Asthma Rates Lower In States That Allow "Fracking"

Started February 5, 2017 at 11:14 pm by @Barry D in Marcellus Shale

Send Message    View Discussions    Views: 680
Dislike 0
Barry D
02/05/17 11:14:59PM

The anti-oil and gas crowd continually shrieks about health issues caused by "fracking". All of the shrieks are in vain.

There is no proven connection between oil and gas development and health issues. In particular the issue of emissions.

This study is just another in a long list of studies that continues to debunk the "fractivist" misinformation campaign.

This study, unlike those presented by fractivists, is rooted in science, not hyperbole, rumor and inuendo.

Barry D
02/05/17 11:19:13PM @barry-d:

Oh, BTW,

This also goes for the claim that that "fracking" is connected to the systemic pollution of water sources. That is a complete and utter lie.

All real scientific studies have proven this claim to be false. There is not one shred of proof.

Just a part of the misinformation campaign carried on by the anti oil and gas crowd, such as our resident hysteric.

Paul Heckbert
02/09/17 08:52:37AM @paul-heckbert:

Johns Hopkins researchers studying Pennsylvania found higher rates of asthma near gas wells:

Study: Fracking Industry Wells Associated With Increased Risk of Asthma Attacks

"People with asthma who live near bigger or larger numbers of active unconventional natural gas wells operated by the fracking industry in Pennsylvania are 1.5 to four times likelier to have asthma attacks than those who live farther away, new Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health research suggests.

The findings, published July 18 in JAMA Internal Medicine, add to a growing body of evidence tying the fracking industry to health concerns. Health officials have been concerned about the effect of this type of drilling on air and water quality, as well as the stress of living near a well where just developing the site of the well can require more than 1,000 truck trips on once-quiet roads. The fracking industry has developed more than 9,000 wells in Pennsylvania in just the past decade."


research paper: "Association Between Unconventional Natural Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale and Asthma Exacerbations" by Rasmussen et al

Barry D
02/09/17 06:07:45PM @barry-d:


This study has been completely debunked

Please stop posting nonsnese

Barry D
02/09/17 06:12:37PM @barry-d:


Here is an article that deals with the flaws in the Johns Hopkins study.

Barry D
02/09/17 06:35:49PM @barry-d:


The researchers made an association not a connection. If they had read available info they would know how stupid their study and conclusion are.

Pennsylvania Department of Health data show that heavily-drilled counties within the study area have far lower age-adjusted rates of asthma hospitalizations than nine counties in the study area that have no shale gas production at all.

The fact that the researchers ignored the data from the Pennsylvania Asthma Focus Report that clearly demonstrated their studies’ conclusions were highly questionable isn’t all the surprising, given the researchers’ well-documented biases. What is disappointing is the fact that the researchers’ conclusions were widely reported as the truth when just a little scrutiny would have revealed the study deserved none of the legitimacy all the media coverage afforded it.

Jenny Behm
02/14/17 01:19:49PM @jenny-behm:

Who debunked this?  Can you show me the details of where the data in this study was incorrect?

Paul Heckbert
02/12/17 11:03:47AM @paul-heckbert:

Barry-D said the Rasmussen asthma article had been "completely debunked", but that critique was from Energy-in-Depth, a lobbying organization funded by the oil and gas industry. I prefer to get my health advice from physicians, not from Philip Morris, and I prefer to get my scientific assessments from scientists, not marketers.

I see that Rasmussen's study was recently cited in this paper:

Unconventional oil and gas development and risk of childhood leukemia: Assessing the evidence, by Elliott et al.

Elliott writes "This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors". When reviewing previous research on health effects of fracking and drilling, they say:

"The limited epidemiologic studies of UO&G development have observed an increase in adverse perinatal outcomes (Casey et al., 2016, McKenzie et al., 2014 and Stacy et al., 2015), asthma exacerbations (Rasmussen et al., 2016), dermal irritation (Rabinowitz et al., 2015), hospitalization rates (Jemielita et al., 2015), and nasal, headache, and fatigue symptoms (Tustin et al., 2016)."

and they conclude:

"The objective of this analysis was to assess the evidence of carcinogenicity of water contaminants and air pollutants related to [unconventional oil & gas] development. ... The majority of compounds (> 80%) were not evaluated by IARC and therefore could not be reviewed. Of the 111 potential water contaminants and 29 potential air pollutants evaluated by IARC (119 unique compounds), 49 water and 20 air pollutants were known, probable, or possible human carcinogens (55 unique compounds). A total of 17 water and 11 air pollutants (20 unique compounds) had evidence of increased risk for leukemia/lymphoma, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, cadmium, diesel exhaust, and several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. ... Our findings support the need for investigation into the relationship between UO&G development and risk of cancer in general and childhood leukemia in particular."

Barry D
02/12/17 12:35:26PM @barry-d:


You really need to read the stuff you post.

No where in the article is a connection made between shale development and the health issues listed.

I repeat, NOWHERE.

Further, the article you posted specifically states that it is dealing with "concerns" not actual proof that there is a connection. The articles conclusion is that research is required. That statement alone is a big "Red Flag" which should have told you there is no known connection.

But of course you didn't read what you posted.

Finally, your source, Science Direct is a well known leftist anti fossil fuel site. Along with it's contributors.

The article I posted was from EID. But it contains supporting documents not associated with EID. Scientifically reviewed information. Whereas the article you posted is an opinion piece with no scientific backing whatsoever. As I pointed that article admits no scientific research has been and calls for that research.

Typical fractivist misinformation.

So please, stop with the nonsense.

EJ Ohio
02/13/17 12:14:30PM @ej-ohio:

If you do a quick google search of your source...  you will find that they are a pro oil and gas industry front group funded by the american petroleum institute and other similar industry groups.  No conflict of interest there...right!

To claim that this study is legit is a joke.  

For those interested in finding out who is, here's a link with some info.   Decide for yourself if you think their "studies" are unbiased.

Barry D
02/13/17 09:05:06PM @barry-d:


Unlike the nonsense that Paul posts, the info found on EID is always supported by outside scientific sources. Sources that are scientifically peer reviewed.

The nonsense that Paul posts are opinion pieces, editorials. All without any scientific support.

Your use of the leftist tactic of attack the source but never discuss the substance let's us all know everything we need to know about you, and why your response should be ignored.




    Example: Meriweather 35 H 001

Forecasting royalties, income and production for your wells.
Learn more »»

Tag Cloud
Upcoming Events