Corporate Profit Trumps Public Health in Colorado Fracking Vote
What is the common curse of mankind? Folly and ignorance, observed an old English playwright. The curse was on uncommon display two weeks ago at the Colorado State Capitol in Denver.
I went there to testify in favor of a bill, House Bill 1275. It was a modest bill. It simply asked that data on Front-Range citizen complaints about fracking be collected and examined by an independent body of scientists and health professionals. A preliminary report on their findings was to be issued within a year. Presumably, this report would lead to an evaluation of the need for follow up studies to protect the public’s health and well being, as it almost certainly would have, for the air is leaden with unexamined citizen complaints of ill health from living near fracking sites. The cost was earmarked at around $300,000.
It belabors the point to remind readers, as several citizens did the legislators, that in a rational world we would investigate the health consequences of fracking on public health before we allowed the process to begin, but we don’t live in a rational world as the following events clearly demonstrate.
Leading the charge for continued ignorance and the virtues of not knowing was Dr. Chris Urbina, Governor Hickenlooper’s appointee that heads the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. Urbina said, this proposed report—which he insisted on characterizing as a study—was too short, saying it might lead to premature, unfavorable judgment of the oil industry and that we must be cautious. Dr. Urbina failed to mention in his remarks that he also sits on the board of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). The COGCC has the dual mission of promoting oil and gas development and protecting the public’s health and the environment.
Following his criticism of the bill, Urbina turned to his young confederate, a staff toxicologist who explained, on cue, how important double-blind tests are to accuracy in scientific investigations. Unmentioned was that a double-blind study is also expensive, time-consuming and the most logistically difficult type of epidemiological study. Basically, the toxicologist argued, and I don’t exaggerate, that we really couldn’t trust knowing anything until we know everything. This argument is tantamount to arguing you shouldn’t quit smoking cigarettes until you die from them, or something equally double-barreled and nonsensical. Even the Walrus understood it is better to start at the beginning, and this was to be a beginning.
Caution, sure. But the industry is drilling at least 3,000 new wells in Colorado annually with the likelihood that the annual average will increase substantially. Another 50,000 wells are already operative. And, each is spewing a variety of unmeasured chemical substances into the atmosphere, into the air we all breathe. Add to this that the industry is generating trillions of gallons of fracking wastewater of generally unknown toxic quality which is being re-injecting into the ground under the most primitive of oversight standards, with hundreds upon hundreds of significant spills being reported each year. Under these circumstances, you’d think some enterprising public health official might sound a small alarm.
Not this evening. Dr. Urbina’s solution was to unveil a new plan, unvetted and unfunded, that might take, by his estimate, five years to complete. That’s the equal of at least 21,000 new wells and trillions of gallons of dangerously corrupted fresh water that must be warehoused somewhere. Moreover, as someone has already observed such a plan would take at least seven years, if you factor in funding and review time.
So, make that at least 28,000 new wells. Even more oddly, Urbina’s plan would focus on Garfield County, Colorado rather than on the Front Range as proposed in HB 1275. Garfield County is on the west slope and several studies have been conducted there already. But no studies have been conducted on the Front Range where drilling, like some form of crazy mutant kudzu, is starting to engulf community after community.
One of the Garfield County studies by the Colorado School of Public Health, had shown that even at distances of 2,700 feet from a well site, toxic chemicals were still detectable at levels that increase the chance of developing cancer by 66 percent based on published health standards. The county government, alarmed at the preliminary results, then defunded the study. This study figured prominently is New York Governor Cuomo’s decision to initiate a moratorium on fracking in his state.
On top of that, the COGCC had tried to discredit the study because it was conducted in a rural setting and, therefore, was not really suitable as a basis for judging urban health impacts. We certainly can assume that Dr. Urbina, resident public health official on the COGCC, participated in rendering this head spinning criticism. It seems to stand for the crack-pot concept that the immunology of rural people is different than that of urban people.
But back to the hearing, several people asked for the bill to be expanded to collect health data from all areas of the state, since the issue of equal protection for those living in what are beginning to be regarded as energy colonies, if not outright oil and gas sacrifice zones, is starting to generate ethical concern from those still familiar with the concept.
Nevertheless, it was all for naught. Dr. Urbina, his toxicologist, and a swarm of oil and gas lobbyists held the field. The vote was 6-5, with one Democrat voting with the rock solid Republican minority who voted for industry jobs and profits over unproven concerns about public health. The Democrat, Dave Young, a second term representative from Weld County, the county with more than a third of the wells in the state, in a rather rambling and puzzling explanation of his vote, talked about his years as a science teacher of middle school children in Weld County and the need for compromise. Apparently, we should find in this an explanation for the low-five handshake I saw him give to an oil lobbyist as he exited down the committee room hallway.
Those speaking for the bill included the sponsor, Rep. Joann Ginal, a PhD endocrinologist. The other sponsor, a public health physician did not testify, but Boulder County public health officials did, as did a representative for the Colorado Medical Society. So too did a physician who heads a clinic in eastern Colorado.
Of the citizens from around the state testifying in favor of the bill, some had health and science backgrounds, one had headed the aborted Garfield County study, and still others, simply caught up in the maelstrom, had come to Denver hoping their elected representatives might listen to their personal stories. Instead, the majority greeted them with indifference.
The testimony of Rod Brueske, who I know personally, is illustrative of this indifference. He told how he’d moved to rural Boulder County, bought an old farmhouse to restore on the county’s dedicated Open Space land, hoping to establish a home place to raise his family. Instead he’s discovered his nearest neighbors are gas wells that constantly belch out vapors that are poisoning his family. His children have repeated nosebleeds and other health complications as a result.
Frustrated with the unwillingness of the COGCC to help him against what he considers a toxic trespass by the industry, he had blood tests performed and analyzed. The state does not and will not do citizen blood tests, just as it doesn’t represent citizens even when it determines the industry has polluted their wells. Resolution of the injury is left to the landowner.
In fact, when a state inspector showed up as a result of an early Brueske complaint, she brought only her nose, which she claimed was trained to sniff out bad air. Her nose detected nothing.
Brueske family blood tests show elevated levels of toxins which are, given their rural home, likely associated with nearby oil and gas production.
Not one member of the committee asked him a question about the health of him or his family. Is that not indifference? Socializing the health costs to protect private profit is an old game in this country. But the oil and gas boys have brought it to new levels, as they own significant segments of both parties, thus insuring continued ignorance by design.
How much proof is going to be needed to protect people like the Brueskes? I don’t know, but a recent lecture by Malcolm Gladwell, the author of Tipping Point among other books, may provide a partial answer. Gladwell wondered when the requirements for “proof just became another word for letting other people suffer.” He pointed to the 50 years of shadow dancing by the coal industry and American medicine before admitting coal dust was causing black lung disease. By comparison, he said, the life insurance companies had raised life insurance rates on miners almost immediately based on personal data gathered in field surveys. HR 1275 was really about gathering a little field data.
The language of silence was palpable when HR 1275 was defeated. As people were filing out, one disgruntled citizen remarked that Urbina appeared to be such a profound mediocrity that he had a good chance to be the next governor. There was a general murmur of agreement.
Want to learn more about fracking?
On April 27, attend Be Frack Sure, an interactive, informative, day-long event. Learn from the expert testimony of scientists and professionals from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. at the Best Western Plus Plaza Hotel and Conference Center, 1900 Ken Pratt Blvd., Longmont, CO. Enjoy world-class entertainment by the Hazel Miller Band. Sponsored by Patagonia.
Dr. Anthony Ingraffea: Professor of Engineering in Cornell University’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and a renowned expert on fracturing mechanics and its threats.
Dr. Geoffrey Thyne: Author or co-author of over 50 peer-reviewed scientific papers, he will speak to the complexities of research and the influence of industry and government in academic settings.
Organizing Your Community: Sam Schabacker, Food & Water Watch
Health Ramifications of Water and Air Quality: Phillip Doe, (Be The Change), Wes Wilson, (Retired EPA), Shane Davis
Economic Ramifications of the Fracking Boom: Jeanne Basset (Environment Colorado) and Pete Morton
Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.
A grim new assessment of the world's flora and fungi has found that two-fifths of its species are at risk of extinction as humans encroach on the natural world, as The Guardian reported. That puts the number of species at risk near 140,000.
- Climate Crisis Could Cause a Third of Plant and Animal Species to ... ›
- World Leaders Urged to 'Act Now' to Save Biodiversity - EcoWatch ›
- Bumblebees Face Extinction From the Climate Crisis - EcoWatch ›
- Plant Extinction Is Happening 500x Faster Than Before the Industrial ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
As human activity transforms the atmosphere, flowers are changing their colors.
- The Best Plants to Attract Pollinators, by Region - EcoWatch ›
- Corals Turn Bright Neon in Last-Ditch Effort to Survive - EcoWatch ›
- Hummingbirds Live in a More Colorful World, Study Confirms ... ›
By Sharon Zhang
Back in March, when the pandemic had just planted its roots in the U.S., President Donald Trump directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do something devastating: The agency was to indefinitely and cruelly suspend environmental rule enforcement. The EPA complied, and for just under half a year, it provided over 3,000 waivers that granted facilities clemency from state-level environmental rule compliance.
A rare celestial event was caught on camera last week when a meteoroid "bounced" off Earth's atmosphere and veered back into space.
- Asteroid Could Strike Earth Before Election Day But Won't Cause ... ›
- Water May Have Originated on Earth, Study Finds - EcoWatch ›
By Bob Jacobs
Hanako, a female Asian elephant, lived in a tiny concrete enclosure at Japan's Inokashira Park Zoo for more than 60 years, often in chains, with no stimulation. In the wild, elephants live in herds, with close family ties. Hanako was solitary for the last decade of her life.
Hanako, an Asian elephant kept at Japan's Inokashira Park Zoo; and Kiska, an orca that lives at Marineland Canada. One image depicts Kiska's damaged teeth. Elephants in Japan (left image), Ontario Captive Animal Watch (right image), CC BY-ND
Affecting Health and Altering Behavior<p>It is easy to observe the overall health and psychological consequences of life in captivity for these animals. Many captive elephants suffer from arthritis, obesity or skin problems. Both <a href="https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2620.1826-36" target="_blank">elephants</a> and orcas often have severe dental problems. Captive orcas are plagued by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2019.05.005" target="_blank">pneumonia, kidney disease, gastrointestinal illnesses and infections</a>.</p><p>Many animals <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.09.010" target="_blank">try to cope</a> with captivity by adopting abnormal behaviors. Some develop "<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.05.003" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">stereotypies</a>," which are repetitive, purposeless habits such as constantly bobbing their heads, swaying incessantly or chewing on the bars of their cages. Others, especially big cats, pace their enclosures. Elephants rub or break their tusks.</p>
Changing Brain Structure<p>Neuroscientific research indicates that living in an impoverished, stressful captive environment <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2019.05.005" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">physically damages the brain</a>. These changes have been documented in many <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.903270108" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">species</a>, including rodents, rabbits, cats and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0917" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">humans</a>.</p><p>Although researchers have directly studied some animal brains, most of what we know comes from observing animal behavior, analyzing stress hormone levels in the blood and applying knowledge gained from a half-century of neuroscience research. Laboratory research also suggests that mammals in a zoo or aquarium have compromised brain function.</p>
This illustration shows differences in the brain's cerebral cortex in animals held in impoverished (captive) and enriched (natural) environments. Impoverishment results in thinning of the cortex, a decreased blood supply, less support for neurons and decreased connectivity among neurons. Arnold B. Scheibel, CC BY-ND<p>Subsisting in confined, barren quarters that lack intellectual stimulation or appropriate social contact seems to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1590/S0001-37652001000200006" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">thin the cerebral cortex</a> – the part of the brain involved in voluntary movement and higher cognitive function, including memory, planning and decision-making.</p><p>There are other consequences. Capillaries shrink, depriving the brain of the oxygen-rich blood it needs to survive. Neurons become smaller, and their dendrites – the branches that form connections with other neurons – become less complex, impairing communication within the brain. As a result, the cortical neurons in captive animals <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901230110" target="_blank">process information less efficiently</a> than those living in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.420020208" target="_blank">enriched, more natural environments</a>.</p>
An actual cortical neuron in a wild African elephant living in its natural habitat compared with a hypothesized cortical neuron from a captive elephant. Bob Jacobs, CC BY-ND<p>Brain health is also affected by living in small quarters that <a href="https://doi.org/10.3233/BPL-160040" target="_blank">don't allow for needed exercise</a>. Physical activity increases the flow of blood to the brain, which requires large amounts of oxygen. Exercise increases the production of new connections and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2622" target="_blank">enhances cognitive abilities</a>.</p><p>In their native habits these animals must move to survive, covering great distances to forage or find a mate. Elephants typically travel anywhere from <a href="https://www.elephantsforafrica.org/elephant-facts/#:%7E:text=How%20far%20do%20elephants%20walk,km%20on%20a%20daily%20basis." target="_blank">15 to 120 miles per day</a>. In a zoo, they average <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150331" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">three miles daily</a>, often walking back and forth in small enclosures. One free orca studied in Canada swam <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-010-0958-x" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">up to 156 miles a day</a>; meanwhile, an average orca tank is about 10,000 times smaller than its <a href="https://www.cascadiaresearch.org/projects/killer-whales/using-dtags-study-acoustics-and-behavior-southern" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">natural home range</a>.</p>
Disrupting Brain Chemistry and Killing Cells<p>Living in enclosures that restrict or prevent normal behavior creates chronic frustration and boredom. In the wild, an animal's stress-response system helps it escape from danger. But captivity traps animals with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215502109" target="_blank">almost no control</a> over their environment.</p><p>These situations foster <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000033" target="_blank">learned helplessness</a>, negatively impacting the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6391686" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">hippocampus</a>, which handles memory functions, and the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.02.024" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amygdala</a>, which processes emotions. Prolonged stress <a href="https://doi.org/10.3109/10253899609001092" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">elevates stress hormones</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.10-09-02897.1990" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">damages or even kills neurons</a> in both brain regions. It also disrupts the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.03.021" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">delicate balance of serotonin</a>, a neurotransmitter that stabilizes mood, among other functions.</p><p>In humans, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0917" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">deprivation</a> can trigger <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00367" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">psychiatric issues</a>, including depression, anxiety, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00367" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">mood disorders</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858409333072" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">post-traumatic stress disorder</a>. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-010-0288-3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Elephants</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050139" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">orcas</a> and other animals with large brains are likely to react in similar ways to life in a severely stressful environment.</p>
Damaged Wiring<p>Captivity can damage the brain's complex circuitry, including the basal ganglia. This group of neurons communicates with the cerebral cortex along two networks: a direct pathway that enhances movement and behavior, and an indirect pathway that inhibits them.</p><p>The repetitive, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.05.057" target="_blank">stereotypic behaviors</a> that many animals adopt in captivity are caused by an imbalance of two neurotransmitters, dopamine and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.02.004" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">serotonin</a>. This impairs the indirect pathway's ability to modulate movement, a condition documented in species from chickens, cows, sheep and horses to primates and big cats.</p>
The cerebral cortex, hippocampus and amygdala are physically altered by captivity, along with brain circuitry that involves the basal ganglia. Bob Jacobs, CC BY-ND<p>Evolution has constructed animal brains to be exquisitely responsive to their environment. Those reactions can affect neural function by <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/311787/behave-by-robert-m-sapolsky/" target="_blank">turning different genes on or off</a>. Living in inappropriate or abusive circumstance alters biochemical processes: It disrupts the synthesis of proteins that build connections between brain cells and the neurotransmitters that facilitate communication among them.</p><p>There is strong evidence that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0577-11.2011" target="_blank">enrichment</a>, social contact and appropriate space in more natural habitats are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1090.2003.tb02071.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">necessary</a> for long-lived animals with large brains such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152490" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">elephants</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2017.1309858" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cetaceans</a>. Better conditions <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5543669/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reduce disturbing sterotypical behaviors</a>, improve connections in the brain, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/cdd.2009.193" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">trigger neurochemical changes</a> that enhance learning and memory.</p>