The state Department of Health has identified panelists that will be asked to review the state's proposed natural gas regulations for potential impacts to public health. In reviewing the work of those selected, a troubling trend is noticeable. Far from being "the most qualified outside experts," it appears these individuals have predetermined opinions regarding "health impacts" of natural gas production that are well outside the established scientific data.
For example, Richard Jackson, a selected panelist and chairman of UCLA's Environmental Health Services program, wrote: "Fracking involves serious worker exposures and will likely cause silicosis and other lethal diseases" on the school's welcome page in describing issues students would examine there.
Jackson's statement is not supported by any data or independent research. In fact, hydraulic fracturing has been widely used since the 1990s without one death occurring from silica exposure. Further, one of the most extensive studies of oil and gas workers ever conducted found their death rates and exposure to serious illnesses no greater than that of the general population.
Another panelist selected by the state sought to link chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing to cancer in a recent op-ed she wrote for the Huffington Post. Lynne Goldman wrote: "Some of the chemicals — not just those added as part of the fracking process but also chemicals brought to the surface in the waste water — are linked to health problems such as disruption of the endocrine system or even cancer."
This issue was the topic of a recent investigative report by The Associated Press that found that many claims from critics of natural gas development —including attempts to link cancer to hydraulic fracturing — lacked merit and supporting data.
While I am not a public health professional, it seems that rash judgments based on anecdotes and incomplete data should be avoided in professionals from any sector.
What's most troubling, however, is that these individuals were selected without public input and will have a central role in approving a process on which our state's economy depends. Their input could determine if our state moves forward with an activity that the Department of Environmental Conservation has determined could produce as many as 50,000 jobs and as much as $2.5 billion in new government revenues.
In an area like the Southern Tier, where unemployment is high and taxes are higher, it seems unthinkable to hinge our state's economic future on a three-person review board, appointed without public review, whose opinions suggest they are predisposed against developing our natural resources.
Kimberly More lives in Cooperstown.