I am posting this because Jacob may be interested and the research is in
Pennsylvania.
Secondly, fracking is an issue in more than just Pennsylvania. Fracking
has been done in Utah, mostly in the Uintah basin and there are several
articles online regarding what is killing babies in Vernal, which is in the Uintah
Basin.
Fracking
linked to low-weight babies
The
extraordinary growth in fracking—the hydraulic fracturing of deeply buried
shale rock to extract natural gas—has transformed the United States over the
past 15 years, boosting energy stocks, cutting pollution from conventional
coal-power plants, and creating new jobs. But this boom may have come at a
cost. According to the first large-scale study of babies born before and after
natural gas extraction began in Pennsylvania, those living near fracking sites
had significantly lower birth weights—and worse health—than other babies.
Concerns
about the health effects of fracking aren’t new. Absent solid evidence, some
states, including Maryland and New York, have even banned the practice altogether. Now,
a growing number of studies suggests that living near oil and gas developments
is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes, from higher rates of
asthma and migraines to more hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease,
neurological disorders, and cancer. Earlier studies have also found
associations with low–birth weight babies, but those were plagued by low sample
sizes or a failure to show that health effects got worse closer to drilling
sites, as expected if fracking were to blame.
Now,
health economist Janet Currie at Princeton University and her colleagues have
tried to overcome those problems by looking at birth certificates for all 1.1
million infants born in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2013—a period that
spanned the drilling of thousands of fracking wells in the state, which now has
more than 10,000 of them. The birth certificates included addresses and vital
statistics for each infant, such as birth weights, total months of gestation,
birth defects, and other abnormal conditions. The researchers overlaid
those data on maps showing when and where wells were drilled in
Pennsylvania. They then drew concentric circles around each site: one at 1
kilometer, one at 2 kilometers, and one at 3 kilometers.
They
found that infants born within 1 kilometer of a well were 25% more
likely to have low birth weights (less than 2500 grams or 5.5
pounds) than infants more than 3 kilometers away, they report today in Science Advances. Babies born in the
first circle also showed significantly lower scores on a standard index of
infant health. Infants born in the outer circles—between 1 and 3 kilometers
away—were smaller and less healthy than those who lived farther away, but they
weren’t as bad off as babies born closest to the wells.
To
rule out other factors that could lead to poor health outcomes, including race
and socioeconomic status, the team removed babies born in urban areas like
Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, which have comparatively high rates of lower birth
weight babies. They also compared siblings born to the same mothers who lived
near fracking sites before and after it started. Although this sample size was
small—only 594 infants exposed to fracking had unexposed siblings—it showed
that the exposed infants were smaller and less healthy.
The
good news is that the effects don’t extend far beyond the fracking sites,
Currie says. The study found no decrease in infant weight or health past 3
kilometers. But the team doesn’t know what aspect of fracking caused the low
birth weights, which put babies at higher risk for infant mortality, asthma,
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, lower test scores, and lower lifetime
earnings. Currie, who studies air pollution and health, says it’s likely air
pollution from chemicals or the increased truck traffic and industrialization
associated with fracking. Water pollution is an unlikely culprit because many
people in the study got their water from municipal sources not close to
fracking sites.
But Erica
Clayton Wright, spokesperson for the Marcellus Shale Coalition in Pittsburgh,
says the study doesn’t go far enough to address “crucial issues linked to low
birth weights like smoking as well as alcohol and drug use. … Given these
deep methodological flaws, it’s dangerously misleading and inflammatory to
suggest that natural gas development has done anything but improve public
health.”
Though
there is no “smoking gun” that proves how fracking impairs infant health,
economist Don Fullerton—who studies how public policies affect the environment at
the University of Illinois in Urbana—calls the evidence “convincing” and
says it adds to other studies that have also found evidence of preterm births and other negative health
effects. That makes it even more important, he says, to regulate
what chemicals are used in fracking or how close wells can be to residential
areas.
Currie
adds that infants, who are essentially the “canaries” near the fracking mines,
probably aren’t the only victims. If they are experiencing negative effects,
the elderly and other vulnerable people near wells are likely to also be at
risk. “We really should move beyond the discussion of whether there is a health
effect or not to figuring out how we can help people who live close to
fracking.”
*Update, 13 December, 5:12 p.m.: This story
has been updated to include comment from the Marcellus Shale Coalition.
Pollution from fracking in Pennsylvania may harm the health of developing babies who live nearby.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/fracking-linked-low-weight-babies
