Skip to comments.CDC scientist: tests needed on gas drilling impact (Horrors - air, water, plant impacts not known!)
Posted on 01/04/2012 5:54:37 PM PST by CedarDave
PITTSBURGH (AP) One of the government's top scientists says much more research is needed to determine the possible impacts of shale gas drilling on human health and the environment.
"Studies should include all the ways people can be exposed, such as through air, water, soil, plants and animals," Dr. Christopher Portier wrote to The Associated Press in an email.
Portier is director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
A second scientist says it will take three to five years to sort through this; Duke University researcher Rob Jackson also told AP in an email [Hmm... two separate emails to AP at the same time; just a coincidence, of course.]
Oh yes shut those drills down. There are dead bodies all over the land! /sarc
These days, any company planning to drill in a previously un-drilled area needs to do baseline studies before putting a tool in the ground — Reason? There are existing naturally occurring sources of methane gas and if these are not identified in advance, the company will be blamed for creating a problem when one already existed.
They have only been doing this since the 1920âs. Who knew it was so dangerous! (s)
Freeloading braindead “scientists” in search of a big 3-5 year government grant to pull off a phony environmentalist wacko “study”. These are enviroloonies. We already know what the results of their “study” are going to be. Why waste the money. Just pay one of them 25 bucks to write it up.
Does this mean H1N1 has run its course?
Citizen: Tests needed on Bureaucratic Impact.
The French economist Frederic Bastiat said that in order to understand the full economic impact of an activity, all aspects must be taken into account, not just what is easily seen.
For example, the media household income in 2010 was $52,026. According to article in the 8/13/2010 USA Today , “Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year...”
So, roughly speaking, when government hires 10 bureaucrats to shuffle paper, it will spend $1.23 million, which is the entire annual income of about 60 entire households.
But it is clear by the rhetoric championed by both the supporters of big government and those in the media, that the operative focus was on the 10 visible jobs. The 60+ jobs that were destroyed were largely unseen, except of course in the aggregate of millions of unemployed that somehow has not gotten any better over the last few years.
So, clearly we must study the effects of government before we can allow it to intrude on the economy any more. So far, the evidence is not hopeful, to borrow a word.
moving Mother Earth a few centimeters... Well, so what?
He is either an Obama appointee or a suck-up to one.
Nah, just a typical ‘academic’ these days.
Make hysterical, alarmist statements. Say study is needed. Wait for grant money to flood in. Ride gravy train.
Just another Obamabot looking for a way to slow or stop attempts at energy independence.
These “scientists” will insist on 50 years of study, prior to any consideration.
The CDC has not had a shred of credibility since they refused to employ standard, proven public health policies to stop the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980’s.
This was one of the first and most blatant examples of political correctness trumping science.
This bozo is doing the same thing. These days PhD stands for “piled higher and deeper”.
Nothing personal, but holey cow are you ever behind the curve on this one!
We ALL know what “BS” is.
Well, MS means “More of Same”
PHD is just “Piled higher and deeper”.
I learned this back in the 1970’s...
Dave is there a direct link to that story or can you tell us what section it’s in.
Hmmm... Seems that NOLA took down the article. I found another:
You can also do a Google search on the title — lots of sources picked up the story.
That’s interesting. I wonder why NOLA took down the story? Bad science, bad business, both?
It was on the AP wire link and not as if it was an NOLA story; probably just moving on to the next headline. And the ABC link may go defunct after a while, too.