We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Guest • 10 years ago

"The study, which has yet to be peer-reviewed or posted online"

So basically this is just hysterical nonsense until it has been reviewed and the study has been examined closely. Good job!

Alan Turing • 10 years ago

News organizations do love their hysterical nonsense; however, it is not necessarily hysterical nonsense. It is quite normal to press-release studies before they are published. The article provides a basic outline of methodology and where the data came from, so you could repeat it.

Stewart Pid • 10 years ago

Especially if it fuels the obsessive-compulsive alarmist scary story fustercluck that Alan and his lot love so dearly.

EyesOfTX • 10 years ago

That may be the single most irresponsibly-worded headline I've ever read. Congratulations, Bloomberg! You never deviate from script.

Michael_1111 • 10 years ago

"The study, which has yet to be peer-reviewed or posted online"...

First of all, correlation does not indicate causality. This means that just because something happens when something else happens doesn't mean that the one cause the other.

Second of all, quoting a study that hasn't even been peer reviewed makes this article based on something that has no authority.

NEWS ALERT- Article created by oil company (with no oversight or review) says drinking motor oil is good for you because Olympic Athletes who drink motor oil are stronger than normal people who don't drink motor oil. Bloomberg nitwit writes story and Bloomberg editors publish.

arnoldjoelf • 10 years ago

"Currie, who had financial support from the Environmental Protection Agency" Translation: we'll give you money to produce the study result we desire. The EPA during Carter Administration said we're running out of natural gas, all electric utilities have to change over to coal fired. Maybe we should use whale oil, wood and ride horses to satisfy these nuts.

Alan Turing • 10 years ago

Do you have proof of your accusation? Probably not, but we should believe you? So who exactly is nuts?

Tesla_X • 10 years ago

I'll just leave this here...
http://www.blacklistednews....

Taxpayer1301 • 10 years ago

I have seen a study of these studies presented at Cornell. The studies provide yet more evidence of why fracking is bad for those in its vicinity, and socio-economic history has already proved why boom and bust is bad for the economies of small, rural communities like those in the frack kill zone of Up State New York. Hey, Cuomo (and Gillibrand, Schumer, & Obama) ban fracking now!

frac-op • 9 years ago

You are a fucktard.

Alan Turing • 10 years ago

The problem with fracking is that its proponents are allowed the false supposition that it is safe when there is no evidence that it is in fact safe. Were fracking a drug, it would have to go through a rigorous safety protocol. Fracking requires no such proof. If your well goes bad, you are required to prove that the fracking was the cause. It is a simple problem of allowing group of profiteers to sell their snake oil without proof that it is safe to drinking water.

duhka said • 10 years ago

Why would a reputable news media publish this nonsense until it
has been empirically demonstrated.

K Roberts • 10 years ago

Because the evidence is mounting. Fracking is dangerous. ' nuff said!

Heresiarch • 10 years ago

"'Nuff said"? "The thinking man's party" continues its usual degree of intellectual sophistication, I see.

duhka said • 10 years ago

What evidence-----You belong in my dumb jail.

Clint Wasserman • 10 years ago

Reputable? Have you NOT read Bloomberg before? Don't get me wrong, I love my Bloomberg terminal for research, but their new stories are usually puff pieces of progressive ideology...

jperrin21 • 10 years ago

The damage is not limited to air and water pollution. Constant noise, light pollution, heavy truck traffic and deforestation all increase stress levels and it is no secret that stressed-out mothers give birth to less healthy babies. Moving residents away from the drilling sites is no solution because fracking is followed by infrastructure buildout, including pipelines, compressor stations and access roads which spread the damaging effects of fracking far beyond the borders of the drilling site.

Heresiarch • 10 years ago

Or it might be that only desperately poor people have to live near those places, and those poor people tend to have health problems related to poverty. This is the problem with a lack of peer review yet-- there hasn't been any rigorous testing of these conclusions. Politically convenient scientific conclusions in particular ought to be more heavily scrutinized than others.

jaime54 • 10 years ago

no job is bad for health too

Wayne Lusvardi • 10 years ago

I didn't know The Onion bought out Bloomberg?

Hugh Kimball • 10 years ago

A similar study by the University of Colorado's School of Public Health found a higher incidence of cancers within 1/2 mile of gas well sites. It seem pretty clear that there are serious air quality problems in areas where fracking is done.

Heresiarch • 10 years ago

In which case, perhaps it has nothing to do with fracking, but with oil and gas production by any means.

Lij Lij Briggy • 10 years ago

The author , finding from the study, seems to suggest that air pollution has something to do with infant size, weight and health. Air knows no boundaries , so now this air is following us all over. Now it is suggested that air pollution causes health problems. We have had studies that show water ingested and exposure to water that was laced with fracking fluids or leakage from waste pit water also causes lesions on skin too. If all this still needs to be studies why are we allowing this practice to continue? We are all guinea pigs? No.

jperrin21 • 10 years ago

People living in frack zones are subjected to high levels of stress due to air and water pollution, noise, and the sudden influx of newcomers that changes the demographics of small-town and rural communities overnight. When stress levels rise, stress hormones such as cortisol are released into the bloodstream. In the case of pregnant women these hormones are absorbed by the developing fetus, profoundly influencing the health and development of the newborn. (See http://www.sciencedirect.co...

Zexufang • 10 years ago

As to -
"Study Shows Fracking Is Bad for Babies"
Predictable.
Besides "Babies" - might as well add: Women, Children, Minorities, and Gays to THAT headline.

In truth, Fracking is bad for OPEC and other Peak Oil believers.
That is all.

S F Pratt • 10 years ago

Well then don't let babies frack.

stevenkopits • 10 years ago

The link is not to fracking. Hydraulic fracturing occurs thousands of feet under the surface. Nor does it appear to be related to water contamination.
By process of elimination, it must be associated with air pollution. This theoretically could be the result of gas or diesel fumes, or conceivably some component of fracking fluids or produced water (ie, natural well discharge). Thus, the issue at hand is not fracking at all. It may be related to drilling related air emissions.

K Roberts • 10 years ago

OMG, which is STILL fracking related!!

Roger Blomquist • 10 years ago

A content-free article.

CrossoverManiac • 10 years ago

This Bloomberg article might as well be titled-"Everytime you frack, God kills a kitten".

Z Taylor • 10 years ago

People with fancy titles being funded by the right people can find/create a link to anything. The dangerous aspect of this is people will not use their own judgement or do their own research and take this as the truth just because the author is a PhD or went to an Ivy League school. What should be BANNED is publishing articles like this without giving out the location of a peer reviewed study so the general public can make their own conclusions.

Dave Burton • 10 years ago

Here's some research that IS peer-reviewed:
http://www.plosmedicine.org...

Buzz Leapyear2 • 10 years ago

"Study Shows Fracking Is Bad for Babies"

Well how Fracking bad could it be?

Sunnyday5 • 10 years ago

Fracking is a process whereby sand, water and a cocktail of cancer-causing chemicals are injected under pressure down a hole to break up this shale.

1. Result: As the chemicals migrate over time, there is massive pollution of underground water supplies. Many people and animals rely on wells and springs for drinking water. Their water supplies will be polluted for centuries, if not thousands of years. Health impact: A major increase in bladder, kidney, stomach and liver cancers!

2. Steel casing is used to line the drill holes. When it fractures during careless installation, or under the pressure of pumped fluids, cancer-causing chemicals used in fracking are immediately released into drinking water.

3. Some of the fluid used in fracking flows back to the surface along with the natural gas. This waste water contains not only cancer-causing chemicals but heavy metals and sometimes radioactive isotopes (depending on the underlying structure of the rock). In particular, the flow-back often contains high concentrations of cadmium, benzene, arsenic, napthalene and radioactive radium.

This waste water must be disposed of. When it is poured on the ground, or dumped in rivers, or municipal sewage systems which cannot treat it, it is further damage to people's health.

Fracking is a crime against our children and generations to come. Long after the gas company executives have made their money and departed to tax havens, ordinary people will be drinking toxic water and becoming sick.

JoanneCorey • 10 years ago

If newborns are affected at birth, it means that their mothers are being affected. Prior health studies in Garfield County CO have shown health risks from substances such as benzene in the air near HVHF sites as well as the presence of endocrine disruptors. This shows why a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment, conducted to national/int'l standards, should be undertaken before any HVHF begins. Such a study includes analysis of effects on vulnerable populations, such as infants, children, pregnant women, and the elderly. It would also determine if any economic benefits or changes to the process could protect public health, including climate change impacts.

Currie is naive in believing that it is possible to conduct HVHF only in remote areas. The economists need to visit a heavily drilled PA county, such as those bordering the Southern Tier of NY; it is nearly impossible to live away from a wellpad or a processing facility or a compressor station. The trucks and other equipment used also produce emissions. Large scale industrialization happens in residential and agricultural areas. The problem would only be worse if HVHF is permitted on the NY side of the border, where population density is even higher.

Guest • 10 years ago

As a consumer of information I encourage readers to learn how to sift their way through articles such as this one and spot the disingenuous nature of the author and the article. The thesis of the article is "fracking is bad for babies". The implication is "you should join the effort to ban fracking". However, the article and study do not include any direct correlation between fracking and infant health. That is all you need to know about this article and the study. Read the last sentence of the first paragraph carefully:

Establishing a direct link between fracking and human health, though,
has been complicated by a lack of information on the chemical substances
used in the process and the difficulty of obtaining health records that
include residence data.

Translated it meas this: The author CHOSE not to include information about the chemicals used in the process of fracking (because it would have killed his story) AND the records cited in the study don't back up the claim that fracking is bad for babies.

Please learn how to read these spin doctors. Below is a link to an article with some cold hard facts about the process of fracking. The author could have included this information if he wanted to inform the reader. His article is not to inform you, it is designed to scare you. The article below includes "information on the chemical substances used in the process". The author admits his "lacks information". The reason why his article lacks the information is because he elected to omit it. Please do not allow these authors to scare you.

http://www.cfact.org/2013/1...

gingerwings • 10 years ago

I think that you read the article with significant bias. The author stated "The study, which has yet to be peer-reviewed or posted online" as well as "While the study strongly indicates that fracking is bad for infant health, more work is needed to understand why" and "The study doesn't necessarily tell us whether or not fracking is worth doing. "

In other words, the author CHOSE to tell us several times that the science is still out.

You chose to read more into it.

Eric Lodewijk • 10 years ago

Bloomberg would do better to keep such such an outrageously biased and unsubstantiated study off your website .el

Bob Brown • 10 years ago

Living in an area with a large Mennonite population, and knowing that much of Pennsylvania has a similar Mennonite/Amish population, I wonder if that is considered in this study. The Mennonites in our area tend to have home births, with little or no professional prenatal care. There are other studies, that have been peer reviewed, that have found that there is no correlation.

VOR voiceofreason • 10 years ago

Your comment reminds me of "The Vision of the Anointed" by Thomas Sowell. Years ago when Hillary was pushing socialized medicine, news media outlets fed us a parade of stories detailing infant mortality rates of blacks being significantly higher than whites. The suggestion was a lack of prenatal care was to blame, hence the need for government sponsored health care. The news stories would include random bits of data and conclude the health care system was denying blacks prenatal care, thus, higher infant mortality rates for blacks, thus, the need for government intervention. Sowell, in his analysis, included data the media elected to omit from their articles in which we learn Asians receive less prenatal care than whites, and have a lower infant mortality rate than whites. The facts related to higher infant mortality rates for blacks had more to do with early teen pregnancy, drug
use, and lifestyle choices; not prenatal care. Sowell also points out the behavior choices in the black community are fueled by social programs which make the case for less government action, not more. The fact that Asians chose less prenatal care and have even lower infant mortality rates than whites destroyed the claims made by the media. It is amazing how a story changes when key facts are selectively omitted.

Andy_Revkin • 10 years ago

Another study author, Judith Currie, just emailed that it's not even a "working paper" yet: "Actually we are not trying to publicize the paper ahead of peer review. We have not put the paper out as a working paper and aren't comfortable circulating it yet."

bucky • 10 years ago

OK, so don't frack babies.

Veronica Corona • 10 years ago

Well I can't say I'm surprised by this. Who would frack a baby?!

Heresiarch • 10 years ago

Presumably the control group for this study was made up of babies born near the fracking sites in Hollywood, the Upper West Side, the Hamptons and the Main Line.

Barbara Clowers • 10 years ago

There might be health benefits from FRACKING!!?!

Impartial T. • 10 years ago

Not sure we need a study for this. If most of the babies born near a fracking site have birth defects, 11 toes, etc. and all have mother's that drank well water, then common sense says that you have a problem. Of course, the Oil company says everything is fine.

Alby Dürer • 10 years ago

Please note that this piece by Mark Whitehouse is not a "story". It is an OPINION piece.

Nevertheless, that this piece is opinion does not remove Mr. Whitehouse's obligation to his readers to present his opinion logically and objectively, if he wishes to retain and grow his readership or even if he wishes to just be taken seriously.

In this case, Mr. Whitehouse has failed miserably in such obligations. This "quick view" has an obviously false headline atop it, and read in the context of Mr. Whitehouse's other work, it's apparent that the man has an agenda to push.

Mr. Whitehouse is an ACTIVIST, not a journalist. He works within Bloomberg because Bloomberg's environmental 'reporting' is written exclusively by activists who are pushing an agenda. In fact such people become journalists not for their love of the written word or their commitment to objectivity and factually bring information to the public, but rather because they seek to change the world.

Mr. Whitehouse regularly and selectively publishes one-sided data points for the purposes of influencing public perception and policy. The detail in this "quick view" was intentionally placed with him by a trusted source which intends to slow down or halt fracking, a goal which Mr. Whitehouse personally shares.

Mr. Whitehouse then publishes a spurious correlation under a headline of assured causation, though in fact there is no such causation.

It is specifically because of pieces such as this that Bloomberg's opinion writers have little to no influence and that Bloomberg's environment and energy reporting is widely ignored by professionals and by subscribers to their Bloomberg Professional service.

Andy_Revkin • 10 years ago

One of the study's authors, Michael Greenstone of MIT, just told me this work was not ready for news coverage, still a work in progress. http://revkin.tumblr.com/po... Greenstone: ”The newspaper articles describe preliminary results that we did not intend to share with press. We will release a full working paper as soon as we are finished with the analysis.”

Grass supplier • 10 years ago

we got quality buds for sale both sativa nd hydro , text 970 788 6066 if u need some weed .

Jay Dratler Jr. • 10 years ago

"Given how important fracking is for the economy generally, it might make sense to compensate people for the cost of moving away from a site rather than shutting it down," said Currie.

Duh! There are plenty of good fracking sites far from inhabited areas. Drillers should drill there first.

As for those few close to outback drilling sites, we should move them, at society's expense, to comparable homes in less dangerous areas (at their option, of course). And we should move them *before* they present with lifelong chronic illnesses. If necessary, we should tax the industry to pay for their compensation.

Every one of us benefits from fracking, in more plentiful energy, freedom from energy insecurity, and lower oil and gas prices. So why should people who fortuitously end up hurt for our general benefit pay the price in health and shortened life?

Have we really become a stick-it-to-the-fall-guy and devil-take-the-hindmost society? That wasn't the America I was born into.

Compensating injured people fairly would take only a tiny fraction of the wealth that fracking creates. Our tort system, with its 33% lawyers' cut and decade-long delays, is probably the worst and most exorbitantly inefficient way to compensate them. Where is Kenneth Feinberg when we need him?