A
new study has underscored just how little is known about the
health consequences of the natural gas boom that began a
decade ago, when advances in high-volume hydraulic
fracturing, or fracking, and directional drilling allowed
companies to tap shale deposits across the United States.
"Despite
broad public concern, no comprehensive population-based
studies of the public health effects of [unconventional
natural gas] operations exist," concluded the report
published Monday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental
Science & Technology.
Last
week, The Center for Public Integrity, InsideClimate News
and The Weather Channel reported on the health data gap
in the Eagle Ford Shale, where a lack of air monitoring and
research is aggravated by a Texas regulatory system
that often protects the gas and oil industry over the
public.
Scientists
interviewed for the series said the uncertainties persist
across the country. In the words of one expert, scientists
"really haven't the foggiest idea" how shale development
impacts public health.
Gas
and oil production releases many toxic chemicals into the
air and water, including carcinogens like benzene and
respiratory hazards like hydrogen sulfide. While residents
near drilling areas in Texas reported symptoms that are
known to be caused by these chemicals, including migraines
and breathing problems, it was impossible to link them to
the drilling boom because no studies could be found that
prove cause and effect.
The
new study, led by John Adgate at the Colorado School of
Public Health, examined available research on the
environmental, social and psychological impacts of shale gas
drilling. It was the first time anyone had tried to tackle
the question in a systematic way, Adgate said.
The
researchers found that much of the existing work "isn't
explicitly tied to health." Many studies analyzed the level
of pollutants in the air or water, but didn't track how the
exposures are connected to local health trends. Other
studies used health surveys, but didn’t compare the
respondents' results with the health of the larger
surrounding community.
What's
needed, Adgate said, are comprehensive studies that examine
possible connections between chemical exposures and
community health trends. But these types of studies require
substantial funding and good baseline data, both of which
are hard to obtain.
"You're
not going to find anything if you don't look, and some
people think we shouldn't be looking, or that it's not worth
looking," he said. "We do know a lot of these things are
hazardous, and we just need to develop a system … [that]
provides people with a reasonable level of certainty [on
the] effects, or lack thereof."
Health
impacts will vary based on local geology, weather patterns,
operator practices and other factors, Adgate said, so it
would make sense to set up a study that tracks people from
different parts of the country.
Regulators
are well aware of the knowledge gap. In 2012, the Government
Accountability Office — an investigative arm of Congress —
reviewed more than 90 studies from government agencies, the
industry and academic researchers and concluded that oil and
gas development "pose inherent environmental and public
health risks, but the extent of these risks … is unknown, in
part, because the studies GAO reviewed do not generally take
into account the potential long-term, cumulative effects."
On
the issue of air pollution, the GAO said the studies "are
generally anecdotal, short-term, and focused on a particular
site or geographic location … [They] do not provide the
information needed to determine the overall cumulative
effect that shale oil and gas activities have on air
quality.”
Bernard
Goldstein, a professor emeritus at the University of
Pittsburgh and a co-author of the paper, pointed to a need
for well-designed studies in large populations. Scientists
could analyze a community before, during and after drilling
begins, or compare the health of residents in communities
close to and far from a shale play, he said.
Both
Adgate and Goldstein cited major barriers in funding. "There
hasn't been a lot of money thrown at this problem," Adgate
said. "It's a contentious issue as everybody knows, and
nobody's stepped up to say we're going to fund independent
research."
Goldstein
said the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
— part of the National Institutes of Health — has started to
fund some studies, but the results won’t emerge for years.
Adgate suggested more public-private partnerships like the Health Effects Institute,
an independent research organization that studies vehicular
air pollution. It is jointly funded by the Environmental
Protection Agency and the auto industry.
Goldstein,
a doctor and toxicologist who served as an assistant EPA
administrator under President Reagan, sees the lack of
research as a failure of transparency. "The impression I
have is, there's at least some part of industry that
believes it's better not to have these studies, because they
believe it will lead to toxic tort lawyers suing the
industry."
There
seems to be little interest in obtaining better data, he
said. Two years ago, he led a study that analyzed the
membership of three advisory committees established by
President Obama and the governors of Maryland and
Pennsylvania. All three groups were tasked with studying the
impacts of shale gas, yet Goldstein and his colleagues found
that none of the 51 members had a medical or health
background.
"The
current lack of almost any support for research directly
related to the health effects of unconventional gas drilling
is shortsighted and counterproductive," he said in 2012 in testimony before the House Energy
and Environment Subcommittee. "This is not a
one-time event in a single location whose health effects
could be hidden by simply not looking for them … [The] only
cost-effective time … to make this investment is now rather
than to wait until the inevitable clamor for such research
when diseases begin to appear that are associated with
natural gas drilling activities."
This
report is part of a joint project
by The Center for Public Integrity, InsideClimate News and
The Weather Channel. Lisa Song is with InsideClimate News
and Jim Morris is with the Center for Public Integrity.
No comments:
Post a Comment