The United States became oil and gas independent primarily because of its ability to step back into older, established oil and gas fields to extract what drillers call “unconventional oil and gas.” But the necessary process, forcibly injecting chemically treated pressurized water into those existing sites – more commonly referred to as fracking (short for hydraulic fracturing) – is what has pulled us out of reliance on imported oil and gas. In fact, we are even exporting some of our newfound product, particularly natural gas, which energy experts believe is that lower-carbon-output transitional fuel. Not the best solution, but it is a band aid that most politicians, from both sides of the aisle, believe is necessary until we can rely on cleaner alternatives. But there is a catch, most of us know nothing about. A killing catch that once again negatively impacts the most vulnerable among us: little children.
The August 17th Yale News presents the results of recent deep dive by the Yale University School of Public Health into a statistical anomaly in Pennsylvania communities near established oil and gas extraction fields: “[C]hildren living near unconventional oil and gas (UOG) developments at birth were two to three times more likely to be diagnosed with leukemia between the ages of 2 and 7 than those who did not live near this oil and gas activity, after accounting for other factors that could influence cancer risk… [The subjects] included nearly 2,500 Pennsylvania children, 405 of whom were diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the most common type of cancer in children…
“Acute lymphoblastic leukemia, also referred to as ALL, is a type of leukemia that arises from mutations to lymphoid immune cells. Although long-term survival rates are high, children who survive this disease may be at higher risk of other health problems, developmental challenges, and psychological issues… For communities living nearby, UOG development can pose a number of potential threats. Chemical threats include, for example, air pollution from vehicle emissions and well and road construction, and water pollution from hydraulic fracturing or spills of wastewater. Hundreds of chemicals have been reportedly used in UOG injection water or detected in wastewater, some of which are known or suspected to be cancer causing. The paucity of data on the association between UOG and childhood cancer outcomes has fueled public concerns about possible cancer clusters in heavily drilled regions and calls for more research and government action.
“‘Unconventional oil and gas development can both use and release chemicals that have been linked to cancer, so the potential for children living near UOG to be exposed to these chemical carcinogens is a major public health concern,’ said the study’s senior author, Nicole Deziel, associate professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health.” So, the study looked at what I thought would have been obvious: drinking water. For whatever reason, past studies had not figured out a metric that would form the basis for an accurate cancer correlation.
Yale Public Health (led by Cassandra Clark, the study’s first author and a postdoctoral associate at the Yale Cancer Center) examined a combination of factors, starting with “UOG wells that fell within a child’s watershed area — the zone from which a drinking water well serving their home would likely draw water — and calculated the distance from the home to the nearest of those UOG wells.” Various communities, those that even addressed fracking contamination at all, usually had mandatory distances for separating private residences from drilling sites. The measurements, almost always in feet, were all over the map.
Dr. Clark’s team created a predictive algorithm that produced startling results. “Our findings of increased risk of ALL at distances of two kilometers or more from UOG operations, in conjunction with evidence from numerous other studies, suggest that existing setback distances, which may be as little as 150 feet, are insufficiently protective of children’s health,” Clark said. “We hope that studies like ours are taken into account in the ongoing policy discussion around UOG setback distances.”
Wow! The horrific ALL numbers were finally explained. It would seem obvious that shooting-from-the-hip analytics, in the face of rising cancer cases, are a huge part of the problem. A bad American habit born on relying on toxic industries being left to pro-business self-regulation. How many other industrial pollutants have been given a free pass without truly appreciating the risks? Who knew that “energy independence” could cause cancer?
I’m Peter Dekom, and particularly in a highly polarized world where “alternative facts” are molded to fit underlying assumptions – given that trust in trained scientists is at a low point – it is amazing how many of us are killed by assumptions that what we want to believe is “true,” just might be callously and dangerously detrimental to our health!
No comments:
Post a Comment