News, Analysis and Opinion for the Informed Boulder Resident
Monday June 17th 2019

Support the Blue Line

Subscribe to the Blue Line

That's what she said

city council transportation energy municipalization xcel housing urban planning april fools bicycles climate action election 2011 density boulder county open space affordable housing election agriculture renewables CU local food climate change election 2013 development jefferson parkway youth pedestrian election 2015 preservation Rocky Flats election 2017 recreation BVSD immigration mountain bikes boards and commissions decarbonization transit urban design GMOs fracking plan boulder farming fires wildlife colorado politics downtown architecture smart regs new era colorado plutonium natural gas journalism homeless planning board transit village parking commuting ghgs radioactive waste land use taxes rental height limits coal historic preservation april fools 2015 walkability historic district diversity energy efficiency Neighborhoods population growth flood students growth North Boulder gardens arts education election 2010 election 2018 solar bus water supply zoning University Hill nutrition RTD bike lane electric utility library safety sprawl groundwater water quality election 2012 affairs of the heart april fools 2016 renewable energy organic flood plain planning reserve mayor zero waste blue line wetlands county commissioners hogan-pancost politics electric vehicle hazardous waste transportation master plan obama longmont ballot right-sizing street design colorado legislature solar panels PV recycling golden comprehensive plan climate smart loan diagonal plaza Mapleton campaign finance bears flood mitigation conservation easement epa food boulder junction congestion pesticide road diet drought election 2016 planning inequality bus rapid transit flooding oil daily camera climate change deniers automobile PUC children ecocycle community cycles BVCP Newlands community league of women voters wind power public health ken wilson david miller sam weaver mlk crime civil rights boulder creek west tsa contamination city attorney al bartlett public spaces green points technology EV Orchard Grove marijuana Whittier arizona

Fracking Foes Overstate Risk of Cancer by 55,000


In efforts to ban fracking, anti-fracking activists have stated that a University of Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH) peer-reviewed study found that residents living within one half mile of a gas well stood a 66 percent higher chance of getting cancer than those living further away.  That number is 55,000 times greater than the 0.0012 percent increased risk of cancer found by the study.

The false, dishonest and exaggerated risk of cancer has been stated in public meetings to enrage anti-fracking activists, on the Internet, in letters-to-the-editor, and in testimony to boards and commissions.

An example of this false and misleading information disseminated by fracking opponents is found on the Dallas Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter website which states:

Rigorous epidemiological health studies are few, but the University of Colorado School of Public Health released a peer-reviewed study showing residents who lived within a half mile of a gas well stood a 66% higher chance of getting cancer than those living further away.

The CSPH study titled Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources published in 2012 estimated cumulative cancer risks from the airborne hydrocarbon emissions investigated in the study were 10 in a million for residents living within one half mile of a gas well and 6 in a million for residents living further away.

On the face of it, it would appear the theoretically estimated additional 4 in a million cases result in a 66% increase in the risk of getting cancer.

However, the lifetime cumulative risk of cancer is one in two for males and one in three for females – that is a total of 330,000 in 1,000,000 for females.

The additional theoretical 4 cases per million estimated by the study would result in a total of 330,004 incidents of cancer instead of 330,000, yielding an increased risk of 0.0012 percent.  This number was confirmed in correspondence with Dr. Lisa McKenzie, the lead investigator on the CSPH study.

The exaggerated 66 percent increase stated by fracking opponents to build opposition to fracking and sway government officials to ban fracking overstates the true findings of the study 55,000 times.

The bogus 66% figure has gone viral on the Internet and has been stated by numerous individuals in testimony before the Boulder County Commissioners and the Boulder City Council.

The magnitude of this falsehood brings into question the reliability of the anti-fracking individuals and organizations broadcasting this misinformation.  Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

Rate this article: 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)

What do you think? Leave a comment!

You must be logged in to post a comment.