N.Y. has to really study gas drilling impact – Times Union.
By Robert Howarth and Larysa Dyrszka, Commentary
Updated 07:57 a.m., Tuesday, November 15, 2011
When Gov. Andrew Cuomo said he would let science and health concerns drive his decision about issuing permits for hydraulic fracturing natural gas wells, we were encouraged. When we read the draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the state Department of Environmental Conservation, however, that encouragement evaporated.
We are part of a group of physicians and scientists with expertise in public health, engineering and environmental risk assessment and a keen interest in hydrofracking. We have come together as Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy (http://www.psehealthyenergy.org). From the many problems with the environmental impact statement — both with what it contains, and what is left out — there clearly is need for far greater study before the state begins issuing permits that can affect the long-term health and well-being of New Yorkers.
We are frankly stunned by the absence of any serious health impact assessment in the SGEIS. The state rejected a call by the federal Environmental Protection Agency that the Health Department be named a co-lead agency to ensure that human health implications of hydrofracking get their proper attention. It is not encouraging that Health Department officials told members of a special state advisory committee they had not performed specific public health impact analyses, and did not plan to do so until hydrofracking began.
To say that this is putting the cart before the horse is an understatement. As Dr. Thomas Schaeffer of the American Academy of Pediatrics District II office in Albany noted, “Children are far more susceptible to environmental toxins, since they absorb and metabolize toxins at a higher rate for their body mass.”
The SGEIS mentions many of the toxic chemicals used in hydrofracking, but makes no attempt to evaluate the kinds of health consequences that have already shown up in other states where shale gas drilling is taking place. It is an established scientific fact that exposure to these chemicals in early life, as well as the air pollution generated by hydrofracking, is associated with preterm birth, asthma and lowered IQ in children, and higher risks of heart attack, breast cancer and diabetes in adults.
How could the state even think of proceeding based on a document that does not consider these health impacts?
The state’s promise to exempt the New York City and Syracuse watersheds raises questions about whether this is a political rather than a science-based decision. The state argues that those two cities do not filter water supplies, while other municipal water systems do.
But the SGEIS does not analyze in any depth the ability of existing drinking water filtrations systems to process and remove the toxic effluent, or flowback, from hydrofracking processes. Current filtration systems, many based on a century-old design, are designed to remove pathogens and will not provide adequate protection against toxic substances that enter the watershed.
And the SGEIS recognizes that there will likely be accidents, and that hydrofracking can lead to water contamination with toxic substances.
If the risk from hydrofracking is too high for the watersheds of New York City and Syracuse, then it is too high for any watershed in the state.
We urge New Yorkers to attend the public hearings beginning Wednesday in Dansville and continuing later in Binghamton, Loch Sheldrake and New York City. Tell the DEC and the governor that the rush to issue permits before knowing the health implications cannot stand.
It is a matter of life and health.
Robert Howarth is the David R. Atkinson professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University. Dr. Larysa Dyrszka is a pediatrician.
GDACC 
