Scientific findings indicate that fracking sites might increase health risks to locals. According to Mirror Daily, a study published in the journal PLOS One involved researchers reviewing hosptialization rates and allegedly they have found there is a direct link to fracking sites and people who experience health problems. While construction sites have been the subject of numerous studies on the many health risks associated with them, this investigation conducted by scientists at the National Institutes of Health Sciences was done with the sole aim of finding health risks associated with fracking sites.

Mirror Daily points out that people who live in the area of fracking sites were more likely experience a number of health problems. Such as heart problems, neurological affections and degenerative disorders. The manuscript further indicated that individuals also experienced increased rates of skin problems, malignancies and urological illnesses. Scientists reviewed the medical records of residents of Bradford and Susquehanna and almost 200,000 cases of hospitalization. Statistics were between 2007 and 2011 were used and showed that residents were more likely to seek hospital care resulting rom the chemicals emitted from fracking sites.

All of this sounds ominous, right? I mean the findings of the study indicate this dispute the EPA concluding that fracking does not pollute groundwater. But, somehow, fracking sites transmit chemical agents that affect people’s health? Not quite. A review of the study’s Discussion section reveals caveats by scientists involved in the research. They say (in part):

The precise cause for the increase in inpatient prevalence rates within specific medical categories remains unknown. Given that our modeling approach cannot account for within zip code demographic changes over the study period, it is possible that some increases were due to an increased influx of subjects to a zip code. Since the inpatient prevalence rates were determined for subjects who resided within a zip code, transient UGOD workers whose address was not local were excluded. Thus, our data potentially may underestimate hospital use that excluded those who were not Pennsylvania residents. Further, our data were partitioned into active wells but it is impossible to associate a specific toxicant exposure to an increase in a specific disease category requiring hospitalization.

Despite our findings that hospitalization use and active well number are directly associated within specific medical categories, there are limitations to our study. Our study examined a relatively short time interval. Whether our findings will be validated over longer periods of observation remains unclear. To have any association within a brief time frame may forebode greater negative health effects over time. Furthermore, with our limited time frame and data, the functional relationship for the association between well density and inpatient prevalence rates was heavily dependent on many extreme values, which make up less than 1% of the total observations. This motivated the quantile analysis. However, there are clear disadvantages to this approach. By partitioning a continuous variable, we inherently lose information. Furthermore, while we can make inference on moving among quantile levels, we cannot make inference for specific increases in well density.

In summary, hydraulic fracturing as determined by well number or density had a significant association with cardiology inpatient prevalence rates, while well density had a significant association with neurology inpatient prevalence rates. While the clinical significance of the association remains to be shown, UGOD has just begun in Pennsylvania, and thus observing a significant association over this short time is remarkable. Further studies are warranted to compare toxicant exposure to number of wells and inpatient and outpatient studies. Our study also supports the concept that health care utilization should be factored into the value (costs and benefits) of hydraulic fracturing over time.

What the news report left out is researchers with this examination are saying is that there is evidence of health problems associated with fracking sites but more studies need to be done. The evidence scientists uncovered does indicate health risks but there were limitations to the amount of data and observation they were able to conduct. If their conclusion continues to withstand other research over time remains unclear so scientists are open to other evidence and encourage more studies. Upon further examination The Mirror Daily looks like it is a website geared to spreading stories like this in hopes of mainstream media outlets picking it up and repeating it’s report. It is this kind of lack of media scrutiny and that results in the half truths and outright lies put out about things like vaccines, climate change or (in this case) fracking. Then again, since scientists did this investigation with the sole aim of finding health risks associated with fracking calls into question the accuracy of their research. It should also be noted that American Council on Science and Health President Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan weighed in on this back in 2013 stating fracking does not affect people’s health.