Bishop Hill Systematic deception
Dec 9, 2014 Energy: gas Greens Friends of the Earth Scotland are at it again (or should that be "still"), issuing a letter to Fife Council about the possibility of unconventional fossil fuels being extracted in the county.
Here are a few of the highlights:
There is also alarming evidence about the potentially devastating public health impacts for communities living in and near gas fields. Communities living near gas fields in Australia complain of respiratory problems, rashes and irritated eyes.iv An investigation by a concerned GP in early 2013 of 38 households in close proximity to coal seam gas wells in Tara, Queensland, found that 58% of residents reported definite adverse health effects related to gas drilling and a further 19% were uncertain.v Symptoms include breathing difficulties, rashes, joint and muscle pains, nausea and vomiting, and spontaneous nosebleeds.
Footnote iv is to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. Footnote v is to the underlying study of Tara residents by Geralyn McCarron, a member of "Doctors for the Environment". Interestingly though, Dr McCarron recently came to Scotland to give evidence to the Dart Energy inquiry at Falkirk. Examination of the final submission of Dart's QC is illuminating. It seems that under cross-examination, Dr McCarron admitted:
- there was no baseline monitoring in her research, either of emissions or the environment
- important records were missing
- she had no experience of conducting such surveys
- that the study was not a comprehensive health assessment
- that her report had significant limitations
- that her report would have been biased because of the way participants were selected
- that her report was not supposed to be definitive
In particular, she is quoted in the records of the hearing as saying
I did not conclude anything, I reported symptoms.
I did not say that that (health) related to gas, I reported symptoms.
When asked to confirm that her report did not find a direct relationship between gas extraction and the health of people in the area, she said "that wasn't the purpose".
Interestingly, the government of Australia did conduct a full investigation of the area, and concluded that the prevalence of relevant complaints of specific symptoms in the area was low and that there was no evidence to support the concerns of those residents alarmed by Dr McCarron's, ahem, research.
So it's fair to say that FoE's "facts" are far off the mark. And it's hard to credit the idea that FoE don't know that their "facts" are actually fictions: their boss Richard Dixon sat through every session of the Dart hearing and reported each day's events on his website.
There's more though:
But the long-term human health impacts could be much more serious: research from the USA found that gas operations were leaking highly toxic and carcinogenic benzene into the air.vi Preliminary research from Cornell University suggests that air and water pollution from unconventional gas activities can have a profoundly damaging effect on infant health. vii
Footnote vi is to a news article in Nature by Jeff Tollefson, which Frack-Free Scotland have pirated on their website. The word "benzene" does not appear in it. Footnote vii is to a working paper by Elaine L. Hill, who is now an assistant professor at the Division of Health Policy and Outcomes Research at Rochester. Dr Hill's website says that the paper is under review, although it seems to have been around for a long time. I have found one version dating right back to 2012. It turns out that when it first appeared it was heavily promoted by antifracking groups in the USA, as well as being picked up by Senate Democrats and was the subject of a fascinating post by Andy Revkin at the New York Times' DotEarth blog.
As Revkin noted, Hill was originally quite gung ho about her results, being widely quoted as saying:
My study is robust across multiple specifications and it indicates that our future generation may be seriously harmed.
However, when the media storm kicked off she backtracked quickly, suggesting that her findings were preliminary and not safe for reuse:
I have not yet pursued publication as I am still getting feedback from experts in the field of economics. As quickly as I’d like this to be published, I do not want to rush it and feel that it is important to get the necessary feedback...I think that my findings suggest that further study is needed to determine if living in close proximity to unconventional natural gas development is a threat to human health...The fact that results should not be cited prior to peer review is valid...
Meanwhile, relevant experts were scathing (to say the least) of the paper. I have taken the liberty of quoting extended excerpts from the relevant contributions at Dot Earth, starting with this from David Ropeik, a risk communication consultant:
This is a badly suspect piece of work. It should fail a decent freshman Intro to Epidemiology course. Egregious leaps and claims, humongous missing pieces of information, language powerfully suggestive of bias. Specifics below.
...
I would be extraordinarily wary of any researcher who says “the link between cause and effect is immediate” (page 3). A fundamental truth of epidemiology is that it RARELY finds, conclusively, that A CAUSES B. Several other phrases in the Introduction that talk about ‘causal’ relationships strengthen this concern.
The litany of potential stressors – noise, lights, “chemicals” — in the intro sounds like a shopping list from someone looking to find a relationship, another caution flag about the researcher’s intent, ergo, the credibility of the product.
This one is really a red flag: “this paper provides evidence of a composite effect” (combined air and water pollution) on infant health” (page 6). That is a massively speculative reach, a kind of “let’s throw all the mud at the wall and count what sticks” approach. Air pollution effects depend on the specific pollutants; particles (and their size), toxics, etc. Same with water pollution. This general sort of “composite effect” sounds unspecific and blurry, enough to cast doubt on the findings.
... This sounds incredible unequivocal: “Preliminary evidence indicates that NGD [natural gas drilling] produces toxic waste that contaminates the air, aquifers, waterways, and ecosystems that surround drilling sites” (page 8). My rudimentary understanding is that this is site specific, and hardly as resolved as the author makes it sound.
“Cocktail of chemicals” (page 8) is suspiciously environmentalist sort of language.
The bit about radiation strongly suggests a bias in the investigator. It is devoid of meaningful data: dose, radionuclides (which bears on biological plausibility of this being a risk factor).
And these two statements confirm the case against the scientific credibility of the work, and summarize what I think are fair allegations about bias.
In “Conclusions,” the author writes, “These results suggest that natural gas wells close to pregnant mothers’ residences increased LBW by 25%, increased small for gestational age by 17% and reduced 5 minute APGAR scores, when compared to pregnant mothers’ residences that are close to a future well (permit).”
And she adds, “This paper provides evidence that exposure within at least 1.5 miles is very detrimental to fetal development.” What an outrageously unsupported claim. An association? Yes. Worth further investigation? Sure. “Evidence of harm”? Not even close. Any reader the least bit familiar with epidemiology should be deeply suspicious of this work….
The second set of comments were from Daniel Greenbaum, the president of the Health Effects Institute, which Revkin describes as "a 32-year-old research hub focused on the health impacts of air pollution":
I have not had a chance to read this in detail, and won’t be able to for a few days, but did note the following KEY statement in the paper: “In the subsequent paper, the difference-in-differences research design, which relies heavily on the assumption that the characteristics of mothers who live close to a permitted well are similar to those who live close to an actual existing well (emphasis added). I don’t really know this approach in detail, but there are a host of things that could be different in the two groups that could make a real difference to the outcomes – socioeconomic status, prior health status, maternal medical care, obstetric care.
I generally agree with David Ropeik (albeit with a bit less drama) that the overall communication is highly suspect and would be amazed if it gets published at a reputable journal (and the “it’s too important to wait for peer review” comment is particularly troubling). We may in the end find there are very REAL effects of fracking. (The Health Effects Institute is beginning to see if there is a role for us in examining that in a systematic way.) But there is a lot of not very impressive science out there (there is some quite good work also: e.g. the work of Robert Jackson at Duke).
Let us express a little surprise that Prof Hill is still putting such an extraordinary document up on her website despite the furore over her actions back in 2012. Let us also note in passing that since that time the paper has not been published in a disreputable journal, let alone a reputable one.
No doubt Friends of the Earth are grateful though.
[Update: worth noting that FoE link to the earlier discredited paper, not the 2013 revision, although I haven't compared the text of the two]
Reader Comments (25)
Proof if proof were needed.
Evidence who needs it, it just gets in the way when you are saving the planet. FoE having been misleading the public since their inception.
WWF are no better as their present TV advert is telling people that the polar bears AND penguins are at risk due to reducing sea ice????? The Antarctic is still at a vey high level! The Arctic is hardly dying and polar bear populations are growing in most areas.
Why does the Avertising Standards Authority not take action against these appalling adverts!
Bishop , I hope you'll be sending a copy of your post to Fife Council, .
Yes, CharmingQuark - the WWF advert is complete drivel (albeit with a soft, appealing voiceover, and the promise of a cuddly toy if you 'GIVEUSYOURMONEY.....')
A missive to the ASA might be in order...
As you say, it's standard environmentalist fare based on chemophobia. There are greater hazards in the bottles under the kitchen sink.
Post-modern science: Decide on the answer that feels right, then adapt the data and methodology to produce that answer.
It's the standard way of working to a 'progressive' mindset of "Whatever feels right, is right."
I'm collecting a few Sceptic word definitions
Just added: Post-modern science, chemophobia
.. to list with: Pause, upjust, upcast, greenblob(yist), non-science, sceptic, global warming, denier, scientific fraud, mann-made warming, warmist, alarmist, climate academic, greenspin, bird mincer, Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Any more?
I have not yet pursued publication as I am still getting feedback from experts in the field of economics.
Or put another way, The Green Blob hasn't paid me enough yet.
The useful idiots, are everywhere and they are programmed to abhor fossil fuels in whatever guise they may be manifested, all logic left by the back door long since.
Rent-a-green-mob, rely on hearsay propaganda and new fishy tales put about by old wives like Al Gore. The greens and eco warriors don't care about its provenance - because the ends always justifies the means. They must think the juice which enables their iphones to light up [all pretty innit!] - are moonbeams emanations from within the ether.
I wish, they'd [the green blob] all just frack off back to their caves and whence they came.
I am an implacable foe of FoE. Scurrilous imposters, all of them; without honesty, charity, virtue or rectitude.
Truth has long been an early casualty wherever eco-zealots go to war on society.
If you are going to lie, tell a big one.
Not exactly a papaphrase of Goebels, but close enough.
To Bishop Hill.
Great post- I do hope that either you, or a member of this blog might send it to Fife Council to help in their deliberations?
Unfortunately this information is a day too late to be submitted to the Local Development consultation, which closed yesterday.
Anyone got any overwhelming evidence about average life expectancy and infant mortality in neighbourhoods without reliable electricity supplies?
"There is also alarming evidence about the potentially devastating public health impacts ......."
The simple counter is:
1. How many deaths?
2. How many excess winter deaths occur in Scotland due to fuel poverty?
If the answer to #2>#1 then there is strong evidence that plentiful, reliable, cheaper fuel saves lives.
Parts of western Pennsylvania have had surface leaks of oil and gas (look up Drake's Well) since the Appalachians rose. I was raised in this region and relatives worked in the oil and gas producing trades (coal, also). In the early 1950s, when we visited relatives, I would walk across the hills with my uncle and I would “help” tend to the small tanks of oil (with water) pumped during the previous few days. My actual purpose was to harvest leeks as we went and carry them back down the hill. The house still is along the road just west of Duke Center, PA. The valley, and many others in the region, smelled of petroleum. Believe it or not – but the population didn't die.
~~~~~~
Footnote #1: A British plant was in nearby Eldred – an operating loading plant for mortar shells, incendiary grenades, thermite aerial bombs, and bomb fuses.
http://eldredwwiimuseum.com/national_munitions.html
Footnote #2: regarding current Los Angeles, CA
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/06/the-fiery-underground-oil-pit-eating-l-a.html
Is this some of the crap that EM shovels on occasion? The bouquet seems familiar.
I've never yet heard FoE say that there is also alarming evidence about the potentially devastating public health impacts for communities living near wind turbines. I wonder why not.
John F. Hulquist (5:30 PM):ah, yes – I remember a (reality?) TV programme about the problems that can arise from those near-surface oil fields a few years ago. It was a story 'bout a man named Jed, a poor mountaineer but he kept his family fed, then one day while he was huntin’ for some food, up from the ground came a bubblin’ crude… It followed the trials and tribulations that long-suffering family had to put up with, being forced off their land, and moving to another, totally alien culture. The name escapes me, for the moment.
Yes, send this to the council but also Fife's newspapers:
Fife Today
The Courier
Central Fife Times
Fife Free Press
Let's see it any of them will carry this?
@Radical Rodent, you don't tell me you've forgotten the name "Beverly Hillbillies". And Nick Grealy points out the oil field under their new address in a recent tweet - https://twitter.com/ShaleGasExpert/status/541869834343309313.
Thank you, SadButMadLad. I could have added a tongue-in-cheek logo, but some might have taken the wrong idea…
If someone saw fit to report GWPF to the Charities Commission, where does this leave anyone submitting information to a legal planning process, if they know that information is not quite true?
They don't care about the truth, they simply throw in the scare story, the media pick it up and it acquires legs, still being quoted as fact in years to come, "Scientists say".