Heat on EPA as National Study on Fracking's Risks to Drinking Water is Challenged

By Julie Dermansky and Sharon Kelly • Sunday, December 6, 2015 - 11:35

The Environmental Protection Agency's draft national assessment on fracking's potential to pollute drinking water is still under review. If it is to reflect science over policy, some dramatic changes to the wording of the study's conclusions are needed, EPA's review panel was told during a public comment teleconference on Thursday.

Back in 2010, when Congress first tasked EPA with investigating the risks that hydraulic fracturing poses to American drinking water supplies, relatively little was known about the scale and significance of the onshore drilling rush's environmental impacts.

Over the past half decade, the pace of scientific research into fracking has accelerated dramatically. In 2009, only a handful of peer-reviewed studies (the gold standard for scientific research) on the environmental risks of shale and tight gas extraction were published; by contrast, over 150 studies were published in 2014, according to a review of the literature by Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Health Energy. 

That scientific evidence has overwhelmingly found that shale and tight gas extraction has the potential to harm – and has harmed – air, water and people's health, that group wrote in an analysis released this year.

For politicians seeking to keep federal regulations for the industry at bay and for those backing an “all of the above” energy strategy, the growing evidence of a broad range of hazards related to fracking is bad news. In Pennsylvania alone, state regulators have documented hundreds of cases of water contamination, making it more challenging for supporters to argue that the industry is well-policed and operating safely.

But the final word on all of this research, as far as many federal policy-makers are concerned, will likely be the EPA's take on fracking's risks.

When the draft assessment was released, the door should have been closed on a favorite industry talking point – the (oft-debunked) claim that there has never been a documented case where fracking contaminated underground drinking water supplies. The EPA's draft assessment reported multiple documented instances where that precise problem occurred.

But a single phrase from the study's executive summary – saying that the EPA “did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States” – managed to leave a door open. That phrase continues to be quoted in headlines and media coverage about the report.

And policy makers, state regualors and industry supporters immediately beganto cite that draft summary. Florida Senator Garrett Richter said “Fracking can be accomplished without any material harm to our water supply,” recently while defending a bill he proposed that would overturn exisisting fracking bans in Florida.

A look back at history suggests reasons to be wary of the differences between EPA's highlighted summaries – often heavily edited at high levels within the agency – and the details buried in the fine print of their reports, authored by agency scientists. Again and again, EPA studies on the oil and gas industry's environmental impacts have been used to justify a hands-off approach to the drilling industry.

“More than a quarter-century of efforts by some lawmakers and regulators to force the federal government to police the industry better have been thwarted, as E.P.A. studies have been repeatedly narrowed in scope and important findings have been removed,” the New York Times reported in 2011, part of an investigative series that found that EPA's new fracking study had already suffered from repeated cuts to research plans.

“It was like the science didn’t matter,” Carla Greathouse, the author of a 1987 EPA study into the oil industry's toxic wastes – used to justify an exception for drillers from hazardous waste handling laws –had told The Times. “The industry was going to get what it wanted, and we were not supposed to stand in the way.”

Concern that history may be repeating itself may help explain why the summary's focus on evidence of “widespread, systemic impacts” from fracking, seems to have struck a nerve, sparking an outpouring of indignation from close observers, and unusually frank questioning by the EPA's own scientific reviewers.

During a teleconference lasting over four hours on Dec. 3, the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), charged with overseeing the agency's fracking report, was inundated with comments challenging that finding.

Over 280 comments were submitted to the board and three dozen people requested an opportunity to make 3 minutes comments during the EPA's public teleconference.

Lena Moffit, a representative for the Sierra Club opened the public comments by expressing her shock at the EPA’s oft-quoted conclusion that the assessment failed to find evidence of widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources. Despite the report’s shortcomings, she said the report does not supports that conclusion, a complaint echoed by most of the speakers who called in.

Shelly Perdue holds up a glass of contaminated water in Parker County, Texas. Her home is across the street from an Range Recources fracking site.©Julie Dermansky

Sharon Wilson, Earthworks’ Gulf Regional Organizer asked the board to add a formal remark on major data gaps in the report due to “industry obstruction, interference, and attempts to silence people who live with the pollution EPA intended to study.”

Wilson describing her first-hand knowledge of cases where gag orders prohibit impacted families from speaking out. “In addition to water pollution, industry intimidation tactics are also widespread and systemic,” Wilson told the EPA scientists.

Sharon Wilson next to Steven Lipsky’s water well’s gas vent ©2014 Julie Dermansky

Andrew Chichura, a resident of Susquehanna County, PA, expressed his support for the oil and gas industry before sharing his family’s own experience with contaminated water. Even though the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection confirmed that the Chichuras had methane in their water in 2011 and made the determination that Cabot Oil and Gas, a drilling company, was responsible for the family’s water well’s contamination, the family has still not resolved its dispute with the company in a satisfactory manner. Mr. Chichura's time expired before he could finish describing his family's plight, but the anguish the situation has caused him was evident.

Andrew Chichura with a water bladder in his basement supplied by Cabot Oil. ©2015 Julie Dermansky

Scott Seagle an attorney with Bracewell Giuliani who represents natural gas producers, was the only caller that agreed with the EPA’s statement that there is no widespread evidence of drinking water contamination. He repeated the claim that no cases of contamination had been proven and urged the board not to be swayed by “anecdotal” information.

Property owners whose wells are contaminated made clear their conclusions that fracking was to blame were based on the findings of scientific research, not guesswork. They asked the SAB to compel the EPA to include findings from preliminary tests the agency conducted that determined water contamination in Parker County, TX, Dimock, PA and Pavillion, WY was likely caused by the fracking industry. Leaving out data from those areas creates data gaps in the report, they said. 

The EPA's own scientific review board has also begun challenging the notion that their research shows fracking poses only marginal threats.

“Of particular concern is the statement of no widespread, systemic impacts on drinking-water resources,” the SAB wrote in a preliminary report. “Neither the system of interest nor the definitions of widespread, systemic or impact are clear and it is not clear how this statement reflects the uncertainties and data limitations described in the Report's chapters.”

The EPA's draft assessment contains case after case where fracking caused contamination – and even evidence, buried in the study's fine print, that the industry has at times deliberately injected fracking chemicals into drinking water supplies.

For some who have closely followed the issue for years, the question is no longer whether there is enough evidence that fracking is causing problems, but simply a question of political will to hold a powerful industry accountable.

 “The truth on whether or not fracking is inherently contaminating is not being debated here.  We know that that is the case,” Josh Fox, director of Gasland, said during his comments. “What is in question is whether the EPA will have any creditability as an organization if the EPA and the SAB caves to industry and political pressure.”

  

Ray Kemble, a former industry worker in Dimock, PA, holds up water taken from his contaminated well. ©2015 Julie Dermansky

Photo Credit:  Flamible water coming from Steven Lipsky’s water water well in Parker County Texas © 2014 Julie Dermansky

The Phelan Report for Dec 6th 2015

What in the World has Happened to the American People?

By Janet Phelan

Column: Society

Region: USA in the World

Like others in my generation, I remember proudly the response of the American people to the war in Vietnam. I remember the marches, the sit-ins, the protests. I remember the small Midwestern liberal arts college I first attended deciding to shut itself down as its students readied to pour into the nation’s capital and I remember being tear gassed in Berkeley.

Vietnam pales in magnitude when compared with the military actions launched by the US since the turn of the century.  Since 2000, US troops have fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

War, no longer an anomaly, has become common fare.

The virulence of the US government is increasingly evident towards its own people. In certain  arenas, and against certain kinds of people, the US has become brutally aggressive against its own citizens.

The response by the people of the United States to its continuing incursions abroad has been colorless, to say the least.  No schools shut down, no massive mobilizations on Washington, no general strikes.  As far as the domestic violence goes, the response is equally bland. One might posit that the people of the US have become accustomed to their bellicose government.

In light of the history of protest, how does one account for the muted response of the American people?

The Drugging of America 

For one, Americans are being drugged silly. Per capita, the US population consumes an astounding number of psychiatric medications. A 2011 Medco Health Solutions report stated that one in five Americans takes at least one psychiatric drug.

According to an IMS Health Vector One report, a grand total of 78,694,222 Americans were consuming at least one type of psychiatric medication in 2013. 

“Over the past decade, there has been a significant uptick in the use of medications to treat a variety of mental health problems; what is not as clear is if more people — especially women, are actually developing psychological disorders that require treatment, or if they are more willing to seek out help and clinicians are better at diagnosing these conditions than they once were,” David Muzina, MD, a psychiatrist and national practice leader of the Medco Neuroscience Therapeutic Resource Center, said in a release.

The drugs being prescribed range from drugs for mood disorders to anti-anxiety drugs to more serious anti-psychotic medications. According to a 2011 Harvard report, the federal government’s health statisticians figure that about one in every 10 Americans takes an antidepressant. 

According to a Yale study, published in 2013, there are significant geographical clusters of psychiatric medication use. The study reported that in Alexandria, Virginia, “two in five residents received an antidepressant, compared to a mean of 10.4% nationally.”

Quoting the Medco Report, the WHO has stated that in 2010 21% of American women were taking antidepressant drugs.

WHO also reports that the Medco data shows that women have the highest utilization rate of anti-anxietymedications; in fact, 11 percent of middle-aged women (age 45-64) were on an anti-anxiety drug treatment in 2010, nearly twice the rate of their male counterparts.

In addition, Medco reported that the use of anti-psychotic medications has soared and that the usage of these drugs is up over 300% in the last ten years.

Adults are not the only consumers of psychiatric drugs. The 2011 Medco report stated that the number of children receiving atypical antipsychotics doubled from 2001 to 2010.  The CDC reports that over ten percent of children are now diagnosed with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). Approximately 8% of American children are taking Adderall, Ritalin or other stimulant medications.

Many psychiatric medications include the mind-numbing compound, fluoride. Fluoride was used extensively in the concentration camps in Eastern Europe to keep the camp denizens docile.

The Fluoride Toxicity Research Collaborative has launched a project to list which medications contain fluoride. Here’s a partial list of fluoride containing antidepressants.

In addition, many cities fluoridate the public water.

Parenthetically, a recent New Yorker article cites the failure of medicine to find organic causes for depression. The article suggests that placebos are as effective as the prescribed drugs in treating depression.

The “Awry Facto

Life situations seen as overwhelming may produce a depressive response. Equally, the perception that an aggressor is in control may produce a reaction accommodating and enabling the aggressor. This reaction, “identification with the aggressor,” is popularly called The Stockholm Syndrome. It is this psychological reaction to the perception of being held hostage by an aggressor that we turn our attention to now.

Since the events of September 11, 2001, an increasing number of American citizens have become aware that something is going on in the United States that is not normal. The evidence that something is going seriously awry is evidenced in a number of specific situations and is impacting an increasing number of American citizens.

The “awry factor” is evident in adult guardianship proceedings, where elders and the disabled are being ripped from the protective shelter of their families, their estates are being plundered and all too often, the wards are being sent to an early death.

The “awry factor” is evident in what happens to family members and attorneys who attempt to protect these people.  Very often, restraining orders are issued against family and sometimes the family members are jailed. Attorneys who seek to protect their clients are often disbarred.

The “awry factor” is evident in family court proceedings. When there are allegations that one of the parents has abused a minor child, all too often the child is remanded into the custody of the abuser.

The “awry factor” is evident in the alarming numbers of police officers who escape culpability when they murder US citizens, and the “awry factor” is evident in the increasing numbers of whistleblowers being charged under the Espionage Act.

The “awry factor” is evident in the growing numbers of ordinary American citizens who are alleging that they are being placed into covert experimental governmental electronic weapons programs, without their informed consent. 

The “awry factor” is not only evident in what is happening legally or “extra-legally” across America, however. Growing numbers of Americans are becoming aware that the mainstream press is not giving them the  real deal, as far as the news goes. More and more, Americans are turning to internet news sites in order to learn what the mainstream press isn’t telling them.

The “awry factor” is increasingly evident in the US’s foreign policy, where lies are stacked upon lies in order to present overwhelming and utterly false reasons to go to war.

Certain professions  are known to have their fingers on the pulse of the nation. These professions may include those in the legal profession, journalists, police officers and many in government employ. The wave of shock that comes with the realization that your own government has moved out of the position of protector and is now a potential assailant may result in a personal crisis, a coming to a crossroads. 

Some people simply pack up and leave. They quit their jobs, knowing that a once noble profession is now a tool of oppression. They may go so far as to leave the country. The majority, however, appear to make other decisions. They may button their lips and go along with a heinous situation simply because this is how they pay the mortgage.

In some, the decision to “go with the program” results in the psychological syndrome called “identification with the aggressor.” A medical dictionary defines this syndrome thus: “In psychology, an unconscious process in which a person adopts the perspective or behavior patterns of a captor or abuser.”  In other words, the individual is not simply going with the current. He has become the aggressor.

Held Hostage

In a sense, the US populace is now held hostage. We are drugged, lied to and even when we emerge from these experiences with our perceptions intact, we find ourselves tied up in knots. These knots are intrapsychic. They involve the implicit awareness that speaking out, acting in accordance with moral principles, is now a dangerous endeavor.

In every generation, in every totalitarian situation in recorded history, there have been individuals who refused to be intimidated. There are individuals whose moral compass overrides the danger alert. It is well known that if the entire population refused to be intimidated, the problem of aggression, abuse, murder and wars could be resolved very quickly. But first, we need to come to terms with the fact that we are frightened. We may be confused and we are scared. Somewhere within each and every one of us is that small, still voice which can encourage us in this time of great occlusion.

Within each and every one of us resides a hero. We only need to clear away the adulterating effects of mind numbing substances and the hypnotic media propaganda and allow him to emerge.

First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/12/05/what-in-the-world-has-happened-to-the-american-people/

WISE WOMEN MEDIA FOR NOVEMBER 25, 2015--JULIE DERMANSKY, PHOTOJOURNALIST ON "FRACKING IN FLORIDA"

Julie Dermansky at 6 Flags in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina

"Fracking in Florida" with Julie Dermansky

This was a special broadcast on American Freedom Radio on November 21, 2015. 

Julie Dermansky is my returning guest on this show; she is an artist, multimedia expert and photojournalist. Her stories and photographs have been published on such news outlets as Truthout, DeSmogBlog and Alternet just to name a few. And of course, I repost her work on Challenging the Rhetoric and Hoodooed.

She and I got together last week on the phone and we had a long conversation about some of the legalities of Fracking in Florida, the fragile locations (contiguous to the Everglades and the last Florida Panther preserve), the ongoing threats of land grabs, the environment, the state's precious water, the Indigenous people's way of life, the wildlife and what she has documented during her investigations. 

We also discussed the River of Grass Greenway which threatens to destroy the Everglades. We briefly touched on the planned Sabal Trail Natural Gas Pipeline that will extend from Alabama, through southern Georgia and intersect the center of Florida down to the Green Swamp and Orlando areas. A pipeline accident here could potentially threaten most of Tampa's drinking water, the largest metro area in the state.

This story is meant to be heard! 

Thanks for tuning in--be sure to check out the source information (hyperlinked) and share!

REMEMBER, it is just a conversation!

Websites we mentioned:

Spectrabusters

Stonecrab Alliance

Preserve Our Paradise

Stop the Sabal Trail Natural Gas Pipeline

(There is an approximate 2 minute gap in the audio due to a technical problem that occurred while we were recording; this is between 42 and 44 minutes.)

CLICK THE ORANGE BUTTON WITH ARROW TO PLAY THE AUDIO