Last week, Concerned Health Professionals of New York released a major new compilation – a compendium – of the scientific, medical and media findings demonstrating the risks and harms of fracking (read it online at ConcernedHealthNY.org/Compendium).

Based on the results of hundreds of studies nationwide where fracking already exists, it’s clear that permitting fracking in New York could harm the air, water, health and safety of residents statewide.

In January, for instance, an Associated Press investigation analyzed state records from Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Texas that documented many cases where fracking activities are linked to water contamination. Such records build on multiple studies from Duke University finding risks of nearby groundwater contamination from fracking and a University of Missouri School of Medicine study documenting dangerous hormone-disrupting chemicals in ground and surface water near fracking sites.

The fracking process also has given rise to concerns about increased air pollution. A Colorado School of Public Health study found air pollutants near fracking sites at levels that can raise risks for cancer, neurological deficits and respiratory problems. It’s noteworthy that the American Lung Association in New York also supports a moratorium on fracking in New York. In Utah, fracking has grown rapidly in the past few years, and the once immaculately clean Uintah Basin now ranks as one of the 25 most-polluted counties in the country. There is a continuing investigation into the cause of elevated rates of stillbirth and infant death in that region.

The significant body of compelling findings is why I recently joined more than 250 medical organizations and health professionals in urging Gov. Andrew Cuomo and acting Department of Health Commissioner Howard Zucker to enact at least a three- to five-year moratorium on fracking in New York to allow time for the results of continuing scientific and medical research to emerge. New Yorkers should not be placed in the crosshairs of these public health threats. We need to prioritize the health of all of our residents. It’s inexcusable to consider a pilot project that brings fracking into any part of our state, putting some of our residents immediately in harm’s way and releasing contaminants that do not stop at municipal boundaries drawn on a map.

The Assembly listened to scientists and medical experts June 16 by overwhelmingly passing a three-year moratorium on fracking in New York. Unfortunately, the state Senate refused to schedule a vote. Ultimately, however, the responsibility rests with Gov. Cuomo, who can – and must – protect New Yorkers by implementing a three- to five-year moratorium.
Though a growing number of studies point to serious potential health risks related to fracking, there is quite a lot we still don’t know. The U.S. Government Accountability Office reports that drilling and fracking clearly pose “inherent environmental and public health risks” and that the full extent of those risks is not yet known. Countless prominent researchers have called for more studies, especially of the cumulative, long-term health impacts.

The gas industry has been secretive with information – limiting disclosure and keeping crucial data out of researchers’ hands. As a result, the pace of scientific research has been impeded. Yet, results of a number of important studies tracking short- and long-term health effects of fracking are due to come out in the next few years.

That is why my colleagues and I think a three- to five-year moratorium – at minimum – is prudent.

Clean water, clean air and a safe home and community are not privileges; they are rights. It’s up to Gov. Cuomo to ensure the health of all New Yorkers and enact a statewide moratorium on fracking.

[Editor’s note: This article first appeared on 8/02/2014 in the Poughkeepsie Journal. It is reposted by permission of the author.]

The post Health risks demand a moratorium on fracking appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a recent e-newsletter, Senator Bernie Sanders shared a video about a little town in Vermont called Swanton. Swanton has recently made an important change to its water treatment plant that will save area residents from a rate hike.

The treatment plant featured in the video replaced sixteen decades old units with only five solar-powered units, not only saving residents a heap of money, but proving that small towns can make big, innovative differences. According to the video, the solar-powered aerators will pay for themselves in energy savings alone. Good for the environment and the pocketbook makes this doubly good news.

Once again, Vermont proves to be a leader in environmental protection and conservation. The state was the first in the country to ban fracking, including the import and storage of the toxic water used in the fracking process. The message is clear: Vermonters want no part in the dangerous and harmful extraction of natural gas known as fracking.

Driving through scenic Vermont, you’re sure to see plenty of energy-creating windmills and rooftop solar panels too. What you won’t see? In 1968, the state banned billboards. In 1972, legislation banning the use of toss-away beverage containers was passed to help rid roadsides of litter.

Senator Sanders also recently welcomed the news that Vermont Yankee–the state’s only operational nuclear reactor–is shutting down for good by the end of 2014:

The closure will allow Vermont to focus on leading the nation toward safer and more economical sources of sustainable and renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal and biomass.

Residents of “The Green Mountain State” undoubtedly care about the environment and are eager to prove it.

The post Vermont leads by example on environmental issues appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Recent tv ads are touting how green natural gas is, extolling the local production, job creation and environmental friendliness of natural gas. Of course, the big oil producers are not far behind with commercials selling the idea that tar-sands oil from Canada is much better for America than that nasty old crude from Saudi Arabia, with images of friendly Canadian wilderness comparedto the scorching sands of the Arabian Desert. Well, of course, I want my oil fresh from the virgin woods up north – none of that sand-choked oil for me, at least when you put it that way! As long as you can promise me that pristine wilderness will still be pristine when you are done drilling

Natural gas

Exxon has put out an ad on “fracking”, the practice of inserting a mélange of water, salts and toxic substances into a natural gas well, which forces the gases together making it easier to extract. The advertisement states that large quantities of cement, steel and natural rock separate the fracking process from groundwater, strongly implying that nothing could possibly go wrong. The documentary “Gasland” features scenes where individuals are able to light their own water faucets on fire due to the presence of natural gas and other pollutants in their water supplies. Youtube now feature dozens of videos where individuals are able to burn water due to the chemicals that have been introduced to the groundwater through fracking. It should be obvious that it is not a good idea for people to drink anything that smells like a refinery and is combustible.

The natural gas advertisements fail to mention the added problem of disposing of the injected water and chemicals. Water and chemicals injected for the purpose of fracking return to the surface as part of the extraction process and must be disposed of. Until recently, this was not regulated and was commonly dumped on-site or into local streams. The EPA has only  recently  ended this practice.

In addition, 1.6% of all natural gas produced is leaked into the atmosphere. If that does not sound like much, consider that it is equivalent to 50 million cars running for a year, or 20% of all methane released into the atmosphere from human causes every year. That is just leakage – there are still other pollution problems with natural gas.

Burning natural gas at power plants (or anywhere) produces methane, one of the most significant greenhouse gases. Methane is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. There are currently no laws  requiring that natural gas power plants report the amount of greenhouse gases emitted.

The ads being put out by the natural gas industry fail to address, or even mention. the real issues with frackings. Although natural gas may be less polluting than coal or tar-sand oil, it is a long way from being a “green energy” source.

Canadian tar-sand oil

Perhaps even more cynical is the advertising campaign for “ethical oil” from the tar sands of Canada, as part of the Keystone XL project. Tar sands oil is a particularly dirty type of crude oil that must be processed in order to remove the sand from the oil, producing a lot of pollution in the process. In addition, the Canadian tar sand oil would be piped across America, including the Ogallala aquifer which supplies the middle of the country with much of its water supply. Even small leaks in the pipelines could result in the pollution of a key water supply for millions of American citizens, as well as wildlife.

Big oil has responded to these concerns by issuing ads telling us that tar sand oil is the only “ethical” solution,  because Saudi Arabia treats women as second-class citizens. Ethical oil is an astroturf group set up as a front for the oil companies, and has even managed to persuade Oprah Winfrey to endorse the idea. Of course. the rights of women in Saudi Arabia are respected, just as in many other countries around the world, but the concern for this problem skyrocketed when American oil companies saw a burgeoning backlash by environmental groups against their latest proposed pollution of our nation. There is a petition effort to convince Oprah to drop her support for the tar sands pipeline (link: http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/oprah_tar_sands/).

The idea that the US would benefit from the Keystone XL effort in any way is misguided.  The oil from Canada is slated to be turned into diesel for export to Latin America and Europe. The jobs involved would be a relatively small number and short lived. The amount of carbon released by tapping into Canadian tar sand oil has been called “the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.”  In other words, we have much to lose and little to gain.

The latest media buy in favor of the Canadian tar sands has been appearing on MSNBC, perhaps most jarringly when Rachel and Ed are on. A google search for “MSNBC” and “tar sands” yields few major stories covering the controversy, instead showing a number of pro-business slanted stories. Certainly MSNBC is a business, but this once again shows the problem with American media and its connection to corporate America. That, however, is another story.

The post Dirty is the new green appeared first on Occasional Planet.