General Discussion

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)

53. Does the law prevent them from notifying DEP, EPA, CDC, OSHA, etc.?

Wed Feb 15, 2012, 10:05 PM

Feb 2012

That would be the proper course of action.

ETA: The two situations are not quite analogous. I do not believe there is anything restricting doctors' ability to warn the public of potential contamination in their water and suggest having it tested. That is what doctors actually did (and still do) with respect to lead paint. It's recommended that if you live in or are painting an old house, you test the paoint for lead so you can take the proper precautions. If a doctor were dealing with a specific case of lead poisoning caused by a third party (e.g. a landlord), I believe he would report his findings to the proper regulatory authorities who would take action. I would be very surprised if a doctor went public with a warning about lead in a particular apartment complex. Huge potential liability if he did.

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:

Natural Gas Industry hamstrings Doctors in Pennsylvania [View all] Frack Glop Feb 2012 OP

The law seems reasonable and fair to me badtoworse Feb 2012 #1

Hopefully ... GeorgeGist Feb 2012 #2

Have they even commented on it? badtoworse Feb 2012 #4

Huh....!!?? CanSocDem Feb 2012 #3

The law mandates that the information be made available to doctors. badtoworse Feb 2012 #6

...and that 'doctors' cannot share... CanSocDem Feb 2012 #10

They can share their concerns with regulators such as OSHA and the DEP badtoworse Feb 2012 #11

I'm confused. grntuscarora Feb 2012 #13

See No. 11 badtoworse Feb 2012 #14

I'm assuming grntuscarora Feb 2012 #16

No matter. grntuscarora Feb 2012 #17

I don't know the answer to your question about a patient being being bound by the confidentiality badtoworse Feb 2012 #18

After being poisoned by grntuscarora Feb 2012 #23

Perhaps... badtoworse Feb 2012 #24

There is a recent study called "Impacts of Gas Drilling on Animal and Human Health" grntuscarora Feb 2012 #34

I imagine many people believe that... LanternWaste Feb 2012 #65

Different frack formulas Frack Glop Feb 2012 #63

The problem is with the verbiage used as the medical profession sees it siligut Feb 2012 #5

There are already "right to know" laws on the books that deal with what you describe badtoworse Feb 2012 #7

They are making it very difficult for medical professionals to do their job. siligut Feb 2012 #8

I don't see a problem here badtoworse Feb 2012 #9

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

Well, you just said it all right there..."trade secrets." blue neen Feb 2012 #19

There are situations where state law should preempt local law. This is one of them. badtoworse Feb 2012 #20

Really? blue neen Feb 2012 #26

The EPA is currently investigating Dimock badtoworse Feb 2012 #32

I think that no matter what damage to people, the water supply, or the environment TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #38

That is not true badtoworse Feb 2012 #46

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

Krancer's letter was about methane migration, a different issue badtoworse Feb 2012 #52

The article actually states that Krancer has tried to block the EPA. blue neen Feb 2012 #56

If the gas industry has their way PA Democrat Feb 2012 #54

You're quite welcome. blue neen Feb 2012 #58

Those fucking trade secrets take a back seat to public health MattBaggins Feb 2012 #27

Gassers are Exempt from RIGHT TO KNOW in PA under this bill Frack Glop Feb 2012 #64

Protection is for those who are victims of fracking, not the companies. Avalux Feb 2012 #21

Has it even happened where a doctor needed to know the makeup of fracking fluid to treat a patient? badtoworse Feb 2012 #22

Do you work for Marcellus Shale? Avalux Feb 2012 #25

You didn't respond to my question, but I'll respond to yours anyway badtoworse Feb 2012 #29

Medical professional; public health advocate. Avalux Feb 2012 #33

How many cases have you treated for exposure to fracking fluids or even heard of? badtoworse Feb 2012 #35

There are anecdotal cases - Avalux Feb 2012 #36

Should we wait for a cancer epidemic? PA Democrat Feb 2012 #37

Here's an example: blue neen Feb 2012 #40

Very good link - thank you badtoworse Feb 2012 #47

Yes we can find out what is in those rail cars MattBaggins Feb 2012 #28

DEP and OSHA already have access to the MSDS sheets under existing law badtoworse Feb 2012 #30

You're kidding, right? me b zola Feb 2012 #41

How do you take your fracking fluid? badtoworse Feb 2012 #42

Well, right now I'm drinking mine in my glass of water. blue neen Feb 2012 #43

How do you know that? Has the water been tested? badtoworse Feb 2012 #48

We're still waiting for the results. Geez, I wonder why it's taking so long. blue neen Feb 2012 #57

Gee, what could possibly go wrong here? PA Democrat Feb 2012 #60

It makes your hair stand on end, doesn't it? blue neen Feb 2012 #61

I'll speak slower for you me b zola Feb 2012 #45

As I understand the new law, it provides a way for doctors to find out badtoworse Feb 2012 #49

But denies them the ability to warn the public of a huge health risk me b zola Feb 2012 #51

Does the law prevent them from notifying DEP, EPA, CDC, OSHA, etc.? badtoworse Feb 2012 #53

badtoworse Angry Dragon Feb 2012 #31

I was thinking the same thing Tsiyu Feb 2012 #55

Those with nothing to hide... BeHereNow Feb 2012 #59

Tom Corbett: More Than a Sandusky Player. WinkyDink Feb 2012 #62