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:
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]