Study Calls for Drilling Ban

by John Randolph • January 19, 2012 • 1 comment

 

A 2012 nonscientific, anecdotal, nonpeer-reviewed research paper (“Impacts of Drilling on Human and Animal Health”),  published by Cornell University School of Veterinary Medicine researchers Michelle Bamberger, PhD and Robert Oswald, PhD, calls for banning all natural gas drilling until pre-drilling and post-drilling (independent) scientific tests are created to assure that serious damage to human and animal health is not already occurring. The researchers’ conclusions come following their admittedly nonscientific, but thorough,  research on cases of deaths in animals (mostly cows) and serious sicknesses (in unnamed humans) in natural-gas drill regions ranging from Colorado, to Lousiana, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New York where deep drilling and hydrofracturing have raised widespread concerns about the rapidly developing industry. The authors say that industry nondisclosure of chemicals used in hydrofracking (many of them highly toxic to humans and animals) has made science-based research impossible, and the chemicals have entered the environment, probably causing premature deaths and stillborns among cattle and severe illnesses among humans living in drill areas. This is the first paper that we have seen originating from a nationally acclaimed university (animal) science department that attempts to establish the beginnings of science-based analysis on known cases involving the, admittedly anecdotal, accounts of families who live in intensely developed areas where natural-gas drilling is underway. The researchers demand immediate cessation of drilling (including hydrofracking) until federal and state scientific monitoring standards are developed and in place, with adequately large  enforcement staffs in operation. Though anecdotal, their study should be read  by state and federal public-health agency administrators, political leaders, and the public. Hopefully it can cause responsible leaders to call for peer-reviewed, epidemiologic research on the effects of gas drilling on animals and humans in heavy drill regions of the U.S., particularly Pennsylvania.  A science-based regulatory framework recommended in their paper must be put in place, but it must be based on a peer-reviewed foundation of  epidemiologic research. State  severance taxes to fund the regulatory science and its enforcement are a  common sense beginning.  http://slopefarms.com/blog/2012/01/09/hydrofracking-impact-on-the-health-of-livestock-and-humans-new-study-from-two-cornell-researchers.

In fact, there has been science-based epidemiologic research done (in the heavy-drill areas of Texas) on this new area of science, though the Cornell researchers do not seem to be aware of it. The Texas studies show no epidemiologic effects of drilling on humans or animals. The DrillingAhead.com drilling-industry link below makes a strong point: The Cornell study “is not epidemiologic research” by any stretch. The comments are worth reading.

http://www.drillingahead.com/page/cornell-veterinarians-go-into-beast-mode-on-shale

In Uncategorized
  • Robert Oswald

    Dear Mr. Randolph,
    Thank you for publicizing our study on your web site. As you know, issues surrounding gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing are of critical importance to fly fisherman as contamination of rivers and streams as a result of wastewater processing has been carefully documented by Dan Volz and others. We do want to point out several points in your article that are incorrect. You begin the piece with the phrase: “A 2012 nonscientific, anecdotal, nonpeer-reviewed research paper…” Perhaps you got that impression by reading the Energy in Depth website, but we regret to inform you that you are incorrect. The paper was carefully peer-reviewed by three reviewers that had extensive and insightful comments. This has been the policy of the journal, New Solutions, A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health, since its inception in 1990. As for nonscientific, we would point out that many scientists would consider a systematic review and analysis of cases as scientific. In fact, the medical literature contains an enormous number of case studies that we would be hard pressed to consider “nonscientific.” I found it quite interesting that you criticize our study as “not epidemiological by any stretch.” We wonder where you obtained the idea that this was intended to be an epidemiological study, as we specifically state that it is not. We do note the importance of epidemiological research and also note that no peer reviewed epidemiological studies have been published. We were, of course, aware of the “study” that you cite. Curiously, you do not indicate that it was not peer reviewed and was published by a gas drilling activist and toxicologist in the employ of the industry on an industry-sponsored web site. It would have been difficult to miss, as it was part of an article disparaging the credentials of health providers and scientists (including us) who sent a carefully worded letter to Governor Cuomo citing our concerns about potential health impacts of gas drilling. Nevertheless, when Ms. Mickley and Ms. Blake publish their work in a peer-reviewed journal, we will be most happy to cite it. By the way, the authors of the “study” somehow missed the Center for Disease Control and Prevention study showing that the Dallas/Fort Worth area has the highest rate of invasive breast cancer in Texas and that the rates are rising. This increase in cancer is in the same six counties that have the greatest hydrocarbon gas production. Funny that Ms. Mickley and Ms. Blake seem to have missed that in their “scientific study.”
    Sincerely,
    Robert Oswald and Michelle Bamberger