion and strain on community resources, such as healthcare and housing, due to an influx of workers.

Although research is limited on the health impacts of UGE, there are real pathways of exposure, such as through air and water, from UGE activities to human populations. Air pollution occurs during every stage of UGE. In an analysis of all chemicals used in UGE processes, 37% were found to be volatile and therefore able to aerosolize. Of these volatile chemicals, 81% were found to have adverse effects on the brain and central nervous system. Aerosolized chemicals have the ability to be inhaled and be absorbed directly into the bloodstream, bypassing the body’s detoxifying mechanisms of the liver. Diesel engines and generators, another source of air pollution, are widely used in UGE and a number of federal agencies and international bodies classify diesel exhaust as “carcinogenic to humans,” as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen,” or as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Water pollution has been documented in association with UGE. The use of more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components has been documented. From the limited information available, it is evident that many of the substances used in hydraulic fracturing fluid are toxic, including some which are known carcinogens. Wastewater, such as the flowback and produced water, can contain a large number of naturally occurring toxic chemicals in addition to the chemicals added to make the hydraulic fracturing fluid. Naturally occurring toxic chemicals may include radioactive material, salts, salts of manganese, chlorides, sodium bromides and heavy metals such as lead and arsenic. Radionuclides shown to be present in natural gas wastes include: radon, 226-radium and 228-radium and radionuclides of potassium, strontium, lead, thallium, bismuth and thorium.

In summary, neither the industry, nor government agencies, nor other researchers have ever documented that UCG can be performed in a manner that minimizes risks to human health. There is now some evidence that these risks that many have been concerned about for a number of years are real risks. There is also much data to indicate that there are a number of toxic chemicals used or derived from the process, known or plausible routes of exposure of those chemicals to humans; and therefore, reason to place extreme limits on UGE.

When and if industry can present the following information, it would then be reasonable to expect your agency and the communities which may become involved in UGE to make decisions on whether or not to proceed with UGE: 1) disclosing complete information of the composition of all materials used to make hydraulic fracturing fluid, 2) studying and disclosing information about all air contaminants released from well pads and the extent of their expected dispersion, 3) studying and disclosing information about mechanisms of water contamination and dispersion of contaminants in ground and surface waters, and 4) studying and disclosing information on the extent to which air and water pollution can reasonably be expected to be minimized. While this type of research should not be carried out by industry, it certainly should be funded by industry. Industry profits from UGE; and industry should bear the responsibility for determining how it can be done in the safest manner possible. Then, and only then, can regulatory and public health agencies and communities make reasonable decisions about whether or not UGE should proceed.

Jerome A. Paulson, MD, FAAP, Medical Director for National & Global Affairs, Director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health & the Environment, Child Health Advocacy Institute, Children’s National Health System & Professor of Pediatrics and of Environmental & Occupational Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC

Gas Operations Opposite Sheep Farm

The Extraction Syndrome (Part 3 of 3.)

Commentary by S. Tom Bond, Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV

In my the first article of this series I pointed out that the shale drilling industry and its Wall Street backers are benefitting from a body of law built up over a century or more by the oil and gas industry to extract from land owners as much beyond their immediate drilling objectives as possible.

In the previous article I pointed out the present “owner” of the land is simply the current tenant of long series, who is given rights because historically, operation of the land is most efficient if the tenant has an intense interest in it.  Real loss by destruction of productive capacity is sustained by the public.

In this third and final article of the series. I hope to show the present condition of West Virginia is largely due to the dependence on resource extraction, and large areas of Pennsylvanian and adjoining states are condemned to follow.

The vast wealth of coal, oil and gas, timber and to a lesser degree various clays for ceramics and sandstone for glass originally found in West Virginia is often noted, along with the low economic, educational and health status of the state. How often have we heard “If mineral extraction made a state rich, West Virginia would be the richest state in the Union.”

The reason is that extraction provides dull, routine jobs which do not require or encourage education. In the past huge numbers of people have lived in virtual bondage to serve these industries. Their economic status was so poor, their leisure so limited, and they were so unhealthy they could not escape and were largely unaware of the world around them beyond the job. Even when unions came into existence, and the physical and safety concerns were met, the experience provided no route out for parents or their children. Like slavery in the old days, the labor of many provided opulence for a few, who chose to live elsewhere. Few left these industries in any way other than by dying.

There were a lot of these jobs in Pennsylvania and other surrounding states, too, but they also had other work. Work in the steel mills provided a step up. Greater skills were needed and the pay was better. Manufacturing and other value added industries were another step up. More jobs requiring education were provided, at each step. Schools were better funded, connections to the outside world were better.

Jobs provided by the construction phase of shale drilling are better paid, ignoring the absence of safety oversight, the long hours and often tough outdoor nature of the work. Below zero to 100 degrees in the shade, shale drilling goes on. Truck drivers hauling water are paid by the trip, which may be more productive, but increases stress and encourages “cowboy” driving. These are young, tough men’s jobs. Sometimes people work 20 hours a day and fall asleep at the wheel. Some workers live on the well pad. Good pay, but not good work.

When the construction phase is past the jobs become routine, more local people are hired and the “extraction syndrome” begins again, the worse for the rush and high hopes. Wages are minimal. chances for advancement are limited, little education beyond following orders are needed.

What is the effect on politics of a state caught in the “extraction syndrome?” Extreme, unreasoning loyalty to the extraction industry is the vogue. Comments by West Virginia’s governor and congressional delegation concerning coal reflects this loyalty, rather than reasonable assessments based on the reduced thickness and difficult recovery of the remaining coal and it’s health effects when burned. The world has moved on, but political support comes from coal and other kinds of extraction, so this along with extraction’s past prominence, directs their thinking.

Candidate efforts to get elected are directed toward people who have a rather crude understanding of the world today. Laws may be expected to come into existence based on industry loyalty, rather than an understanding of such things as “permissible exposure levels,” exhaustion of easy coal, and “externalized costs.” In a depressed economy party loyalty figures large and the “spoils system,” which rewards winners with jobs to hand out.

West Virginia has been in the extraction syndrome almost from the first. It promises big bucks, but delivery is to a few, well chosen people. It involves work that doesn’t allow people to grow in understanding, and the near impossibility of educating one’s children. Among it’s characteristics is the largely uncompensated sacrifice of continuing surface assets of the state. A sense of powerlessness of people to meet corporate challenges results. And so do frustration and willingness to move elsewhere.

Pennsylvania and other states will not be dragged completely down, because they have other non-extraction business. But tourist business, forestry business, hunting and fishing resources, farming and the largely unrecognized retirement industry will go down, down, down as shale drilling goes on. All Appalachia, and many other parts of America will become a petroleum “rust belt.”

See also the web-site for the West Virginia Environmental Council for updates on the activities in the WV State Legislature.

Source: Americans Against Fracking

A group of more than 100 public health, consumer, environmental and faith-based organizations announced today the launch of Americans Against Fracking, a national coalition dedicated to banning hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and drilling associated with fracking for oil and natural gas in the U.S. Including organizations such as 350.org, Berks Gas Truth, Breast Cancer Action, CREDO Action, Catskill Mountain Keeper, Center for Biological Diversity, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Democracy for America, Food & Water Watch, Frack Action, Frack-Free Stark County, Illinois People’s Action and National Nurses United, Americans Against Fracking supports federal state and local efforts to ban fracking and to stop practices that facilitate fracking like natural gas exports, frac-sand mining and pipeline construction.

“Over and over, we’ve seen fracking and drilling for oil and natural gas contaminate water supplies, pollute our air and industrialize rural communities,” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “With the oil and gas industry enjoying so many exemptions from key environmental laws, it’s clear that we can’t regulate ourselves away from this problem. We need to ban fracking now.”

Zack Malitz, campaign manager at CREDO Action said, “There is no federal legislation or adequate state legislation to protect Americans. We can’t afford to wait for the government to play legislative catch-up with this rapidly expanding toxic industry. The only safe course is a national ban on fracking.”

An increasingly controversial form of oil and gas extraction, fracking is the process of taking millions of gallons of water, mixing it with tens of thousands of gallons of chemicals–including known carcinogens–and pumping it all underground at extreme pressure to break up rock formations and release oil or natural gas. New techniques and technologies used in the process are more intensive and riskier than conventional drilling, making fracking more dangerous than ever. To date, more than 1,000 reported cases of water contamination have been associated with drilling and fracking.

“Fracking fouls our air, our water, and our climate,” said Rose Braz, the Center for Biological Diversity’s climate campaign director. “To avoid catastrophic climate change, we need to embrace conservation and clean energy—not focus on risky new ways to drain every last drop of the planet’s oil and gas. We need to ban fracking to protect our planet.”

“Since 2005 when the Bush-Cheney Administration ushered in fracking across the United States by giving the gas industry exemptions from all major federal environmental protections, fracking has been polluting the air we breathe, contaminating the water we drink, and tearing apart the communities we love. Americans Against Fracking will end this horrific era and stop the oil and gas industry from destroying more American lives,” explained Julia Walsh, campaign director of Frack Action.

Fracking brings rampant environmental and economic problems to rural communities. Recent studies show that methane leakage from gas wells and carbon dioxide from the combustion of gas contribute to global warming pollution, and lead to more extreme weather including catastrophic drought, fires and superstorms. A recent report by the International Energy Agency confirmed that oil and natural gas development would ultimately spell disaster for the climate.

Elevated levels of smog and other airborne pollutants, including some carcinogens, plague regions with heavy drilling and fracking. Research shows that long lasting exposure to smog has been linked to various cancers, heart disease, diabetes and premature deaths in adults, and to asthma, premature birth and cognitive deficits in children.

Communities in regions with drilling and fracking also face increased demand on emergency and other social services and job losses in other sectors of the economy such as agriculture and tourism. A 2011 study by the Keystone Research Center also found that the oil and gas industry is exaggerating the capacity of shale gas development to generate jobs and economic opportunity for Americans.

Given these and other concerns, backlash against fracking and drilling is increasing. To date, 300 municipalities in the U.S., as well as Vermont, Bulgaria and France, have passed resolutions to stop fracking. Last month, Longmont, Colorado made history as the first town in Colorado to ban fracking despite the fact that the oil and gas industry poured half a million dollars into opposing the successful ballot measure. Last year, activists successfully blocked a plan to open the Delaware River to fracking.

“Communities are suffering where gas drilling is occurring but the industry is racing ahead, oblivious to the health impacts and indelible environmental pollution they are leaving behind. We are all standing up to the industry and their supporters with a unified message—fracking must stop and the industry must be made accountable now.” concluded Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper, representing the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.