Showing posts with label health impact. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health impact. Show all posts

Monday, March 9, 2015

TALK: Climate Change and Public Health - Alan Lockwood, MD

ADK Niagara Frontier Chapter 
presents
Alan Lockwood, MD
 speaking on
"Climate Change and Public Health"

WHEN: Tuesday, March 10th, 7:30pm – 9:00pm
WHERE: Amherst Community Church, 77 Washington Highway, Snyder  [Map]
NOTE: Please park in rear and enter through back door

Free and Open to the Public

Alan Lockwood is a retired MD and UB Professor Emeritus in the Neurology Dept. In addition to over 200 scientific publications including on environmental toxins, Alan authored a book about the health effects of the coal industry titled “The Silent Epidemic: Coal and Hidden Threat to Health”. Recognized as an  expert in his field, Alan has testified before Congress on the public health impacts of fossil fuel emissions.

According to Alan, “Climate Change is the greatest public health threat of this century.” Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and reduce our national health care expenditures.

It is imperative for the general public to be informed about the dire impacts of burning fossil fuels, so they can pressure leaders and policy makers to shift to renewable sources of energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create policies to benefit the well-being of humans and the planet.

Alan lives in Buffalo, and is a graduate of Cornell University and its Medical College. He is also on the Board of Directors of Physicians for Social Responsibility, studying the public health impacts of pollution, climate change and nuclear proliferation. This Nobel Peace Prize-winning group works towards a healthier and safer world.

In addition, Alan is a Clean Air Ambassador with earthjustice.org, and is involved with court cases and policy decisions. Earth Justice’s slogan is: “Because the Earth Needs a Good Lawyer”.

For more information on the Niagara Frontier Chapter of the Adirondack Mountain Club, click here.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

FRACKING NEWS

Families sick from fracking exposure turn to concerned scientists | The Inquirer

Like people in other regions transformed by the shale energy boom, residents of Washington County, Pennsylvania have complained of headaches, nosebleeds and skin rashes. But because there are no comprehensive studies about the health impacts of natural gas drilling, it's hard to determine if their problems are linked to the gas wells and other production facilities that have sprung up around them.

A group of scientists from Pennsylvania and neighboring states have stepped in to fill this gap by forming a nonprofit—apparently the first of its kind in the United States—that provides free health consultations to local families near drilling sites. Instead of waiting years or even decades for long-term studies to emerge, the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project (SWPA-EHP) is using the best available science to help people deal with their ailments.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection—which oversees the oil and gas industry—has no ongoing or planned health studies, though it is researching air and water quality at certain sites. None of the hundreds of millions of dollars in impact fees the state has collected from the industry since 2011 has gone to state or local health departments.

A governor-appointed commission recommended in 2011 that a health registry be created to track Pennsylvanians living near drilling sites. But no registry has been established. In June, the news organization StateImpact Pennsylvania reported that two former employees of the health department were told to avoid talking about Marcellus shale activity, and to stop returning phone calls from people concerned about drilling impacts.

Read the full report here.

Major Scientific Document Shows Why New York Fracking Moratorium Is Imperative | EcoWatch

Many New Yorkers continue to rally and push for a statewide fracking moratorium. In this vein, Concerned Health Professionals of New York (CHPNY) released a major resource to the public, including public officials, researchers and journalists—the Compendium of Scientific, Medical and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking.

“This compilation of findings brings together data from many fields of study and reveals the diversity of the problems with fracking—from increased flood risks to increased crime risks, from earthquakes to methane leaks,” said Sandra Steingraber, PhD. “What this multitude of threats all has in common is the ability to harm public health. That’s our message to Governor Cuomo and Acting Health Commissioner Zucker.”

As mounting evidence continues to find more costs than benefits to fracking, the compendium explains the motivation for compiling and making public the scientific, medical and media findings:
Despite this emerging body of knowledge, industry secrecy and government inaction continue to thwart scientific inquiry, leaving many potential problems—especially cumulative, long-term risks—unidentified, unmonitored and largely unexplored.

This problem is compounded by non-disclosure agreements, sealed court records and legal settlements that prevent families (and their doctors) from discussing injuries. As a result, no comprehensive inventory of human hazards yet exists.

The compendium covers in detail 15 dangers, risks and associated trends created by the fracking process.

In light of these findings, referenced with more than 300 citations, and remaining fundamental data gaps, CHPNY considers a fracking moratorium “the only appropriate and ethical course of action while scientific and medical knowledge on the impacts of fracking continues to emerge.”

The full report is here.

The compendium of dangers is current through June 30, 2014  and is available to download here.


EPA Draft Fracking Wastewater Guidance Suggests Closer Scrutiny for Treatment Plants | DeSmog

One of the most intractable problems related to fracking is that each well drilled creates millions of gallons of radioactive and toxic wastewater.

For the past several years, the Environmental Protection Agency has faced enormous public pressure to ensure this dangerous waste stops ending up dumped in rivers or causing contamination in other ways.

But the drilling boom has proceeded at such an accelerated pace in the United States that regulators have struggled to keep up, to control or even track where the oil and gas industry is disposing of this radioactive waste. As a consequence, hundreds of millions of gallons of partially treated waste have ended up in the rivers from which millions of Americans get their drinking water.

An internal draft EPA document leaked to DeSmog gives a small window into how, after a full decade since the start of the drilling boom, the agency is responding.

The document, dated March 7, 2014, is titled “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting and Pretreatment for Shale Gas Extraction Wastewaters: Frequently Asked Questions.”
It's revealing for what it shows about how EPA staff are taking the hazards of fracking wastewater more seriously — and also how little things have changed.

The document, intended as a guide for local regulators on how the Clean Water Act should be interpreted and applied, is impressive in many ways.

The EPA's new draft document now lists almost two dozen individual substances — like benzene, radium, and arsenic — that it says have been found at high enough levels in shale wastewater to cause concern. By contrast, the 2011 version focused mostly on the high levels of salts found in the waste.

The new document also explains that the substances it lists are not the only potential pollutants that must be removed before water can be considered fully treated and ready to enter rivers and streams. It explains that each treatment plant can only take wastewater once regulators are satisfied that they know what is actually in it.

Read the full report here.

Download the draft EPA document here.

GAO Report: Drinking Water at Risk from Underground Fracking Waste Injection | EcoWatch 


According to U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), this study was conducted because:

Every day in the U.S. at least 2 billion gallons of fluids are injected into more than 172,000 wells to enhance oil and gas production, or to dispose of fluids brought to the surface during the extraction of oil and gas resources. These wells are subject to regulation to protect drinking water sources under EPA’s UIC class II program and approved state class II programs. Because much of the population relies on underground sources for drinking water, these wells have raised concerns about the safety of the nation’s drinking water.

“The federal government’s watchdog (GAO) is saying what communities across the country have known for years: fracking is putting Americans at risk,” said Amy Mall, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. ”From drinking water contamination to man-made earthquakes, the reckless way oil and gas companies deal with their waste is a big problem. Outdated rules and insufficient enforcement are largely to blame. EPA needs to rein in this industry run amok.”

Read the full report here.

Fracking’s methane problem: Study finds new, unconventional wells leak more than old ones | Salon

Controversial new research identifies defects in Pennsylvania's gas wells

Fracking in Pennsylvania’s natural gas-rich Marcellus shale has a major methane problem, a new study finds. Analyzing the data from more than 75,000 state inspections going back to 2000, a team of four researchers concluded that gas wells are leaking the chemical, a potent greenhouse gas with a long-term effect on global warming greater even than CO2′s, at an alarming rate.

The research, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was led by Cornell University’s Anthony Ingraffea, a vocal opponent of fracking. The leaks, according to the study, might be due to problems in the wells’ cement casings. Basically, explained Ingraffea, “Something is coming out of it that shouldn’t, in a place that it shouldn’t.”

The crux of his findings, via the Associated Press:
  • Overall, older wells — those drilled before 2009 — had a leak rate of about 1 percent. Most were traditional wells, drilling straight down. Unconventional wells — those drilled horizontally and commonly referred to as fracking — didn’t come on the scene until 2006 and quickly took over.
  • Newer traditional wells drilled after 2009 had a leak rate of about 2 percent; the rate for unconventional wells was about 6 percent, the study found.
  • The leak rate reached as high as nearly 10 percent horizontally drilled wells for before and after 2009 in the northeastern part of the state, where drilling is hot and heavy.
The full report is here.

The significance, abstract and link to the paper by Ingraffea et al. published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is here.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Williamsville Screening: Film Examines Social & Environmental Costs of Coal Power

Please join the Clean Air Coalition for the Williamsville screening of the film "Dirty Business." This Peter Bull documentary investigates the numerous health and environmental impacts of the coal industry in communities across America and the world. 

The screening will take place on Wednesday, February 12, at Clearfield Library, 770 Hopkins Rd., Williamsville from 6-8PM. [Map]

The film will be followed by a brief discussion of the impacts of burning coal here in WNY. Light refreshments will be served. 

Free and open to the public

For a preview of the film, Click Here.
 
Screenings to be held in other towns - East Aurora, Clarence, Hamburg and Buffalo - on later dates at 6-8PM:
  • Feb. 19, Southside Municipal Center, 300 Gleed Ave, East Aurora 
  • Feb. 20, Clarence Library, 3 Town Place, Clarence 
  • Feb. 25, Hilbert College, Palisano Lecture Rm., Bogel Hall, 5200 S Park Ave., Hamburg - Featuring a special video conference with director Peter Bull
  • Feb. 27, Buffalo State College, Room OE in Bulger Communications Center (parking in Lot S), Buffalo
If you have any questions, please call  716-852-3813.  

Clean Air Coalition looks forward to seeing you there!

Saturday, May 4, 2013

FRACKING: Animals Dying, People Sick in Pennsylvania



More than 70 years ago, a chemical attack was launched against Washington state and Nevada. It poisoned people, animals, everything that grew, breathed air, and drank water. The Marshall Islands were also struck. This formerly pristine Pacific atoll was branded “the most contaminated place in the world.” As their cancers developed, the victims of atomic testing and nuclear weapons development got a name: downwinders. What marked their tragedy was the darkness in which they were kept about what was being done to them. Proof of harm fell to them, not to the U.S. government agencies responsible [PDF].

Now, a new generation of downwinders is getting sick as an emerging industry pushes the next wonder technology — in this case, high-volume hydraulic fracturing. Whether they live in Texas, Colorado, or Pennsylvania, their symptoms are the same: rashes, nosebleeds, severe headaches, difficulty breathing, joint pain, intestinal illnesses, memory loss, and more. “In my opinion,” says Yuri Gorby of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, “what we see unfolding is a serious health crisis, one that is just beginning.”

The process of “fracking” starts by drilling a mile or more vertically, then outward laterally into 500-million-year-old shale formations, the remains of oceans that once flowed over parts of North America. Millions of gallons of chemical and sand-laced water are then propelled into the ground at high pressures, fracturing the shale and forcing the methane it contains out. With the release of that gas come thousands of gallons of contaminated water. This “flowback” fluid contains the original fracking chemicals, plus heavy metals and radioactive material that also lay safely buried in the shale.

The industry that uses this technology calls its product “natural gas,” but there’s nothing natural about upending half a billion years of safe storage of methane and everything that surrounds it. It is, in fact, an act of ecological violence around which alien infrastructures — compressor stations that compact the gas for pipeline transport, ponds of contaminated flowback, flare stacks that burn off gas impurities, diesel trucks in quantity, thousands of miles of pipelines, and more — have metastasized across rural America, pumping carcinogens and toxins into water, air, and soil.

Sixty percent of Pennsylvania lies over a huge shale sprawl called the Marcellus, and that has been in the fracking industry’s sights since 2008. The corporations that are exploiting the shale come to the state with lavish federal entitlements: exemptions from the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Clean Drinking Water Acts, as well as the Superfund Act, which requires cleanup of hazardous substances. The industry doesn’t have to call its trillions of gallons of annual waste “hazardous.” Instead, it uses euphemisms like “residual waste.” In addition, fracking companies are allowed to keep secret many of the chemicals they use.

Pennsylvania, in turn, adds its own privileges. A revolving door shuttles former legislators, governors, and officials from the state’s Department of Environmental Protection into gas industry positions. The DEP itself is now the object of a lawsuit that charges the agency with producing deceptive lab reports, and then using them to dismiss homeowners’ complaints that shale gas corporations have contaminated their water, making them sick. The people I interviewed have their own nickname for the DEP: “Don’t Expect Protection.”

The downwinders
Randy Moyer is a pleasant-faced, bearded 49-year-old whose drawl reminds you that Portage, his hardscrabble hometown in southwestern Pennsylvania, is part of Appalachia. He worked 18 years — until gasoline prices got too steep — driving his own rigs to haul waste in New York and New Jersey. Then what looked like a great opportunity presented itself: $25 an hour working for a hydraulic-fracturing subcontractor in northeastern Pennsylvania.

In addition to hauling fracking liquid, water, and waste, Randy also did what’s called, with no irony, “environmental.” He climbed into large vats to squeegee out the remains of fracking fluid. He also cleaned the huge mats laid down around the wells to even the ground out for truck traffic. Those mats get saturated with “drilling mud,” a viscous, chemical-laden fluid that eases the passage of the drills into the shale. What his employer never told him was that the drilling mud, as well as the wastewater from fracking, is not only highly toxic, but radioactive.

In the wee hours of a very cold day in November 2011, he stood in a huge basin at a well site, washing 1,000 mats with high-pressure hoses, taking breaks every so often to warm his feet in his truck. “I took off my shoes and my feet were as red as a tomato,” he told me. When the air from the heater hit them, he “nearly went through the roof.”

Once at home, he scrubbed his feet, but the excruciating pain didn’t abate. A “rash” that covered his feet soon spread up to his torso. A year and a half later, the skin inflammation still recurs. His upper lip repeatedly swells. A couple of times his tongue swelled so large that he had press it down with a spoon to be able to breathe. “I’ve been fried for over 13 months with this stuff,” he told me in late January. “I can just imagine what hell is like. It feels like I’m absolutely on fire.”

Family and friends have taken Moyer to emergency rooms at least four times. He has consulted more than 40 doctors. No one can say what caused the rashes, or his headaches, migraines, chest pain, and irregular heartbeat, or the shooting pains down his back and legs, his blurred vision, vertigo, memory loss, the constant white noise in his ears, and the breathing troubles that require him to stash inhalers throughout his small apartment.

In an earlier era, workers’ illnesses fell into the realm of “industrial medicine.” But these days, when it comes to the U.S. fracking industry, the canaries aren’t restricted to the coal mines. People like Randy seem to be the harbingers of what happens when a toxic environment is no longer buried miles beneath the earth. The gas fields that evidently poisoned him are located near thriving communities. “For just about every other industry I can imagine,” says Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell University, coauthor of a landmark study [PDF] that established fracking’s colossal greenhouse-gas footprint, “from making paint, building a toaster, building an automobile, those traditional kinds of industry occur in a zoned industrial area, inside of buildings, separated from home and farm, separated from schools.” By contrast, natural gas corporations, he says, “are imposing on us the requirement to locate our homes, hospitals, and schools inside their industrial space.”

The death and life of Little Rose
Little Rose was Angel Smith’s favorite horse. When the vet shod her, Angel told me proudly, she obligingly lifted the next hoof as soon as the previous one was done. “Wanna eat, Rosie?” Angel would ask, and Rosie would nod her head. “Are you sure?” Angel would tease, and Rosie would raise one foreleg, clicking her teeth together. In Clearville, just south of Portage, Angel rode Little Rose in parades, carrying the family’s American flag.

In 2002, a “landman” knocked on the door and asked Angel and her husband Wayne to lease the gas rights of their 115-acre farm to the San Francisco-based energy corporation PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric.) At first, he was polite, but then he started bullying. “All your neighbors have signed. If you don’t, we’ll just suck the gas from under your land.” Perhaps from weariness and a lack of information (almost no one outside the industry then knew anything about high-volume hydraulic fracturing), they agreed. Drilling began in 2002 on neighbors’ land and in 2005 on the Smith’s.

On Jan. 30, 2007, Little Rose staggered, fell, and couldn’t get up. Her legs moved spasmodically. When Wayne and Angel dragged her to a sitting position, she’d just collapse again. “I called every vet in the phone book,” says Angel. “They all said, ‘Shoot her.’” The couple couldn’t bear to do it. After two days, a neighbor shot her. “It was our choice,” says Angel, her voice breaking. “She was my best friend.”
Soon, the Smiths’ cows began showing similar symptoms. Those that didn’t die began aborting or giving birth to dead calves. All the chickens died, too. So did the barn cats. And so did three beloved dogs, none of them old, all previously healthy. A 2012 study [PDF] by Michelle Bamberger and Cornell University pharmacology professor Robert Oswald indicates that, in the gas fields, these are typical symptoms in animals and often serve as early warning signs for their owners’ subsequent illnesses.

The Smiths asked the DEP to test their water. The agency told them that it was safe to drink, but Angel Smith says that subsequent testing by Pennsylvania State University investigators revealed high levels of arsenic.

Meanwhile, the couple began suffering from headaches, nosebleeds, fatigue, throat and eye irritation, and shortness of breath. Wayne’s belly began swelling oddly, even though, says Angel, he isn’t heavy. X-rays of his lungs showed scarring and calcium deposits. A blood analysis revealed cirrhosis of the liver. “Get him to stop drinking,” said the doctor who drew Angel aside after the results came in. “Wayne doesn’t drink,” she replied. Neither does Angel, who at 42 now has liver disease.

By the time the animals began dying, five high-volume wells had been drilled on neighbors’ land. Soon, water started bubbling up under their barn floor and an oily sheen and foam appeared on their pond. In 2008, a compressor station was built half a mile away. These facilities, which compress natural gas for pipeline transport, emit known carcinogens and toxins like benzene and toluene.

The Smiths say people they know elsewhere in Clearville have had similar health problems, as have their animals. For a while they thought their own animals’ troubles were over, but just this past February several cows aborted. The couple would like to move away, but can’t. No one will buy their land. 

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Incomplete Health Review Delays NY Fracking Decision

Health review needs “additional time”; Fracking deadline expected to be missed (UPDATED)
By Jon Campbell
February 12, 2013

The state’s top health regulator on Tuesday signaled he would need more time to complete his review of large-scale hydraulic fracturing, but the head of the Department of Environmental Conservation says it may delay a decision on fracking for weeks, not months.

State Health Commissioner Nirav Shah wrote in a letter Tuesday that his review of the health impacts of fracking will “require additional time to complete based on the complexity of the issues.”

With Shah’s review still incomplete, the DEC will not be able to issue a dense, lengthy environmental impact statement on Wednesday—a requirement if the agency wishes to meet a Feb. 27 deadline for its regulations. If the DEC misses the late-February deadline, it would have to reintroduce the rules and open them to public comment for at least 45 days.

But in a separate statement issued Tuesday, DEC Commissioner Joe Martens indicated his agency would move forward with issuing fracking permits without regulations in place—if the health review doesn’t turn up any major issues.

“If the DOH Public Health Review finds that the (Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement) has adequately addressed health concerns, and I adopt the SGEIS on that basis, DEC can accept and process high-volume hydraulic fracturing permit applications 10 days after issuance of the SGEIS,” Martens said. “The regulations simply codify the program requirements.”

Shah wrote that his review will be completed “within a few weeks.”

Shah’s review was launched in late September, when he was tasked with determining if the DEC’s planned guidelines for fracking are adequate to protect public health.

In his letter to Martens Tuesday, Shah said his team is reviewing three outside, health-related studies that have been underway or are just being launched, including one by the University of Pennsylvania and another by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

He also revealed that he has extended agreements with three academic health consultants who have been assisting with his review. Last week, the three consultants revealed that their work had been completed several weeks ago.

“My team and I will be in Pennsylvania and Washington in the coming days for first-hand briefings on these studies and their progress, which will assist in informing the New York review,” Shah wrote in his letter to Martens.
The original article was posted at Politics on the Hudson

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Impacts of Air Pollution from Oil and Gas Drilling

Organizations Petition EPA to Protect Public Health from Oil and Gas Emissions Contributing to Harmful Ozone Pollution

Ground-level ozone or "smog" contributes to serious adverse health impacts, including decreased lung function and premature mortality, and it damages foliage.  Children, the elderly, Americans with existing lung and heart disease, and those active outside are especially vulnerable.

On December 19, 2012, a broad coalition of environmental, conservation and children’s health groups petitioned the EPA to take two actions that will provide important public health protections for communities impacted by oil and gas emissions that contribute to harmful ozone pollution:

  • First, we respectfully urge EPA to require broad deployment of ozone air quality monitors in oil and natural gas development areas. Requiring the necessary air monitors will ensure that Americans have clear, transparent information about whether the air in their communities meets the nation's health-based air quality standards for ground-level ozone or "smog" pollution as oil and natural gas operations in their communities expands briskly.
  • Second, we respectfully ask that EPA provide communities with tools to help reduce smog-forming pollution from oil and gas development by issuing control technology guidelines (“CTGs”) for oil and gas equipment. These clean air measures can be some of the single most cost-effective methods for reducing smog-forming pollution in areas that violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone as well as those areas seeking to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards under the Ozone Advance Program.

RED, Active Rigs (Sept. 2012); BLUE, Ozone Monitors; SHADED, Population Density.
The Press Release is here.  The Petition is here [PDF, 34 pages].



Energy experts say drilling can be made cleaner
Scientists are concerned about effects of emissions on climate change and health impacts of breathing smog, soot and other pollutants.

PITTSBURGH (AP) — In the Colorado mountains, a spike in air pollution has been linked to a boom in oil and gas drilling. About 800 miles away on the plains of north Texas, there's a drilling boom, too, but some air pollution levels have declined. Opponents of drilling point to Colorado and say it's dangerous. Companies point to Texas and say drilling is safe.

The answer appears to be that drilling can be safe or it can be dangerous. Industry practices, enforcement, geography and even snow cover can minimize or magnify air pollution problems.

Some environmentalists say if leaks and pollution can be minimized, the boom has benefits, since gas burns much cleaner than coal, emitting half the carbon dioxide.

Al Gore told The Associated Press that it's "not irresponsible" to look at gas as a short-term substitute for coal-fired electricity. But Gore added that the main component of gas, methane, is a more potent heat-trapping greenhouse gas than CO2. That means that if large quantities leak, the advantage over coal disappears, the former vice president said.

Prasad Kasibhatla, a professor of environmental chemistry at Duke University, said that controlling gas drilling pollution is "technically solvable" but requires close attention by regulators.

"One has to demonstrate that it is solved, and monitored," he said.

Link to the full report is here.

Monday, September 24, 2012

How Burning Coal Harms Human Health

Coal kills. That's the message of "The Silent Epidemic: Coal and the Hidden Threat to Health" by Alan H. Lockwood, MD, University at Buffalo emeritus professor of neurology.

Lockwood says "Coal is a major contributing factor to the top four causes of death in the U.S.: cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease and stroke, but I think people are completely unaware that pollution from coal is responsible for huge numbers of deaths." 

The book examines how coal is a factor in each of these diseases. Additional chapters examine the science, politics and economics of coal burning and global warming.

Dr. Lockwood discusses his new book in the brief video below:


Burning coal provides the energy to generate nearly half of the electricity in the nation. "The worst health effects of coal are felt by residents of states in the Northeastern U.S., east of the Mississippi, where most coal is burned and where the power plants are the oldest," says Lockwood.

Coal burning causes disease through two main mechanisms, Lockwood explains: through the inflammatory response that inhaled particulate matter triggers in the body and through the penetration into the brain of inhaled particulate matter. 

The press release from the University at Buffalo is here.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

HydroFracking News Briefs

Excerpts from articles in the news and blogs

NY State Won't Fund Hydrofracking Health Impact Study
By David Kowalski
April 4, 2012
 

The $132,600,000,000 budget passed by New York State last week did not include funds for a $100,000 study intended to protect the health of NY residents from the fallout of high-volume hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking) already seen in other states. 

Many lawmakers, as well as the governor and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), seem bent on moving forward on unconventional shale-gas drilling. Sadly, they ignored sound advice from 250 physicians and healthcare/scientific experts who recognize the lack of a Health Impact Assessment as a major flaw in the DEC’s draft hydrofracking regulations. 

Senator Mark Grisanti said "It's very difficult to do a health study on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in NY state when it's not occurring here."

Read the full article here and see a video by Dr. Sandra Steingraber entitled "Will NY Regs on Fracking Protect Our Health?"
 

Another Voice / Hydraulic fracturing
New Yorkers have a right to know the health impacts
By Lois Marie Gibbs and Larysa Melnyk Dyrszka
April 10, 2012
 

New York State may be on the verge of allowing fracking on a large scale across the state. Yet, despite all of the information indicating that there will be negative impacts on our communities and public health from fracking, our elected officials have not yet studied the potential health impacts to identify the risks involved.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has stated repeatedly that science will drive New York’s decision on whether to proceed with this extreme form of fossil fuel extraction. But on the issue of health, the science hasn’t been done. The New York State Assembly has called for an independent health impact assessment on fracking by including an appropriation in its budget proposal. The State Senate and the governor should follow suit and ensure that this critical study is funded in the final budget.


As chairman of the Senate’s Environmental Conservation Committee and member of the Budget Conference Committee, Buffalo’s own Mark Grisanti has a critical role to play. He can and should fight for this appropriation in the Senate and the governor’s office.


Read the full article at BuffaloNews.com


Grisanti proposes fracking safeguards
Bill would prohibit treatment of water at public facilities
By Charlie Specht
April 7, 2012

State Sen. Mark J. Grisanti on Friday announced legislation that would prohibit treatment of water from hydraulic fracturing at public facilities statewide, create a tracking program for the waste and enact other environmental safeguards.

But Grisanti, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environmental Conservation, said he would not support or oppose the controversial gas drilling process until the state completes its final environmental impact study.

“It’s preliminary,” he said. “It’s too early to tell.”

As Grisanti was confronted by environmental activists demanding a complete ban on fracking, his chief political opponent called for more education on the issue before any action is taken.

“We need to see the full scope of their final draft of regulations before we rush to start the drilling,” former Erie County Legislature Chairman Charles M. Swanick said as he urged consideration of alternative energy methods.

Read the full report at BuffaloNews.com and see a video of Sen. Grisanti's presentation and the reactions of fracking opponents including Rita Yelda of Food & Water Watch.

Links to Press Releases

Senator Grisanti announces legislative package aimed at protecting our environment with regards to hydrofracking
By Mark Grisanti  - April 4, 2012
 
Contains links to the proposed legislation.

Coalition Urges NY Sen. Grisanti to Support Statewide Fracking Ban 
By New Yorkers Against Fracking - April 5, 2012  

New Yorkers to Senator Grisanti: Ban Fracking
By Rita Yelda - April 6, 2012

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

NY State Won't Fund Hydrofracking Health Impact Study

By David Kowalski  
 
An Economic Impact Study was Funded Last Year

The $132,600,000,000 budget passed by New York State last week did not include funds for a $100,000 study intended to protect the health of NY residents from the fallout of high-volume hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking) already seen in other states.

Many lawmakers, as well as the governor and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), seem bent on moving forward on unconventional shale-gas drilling. Sadly, they ignored sound advice from 250 physicians and healthcare/scientific experts [1] who recognize the lack of a Health Impact Assessment as a major flaw in the DEC’s draft hydrofracking regulations.

Dr. Gina Solomon, a physician with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said health concerns include air pollution, potential contamination of ground or surface water with methane or chemicals used in fracturing fluids, fires or explosions, heavy truck traffic, and altered social conditions.
 

In a Senate Session on the 2012-2013 Budget last week, Senator Mark Grisanti (R-Buffalo), Chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee, spoke on the budget. He said that "in other states where high-volume hydraulic fracturing is occurring there are health impact studies that I believe that the DOH [Dept. of Health] to the advisory council is going to be taking a look at. It's very difficult to do a health study on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in NY state when it's not occurring here." [see video here]

Human health impacts deserve far more investigation than "a look." A proper study requires research and funding. Also, the fact that high-volume hydraulic fracturing is "not occurring here" in NY did not stop the DEC from hiring a consulting firm, Ecology and Environment Inc., to do an economic study at a cost of $223,000. That study [4Mb PDF] was in fact based primarily on the occurrence of hydrofracking in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania.

The Assembly Majority had already passed a bill calling for a health study. The $100,000 study would include research into other states' experiences with fracking. It would estimate costs of any health impacts to the state, insurers, employers and the health care system and include a long-term plan for monitoring and mitigating health impacts.

The Senate drafted a health impact assessment bill to fund an in-depth $300,000 study. Sen. Tony Avella (D-Queens), the bill's sponsor and a member of the Environmental Conservation Committee, said in a statement, "Before we allow companies to start drilling for gas and pumping chemicals near our watersheds, it is only reasonable that a study be conducted to provide us with more information about the hydrofracking process and the potential health impacts."

At the 2012-2013 Budget session last week, Sen. Avella introduced an amendment to environmental budget legislation that would have included a health impact assessment on hydrofracking. Avella said, "No matter which side of the aisle you are on, whether you are for hydrofracking or against hydrofracking, the very fact that we could do this process without analyzing the seismic or health impacts of hydrofracking, in my opinion is an absolute disgrace." [see video here]

Senator Avella, the Senate Democratic Conference, and the Assembly Majority should be commended for demonstrating their leadership and dedication to protecting the health and well-being of the people of New York. The bill (S.6772) sponsored by Avella is currently in the Environmental Conservation Committee chaired by Senator Grisanti.

Claire Sandberg, Executive Director of Water Defense, said, “One only need to look at the devastation wreaked by fracking in Pennsylvania to see that gas drilling cannot be done safely. There are perhaps hundreds of families just across the border who are without access to safe drinking water because of fracking-related contamination. How can we trust our elected officials who say we can regulate this inherently dangerous practice, if they don't even support basic funding to study its effect on our public health?"

A full assessment of its health impacts must be completed before a decision can be made about whether or not hydrofracking is permitted in New York.

Kate Hudson, Watershed Program Director at NY Riverkeeper said, "We would still call on the governor to take action. He is in a position to accept or reject any of the proposed change. We think this is way too important and we are going to continue to lobby the Legislature."

Dr. Sandra Steingraber speaks to the DEC about their recent Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) and calls for a comprehensive study on the Health Impacts of hydrofracking. Listen: 

Footnote:
[1] Experts included the Medical Society of the State of New York, the American Academy of Pediatrics of New York State, the NY State Nurses Association, the Academy of Family Physicians of New York State, and over 250 individual physicians and scientists.