Fracking's Air Pollution Puts Infants and Children at Risk of Developing Heart, Lung Probs: New Study

[kadaholo]

Source: TRUTH-OUT by Sharon Kelly

A newly published peer-reviewed study concludes that air pollution from fracking puts people's lungs, hearts, and immune systems at risk -- and that the health risks are particularly pointed for young children and infants.

The study -- the first to specifically focus on how shale oil and gas drilling affects children ability to breathe -- concludes that starting in the womb, children's developing respiratory systems are particularly at risk from five airborne pollutants associated with fracking and drilling.

"We conclude that exposure to ozone, [particulate matter], silica dust, benzene, and formaldehyde is linked to adverse respiratory health effects, particularly in infants and children," the researchers wrote in the study, titled "Potential Hazards of Air Pollutant Emissions from Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Operations on the Respiratory Health of Children and Infants" and published in Reviews on Environmental Health...

Meanwhile, the risks specifically associated with fracking have begun to draw the attention of politicians at the national level. "The toxic chemicals used in fracking are known to cause lung cancer and birth defects," presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wrote in an April 18 op-ed. "If we are serious about safe and clean drinking water and clean air, if we are serious about protecting the health of our children and families, and if we are serious about combating climate change, we need to phase out fracking nationwide."

Read more: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36025-fracking-s-air-pollution-puts-infants-and-children-at-risk-of-developing-heart-lung-problems-new-study

[reddread]

1. clean air and water used to be a thing

[Baobab]

6. Don't you worry your fluffy head, if you have Hillary you don't need clean air!

NOT...

Don't let her frack it and export it till its gone! Leave it in the ground.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. "New study" ... "A newly published peer-reviewed study...." Well, no it isn't.

It's a review of the literature generated by existing studies. The authors repeatedly state as much.

In school, I wrote many book reviews, but I did not write any books. That's a big difference.

See for yourself:

Potential hazards of air pollutant emissions from unconventional oil and natural gas operations on the respiratory health of children and infants

Abstract: Research on air pollutant emissions associated with unconventional oil and gas (UOG) development has grown significantly in recent years. ... In this article, we review the literature relevant to respiratory risks of UOG on infants and children.
....

At the time of this review, there are nearly 700 peer-reviewed publications that assess various environmental and societal impacts of UOG,...

For this review, we focused on the scientific literature relevant to the potential respiratory health impacts of UOG emissions on children and newborns.

There are 161 footnotes, so you can go directly to the studies that are being reviewed in this article.

The journal:

Reviews on Environmental Health

Aims and Scope

Reviews on Environmental Health is an international quarterly periodical that aims to fill the need for rapid publication of specialized comprehensive review articles on hot topics in the field of environmental health. Reviews on Environmental Health aims to be an inspiring forum for scientists, environmentalists, physicians, engineers, and students who are concerned with aspects of human health, including quality of life, that are determined by physiological and psychosociological interactions between man and physical, chemical, biological, and social factors in the environment.

The scope of this broad-spectrum review journal covers the ecological aspects of man's life at rest and work; the impact of natural and anthropogenic environmental pollutants on human health, and the theory and practice of correcting, controlling, and preventing those factors in the environment that can affect adversely the health of present and future generations. Topics covered in this journal include but are not limited to environmental toxicology, neurotoxicology, immunology, oncology, dermatology, epidemiology, molecular biology, pharmacogenetics, medicine, occupational health, and risk assessment, as well as water, air, and soil quality control and methods for biomonitoring and remediation. Review papers on experimental animal models – both vertebrate and invertebrate – for monitoring the health effects of environmental pollutants will also be considered for publication. Full-length original research papers and proposals for special topic issues are encouraged.

Previously published by Freund Publishing House Ltd.

[jtuck004]

3. I really enjoy your posts. n/t

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. Are you sure you're responding to the right poster?

It's me, mahatmakanejeeves. m-a-h-a-t-m-a-k-a-n-e-j-e-e-v-e-s.

OK, well thanks then.

[Igel]

5. It seems to have a gap between claims and research.

Silica dust is bad. So is benzene.

Fracking uses and emits (some) silica dust.

Therefore, exposure of humans, esp. young children, to fracking must be bad.

1. What's the actual exposure for those exposed to fracking?

2. What number of children are affected?

3. Can steps be taken to mitigate that exposure?

Esp. since most fracking is not in populated areas, and those in those areas tend to be adults.

It always creates a bit of angst for me when a politician, even one like Sanders who, I have to assume, has multiple PhDs in engineering, chemistry, and public health, is cited as an authority, simply because I have to assume he's been too busy recently to have contributed to the literature specific to this problem.

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "terra forming."