The Pros and Cons of Natural Gas Drilling -- 60 Minutes video

This video aired on CBS's 60 Minutes on November 14, 2010. While the last video I shared illuminated the safety risks, this video took a more unbiased look at both sides of the story. While it also cites safety risks, it shares the potential for economic stimulation as well. Furthermore, it does a great job showing how the drilling process works. Definitely worth watching.

Embedding of this video has been disabled, so watch it here at CBSnews.com, or here on YouTube.


It leaves me wondering what is more important to people -- wealth, or even financial stability, or the sustained health of the planet?

Investigating the US Gas Drilling Boom -- video

I just came across this fascinating video at theecologist.org. It is a comprehensive look at the potential ill effects of fracking in our area. It portrays an idyllic north east destroyed by toxic contaminants. Along with the myriad of chemicals that are realeased into the ground, the process actually releases radon and radium (a carcinogen). These are both naturally found in Marcellus Shale, and the fracking process releases them.

The video is shocking. Watch a man light his drinking water on fire; listen to another describe the destruction of his pond and death of his fish and turtles. "They told us not to drink [the water] or bathe in it." Could you imagine, not being able to bathe in the water that comes through your pipes?




What is most frightening is that all these ill-effects are not going to show themselves immediately. Rather, they will build up until they are irrevocable, and then it will be too late.

Given our nation's current economic crisis, it seems likely that the continuation of  fracking is inevitable. It provides jobs, and it claims to be a solution to an aparrent gas crisis. Landowners are compensated big time. Therefore, people are bound to support it.
But is it worth the risk? People need to educate themselves.

First a boom, then a bust.

"Mineral extraction is inherently a boom and bust type of economy," said Ben Perkus, of Binghamton. "Once it's extracted, there's really no more boom and there's always a bust."

This is an article from last Tuesday's Press and Sun Bulletin (Binghamton) regarding an impromptu fracking debate.

Environmental health slideshow

This video was created to serve as an introduction for the big environmental health presentation -- being presented Tuesday evening.

Coming to a Field Near You?

Lately there have been various activities on the Cortland campus dealing with natural gas drilling and fracking, including a screening of Gas Land. I have been unable to attend any such talk, screening, gathering, or the like, since my night classes are always in conflict with these activities. It is immensely frustrating. However, providence may have been to blame when, just the other day, I literally stumbled across some highly relevant literature dealing with the fracking issue. An issue of The Peace Newsletter, fromSyracuse's Peace Council, published in June (only five months ago), was laying out on a table. The headline: Gas Drilling: Coming to a Field Near You? So I scooped it up and ran off to read.

I was really excited to find that several of the articles included in the publication discussed the actual chemicals used in the fracking process, information that I haven't come across much online.

Some "chemicals and compounds of concern" (from "The Hazards of Chemicals Used in Hydrofracking" by Tom Shelley):

Benzene and related hydrocarbons: These hydrocarbons are "known carcinogens," which can damage the liver, nervous system, and various organs; can damage fetuses; and may cause genetic mutations.

Formaldehyde: Carcinogen and severe skin and eye irritant.

1,4-Dioxane: Damages nervous system, liver, and kidneys.

Heavy Metals

2-Butoxyethanol: Affects nervous system, may damage liver, lungs, and kidneys, known to be an endocrine disruptor, suspected to be a carcinogen.

The gas companies claim that the concentrations of all chemicals are too low to have any affects, while critics and mathematicians claim that the concentrations are indeed high enough to affect local populations.



Another interesting tidbit (from "How NY Can Force You to Allow Gas Drilling Under Your Property" by Mike Bernhard):

Just as the title says, NY can force landowners to allow gas drilling on their property, even if they refuse to sign a lease. All that a gas company needs is 60% of the land in a given area to be signed over to their company. After they have 60% of the land under their control, they have the right to "draw up lines" that may or may not go through your own property. If so, they have the right to frack things up for you. "Integrated landowners have no power to specify environmental protections, protect their property values, prevent the storage of commercial gases or the injection of used fracking fluids under their homes, nor prevent storage-associated access to pipeline easements taken by eminent domain."

IBM's toxic plume and the devastation of Endicott, NY.

Imagine  a community that you have driven past time and time again, that you have never really thought about, but have always known existed. A community close to home. Now imagine that this community has been a site of below-ground toxic wastes for decades, and you never knew it. This is the case of Endicott, New York, a Binghamton-area community. Although I've passed through Binghamton hundreds of times, maybe more, I've only just learned that Endicott is the site of a 350-acre toxic below-ground "plume" of chemicals, that may or may not be (most likely is) affecting the health of local residents.

How tragic! The plume is the result of negligence on the part of IBM in the early parts of the 1900s (regulations regarding the disposal of chemicals were put in place in '79). It was not until 2002, however, that the plume was discovered. Are high instances of cancer in Endicott directly related to the results of the chemicals found in the plume?

Read a very powerful article here, and also watch the video. It's very important.

Broome natural gas meeting set for Thursday

October 13, 2010, 10:35 pm

• Binghamton The Forum in Binghamton will host a four-hour meeting Thursday related to the natural gas drilling debate.

The topic will be whether Broome County should lead a state-mandated environmental review if the county decides to sign a mineral rights lease deal, which it is currently considering.
Signing a lease for county land is subject to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which is meant to determine whether a specific action would have a large impact on the environment. The county legislature is considering a resolution that would declare itself the lead agency for the SEQRA review.
If the review finds that signing a mineral rights lease deal would have an effect on the environment, the county would have to prepare a full impact statement. While the county resolution deals with the actual signing of the lease, the state is preparing a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement that would cover the drilling process.

The meeting will consist of two sessions: 2 to 4 p.m. and 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. About 40 people pre-registered to speak at each session, and all will be limited to three minutes each. Unregistered speakers will be allowed their turn at the microphone if time permits, and preference will be given to those living in Broome County.

View the Press Connects article.

Yet additional causes for concern (Fracking Related)

I have come across yet another example of water contamination, likely caused by fracking. This article describes the contamination of ground water at the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. Contaminants found in the water include benzene, metals, naphthalene, phenols, methane, and others. (Of course, it is hard to be sure that these contaminants are indeed the result of fracking, since nobody seems to know which chemicals are associated with the process...) 
Read the article here. 


Researchers with the Academy of Natural Sciences have conducted a recent study in Pennsylvania. They claim that water sources nearby to drilling sites may be at risk of contamination, even if the drilling runs smoothly and without incident. Although more research needs to be conducted, I think that people should take this new finding seriously. If true, water sources could be being polluted without acknowledgement at this very moment, all across the nation. Read it.

Marcellus Shale Lecture @ SUNY Cortland

Scientist to discuss Marcellus Shale issues at SUNY Cortland: Monday, October 11 @ 7:30

(At which time I will not only be in class, but also taking a midterm)

Floods and health, what are the concerns?

It has been raining all day here in Cortland. I spoke with my mother earlier today, who says there is some minor flooding occurring back home in Hancock. I instantly flashed back to June of 2006, when Hancock experience horrible flooding. Some damage is still visible to this day.

Random flood picture (Not Hancock). Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mgk/3684518180/#

With my new concern for all things environmental health related, I began to wonder what effects flooding could have on the health of a population...

Water contamination can lead to wound infections, dermatitis, conjunctivitis, E. coli, (the list of possible diseases goes on and on), gastrointestinal illnesses, ear, nose and throat infections, and possible "serious waterborne diseases"(from www.freedrinkingwater.com).

Is there cause for concern?

I just came across an interesting discussion that has me questioning my recent decision to join the ranks of the protesters of fracking. Some very interesting statements are made, such as

"fracking fluids are more than 99.5 percent water and sand. The additives used amount to less than one half of one percent – many of which can be found under your kitchen sink. These additives are used for several reasons; to prevent pipe corrosion, kill bacteria and to assist in forcing the water and sand down-hole to fracture the targeted formation."

Read the rest here.
This discussion makes me wonder... are people overreacting? I think not, but I also think that fracking has the potential to go smoothly, if all of the proper precautions are followed thoroughly.

How does your county stand?

Cortland County is in good standing.

How about yours? (Select your county at the left side of the page).

Hung up on Fracking

Now that I've been doing all this reading on hydraulic fracturing -- FRACKING -- I finally understand what those anti-fracking signs that populate people's front yards, next to the old Vote Moriarty for Mayor signs, are actually protesting.

(In my quest for an image, I found an Ithaca-based anti-fracking group on Facebook)

"There's no such thing as zero-impact drilling," says John Hanger, head of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection. Since 2008 he's doubled the number of state regulators (100 to 205) and inspectors (21 to 45) to oversee the gas industry.

Hanger told Keteyian that there is evidence of chemical contaminants in water. "Spills and surface leaks have, in fact, contaminated people's drinking water," he said.

Yet nationwide the industry is not required to disclose what potentially toxic chemicals - like hydrochloric acid - are used in the drilling process.

A provision of a law proposed by the Bush administration and passed by Congress in 2005 (dubbed by opponents the " Halliburton loophole") stripped the EPA of its ability to regulate "fracking" - leaving the job of regulatory enforcement in the hands of cash-strapped, undermanned state agencies.

Since then, drilling companies have been allowed to put millions of gallons of unknown chemicals into the ground without reporting it, making it difficult to link pollution claims to drilling" (From Armen Keteyian, "A Burning Debate Over Natural Gas Drilling")

 In Pennsylvania, gas drilling is already occurring. Cited in Keteyian's article is Stephanie Hallowich, a western P.A. homeowner, who fears for the health of her children. She claims that since drilling has commenced in her community, her own water has turned black in color, forcing her to purchase drinking water. While the scent of fumes in the air causes concern about the quality of the air that she and her children breathe. As cited in the excerpt above, "there's no such thing as zero-impact drilling," and we aren't even briefed on the potential risks that we may face! Not to mention the fact that Hallowich's community has transformed into an industrial site. 

"The Governor of New York recently announced that fracking will not occur unless it can be proven that the procedure will not pollute water supplies." Given that contamination has been observed in other states where fracking is already occurring, this is one step in the right direction.

More on drilling for gas in New York state

After scouring the internet for more information on the potential drilling for oil in upstate New York, I have discovered that the word "potential" needs to be replaced with "inevitable." This drilling is a sure thing. Landowners are leasing their land out for huge sums of money. The issue here is not the drilling itself -- oil revenue will bring wealth in a time of need. The issue is what unforeseen consequences may occur down the road. There is always the possibility of pollution, contamination, destruction, catastrophe... All the best planning cannot account for all possible outcomes.

"It’s a development born of new technology, rising energy prices and insatiable demand that is turning the Marcellus Shale formation, which reaches from Ohio to Virginia to New York, into a potential trillion-dollar resource in the gut of the nation’s most populous and energy-hungry region." - New York Times

Drilling -- are you for it or against it?

Gas Drilling in Upstate New York -- Is drinking water being affected?

As many of you probably know, upstate New York houses much of the drinking water that is consumed in NYC.
The Cannonsville Reservoir, pictured below, is located less than ten minutes from the house I grew up in in Hancock, NY (Delaware county), and provides NYC with about 50% of its drinking water (Wikipedia.org).

Currently, hearings are under way in which the possibility of hydraulic fracturing ("fracking," a specific technique for drilling natural gas) in New York state is being discussed. The EPA argues that the gas drilling procedures are environmentally friendly, while critics are claiming that the technology is flawed. Fear lies in the possibility that natural gas may contaminate drinking water. Read all about the proceedings.
What does NYC have to say?


View current NY reservoir levels here.

SCORECARD: Information on pollution in your own community

Checkout Scorecard to find out who is polluting in your community! All you have to do is enter your zip code, and you will be provided with a list of the biggest polluters in your area and a list of the toxins most commonly released in your area, along with lots of other interesting information.


I ran a search on Cortland, NY (13045) and discovered that PALL CORP. PALL TRINITY MICRO DIV., BUCKBEE-MEARS CORTLAND, and CORTLAND LINE CO. INC. are the three big polluters in Cortland County.

The top three chemicals that are released into the area and are suspected to have the following human health hazards:

1. TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL @ 17,499 pounds

• Developmental toxicant
• Kidney toxicant
• Neurotoxicant

2. METHYL ETHYL KETONE @ 12,080 pounds

• Cardiovascular or Blood Toxicant
• Developmental Toxicant
• Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant 
• Kidney Toxicant
• Neurotoxicant
• Reproductive Toxicant
• Respiratory Toxicant
• Skin or Sense Organ Toxicant

3. HYDROCHLORIC ACID @ 11,309 pounds

• Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant
• Immunotoxicant
• Musculoskeletal Toxicant
• Respiratory Toxicant
• Skin or Sense Organ Toxicant

I also ran a search on my hometown of Hancock, NY (13783) in Delaware County. It turns out that the biggest polluter in the area is Norbord of Deposit, NY. As a child, I used to think that the place was a cloud factory as billowy whiteness ceaselessly flowed from its smokestack. As I grew older I realized that the smokestack actually released steam instead of clouds... but it seems I may have been mistaken both times. Here is a map of toxic chemical releases at Norbord.

  

First Post

How I got to be here is sort of a funny story, which I think deserves illustration. Imagine this: you are a graduate student majoring in Adolescent Education in English, two semesters away from graduation and teacher certification, trying to fulfill a few last requirements. One of those requirements is a health course, and of course, you (I) manage to get into the health course that is intended for and occupied by health teachers. Imagine it!

Given that my graduation timeline will be thrown askew if the class is dropped, I have decided to stick it out. My health class co-conspirator and fellow English major Kristen and I have partnered up to deliver a 30 minute presentation on November 23rd, 2010, on the topic of environmental health. What is environmental health, exactly? you might ask. My honest answer is that I haven't quite figured that out yet. The purpose of this weblog is to familiarize myself with the study of environmental health and to understand both the ways local people are affected by the environment and how the environment is affected by them. With the persual of this blog, I hope to come to a clear understanding of the concept by November 23rd.

Check out the links on the right side of this page for an introduction to environmental health. I will be adding to them as I gather more information.