In a new survey, 76 percent of people living near fracking sites in Pennsylvania reported stress, which they attributed to lack of trust and feeling taken advantage of.
Survey respondents attribute several dozen health concerns and stressors to the Marcellus Shale developments in their area, according to a long-term analysis by University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health researchers.
Reported health impacts persist and increase over time, even after the initial drilling activity subsides, they note. The study, which will be published in the May issue of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, did not include clinical examinations of the participants’ physical health or any environmental tests.
Researchers surveyed those who believe their health has been affected by hydraulic fracturing activities for self-reported symptoms and stressors. The most commonly cited concern was stress.
Related article: SOUTH AFRICA: Shale Gas Permits Remain Elusive
Among the leading causes of stress reported by the participants were feelings of being taken advantage of, having their concerns and complaints ignored, and being denied information or misled.
“Many of these stressors can be addressed immediately by the gas drilling industry and by government,” says senior author Bernard Goldstein, emeritus professor and former dean of University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health.
“Scientific literature shows that if people do not trust companies doing work in their communities, or believe that the government is misleading them, there is a heightened perception of risk,” says Goldstein, also a member of the National Academies’ committees to investigate shale gas drilling in the US and Canada.
“Community disruption and psychosocial stress have been well-documented as a result of environmental issues like oil spills and superfund sites. A strong response by the Pennsylvania Department of Health to address concerns about health impacts of hydrofracturing could reduce observed stress and resulting symptoms.”
From May through October 2010, members of Pitt Public Health’s Center for Healthy Environments and Communities conducted in-depth interviews with 33 people concerned about fracking in their communities. Three-quarters of the residents resided in five of the seven most heavily drilled counties in Pennsylvania.
Related article: US: Fracking Regulations for Federal Lands?
Follow-up interviews were conducted from January through April 2012 and included 20 of the initial 33 participants. The remainder could not be reached or declined to participate.
“Our study shows that perceptions of health may be affected by fracking regardless of whether this health impact is due to direct exposure to chemical and physical agents resulting from drilling or to the psychosocial stressors of living near drilling activity,” says lead author and doctoral student Kyle Ferrar.
“Comprehensive epidemiological studies of all potential adverse consequences of fracking need to be performed, and they should include a close look at psychosocial symptoms, including stress, which cause very real health complications.”
Participants reported 59 unique health issues that they attributed to Marcellus Shale development. In addition to stress, these perceived health issues included rashes, headaches, shortness of breath, nausea, and sore throats.
By. Allison Hydzik
1) "76 percent of people living near fracking sites in Pennsylvania reported stress" The authors of the study reported interviewing 33 people. So that means that out of over 6,200 Marcellus Shale wells that have been drilled in PA, there are only 44 people living nearby? (44 x 76% = 33) That seems pretty unlikely to me.
2) "From May through October 2010, members of Pitt Public Health’s Center for Healthy Environments and Communities conducted in-depth interviews with 33 people concerned about fracking in their communities." Really? Would you expect people who were opposed to drilling to NOT report some adverse effects?
3) "The study, which will be published in the May issue of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, did not include clinical examinations of the participants’ physical health or any environmental tests." Just how can you do an actual health study without ANY physical or environmental tests?
4) MOST TELLING OF ALL. "Follow-up interviews were conducted from January through April 2012 and included 20 of the initial 33 participants. The remainder could not be reached or declined to participate." So even if we accepted the miniscule sample as valid, the researchers were only able to follow up with just 60% of those, which totally invalidates any conclusions based upon the follow-up study.
THIS IS HORRIBLE SCIENCE. I AM ASHAMED OF PITT FOR EVEN PROMOTING IT AS A VALID STUDY!