Link between gas development and childhood leukemia

Started March 1, 2017 at 05:57 pm by @Paul Heckbert in Marcellus Shale

Send Message    View Discussions    Views: 869
Dislike 2
Paul Heckbert
03/01/17 05:57:23PM

Study finds association between O&G development and childhood leukemia

"More research needed to learn why there are more childhood leukemia diagnoses in people living in areas of high-density oil and gas development.

Young Coloradans diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia are more likely to live in areas of high-density oil and gas development compared to young Coloradans diagnosed with other types of cancer, according to researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health at CU Anschutz. The researchers observed no association between non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and high-density oil and gas development.

“Over 378,000 Coloradans and millions of Americans currently live within a mile of at least one oil and gas well, and petroleum development continues to expand into residential areas,” said lead investigator Dr. Lisa McKenzie, assistant research professor at the Colorado School of Public Health. “The findings from our registry-based case control study indicate that young Coloradans diagnosed with one type of childhood leukemia are more likely to live in the densest areas of oil and gas sites. More comprehensive research that can address our study’s limitations is needed to understand and explain these results.”

The research paper, "Childhood hematologic cancer and residential proximity to oil and gas development" by McKenzie and others, says "Future studies should incorporate information on oil and gas development activities and production levels, as well as levels of specific pollutants of interest (e.g. benzene) near homes, schools, and day care centers; provide age-specific residential histories; compare cases to controls without cancer; and address other potential confounders, and environmental stressors."

03/01/17 06:27:46PM @hilltophome:

I think I have get a little something something for each posting like this "cuz it makes the regulars go ape-poo crazy and drives up the site traffic numbers. This in turn makes the website more attractive to advertisers and hence more lucrative to the site publishers.   Close?   :)

Barry D
03/01/17 08:50:56PM @barry-d:


It also makes it fun

Dan Warner2
03/05/17 09:38:59AM @dan-warner2:

What do you think of that, Keith?

Barry D
03/01/17 08:35:04PM @barry-d:


Thanks for the link to scientific info debunking this nonsense.

Barry D
03/01/17 08:33:49PM @barry-d:

How can you tell that study which Paul has posted is false?

Look for qualifiers such as "link" and "associated.

When you see qualifiers such as these you already know there is no empirical scientific proof.

Just more misinformation and fear mongering.

Barry D
03/01/17 08:44:38PM @barry-d:

From the study:

Furthermore, the authors also admit that even if they could have found evidence that children were being exposed to chemicals used in fracking, the science regarding a link between childhood leukemia and environmental exposures is “limited.”

Here's another beauty:

“The presence of chemicals alone does not confirm exposure or risk of exposure to carcinogens and future studies are needed to evaluate cancer risk.”

This all from the study. As usual, Paul did not read something he has posted.

Bottom line here: The claim that oil and gas development causes childhood leukemia is false.

Just more misinformation and fear mongering.

At least Paul is consistent and we know not to believe the nonsense his posts.

Barry D
03/01/17 08:49:45PM @barry-d:

Here is what Carnegie Mellon had to say:

Carnegie Mellon University released a report concluding that “there is no support” to back up activists’ claims about cancer risks from Marcellus shale gas.

Sound familiar Paul?

Keevin Larson
03/02/17 10:18:19AM @keevin-larson:

How about a study from the state of Texas where the O&G play have been going on for many decades? I don't have much faith in the CO report. 

Barry D
03/06/17 06:21:35PM @barry-d:


There are several.

All reveal no evidence of wide ranging health issues related to oil and gas development.

Now that I have stated that watch all the mentally deranged fractivist cite debunked "studies"

That's ok, we have debunked them before let's do it again.

Gregory Wrightstone2
03/02/17 10:29:25AM @gregory-wrightstone2:

This study is VERY questionable, however, we are set to release soon our long awaited report linking fracking chemicals with early onset unicorn fertility disruptor syndrome.

Barry D
03/03/17 08:54:33PM @barry-d:


Is that why we don't see any unicorns?

03/06/17 09:09:02AM @dsfs:

Does anyone else think this guy looks like the Dentist on the Movie Hangover?

M. Sean Joyce
03/12/17 06:07:33PM @m-sean-joyce:


Paul Heckbert
03/13/17 11:19:22AM @paul-heckbert:

Additional relevant research:

research paper: "Unconventional oil and gas development and risk of childhood leukemia: Assessing the evidence

Elise G. Elliott, Pauline Trinh, Xiaomei Ma, Brian P. Leaderer, Mary H. Ward, Nicole C. Deziel.


  • Concerns exist about carcinogenic effects of unconventional oil & gas development.
  • We evaluated the carcinogenicity of 1177 water pollutants and 143 air pollutants.
  • These chemicals included 55 known, probable, or possible human carcinogens.
  • Specifically, 20 compounds had evidence of leukemia/lymphoma risk.
  • Research on exposures to unconventional oil & gas development and cancer is needed."

Barry D
03/13/17 03:06:09PM @barry-d:


You really need to read the stuff you post.

The last bullet point states that research is still needed to find a connection (which of course won't occur because there is none).

In other words your premise is false. There is no proof

Just more misinformation and fear mongering. 

The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!

Research on exposures to unconventional oil & gas development and cancer is needed." - See more at:

Research on exposures to unconventional oil & gas development and cancer is needed." - See more at:

Research on exposures to unconventional oil & gas development and cancer is needed." - See more at:

Ken Marx
03/13/17 01:02:29PM @ken-marx:
So....we can't prove anything but throw us more $$ so we can keep our job.
Skip Peel - Independent Landman
03/13/17 01:18:44PM @skip-peel-independent-landman:

Good article.  Thanks for posting.

Barry D
03/13/17 03:09:54PM @barry-d:


This also is true in PA.

BTW, the guy with the flaming hose in the video actually had the hose hooked to a gas line.

03/14/17 08:50:25PM @finnbear:

Paulie, Paulie, Paulie - I almost look forward to your posts to see what nonsensical, unproven BS you will post next. You are a poster child for the fact that liberalism IS a mental disorder. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and again and expecting a different result. You have noticed that every "study" you've posted has been shredded and debunked - for how many years now? Your stories are, as they say in Texas, "all hat and no cattle" - lots of eye catching headlines, but hugely lacking in actual substance. Keep it up though - it at least has some worth for the entertainment it provides.

Ken Marx
03/14/17 08:56:09PM @ken-marx:
finnbear - you overreach. Your attempt to smear Democrats/Progressives/"Liberals" with the Paul Heckbert brush is a bit of a stretch.
Tim Tarr
03/14/17 09:56:50PM @tim-tarr:

I'm willing to bet there is a strong link of Childhood Leukemia linked to electromagnetic radiation. Let's take care of the big rats before worrying about the gnats. If your water source has frac fluid in it. I'll bet you can get a Lawyer for free. Have a 500,000 volt line run over your house good luck finding a lawyer to take the case. Even if five kids all have Leukemia. Must be that gas well 5 miles down the road. I won't even go into other sources of EM(R).

Paul Heckbert
03/19/17 01:14:35AM @paul-heckbert:

Tim: don't fear all electromagnetic radiation. Sunlight is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Life on earth wouldn't exist without sunlight. AM and FM radio is another form of radiation. And microwaves (used both by microwave ovens and by cell phones) are yet another form of electromagnetic radiation. The above, low frequency, forms of electromagnetic radiation are not ionizing: you can stand or live close to a big radio transmission antenna, or hold a weak microwave transmitter (every cell phone has one) close to your head and it does not damage your cells, though the latter might warm your head a tiny bit.

High frequency radiation, on the other hand, such as X rays and gamma rays, is dangerous. High frequency radiation can damage DNA and kill cells. That's why people exposed to too many X rays or gamma rays have died, but people who work around radio equipment their whole lives do not show unusual health problems.

A good article debunking fears of electromagnetic radiation from cell phones: Sunday Forum: Stop freaking out about cell phones!

Barry D
03/19/17 09:52:56AM @barry-d:


Notice that the article Paul cites doesn't address your issue. Typical.

After reading the article the first time I went back and substituted Oil and Gas development for cell phones.

Try it, it's fun.




    Example: Meriweather 35 H 001

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

Tag Cloud
Upcoming Events