News, Analysis and Opinion for the Informed Boulder Resident
Saturday December 14th 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 density election 2011 affordable housing boulder county open space election renewables agriculture CU local food climate change election 2013 development youth jefferson parkway pedestrian election 2015 preservation Rocky Flats election 2017 recreation BVSD mountain bikes immigration boards and commissions plan boulder farming fracking GMOs transit urban design decarbonization planning board fires colorado politics wildlife land use smart regs downtown architecture new era colorado transit village parking homeless journalism plutonium natural gas ghgs commuting radioactive waste rental coal height limits taxes april fools 2015 walkability historic preservation energy efficiency historic district Neighborhoods diversity zoning population growth growth students North Boulder flood arts gardens education University Hill water supply bus election 2010 solar election 2018 nutrition RTD sprawl water quality election 2012 groundwater bike lane electric utility safety library april fools 2016 renewable energy affairs of the heart organic flood plain wetlands planning reserve zero waste mayor blue line electric vehicle ballot right-sizing street design transportation master plan obama hazardous waste county commissioners politics hogan-pancost longmont colorado legislature climate smart loan diagonal plaza campaign finance flood mitigation bears Mapleton solar panels PV recycling comprehensive plan golden conservation easement epa boulder junction pesticide congestion food drought road diet oil bus rapid transit commercial development inequality election 2016 flooding planning daily camera public health community cycles BVCP ecocycle Newlands automobile PUC climate change deniers children david miller ken wilson sam weaver community league of women voters wind power public spaces boulder creek crime mlk civil rights west tsa marijuana technology arizona Orchard Grove EV green points al bartlett Whittier city attorney

Fracking Foes Overstate Risk of Cancer by 55,000


By

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)
Loading...

What do you think? Leave a comment!

You must be logged in to post a comment.