ShareThis Page

The fracking debate: A call for honesty

| Saturday, Aug. 27, 2016, 9:00 p.m.

Junk science long has been endemic to the debate over “climate change” (ne “global warming). And it appears to have fully infiltrated the debate on fracking as well.

A study released last week by a group of six researchers, according to them, “provides evidence that (hydraulic fracturing used to extract natural gas from shale) is associated with nasal and sinus, migraine headache, and fatigue symptoms in a general population representative sample.”

Pennsylvania residents with the highest exposure to active fracking “are nearly twice as likely” to suffer from such symptoms, they claim.

But a pro-industry group, Energy In Depth (EID), says the research is flawed. And it alleges bias by one of the researchers, a member of an anti-fossil fuel group.

Among the study flaws claimed by EID's Seth Whitehead — only 4 percent of study participants live near shale development and no baseline data for migraines and fatigue was gathered, data that contradicts the study's conclusions.

Mr. Whitehead reminds it's not the first time these researchers have come to dubious conclusions about Pennsylvania's fracking industry. Data appear to counter assertions about premature birth rates and asthma attacks, he says.

Are there environmental issues surrounding fracking? Of course there are; there are with every industry. And debate over associated environmental and health issues is necessary. But that debate must be honest.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me