The authors used Pennsylvania birth
records to compare the health of newborn infants living within 2.5
kilometers (slightly over 1.5 miles) of natural gas fracking sites to
a control group of infants living elsewhere in Pennsylvania. Public
records allowed them to pinpoint the exact latitudes and longitudes
of the gas wells and the mothers' homes. Those babies whose mothers
lived near a fracking site had a 9% probability of low birth weight
(less than 5.5 pounds), compared to 5.6% in the control group.
 |
| Photo by AP/Keith Srakocic |
Low birth weight is an important predictor of infant health and survival, and is associated later in life with inhibited growth, lower educational attainment, and chronic diseases. There is growing evidence that one of its causes is exposure to environmental toxins. The fracking group also had a 5% chance of a low Apgar score, double the control group. The Apgar score is given by the doctor, who evaluates the child's heart rate, breathing, muscle tone, reflexes and skin coloring at the time of birth. A low score indicates problems in one or more of these areas.
This is not the first study to find
that fracking is associated with infant health problems. Faith Hill, a Cornell undergraduate, found that Pennsylvania children born near
fracking sites had lower birth weights and lower Apgar scores
compared to a control group of infants born near permitted sites
prior to any drilling. However, this study could have been
confounded by migration away from the site after drilling began and a
reduction in property values in the vicinity. The net result is that
people living near drilling sites may have lower socioeconomic status
or other characteristics that could explain their children's poorer
health.
The Currie study attempts to deal with this problem two ways. It corrects statistically for geographical
differences in maternal health. More importantly, it looks at a
subsample of mothers who gave birth both before and after drilling
began. These mothers serve as their own control group, which
eliminates most alternative explanations. Of course, the mothers
were older after the onset of fracking, but lower birth weight is
typically associated with younger maternal age.
How does fracking result in poor infant
health? The authors claim that water pollution is probably not the
cause, since there were no differences between mothers who used
public water systems and those who obtained their water from private
wells, which are more likely to be contaminated by fracking. This
leaves air pollution as the most likely possibility. Pollution may
be due to leakage of gases from around the well or from open
frackwater waste pools, which are allowed in Pennsylvania.
Whitehouse ends his article with the
following odd bit of false balance:
Seriously? Are children to be
sacrificed for lower energy prices? The comment ignores the
possibility that Pennsylvania could impose stricter regulations to
reduce air and water pollution near fracking sites, if its state
government were not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the natural gas
industry.
Fracking is exempt from the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other federal anti-pollution regulations. So far, government has largely ignored the precautionary principle when it comes to fracking. The burden of proof has been
placed on opponents of fracking to demonstrate health problems after
the damage is done. If the drilling companies want to claim health
benefits of fracking, I hope they will show us their data.
As of this morning, none of
Pennsylvania's major newspapers have reported the study.
You may also be interested in reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.