Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Natural Gas Industry hamstrings Doctors in Pennsylvania [View all]siligut
(12,272 posts)5. The problem is with the verbiage used as the medical profession sees it
1. indicates that the industry knows that much of the substances they are using are a threat to public health - enough so that emergency room and other physicians would see cases of toxic exposure to fracking and related chemicals and substances on a regular basis, i.e. that this is not a safe process;
2. indicates that the industry wants to keep it quiet - they know that if the health risks of their activities due to chemical exposure (in air and water) were to become public there would be such enormous outcry that they would be - appropriately - shut down;
3. [shows that industry knows fracking/ms] is a human rights and a civil rights violation to the residents and workers affected, and would ultimately contribute to a public health catastrophe;
4. would guarantee that other individuals [and] families in the area would not be warned that they are being exposed on an on-going basis to highly hazardous chemicals that have made other individuals ill often seriously and irreversibly ill.
2. indicates that the industry wants to keep it quiet - they know that if the health risks of their activities due to chemical exposure (in air and water) were to become public there would be such enormous outcry that they would be - appropriately - shut down;
3. [shows that industry knows fracking/ms] is a human rights and a civil rights violation to the residents and workers affected, and would ultimately contribute to a public health catastrophe;
4. would guarantee that other individuals [and] families in the area would not be warned that they are being exposed on an on-going basis to highly hazardous chemicals that have made other individuals ill often seriously and irreversibly ill.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I don't know the answer to your question about a patient being being bound by the confidentiality
badtoworse
Feb 2012
#18
There is a recent study called "Impacts of Gas Drilling on Animal and Human Health"
grntuscarora
Feb 2012
#34
There are already "right to know" laws on the books that deal with what you describe
badtoworse
Feb 2012
#7
They are not forthcoming with the information, it is the equivalent of jumping through hoops.
siligut
Feb 2012
#12
You may not like it, but there are valid reasons why trade secrets exist - nt
badtoworse
Feb 2012
#15
There are situations where state law should preempt local law. This is one of them.
badtoworse
Feb 2012
#20
I think that no matter what damage to people, the water supply, or the environment
TheKentuckian
Feb 2012
#38
In post 20 you are saying that we should trust the state to take care of regulating fracking.
blue neen
Feb 2012
#39
In Post 20, I was referring to local governments being preempted by state law.
badtoworse
Feb 2012
#44
Tom Corrupt's hand-picked crony, Krancer has been quite active in keeping the EPA out.
blue neen
Feb 2012
#50
Has it even happened where a doctor needed to know the makeup of fracking fluid to treat a patient?
badtoworse
Feb 2012
#22
How many cases have you treated for exposure to fracking fluids or even heard of?
badtoworse
Feb 2012
#35