Flaws in fracking study spotlighted

Monday, December 18, 2017
 | 
Chris Woodward (OneNewsNow.com)

fracking operationsA new study is causing alarm over fracking, but an industry group says it lacks evidence.

Researchers from Princeton, UCLA, and the University of Chicago analyzed more than 1.1 million births in Pennsylvania from 2004 to 2013, comparing infants born to mothers living at different distances from active fracking* sites and those born before and after fracking was initiated at each site:

"We adjusted for fixed maternal determinants of infant health by comparing siblings who were and were not exposed to fracking sites in utero. We found evidence for negative health effects of in utero exposure to fracking sites within 3 km of a mother's residence, with the largest health impacts seen for in utero exposure within 1 km of fracking sites. Negative health impacts include a greater incidence of low-birth weight babies as well as significant declines in average birth weight and in several other measures of infant health. There is little evidence for health effects at distances beyond 3 km, suggesting that health impacts of fracking are highly local. Informal estimates suggest that about 29,000 of the nearly 4 million annual U.S. births occur within 1 km of an active fracking site and that these births therefore may be at higher risk of poor birth outcomes."

The study caught the attention of several news outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, which said babies born to moms who lived near fracking wells faced a host of health risks.

"The first thing that jumps out, right off the bat when you read this study, is the fact that the study is based entirely on correlation rather than measurements of pollutants," says Seth Whitehead of Energy in Depth, a research, education and public outreach campaign for the oil and gas industry.

"They assume pollution in the study and also characterize the study in the media as being 'proof of causation.' But as we've seen with many studies of this nature in the past, it's based on no measurements at all – and that's a major flaw of the study that the authors concede in the study and then turn around and talk in the media about so-called 'proof of causation' and proof that fracking is harmful without any evidence to back it up."

Why should someone believe what Energy in Depth has about fracking on its websites? The organization has several websites, including one devoted to health matters.

"There certainly are people out there who are skeptical of our opinion of these type of things, but our critiques are based on thorough reviews of the studies and we try to apply the scrutiny that the media tends to not apply but probably should be applied," answers Whitehead.

"For instance, I didn't see any reports on one of the major funders of this study also funding groups like National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Earthworks, giving them $10 million; and these are groups that have actively tried to ban fracking. So it's really up to us in the industry to step up and defend ourselves."

As part of that defense, Seth Whitehead wrote a blog for Energy in Depth titled "Six Flaws In A New Report Trying To Link Fracking To Infant Health Issues."

* Fracking, also known as "hydraulic fracturing," is the injection of fluid into shale beds at high pressure in order to free up petroleum resources such as oil or natural gas.

Consider Supporting Us?

The staff at Onenewsnow.com strives daily to bring you news from a biblical perspective. If you benefit from this platform and want others to know about it please consider a generous gift today.

MAKE A DONATION

Comments

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

After reading The New Yorker story quoting a second Kavanaugh accuser… (Choose all that apply)

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Trump leads aggressive, all-out GOP drive to save Kavanaugh
Dallas police officer accused in neighbor's death fired
Trump: No statehood for Puerto Rico with critics in office
Kavanaugh: I won't be bullied into withdrawing
Rosenstein to meet Trump Thursday as job hangs in balance
Florence: Evacuations continue as North Carolina rivers rise

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Trump backs Kavanaugh amid new claim of sexual misconduct
Ex-Facebook employee sues company, claims 'psychological trauma' from job gave her PTSD
Kavanaugh denies sexual misconduct in Fox News exclusive: 'I know I'm telling the truth'
College classmate says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at Yale party
Why is anyone taking Ford's accusation seriously?

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day

REASON & COMPANY

NEXT STORY
Pay raises coming...and slashed hours, too?

cash 100-dollar billEighteen states will see an increase in their minimum wages on January 1 but the message for workers is to hold back their excitement.