Now We Know Fracking Is Making People Sick

Well, many of our fears about fracking have been confirmed as the largest study to date of the link between natural gas drilling and public health shows that those forlorn folks living near fracking sites and relying on well water are more than twice as likely to report skin and respiratory problems. But this shouldn't be news given the hundreds of nasty chemical toxins used in fracking, including toluene, benzene and other carcinogens.

The study, from Yale University and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, surveyed 492 people living in 180 randomly selected households in southwestern Pennsylvania, an area containing more than 600 active natural gas wells. A full 39 percent of those living less than a kilometer (0.6 miles) away from a well, researchers found, said they’d experienced upper respiratory symptoms, including coughing, itchy eyes and nosebleeds, compared to 18 percent living 2 kilometers away or more. And 13 percent of those living close to wells reported skin conditions like persistent rashes and unexplained hair loss, compared to just 3 percent of the others.

The researchers have asserted that they are only reporting on the correlation so they can’t say whether fracking caused these symptoms.   Nor could they be more specific about what mechanism might have been at play. Drawing on past research, they say it’s possible that fracking is contaminating underground wells or causing air pollution, but it could also be that "the symptoms are just being caused by the stress and anxiety associated with living near major drilling operations — or by something else entirely."

This take, however, is hardly plausible given the first hand visual evidence seen, for example, in Josh Fox's Gasland II and the evidence we now have from Colorado investigations revealing that soil, air and ground water have been contaminated. The psychological proximity theory is also bollocks, given all those cases of animals that have died horrific deaths from drinking fracked water - leading their owners to have to send in hundreds of gallons of bottled water for their use too.

Ok, so it’s not a smoking gun and the evidence is primarily anecdotal but it still counts for something.  We also know, predictably, that diehard fracking supporters have been quick to underplay the findings. Enter PR misfit Katie Brown, spokesperson for the pro-drilling Energy in Depth, who asserted after the new results that it’s “just a poll.”

But this is typical dismissive PR reaction such as noted in the terrific anti-PR book by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, Toxic Sludge Is Good For You.

In the book, people who have been the recipients of toxic sludge -based fertilizers,  replete with hundreds of chemicals,  were asked about ill effects and they detailed them. However, the PR industry backing the fertilizer manufacturers argued that the people are wrong because it's "just a poll" and besides,  this toxic sludge was great for crops.  Never mind the vomiting, breakouts in rashes and convulsions, which could also be just in their minds. (They saw and smelled the sludge fertilizer and it induced a violent psychological reaction.)

So it's definitely uncanny to behold the parallels to what the pro-fracking PR hacks say here.

The Yale researchers also take care to note that their findings are consistent with earlier studies of these same health symptoms, including those reported by Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald. Bamberger, a veterinarian, and Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell,  recently explained to Salon that industry secrecy and lax regulations made it difficult to prove a definitive link between fracking and health symptoms. In some states, for example, it's against the law to disclose the content of fracking liquids - though it seems to be ok for a Neoliberal gubernator assholes like John Hickenlooper to drink them to show "they're okay" . It is also against the law in many fracking states for physicians to run tests for the presence of fracking chemicals causing adverse health effects and to disclose them to patients.

Given this Neoliberal foreclosure of evidence, the so-called polls and surveys (such as those made by the Yale researchers in the recent study) assume supreme importance in exposing what these turkeys are doing to us - along with documentaries like Gasland I and II. Let's keep in mind the PR factories will never tolerate the truth, as in the case of anthropogenic global warming, so we must always expect their egregious and reckless counter attacks.

In Pennsylvania, where drilling has exploded in the past six years, whistle-blowers recently accused the state Department of Health of deliberately ignoring health complaints. Critics added that the state has yet to conduct even one study on fracking’s potential health risks.  We want to make sure people know it’s a preliminary study,” lead author Peter Rabinowitz told the New Haven Register, adding, “to me it strongly indicates the need to further investigate the situation and not ignore it.”

But you may be sure these fracking maniacs and their paid off pols won't be put off. They are determined to poison us all for a temporary profit - for energy, fuels likely not even to be used in the U.S. but shipped to China or other places that will pay top dollar.

Despicable! To see the partial list of the chemicals exposed in fracking liquids thanks to the work of those like Colorado Sen. Dianne Dégette, check out the list below:

---

 Benzene: a powerful bone-marrow poison (aplastic anemia) associated with leukemia, breast and uterine cancer
Keep i
- Styrene, which may cause eye and mucous membrane irritation, neurotoxic effects in the central and peripheral nervous systems.

- Toluene, which may cause muscular incoordination, tremors, hearing loss, dizziness, vertigo, emotional instability and delusions, liver and kidney damage, and anemia.

- Xylene, with cancer-causing (mainly in the kidneys, liver) and neurotoxic effects, as well as reproductive abnormalities.

- Methylene chloride, which may cause cancer, liver and kidney damage, central nervous system disorders and COPD.

---

Now that this new study is circulating we need to come down even harder on the frackers and that means no longer buying into their codswallop.  They must be made also to conform to the precautionary principle, meaning they must prove fracking is safe - it's not our duty or job to prove it's unsafe!
 

Answering A Columnist's Dumb Fracking Questions

Take one inspired and agitated relatively wealthy progressive legislator, whose vacation domicile has been despoiled by fracking wells, and what do you get? Well, one activated member of the political elites now out to work on behalf of the PEOPLE - as opposed to shilling for oil and gas corporations!  Such is the case of Colorado congressman Jared Polis - who now has the state's energy predators running scared as well as scores of state lawmakers in their pockets.

Polis, because of his proposals to regulate fracking locally, has actually been branded a "terrorist" (by Steve Durham, a lobbyist for the Colorado Association of Home Builders) and also an "extortionist" by the fossil fuel industry's media lackeys including Denver Post Libertarian columnist Vincent Carroll ('Jared Polis' Big Adventure', Sunday, July 13).

Now, as signatures for Polis' initiatives play out here in Colorado, money, power and politics are clashing in a way that some commentators assert "hasn't been seen in 40 years."  But the issue is huge and make no mistake could well have repercussions for your own burg or state as the fracking wars play out nationally.

In Colorado, citizen anger erupted after the Denver Post published an analysis of how many oil spills have occurred in our state, many threatening our precious water stores.  Worse, the Post investigation found that state fracking has polluted the soil as well as water.  According to the Post (May 4, p. 1A.):

“There’s about one gallon of toxic liquid penetrating soil every eight minutes.”

In addition, the Post notes: “drillers churn up 135 to 500 tons of dirt with every new well, some of it soaked with hydrocarbons and laced with potentially toxic minerals and salts.”

Given this, is it any wonder adults – kids living near frack sites often have severe health complaints, ranging from horrific rashes to bleeding orifices to breathing problems? According to Eugene Kelly, chief of soil and crop science at Colorado State University – quoted in the piece:

“The overall impact of the oil and gas boom is like a death sentence for soil. It could be the next limiting component when we talk about feeding the planet and having a sustainable lifestyle- - because all the good stuff is gone and the soil is being degraded.”

 

And the most astounding and equally disturbing finding:

 

“State data also show that 12.3 percent of the past 1,000 spills (since June 24, 2012) already had contaminated groundwater before companies began cleanups.”

 

Beyond the contamination of soil and groundwater, the Post's data analysis showed that drilling of new wells unearthed an estimated 652,000 tons a year of sludge-like drill cuttings. These are supposed to be taken to special landfills but more often than not  spread them instead on “leased fields”.

How did Polis enter the ring? Well, after his own 'Ox' was gored on visiting his vacation home in Weld County and seeing a frack operation despoiling the landscape. He then became mobilized to use his wealth on citizens' behalf to expedite ballot measures for local control of fracking operations in every locality that wants to see them reined in. The Oil and Gas bunch went nuts, and so did our guv  - John Hickenlooper-  who is also a pal (he once drank fracked water to show there is nothing wrong with it - a one time stunt I doubt he will repeat.)

In order to try to thwart Polis' efforts, Hick (our Neolib Guv) cooperated with lobbyists and Colo. Home Builders Association to seek a "compromise" measure. But, as Carroll notes, the effort to try and square the circle "split both the energy industry and home builders" - hence the remark about Polis being a "terrorist" - which shows the extent to which the bogus "war on terror" has created collateral damage on our language.

Carroll in his piece is riled because Polis' initiatives reveal:

"a spectacle in which a wealthy, powerful individual pledges to fund ballot measures feared by nearly the entire business community."

Well,, uh, fuck the business community, nuh?  I say that because to me citizens' health and their environmental quality trumps business - but hey that's just me. I prefer to be able to drink water free of xylene, toluene, benzene and 633 other carcinogens, and breathe air free of all the contaminants -  plus methane - the Denver Post exposed in its 2-part series.

But let's get back to reality and Carroll's claims. In terms of wealth, Polis' is decidedly on the low end - roughly in the mid- double digit millions. In no way does his wealth even remotely compare to that of the billionaire  Koch brothers, or the Oil tycoon, T. Boone Pickens. Let's get that straight from the get go. And at least Polis, having had his ox gored (seeing wells drilled across the street from his property), is willing to put those millions to practical legislative use for citizens  - so give him credit. But this is also what has the business community and especially the frackers, shitting bricks. See, in their worst nightmares they can visualize this scenario playing out not only here in Colorado, but elsewhere in the country. The thought they won't be able to poison our soil, water and air for big profits has them staying up all night long.

Now, as to Carroll's insipid questions, posted at the tail end of his Jared jeremiad, he writes:

"If oil and gas production constitutes an outrage on property adjacent to the Polis' retreat, where exactly should it be allowed?"

That's easy! Only where citizens by their vote in passing the relevant referendum, deem it allowable!

Indeed, the precedent already exists!  As per an AP report published July 1 (Denver Post (p. 15A),

"New York's top court handed a victory to opponents of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas by affirming the right of municipalities to ban the practice within their borders."

This State Court of Appeals "affirmed a mid-level decision by an appeals court that said state oil and gas law doesn't trump the authority of local governments to control land use through zoning."

Which has been the case in this country for many years. Thus, a neighbor in a residentially zoned neighborhood cannot just suddenly decide to start a hog farm, or now - in Colorado - a marijuana grow operation. Local zoning ordinances prohibit it! The same clearly applies to the practice of fracking,  irrespective of its claimed economic benefits.  It doesn't matter! Whatever those benefits are they don't trump citizens' rights to proscribe the operations via zoning. Indeed, the whole practice of zoning was established to be able to exclude those intrusive, disruptive or inappropriate activities (including porno dives and pawn shops) that didn't fit in with a neighborhood's profile. I mean, Jeebus, why would any right-thinking citizen want pawn shops or sex toy emporiums right next to schools or their homes ? So why would you want a frack well right in your neighborhood?

Carroll next asks:

"Should it be allowed only where the horizon is empty in all directions? "

Again, the placement in terms of disrupting views is not as critical as the environmental and health impacts which that proximity foretells. The impact on soil, air and WATER!

Carroll's parting shot is to denigrate the distance of Polis' guest house from the now abandoned frack well (800'),  as well as its quality ("looks like a large shed")

But it doesn't matter what the distance is, since as we know frackers can insert their drills from a distance, intruding far beneath any home and wreak havoc. Also, it doesn't matter what the guest house looks like. So long as a living, breathing human can visit and stay there - and be subject to all the frack toxins - Polis has an argument.

Alas, Vincent Carroll doesn't.

A "Tidal Wave of Cancer" Coming Worldwide? YES - But the Real Causes Are Hidden by PR

Above- biochemist John Phillips of Barbados: His research discloses GMO foods are causing massive increases in assorted cancers, including of liver, pancreas, stomach, colon.


According to the  scientists at the World Health Organization ,  a ‘tidal wave of cancer’ will sweep the globe in the next 20 years'  As reported in the Times of London and the UK Independent, the number of new cancer cases worldwide in a single year will rise by 70 per cent  from 14.1 million in 2012 to 24 million in 2035, this as quoted from the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said in their latest World Cancer Report.

Alas, the Report primarily names the "usual suspects": diet, alcohol and smoking, but takes no note of the hidden ones including massive chemical pollution (such as now affecting Charleston, West Virginia's water, as well as the creeping chemicals from the fracking craze - see image). In effect, like the American Cancer Society, the WHO warns of a coming cancer wave, but refuses to lay blame where it really belongs - on the chemical and oil industries, as well as the GMO pushers. (Who still have used legal dodges and the FDA to refuse to allow GMO labeling of our foods.)

In regard to the malignant spread of fracking, we're now aware  of a hidden epidemic with little mainstream attention and ongoing the past few years. Stretching from Oklahoma to the highlands of Appalachia, tens of thousands of people are being diagnosed with all kinds of cancers: brain tumors, leukemias, breast and prostate cancers, as well as liver cancers.

One of the worst culprits is the process of "hydro-fracking" which is used to tap into large reserves of natural gas in the United States, uses enormous quantities of fresh water to open fissures in rock to stimulate the release of oil and gas. One such device, in Pennsylvania, is shown in the accompanying image. The dangers to water supplies, in terms of cancer-causing pollutants, were exposed for example in Josh Fox's documentary Gasland II.

Three years ago I drew attention to a hitherto hidden report finally excavated owing to three diligent Democrats: Henry Waxman of California, Diana DeGette or Colorado, and Edward Markey of Massachusetts. The report finally exposed the extent of the pollution of our precious watersheds thanks to the hydro-fracking industry.  As a result,  we now know the extent of potential ground water contamination and what the primary culprits are, and it isn't pretty. In the words of Diana DeGette:

"It is deeply disturbing to discover the content and quantity of toxic chemicals, like benzene and lead, being injected into the ground without the knowledge of communities whose health would be affected."

According to the report obtained by DeGette et al, oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005- 09. In one spill in Pennsylvania, site of the photo, tens of thousands of gallons of contaminated drilling water leaked from a well cap and flowed downhill onto a farm property, extirpating a 50' swath of forest and killing a pond - leaving not one single bass or even insect in all of it. Even after the accident, the frack pump is still running.

According to the report, the product of an inquiry by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, fourteen of the nation's most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of chemical fracturing products, and more than 650 of the chemicals named in the report were known carcinogens, supposedly regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Among the most toxic of the chemicals used (11.4 million gallons in all) were: benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. In addition, the report showed 12 of the same companies injected 32.2 million gallons of diesel directly into underground layers, in possible violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

To see Erin Brockovitch's map of all the locations in the U.S. with water resources at threat from fracking chemicals, go to this link:

http://www.communityhealthbook.com/map

WHY has the WHO not exposed this risk as a major contributor to the coming cancer  tidal wave? Well, because they don 't wish to antagonize the U.S. -from which 90% of the world wide fracking industry is built, or be put under the cross hairs of the mighty Oil companies and their lackeys. In other words, they don't wish to rock the boat. It's much easier to browbeat people over their own 'nasty' habits like smoking (which ok, does contribute to 20 percent more cancers, but not the 55% from toxic chemicals) or eating too many fats, or drinking too many beers.

This is not new and has been going on since the cancer-chemical connection first appeared. Referencing the fracking chemicals above, we know from Devra Davis' landmark book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, the first two of these toxic chemicals (benzene, toluene)  have well known correlations to brain carcinomas and chordomas. The other two, to liver, breast and prostate cancers. 

Davis' book is critical in blowing away the smokescreen that organizations like the American Cancer Society (ACS) have used for decades, i.e. in blaming people's eating habits and foods for cancers rather than toxic chemicals in the environment. The ruse is easy to understand since it follows capitulation to the fundamental attribution error (known from psychology) in assigning the burden of cause to victims, rather than a systemic, out of control toxic energy and chemical industry. This way, guess what? It makes it almost impossible to sue for any kind of monetary satisfaction!

As to the GMO foods, in an interview with John Phillips from two years ago, Mr. Phillips insisted that it should come as no surprise GMO foods cause cancer-  because cancer is a disease affecting cell –DNA machinery. In this case, the cells of an organ undergo too accelerated mitosis and result in abnormal growth that can threaten the organism. GMO foods are developed at the gene level which directs genes and their function. Most haven’t been adequately tested over the long term, for adverse impacts on humans. But that they can cause tumors or abnormal growths should not amaze anyone.

He also cited the well known study by Arpad Pusztai in which he fed lab rats potatoes that had been genetically engineered to contain lectin (from a snowdrop bulb to make them pest resistant). When he processed the results he found that the rats which consumed these high-tech potatoes showed evidence of organ (liver, stomach) damage and poor brain development. Pusztai's study went down as the very first independent study (i.e. one not sponsored by a biotech corporation) to examine the effects of bio-engineTragically, Pusztai’s boss, the Director of the Rowett Institute, attempted to suppress the revelations in the GMO potato study. According to a report -article from In These Times (Jan. 10, 2000);

"He fired Pusztai, broke up his research team, halted the six other similar projects his team was then working on and seized his data"

Interested readers can read more on the expose of the PR muggers and their hands in the Pusztai debacle here
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/24/03/bleifuss2403.html

Again, this tactic ought to come as no big mystery, considering that a multinational like Monsanto (the biggest GMO producer) has more power, heft than most nations.

Recall also the study released Wednesday, September 19, 2012,  which found that rats fed Monsanto’s genetically modified corn or exposed to the biotech giant’s herbicide, Roundup, developed tumors and organ damage. As Reuters then reported,

“The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females [in the test group] died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.” The lead researcher of the French study is an outspoken Monsanto critic, which, according to Reuters, “may make other experts wary of drawing hasty conclusions.”

These problems, as Phillips noted, are nothing to ignore. Indeed, he maintains that up to one third of future cancers will emerge from consuming GMO foods. They are not on the radar yet to the extent they ought to be because it will take 10-20 years to develop the cancers at the levels of GMO corn, etc. ingested. (Unlike in the Pusztai study where rats were fed inordinate amounts of GMOs to speed up the observational framework).

People can, of course, do what they will - and either ignore these factors or attend more to diet, alcohol intake etc. My point is they can do all the "right" things in this regard, but if toxic chemicals and GMO foods are a major source of the cancers, none of that will matter.

Fortunately, John Phillips' research has also shown that taking certain supplements can delay the onset of many of these cancers even if we can't control our toxic environments, or water. His recommendations included: boron, magnesium and B-complex as well as vitamin C and D3.

When asked of the coming wave of cancer he forecast, and the consequences of ignoring any protective supplements, his response was  blunt:  "Those who make such a choice  will more likely die before they can collect Social Security or Medicare. Deficit problem half solved!"

When I argued that in reality we can't know what particular cause can be linked to what effect, say cancer - or any particular vitamin being beneficial -   and it's largely a matter of "belief" he laughed.  He responded:

"That's the lazy man's way out, The default excuse. In the extreme, that can be invoked to express skepticism over anything and lead to an endless ambiguity of choice. The fact is we do know what causes most cancers, toxic chemicals in the environment and GMO foods, and if we ignore that information we do so at our own peril."

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/54061/diary-of-a-dying-country

That Disgusting Oil-Reeking Fluid Coming From Your Tap? It's WATER!

Scene from the documentary ‘Gasland’ in which a homeowner lights his tap water on fire. Below: Fracking scene on the Colorado Front Range.

In the superb anti-fracking documentary "Gasland" one scene shows a homeowner actually lighting the water as it pours from his tap. This to show how much methane is in that water. Meanwhile, in another scene, a homeowner nearly vomits after trying to get a glass of water from his tap and finding it reeks like kerosene and has a brownish hue. He tosses it away and goes out to get bottled water.

According to Josh Fox the Director:

“This isn't some dystopian nightmare, but the harsh reality in communities from Texas to Colorado to Pennsylvania. People are feeling completely upended,"

This is thanks to gas companies which have been leasing thousands of acres of pristine watershed land while laying waste to communities and water supplies, unleashing thousands of cancers in the wake.  This in a nation which lacks any true universal health coverage (the Obamacare plan doesn't qualify since people still have to pay through a private insurer in an 'exchange' or on the open market.)

And what has the gas industry's response been to the film? PROPAGANDA! BWAAAHAAAHA!

Bull pockey! The scenes don't lie, and in truth it is the fossil fuel industry and gassers that create the propaganda. "Oh, there  ain't nothin' to fret over! We won't destroy your water supply or health!"    In a pig's eye! In fact, the analogy is very close to the era (still extant) where toxic sludge is used as 'fertilizer' despite containing hundreds of toxins, effluent and carcinogenic chemicals. See, for example, the book  'Toxic Sludge is Good For You' - the handbook for all PR meisters and hacks.  

Meanwhile, here in Colorado, a number of recent toxic frack spills are setting the stage for our own flaming faucets and oil-slick glasses of H2O. According to a Denver Post Report (Feb. 15, p. 1A) :   "PDC Energy workers at the site of an 84,000 gallon spill of greenish, oil-laden fracking fluid on Thursday said they had pretty well cleaned up the mess." 

Maybe so, but bear in mind that NO inspectors were at the site, so we don't really know what they did with the effluent, or if they pumped it back into underground aquifers. (PDC operates 2,500 wells in the Waterburg formation along the Front Range).  Meanwhile, we are informed (ibid.): "Colorado Oil and Gas Commission regulators are continuing to monitor the cleanup".

 Wow, THAT is encouraging!  State spokesman Todd Hartmann added:   "Rest assured we will be physically engaged- present- AT the site!"  

Jeebus peace! I can now sleep peacefully at night! Wonder of wonders! Maybe I won't have to deal with flaming faucets after all!   The Post article also noted that PDC has reported a dozen spills over the past year including 6 in the past two months. Evidently, in the worst one a "mechanical failure" was to blame. The result?   "Water fouled with  oil and chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing sprayed from the well (4 miles north of Windsor) for more than 30 hours."  

The same report notes that a Jan. 22 spill released oil "contaminating groundwater with benzene, toluene and xylene chemicals"  

And the gas fuckers, excuse me.....FRACKERS.. still want to shout down "Gasland" as propaganda?  

The Post report goes on (p. 7A) to add that:   "expanding operations around Colorado have reported more than 2,000 spills over the past 5 years with roughly 17% contaminating ground water."  

Now, this is in a state which has a severe drought and for which there are and have been water restrictions in many parts. A state that can barely support its water-intensive agriculture, yet can afford to waste or contaminate millions of gallons from our watershed, aquifers with fracked water.  

Meanwhile, here in COS, our Colorado Springs Utilities, at the behest of the City Council, and despite our being in a severe drought, plans to lease or auction off tens of millions of gallons of water for oil, gas fracking. ('Drilling in a Drought', Colorado Springs Independent, Feb-13-19, p. 14).   President Scott Hente insists: "It's a perception issue! We will have brown grass and yards and pumping gas like crazy!"  

Well, maybe not the lawns, but how about the tap water reeking of oil and laden with benzene, xylene and toluene? Look, Hente, I really, really do not want a return of the prostate cancer for which I just got treated!  

The COS Utilities insists it's no biggie (ibid.) since each fracked well only consumes 3-5 million gallons of water per frack.   Huh! Seems a lot to waste in a frickin' drought!   The Utilities projects this water usage for 12-24 wells and "one time only" but omits mentioning that some technical estimates have put the water use per frack at 9 million gallons, and a single well can be fracked up to ten times.

In other words, the standard is to "use the water to extinction".  

Just fucking great you knotheads! And maybe, just maybe this will be our extinction! How does that old saying go: "You won't miss the water until the well runs dry". Well, we're nearly there here in Colorado!   Maybe when Gov. Hickenlooper pulled that stunt a year or so ago, drinking fracked water to show it's tasty and good, he really ought to have waited for the spill near Windsor. Then he could have scooped up some of that greenish crap and had at it! At least it'd have been more believeable!