Fracking and your glands!

[polygonum]

Further to previous threads on fracking and the potential for causing health issues (among others), I quote this:

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals found at fracking sites

Kassotis CD. Endocrinology. 2013;doi:10.1210/en.2013-1697.

A natural gas and oil drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, increases the use of chemicals that have been deemed endocrine disruptors by The Endocrine Society. These endocrine-disrupting chemicals have been linked to birth defects and infertility discovered near drilling sites, according to findings in a recent report published in Endocrinology.

?More than 700 chemicals are used in the fracking process, and many of them disturb hormone function,? Susan C. Nagel, PhD, of the University of Missouri School of Medicine, said in a press release. ?With fracking on the rise, populations may face greater health risks from increased endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure.?

Researchers collected water and ground samples and measured for estrogen and androgen receptor activities using reporter gene assays in human cell lines. Of the 39 unique water samples collected in the drilling-dense region of Garfield County, Colo., 89% demonstrated estrogenic; 41% anti-estrogenic; 12% androgenic; and 46% anti-androgenic activities.

?Fracking is exempt from federal regulations to protect water quality, but spills associated with natural gas drilling can contaminate surface, ground and drinking water,? Nagel said. ?We found more endocrine-disrupting activity in the water close to drilling locations that had experienced spills than at control sites. This could raise the risk of reproductive, metabolic, neurological and other diseases, especially in children who are exposed to [endocrine-disrupting chemicals].?

Anti-estrogenic, anti-androgenic and limited estrogenic activities were identified in the 12 natural gas drilling chemicals tested, but no androgenic activity was found, according to researchers.

In addition, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol and ethylene glycol reflected the greatest potencies for anti-estrogenic activities, and ethylene glycol, N,N-dimethylformamide and cumene exhibited the greatest potencies for anti-androgenic activities, researchers wrote.

The Colorado River, in particular, showed moderate levels of estrogenic, anti-estrogenic and anti-androgenic activities. This suggests that higher localized activity at sites with known natural gas-related spills surrounding the river might be a contributing factor in the multiple receptor activities observed in the water source, researchers said.

Disclosure: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.

[Dave Liquorice]

In the US were there is little regulation.

[Weatherlawyer]

What is required is the reservoir be filled. However it need not be filled with water. Companies will pay to dispose of poisons that would cost a lot more to decommission elsewhere. So they trade it over the state line and it goes deep underground where it will not cause any problems in any way what soever, trust them.

The US government did exactly the same thing with toxic waste after the Vie tnam War. They dumped it in wells in Colorado that were thousands of feet d eep and it was never seen again (until it came out in the valleys below.)

But not to worry; they arranged (with the Vietnamese government) to import a load of Boat People to come and finish using it all.

The USA is a business driven society and being made to give away trade secr ets about what chemicals they use in fracking is against the nth Amendment.

[harryagain]

You can only regulate against known hazards.

[Weatherlawyer]

That means you can't regulate against research that is secret for whatever reason. But you can protest and you can overthrow governments.

But before that you might attempt to find out that they are burying nothing more unacceptable than old plastic bags and pig manure. Of course you might also get killed doing so; especially in the USA.

well done for stating the obvious by the way. I do hope the idea never kept you up all night. I really do. Trust me.

[Terry Fields]

That could easily ber rewritten as

More than (any number you care to think of) chemicals are used in (any) process (you care to think of), and many of them disturb hormone function,? somebody from the University of Somewhere School of Medicine, said in a press release. ?With (these processes) on the rise, populations may face greater health risks from increased endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure.?

And how did that compare with the pre-fracking levels?

Would the estrogenic activities be better, the same, or worse than those found in food packaging?

[Huge]

*applause*

[Brian Gaff]

Yes, and its very interesting to hear the companies excuse why they do not want to let on what chemicals they are actually using so doctors can check them then. They say its sensitive commercially, but surely public health and confidence should be more important than commercial sensitivity. Brian

[harryagain]

We are all being subjected to a propaganda campaign/bollix both ways, there is no way we can know what is the truth.

I was just watching on RT, they have all the stops out about the negative things about fracking. Obviously if we have our own gas, we won't be buying theirs. So commercial interest there.

[js.b1]

Fracking does use nasty chemical mixes, the most concerning being carcinoge ns such as benzene.

The issue then becomes not DOES it affect the human body (it does), but ass uming it does get into ground water at what concentration does it affect dr inking water? For the UK which does not have a high reliance on local wells this may be moot.

The EPA wanted diesel scrubbers long before it got them because it KNEW the carbon particulates were perfect size & carriers for carcinogens. Likewise it was known that small cars (pre modern) were awful for crash safety re U SA propensity for T-bone incidents as well as dismal headlights & dismal st reet lighting in many areas.

Many risks, we have been stuffed with a chemical cocktail for a very long t ime, no doubt a major factor in the increase in pre-neoplasm becoming cance rous neoplasm when a virus just flicks the switch etc.

We need the energy, having had a disastrous UK energy policy (& EU wide). Will it be Asbestos-II? No, not for the UK, but the USA will have some envi ronmental fallout due to its distributed local water sources. Remember a lo t of USA groundwater is already contaminated with MTBE from winter addition to petrol, we live in a toxic world. The Chinese & India live in a much mo re toxic one, we merely outsourced the problem there in view of EPA-etc leg islation.

If I did rely on a local well, I would get it tested often, and move to bot tled water... which I recall is less wholesome than UK tap water?? :-)

[bert]

In message , [e-mail] writes

...but doesn't contain fluoride and doesn't stink of chlorine

[harryagain]

The issue then becomes not DOES it affect the human body (it does), but assuming it does get into ground water at what concentration does it affect drinking water? For the UK which does not have a high reliance on local wells this may be moot.

The EPA wanted diesel scrubbers long before it got them because it KNEW the carbon particulates were perfect size & carriers for carcinogens. Likewise it was known that small cars (pre modern) were awful for crash safety re USA propensity for T-bone incidents as well as dismal headlights & dismal street lighting in many areas.

Many risks, we have been stuffed with a chemical cocktail for a very long time, no doubt a major factor in the increase in pre-neoplasm becoming cancerous neoplasm when a virus just flicks the switch etc.

We need the energy, having had a disastrous UK energy policy (& EU wide). Will it be Asbestos-II? No, not for the UK, but the USA will have some environmental fallout due to its distributed local water sources. Remember a lot of USA groundwater is already contaminated with MTBE from winter addition to petrol, we live in a toxic world. The Chinese & India live in a much more toxic one, we merely outsourced the problem there in view of EPA-etc legislation.

If I did rely on a local well, I would get it tested often, and move to bottled water... which I recall is less wholesome than UK tap water?? :-)

*

• In the SE of England, lots of public water comes from bore holes.

[Huge]

Which is why more of us are living to a greater age than ever before. Not.

[js.b1]

I know, but the aquifers that serve them are larger with more filtration (w hat rains & wees in Reading gets drunk in London somewhat later). The probl em in the USA is people literally have local boreholes right over the frack ing zones or essentially in their likely outfall.

It is not an ideal situation.

Interestingly the CIBSE etc crowd have a row of UK & USA companies queuing up to sell us not just complex rain water harvesting, but full reprocessing systems so the feed from the mains is essentially reduced to drinking wate r. That is no doubt in lieu of the huge population growth v water network t o supply it by 2050.

BTW, fracking can in theory go >3.2 miles horizontally - not the mile alleg ed now. The technology exists, it is much more expensive, but something to consider. USA-CDN development.

[js.b1]

We are not, it is a statistical anomaly. Life expectancy is already falling for quite a large (lower) section of soc iety.

As the public sector cost, benefit system cost, inflation from QE cost, vas t 5,000B UK debt cost begins to bite so the lower socioeconomic groups are going to find standing of living declines and with it life expectancy. Medi cine contrary to expectations is in no hurry to throw a life raft to the ol d, it will be pay & jobs first particularly in the RCN and its great many S ocialist Worker Unison reps.

I have a nasty feeling energy costs could well catch up with Germany, it is a natural inclination with the BBC's doctor-drivel indicating "we are not expensive". We are, due to appallingly bad (political) management.

[bert]

Life expectancy stood still this year due to the increase in number of unexpected deaths mostly in older people due to the cold spring meaning they could not afford to heat nor eat. Much hand wringing but no action to avoid a repeat this winter.

[harryagain]

I expect 3rd world immigrants have shorter life expectancies. And they have brought in previously eradicated diseases.

[Bob Martin]

A disease cannot be said to be eradicated if it still exists somewhere on the planet.

[polygonum]

Interesting argument with respect to smallpox! But in general terms, agreed.

[Bod]

One has to wonder why cancer is increasing so rapidly. Is it because of the long term side effects of modern medicine innoculations? I mean, maybe these jabs prevent targetted diseases, but affect our body's natural immune system in the long term against the dreaded C.