Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Higher Rates of Premature Birth Near Fracking Sites (jhsph.edu)
An anonymous reader writes: Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have published a study (abstract) noting that pregnant women are more likely to give birth prematurely if they live close to fracking sites. The researchers used data from 40 counties in Pennsylvania, in which 10,946 babies were born between January 2009 and January 2013. They compared the data with the fast spread of fracking sites across the state — thousands have been built since 2006.
"The researchers found that living in the most active quartile of drilling and production activity was associated with a 40 percent increase in the likelihood of a woman giving birth before 37 weeks of gestation (considered pre-term) and a 30 percent increase in the chance that an obstetrician had labeled their pregnancy "high-risk," a designation that can include factors such as elevated blood pressure or excessive weight gain during pregnancy. When looking at all of the pregnancies in the study, 11 percent of babies were born preterm, with the majority (79 percent) born between 32 and 36 weeks."
"The researchers found that living in the most active quartile of drilling and production activity was associated with a 40 percent increase in the likelihood of a woman giving birth before 37 weeks of gestation (considered pre-term) and a 30 percent increase in the chance that an obstetrician had labeled their pregnancy "high-risk," a designation that can include factors such as elevated blood pressure or excessive weight gain during pregnancy. When looking at all of the pregnancies in the study, 11 percent of babies were born preterm, with the majority (79 percent) born between 32 and 36 weeks."
Why are we letting business men kill civilians? Civil war is coming.
I'm not a shill for the fracking industry. However, a question comes to my mind: Is it possible that it is not the fracking itself, but the stress of knowing that you live near the fracking?
I wonder if they could model this with mice just to get a little more info on the effects of fracking pollutants.
I'm not discounting the possibility that there may be a causal relationship here but from what I see of the article and abstract they only looked at data between 2009 and 2012. Is it possible that these sites have a preexisting condition that would cause higher levels of preterm birth? They should expand their data analysis to a larger period before the fracking occurred. This way we can at the very least see if there is a stronger correlation here and move forward.
There's no Aliens agenda is your propaganda, therefore it's all lies.
Oh Shit!!!
I just had French Fries yesterday.
I am sooo fucked. Should I delete all my porn so save my kids from being shocked?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I suppose fracking can happen at random places. However, most of the land area in the US is characterized by lower than average socioeconomic status, as expressed on a per capita basis, for the simple reasons that cities tend to have higher population and higher per capita income. This way, even a random site selection leads to a bias in the welfare of the neighboring population. Add to this that fracking is more restricted in and around large cities.
While the study may have accounted for these factors, the linked abstract and the long article are silent on these.
And of course there may be a lot of other factors even if they have.
Obviously Pennsylvanians and Oklahomans are dropping dead because their diets don't include enough iodine, leading to increased uptake-
Oh wait. That was yesterday's crappy anti-energy 'study'. Next up: Wind turbines will make all birds go extinct.
Sigh, I suspect they have as much or better clue than you do. It's entirely possible that there is no causal effect. Their study doesn't say there's a causal effect, it's says there's a correlated effect. Even the referenced press release states: "The researchers found that living in the most active quartile of drilling and production activity was associated with a 40 percent increase in the likelihood of a woman giving birth before 37 weeks of gestation."
Stop viewing science press releases through the filter of whether it conforms to your world view or your superficial understanding of correlation and causation. That whole correlation isn't causation crap is becoming a mantra around here. People parroting it without really understanding what it means or doesn't mean or whether it even f'ing applies to the article in question.
The cause may be in the environment, and not due to fracking itself. Did they check the records before the fracking industry move in? Was it always there? It may just have been an environmental issue that coincides with the land features that trap the gas in the first place.
If you want to stop the spread of fracking, you need to convince these women to carry their children full term.
I read the article* and couldn't find anything that linked the measurement of fracking activity to the measurement of premature births.
There was a lot of warning verbiage about fracking and a lot of warning verbiage about premature births. They wrapped the two items together without any scientific backing and even stated that their research is still in "infancy" (pun intended?). They mention some points that it could be stress or something else, etc.
Basically its a prematurely (eh?) written article that is more emotional than factual. Clearly its meant to stir up the "Think of the children" angle for further funding into this research. Which I agree, more research needs to be done and I guess this is the only way to fight the industry and politicians. But that article had no right to be posted on Johns Hopkins website, the school just lost some credibility there.
* = I am sorry but you can't take my Slashdot card... I ummm... misplaced it.
Does fracking cause this, or do poor people with already statistically bad health outcomes live near fracking sites?
It's not as if Millionaires with nice health insurance live on top of fracking sites.
Another slashdotter who passes political judgment without RTFA. The FA doesn't say it proved anything. That's all you.
Want to induce labor? Spicy foods or frakking.
$$$$$$$$
Yes, I realize that the entire paper was a coded message that read "give us a bigger budget, please, or we are going to prevent your business from growing at the rate that it is currently growing, with nothing more than our 'correlation is causation' argument".
I guess I was too subtle in my jab at them to work smarter (i.e.: with a smaller budget), rather than harder (i.e.: with a huge budget).
There is about the same chance that hydraulic fracturing leads to an increase in premature births as that hydraulic fracturing leads to the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Unless these women are flagging down Haliburton trucks and swimming in the tanks this is utterly and totally preposterous.
But that won't stop the lawyers from driving in their expensive automobiles to the courthouse to file the law suit and it won't stop the charlatan 'researches' from getting paid big money to testify as expert witnesses.
Agenda science is doing far more harm than hydraulic fracturing, fiction like this 'study' should anger everyone who understands the lasting damage being done between the scientific community and the public.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
If they didn't, they'd be complete idiots.
Or, more likely, just very well paid. The entire field of environmental studies is sadly rife with rigged studies, often because the researchers or the people funding the research "know" ahead of time what the result SHOULD be, and the results will match that pre-ordained "understanding".
Citation needed.
oh fuck it, why do I bother... The entire field of right wing anti-environmentalism is rife with "pre-ordained understanding". (sigh)
I read the story in your link, and read the link that it provided to the M.D. who made that claim. Neither specified what they're including as a "medical study". Only peer-reviewed, or is a "study" published by a pharmaceutical company on their website being lumped into the mix? 'Cause I can see 50% of all medical studies being bullshit if you lower your definition of what constitutes a medical study to include the latter. I also found it interesting the articles couldn't pull up a few examples. I mean, if there's a 50/50 shot any random medical study will back up your claim, should be easy.
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
You can't win. They'll just stop responding. Then they'll find the next story and go on about it some more. Me? I don't have the expertise to opine so I read and try to find those who do. I welcome rational discourse and long for good fact and data-based debate simply so I can learn from it. With the highly emotionally charged subjects this doesn't seem like one of those times where I'll get what I want.
So, back to poo flinging, screeching, monkey behavior for everyone!!!
I'm not touching you!!!
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
what you are saying that you back it up with your name. Corporate whores and apologists are a dime a dozen. Even cheaper when they hide behind their title of coward.
the reasoned study bullshit before you have to admit the truth. And how many lives per dollar do you hope to earn for you and your friends?
Just one of many examples.
You of course will not see it, because you cannot believe ill of those running your cult. But billions have been spent supporting climate research, data faked (which we know from leaked emails and more importantly source code). Sorry buddy, that's what you have signed up with and if you continue to associate with liars why should we all not assume you are one also?
I'll let you have the last response but I have no intent of reading whatever regurgitated mind-slime talking points you've spoon been fed. Do some research and educate yourself, it's not too late.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Me? I don't have the expertise to opine
I'm pretty sure that's the first time that sentence has ever appeared on the internet.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Right. And, this just in... Study finds 65% those involved in fatal auto accidents ate French Fries in the week before the accident :-/
Give me a break.
...and a special survey shows that 98% of slashdot readers think that writing "correlation!=causation" completely undermines the validity of any paper not using pure deductive reasoning.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yet, it's oddly one of those statements too bizarre to not trust completely. ;-) I mean, sure, I probably have more knowledge than quite a few of the people who opined. I know enough to know that I don't know shit. There's a time and place to shut up and listen.
As an aside, I figured that out (solidified it, really) when I owned and grew my company. At first I hired people and then still tried to do their work too. I'd hired programmers and I tried to keep my hand in. Then I realized, hey, I hired them because they're the best money can buy (well, my money) in the field and they're considered experts among their peers. What the hell am I doing? So, I stopped getting in the way and stopped helping unless asked. I was also eventually kicked out of my own server room. And my com room. I was master of the damned copy room, though!
Really, I was just too busy with more important things and those guys were better than I was. Could I do the work? Sure. I mean, yeah, I was probably 'pretty good' at it. I can configure, secure, and maintain a server - a rack of blade servers even. I can provision desktops and roll them out and maintain them. I can program in a few different languages. What I can't do is do it as well or as efficiently as the people I paid to do the job. I managed because I had to. Otherwise I'd do.
Anyhow, it worked out well. I've shared this before and this is almost verbatim... "Code comments go in the code, not on coffee soaked index cards scattered around your desk, asshole." (Or something like that.) Lesson learned.
Ah well... I was fortunate and had great help. I was in the right place and time and in a position where I was able to take the risks associated with starting a business. I was still working on my degree when I got my first contract - I'd not yet done my defense. I sold the business about eight years ago. It was lucrative. I'm retired and I play around a lot today which is where all my silly stories come from - it's not like I don't have time. Today I have a real investment manager and I also play around on my own with the stock markets. I cheat and use sites like this, the comments in them, to decide what to buy. For instance, on a hunch I decided that buying EMC was a good risk. I bought a bunch. I've not yet checked the prices but I'm sure I did okay. The best part is that I have no idea what I'm doing.
Anyhow, I've digressed enough at this point.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Yes, because self-evidently no mere scientist could possibly have thought of this until you, Mr AC, came to their aid.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it