health effects of toxics

Environmental hazards from fracking may extend well beyond drilling sites

From an Article by Jessica Cohen, The Utne Reader, Fall 2014

Pramilla Malick was reading in bed last summer when suddenly she had to struggle to breathe. Gasping, she went outside and then back inside, getting no relief from the country air around her home in Minisink, New York. Her symptoms began at a time when her children and some of their Minisink neighbors were also experiencing new ailments, such as nausea, nosebleeds, rashes, sore throats, asthma and dizziness. Their symptoms would erupt during or after an “odor event,” a period of malodorous emissions at the new Millennium Pipeline gas compressor station nearby that began functioning in June of 2013. Malick’s asthmatic symptoms, which she never had before, surface only on weekends in Minisink, she says; they live in New York City, 95 miles away, on weekdays.

The community’s ailments mirror those of the Parr family, living near Aruba Petroleum’s hydraulic fracturing (gas fracking) sites in Wise County, Texas. In April the family was awarded $2.95 million in a lawsuit alleging that environmental contamination from drilling sickened them and killed their pets and livestock, compelling them to leave their home. The maladies of Minisink residents suggest that environmental hazards from fracking may extend well beyond drilling sites.

Malick is a member of Minisink Residents for Environmental Preservation and Safety (MREPS), a group of 10 Minisink residents legally representing the community who fought construction of the compressor and our now pressing for monitoring. They presented their case against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC, at a District of Columbia Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals hearing in May.

In addition to explosivity issues, the group cites concern that emission levels acceptable in Millennium’s compressor station application to FERC bump up against the findings of Wilma Subra, an environmental consultant, whom Malick engaged in their efforts. Subra provides communities in the United States and beyond with technical evaluations of environmental issues and strategies for addressing them. She does contractual consulting for the Environmental Protection Agency and was a MacArthur “genius grant” recipient. She helped the Parrs in Texas identify the toxins that were sickening them and found similar toxins in compressor emissions.

Malick and some of her Minisink neighbors attended Subra’s presentation in December, where Subra explained the compressor’s environmental effects. She found that not only do compressor stations produce several tons of carcinogenic volatile organic compounds annually, they also emit chemicals from “fracked gas,” drawn from deep in the earth with hydraulic fracturing. Fracked gas chemicals differ from those of gas from conventional drilling.

So you think environmentalism has gone mainstream, what with Al Gore spreading the climate change gospel ….

“The Marcellus shale has large quantities of radioactive components such as Radium 226 and 228,” Subra explained in her PowerPoint presentation. “The radioactive components contaminate the natural gas stream and build up in the units of compressor facilities. Radium 226 is a bone seeker and causes bone and lung cancer.”

“This is not your grandfather’s gas,” says Malick. “We’re extremely concerned with radioactive particles. There is no explanation by industry or regulators as to how radon gas would or could be removed from the methane. In the absence of an explanation we must conclude that it will be emitted along with methane. The decay particles of radium include dangerous particles such as polonium, which decays into radioactive lead, and then permanently into just lead. So the concern is short-term exposure to highly radioactive particles, and then long-term exposure to and accumulation of lead particles.”

However, uncertainty about the contents of emissions persists. “The industry is largely self-regulated, and their air emissions are entirely self-reported,” says Malick. “No one monitors what is emitted.”

Also, she notes that air quality standards established by the EPA address annual average emissions rather than “episodic emissions,” brief concentrated bursts of emissions known to damage tissue. She points to a study in the March issue of Reviews of Environmental Health, by David Brown and his colleagues at the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project.

“Case study descriptions of acute onset of respiratory, neurologic, dermal, vascular, abdominal, and gastrointestinal sequelae near natural gas facilities contrast with a subset of emissions research, which suggests that there is limited risk posed by unconventional natural gas development,” the authors wrote.

Meanwhile, Subra finds that symptoms troubling Minisink residents are typical of what 90 percent of people living within two to three miles of gas compressor and also metering stations experience. But the 24-hour monitoring MREPS seeks costs $1 million annually. “New York State has done 24-hour monitoring after a cancer cluster develops,” says Malick. “That would be too late for us.”

Because gas facility regulation is federal, MREPS pursued support from Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. They expressed concern but did nothing, says Malick.

“I think there’s a consensus to facilitate natural gas extraction for the international market,” she concluded. “We’re being sacrificed by them.”

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

See also the book by Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald, The Real Cost of Fracking: How America’s Shale Gas Boom is Threatening our Families, Pets, and Food, Beacon Press, Boston, 2014

Commentary — Two Kinds of Truth for Your Consideration

Truth is elusive with consequences

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

Observers have been amazed with the division of attitudes toward modern high volume, horizontal, hydraulic fracturing which has come into use since the year 2000. It is as though one party says something is yellow and another, looking at the same thing, says it is blue. The obvious answer is, “Who is making money from it and who is paying a price?” That goes for people actually in contact with it, but what about the millions who form opinions in spite of no contact?

I think that is related to two kinds of truth, which I hope to distinguish. What is needed is to sort out a general idea, truth, and how one arrives at “truth.”

As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, “Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest.” So I must define truth to begin with: Truth is a belief which serves as a basis for individual action. If you believe something, that is your mental map of what is. Truth is one’s understanding of the real world, the guide for ones action.

Most works on philosophy include several definitions of truth. Almost all of them have one which has to do with verifiability. That means the ability to check, item by item, the contents of the verbal map of reality. Lets call this verifiable truth.

A second kind of guide for action is to respond to authority. If you believe some authority, it is a kind of truth. This may be a King, a religious leader, or simply “the boss,” who in our era (and many others), is whoever controls pay for your labor. This we will call authoritarian truth. Such a believer’s action is determined by a mental map provided by the authority.

What does this have to do with the understanding of the nature of fracking? A lot, really.

Concerning fracking the general public (including officials) must choose between the claims of the banks and the drilling companies on the one hand , and the cries from the injured on the other. The individual who is not directly affected, and cannot see what is going on, must choose what to believe.

Those in the field can see what is happening. People are hurting, and loosing what is theirs. For some who gain even a slight advantage it is easy to ignore another’s pain. That is also a human attribute. It makes possible wars, racism and genocide. It also makes it possible for some to be rich while others are poor. Those who aren’t seriously affected can adopt the authoritarian truth as a psychological defense.

One of the principal characteristics of authoritarian truth is that it is not constrained by verifiability. It offers an explanation, and suggests a course to follow for the believer’s advantage. It causes an expected reward for action. It may, and often does, involve deception about verifiability, however. Left out details don’t exist for the authoritarian believer. It is received truth.

Verifiable truth comes from direct sensory experience of the phenomenon, or from observers judged by the individual to be reliable. Who is reliable? Direct observers who don’t have an advantage by being untruthful and are able to understand what effects them. Simultaneous changes are a strong key to understanding.

If one thinks rural people are willing to lie about what affects them, or are too dumb to understand, or are people whose interests aren’t a significant part of the commonwealth, the economic whole of our state and nation, you might adopt such a view. You might be more willing to adopt a story put out by some authority.

In a situation where people need to act, people who are not where they can observe facts themselves, perhaps by voting or by buying, it becomes a considerable labor to decide what action they should take – in other words who to believe. We humans have a long history of cooperation with each other. Frequently it has been the best path to simply follow some leader, rather than to try to go it alone or join a minority. Most of our past has involved a choice between leaders without reference to verifiability of claims, or perhaps no choice between leaders at all; the choice is simply the degree or enthusiasm with which we follow some designated leader of our group. Consequently, we humans have developed no easy way to distinguish which kind of truth one is following. It is a labor and a learned skill not necessary for survival of the human race.

Because of this bit of human nature, those who can form belief on the basis of our own observation, and the observation of people we trust because we understand them, must aggressively present the story of what is going on to the wider public, who invest, who vote, and who regulate the world we live in.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn’t go away.”

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

Fact to fiction — A twisted tale of how good research became bad information

By Elizabeth Miller, Boulder Weekly, November 20, 2014

The philosophy that University of Colorado research associate E. Michael Thurman applies to scientific research, he says, is: “You can sort the error from the truth if you work hard enough.” This week, that task became far more difficult as Thurman and his research associates came under fire for apparently declaring the fluid used in hydraulic fracturing operations to be harmless.

But it wasn’t true. The researchers never said anything like that, nor did they intend to. Like the children’s game of telephone, as word spread from one mouth to the next, the truth got so mired in errors it was nearly invisible by the end.

So how did a study designed to analyze traceable components of fracking fluid so potential contamination in groundwater could be identified get transformed into a headline that declared fracking fluid safe? The answer is poor communication and bad journalism.

…… the details are in the Article on hydraulic fracturing ……

Significant Impacts to Local Residents Found

Respiratory and skin issues are likely caused by air or groundwater contamination as a result of natural gas drilling & fracking

From an Article by Lauren McCauley, CommonDreams, September 10, 2014

People who live in close proximity to natural gas drilling sites are significantly more likely to report skin and respiratory problems than those who live further away, according to the largest survey to-date of the reported health effects of people exposed to fracking.

The study, “Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status,”(pdf) published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives surveyed households with ground-fed water wells located in the Marcellus shale region in southwestern Pennsylvania.

Researchers found that 39 percent of households located less than one kilometer from an active natural gas well reported upper respiratory problems, compared with 18 percent located more than 2 kilometers away. Further, 13 percent of respondents who live within a kilometer of a well said they had rashes and other skin irritations, compared with just 3 percent who live more than 2 kilometers away.

Of the 624 active natural gas wells located in Pennsylvania’s Washington County, 95 percent were fracked — or injected with millions of gallons of water, sand, and a largely-unknown toxic mix of chemicals in order to extract gas from the shale deposits.

Despite assurances by the drilling industry and numerous government officials that fracking chemicals do not pose a risk to nearby populations, scientists and environmentalists have repeatedly voiced concern over the high volume of chemicals used in the process and the potential for both groundwater and airborne contamination. Further, the drilling industry has long-fought efforts to reveal the particular chemicals used in fracking, claiming that the combination of toxins fall under “proprietary information.”

The Yale-based research team notes that they did not collect data on whether individuals were receiving financial compensation for gas well drilling on their property, which they acknowledge “could have affected their willingness to report symptoms.”

Based on the findings of the survey, the researchers conclude that “airborne irritant exposures” related to natural gas extraction activities, including the flaring of gas wells and exhaust from diesel equipment, “could be playing a role” in the increased reporting of respiratory symptoms among people living in close proximity to the wells.

Possible explanations for the increase in reported skin irritations also include exposure to air pollutants, as well as possible well water contamination due to “breaks in the gas well casing or other underground communication between ground water supplies and fracking activities.”

Because of the relative newness of the wells (5-6 years), the researchers were unable to test for a correlation between drilling activities and more long-term health impacts, such as cancer. However, the team says that their findings underscores the need for further research on the possible health impacts of fracking activities, including longitudinal studies on chronically exposed populations.

See also: Marcellus-Protest

Plastic Pollution Problems

European Union Moves to Ban Most Plastics By 2020

Article from European Parliament, EcoWatch.org, January 15, 2014 

The most hazardous plastics and certain plastic bags should be banned by 2020, as part of an EU strategy to reduce plastic waste in the environment, says the European Parliament in a resolution voted yesterday. The EU Parliment may also introduce binding plastic waste recycling targets.

The resolution, a call for action further to a European Commission green paper, was passed by a show of hands. In it, MEPs stress that plastic waste is damaging the environment due both to weak enforcement of EU legislation on waste and to the lack of specific EU laws on plastic wastes, despite their particularities.

Rapporteur Vittorio Prodi (S&D, IT), whose text was adopted by show of hands, said:

Parliament has shown the way to deal with the huge problem of the detrimental impact of plastic waste on the environment and human health. We said today that we want to change bad habits and account for our products, from production through to final disposal. By putting these products to good use and recycling them as much as possible, we close the loop and give effect to the concept of a ‘circular’ economy. This will also help to clean up our seas and land, while creating more job opportunities.

MEPs propose that specific binding targets for collecting and sorting up to 80 percent of waste should be included in EU legislation. Mandatory criteria for recycling, and harmonized ones for collecting and sorting waste, should be framed to ensure fair competition, they say, adding that the current EU directive on packaging waste should also be reviewed.

Priority to Recycling and Composting

Parliament calls on the European Commission to make proposals by 2014 to phase out the landfilling of recyclable and recoverable waste by 2020 and discourage the incineration of this waste. It also urges that plastic waste should not be used for energy recovery unless all other possibilities have been exhausted.

MEPs believe that the most dangerous plastics should be withdrawn from the market. The use of single-use plastic bags should be phased out wherever possible. They also call for bolder steps to tackle illegal exports and dumping of plastic waste.

Solid Economic Potential, Still Unexploited

MEPs stress that the economic potential of recycling plastics is still largely unexploited. Only 25 percent of plastic wastes are currently recycled. Fully enforcing EU legislation on waste could save €72 billion a year, boost the annual turnover of EU waste management and recycling firms by €42 billion and create more than 400,000 jobs by 2020, say MEPs.

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