Pa. Health Study Finds ‘No Associations’ Between Natural Gas Development And Childhood Cancers
BY NICOLE JACOBS AUGUST 16, 2023
Pa. Health Study Finds ‘No Associations’ Between Natural Gas Development And Childhood Cancers
BY NICOLE JACOBS AUGUST 16, 2023
A new study attempting to blame natural gas development for negative health outcomes largely shows the opposite: that no linkage exists between fracking, adverse birth outcomes, and nearly all of the cancers studied.
The study, released by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh, is the result of a four-year, multi-million-dollar taxpayer-funded venture commissioned to study fracking’s effects on childhood cancers, specifically if fracking caused increased incidence of a rare cancer, Ewing sarcoma.
The research found “no associations” with natural gas development:
“There were no associations between unconventional natural gas development activities and childhood leukemia, brain and bone cancers, including Ewing’s family of tumors,” the study says.
Additionally, the study found that any association between natural gas development and infant birth weight is minimal: “Babies whose moms lived near active wells were 20-40 grams (about 1 ounce) smaller at birth…” The authors acknowledged that this poses “little health risk.”
While the study does attempt to link natural gas development and incidence of asthma and lymphoma, it’s important to understand that the study, like so many before it, failed to gather specific emissions measurements, relied on overly broad or small sample sizes, and arrived at conclusions that run contrary to common sense.
Here’s what you need to know:
Correlation does not equal causation.
The study jumps from fracking is happening in the area to fracking is harming health without showing how. There is no causal evidence, and the authors even admit as much in the study.
“They examine associations with disease and not causes of disease.”
“Do NOT identify what specific hazardous agent is associated with a health effect.”
Similarly, the Associated Press reports these limitations:
“The researchers were unable to say whether the drilling caused the health problems, because the studies weren’t designed to do that.”
Even activists say that this study does not determine causation. As reported by the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Ned Ketyer, president of the nonprofit Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania, warned activists that the study’s findings would not make the case that energy production causes poor health outcomes:
“These studies are not designed to find causation. Especially when it comes to cancer. … If people are expecting it, they will be disappointed.”
The study uses imprecise and overly-broad sample to conclude that asthma is exacerbated by natural gas development.
The study associates the natural gas production phase – not drilling or completion – with exacerbated asthma outcomes, defying common sense.
For example, the study finds an alleged association in increased asthma attacks during the production phase of natural gas development. However, those that know oil and gas development know that not much is happening during this phase: no diesel engines running, no rigs operating, no construction occurring. The production phase means this activity has already been completed, therefore, common sense (and air quality data) shows that the passive production stage results in less, not more, emissions.
This is outlined more in the Associated Press:
“However, researchers said they found no consistent association for severe reactions during periods when crews were building, drilling and fracking the well.”
It’s also important to note that the production phase goes on for much longer, sometimes years, than any other phase, leaving room for many other factors to trigger asthmatic flare-ups over that time period. Logically, the incidence of something may be higher over the course of a longer period of time than a shorter period of time.
(Source: UPitt Study)
The study relies on an overly large sample radius to reach its conclusions on asthma risk, and does not measure actual emissions or account for other compounding factors.
Additionally, the study samples for exposure to natural gas development using a sweeping 10-mile radius, which hardly isolates energy production as a definitive cause. The study relies on the debunked “well activity” metric to approximate relative exposure to the effects of natural gas production, rather than emissions data from air monitoring.
And, while the study accounts for some controls such as smoking, it does not consider other compounding factors that could exacerbate asthma, such as proximity to highways, agricultural, construction, or industrial activity.
Dave Callahan, President of the Marcellus Shale Coalition also took aim at the methodology behind these asthma findings:
“The asthma methodology is troubling, as it simply reproduces previously flawed studies and relies on faulty metrics rather than actual emissions and exposure data.”
“All of the studies, in fact, failed to adequately consider other critical causational factors that may have affected the findings.”
Lymphoma correlation relies on small sample size and incomplete health records to make claim.
While many in the media have latched on to the study’s claimed association to childhood lymphoma, context on these numbers is needed. Even the researchers clarify:
“It is important to point out that lymphoma is a fairly rare cancer with an incidence of 0.0012% (12 thousandth of a percent) in children. Our study estimates that risks within 1 mile proximity to wells ranges from 0.0060% to 0.0085%”
Additionally, the sample size for this conclusion is also incredibly small – only 105 cases – leaving ample room for a tiny amount of cases to skew the likelihood. An uptick in cases in a specific population could be due to a wide variety of factors – according to the American Cancer Society, common causes of lymphoma include genetic predisposition, infection, and exposure to radiation, and other unknown factors.
The researchers are limited in their ability to isolate natural gas development as a causal factor due to the study’s design. The study relies on data from existing health records in order to make its conclusions; a method even the researchers admit is lacking. Health records provide point-in-time data – they do not account for relative proximity to energy development at the time of disease.
This kind of observational data also prevents researchers from tracking residence changes, which could introduce additional cancer-causing variables. The study’s conclusions – and the headlines – try to make a tenuous leap and connect pediatric lymphoma to natural gas development, even while the authors acknowledge the study’s limitations:
(Source: UPitt Study)
Bottom Line: This study, like so many before it, attempts to broadly paint ‘fracking’ as a bogeyman. However, the study actually found ‘no associations’ between natural gas development and most cancers studied, which raises serious questions about how this research is being portrayed in the media. Energy is key to our way of life, and natural gas industry leaders in the Appalachian Basin and beyond are committed to the highest health and safety standards to make reliable and affordable energy possible.