Demographics around fracked natural gas wells
Conducting the analysis this way does a great deal to control for these other factors that affect infant health. We account for these differences by comparing infants born to mothers living up to 3 kilometers away from a site to those living between 3 and 15 kilometers, both before and after fracking began. For example, mothers who live nearby active fracking site are younger, less likely to have been married at the time of the birth, and less educated-characteristics that might lead to worse infant health outcomes. One big question that naturally arises from this kind of work is whether the analysis controls for other factors that might contribute to low birth weight such as socio-economic or behavioral factors. We then combined this data with a list of all fractured wells in Pennsylvania through 2014, which included 7,757 wells. These records included information about the infant’s health at birth, where the mother lived, and detailed demographic information about the mother such as race, education and marital status. Our findings are based on a massive amount of data: 9 years’ worth of birth records from throughout Pennsylvania, totaling 1.1 million births. Out of the nearly 4 million babies born in the United States each year, back of the envelop calculations suggest that about 30,000 of them are born within a kilometer of a fracking site and another 100,000 are born between 1 and 3 kilometers away. Equally important, those babies born to mothers living further than 3 kilometers didn’t show any health impacts, indicating that the health impacts are highly localized. The largest impacts were to babies born within 1 kilometer, about a half mile, of a site, with those babies being 25% more likely to be born at a low birth weight (i.e., less than 5.5 pounds). Specifically, we found that babies born within 3 kilometers, about 2 miles, of a fracking site are more likely to suffer from poor health. Our findings, published recently in the journal Science Advances, present the first large-scale peer-reviewed evidence of a link between hydraulic fracturing and health. Since health is such a critical factor, we decided to dig in further by looking at the health of those born near fracking sites. If people’s understanding of the health impacts were to change, it is likely that this would alter the net benefits of allowing fracking. That calculation of $2,000 per year is based on people’s current understanding of the health impacts at the time of our study. We discovered that for the average household living in a community where fracking takes place the benefits exceed the costs-indeed, it is worth about $2,000 per year to them. In some recent work, we’ve added it all up. But, it also brings more truck traffic, increases in crime and potential health impacts possibly due to air and/or water pollution. On the benefits side, fracking increases economic activity, employment, income and housing prices. Over the past year, we have been part of two research efforts that have shed light on what’s at stake in the choices communities are making. These communities must determine if the local benefits exceed the local costs, a calculation that requires a lot of information to be done well. Whether or not we as a society continue to gain from the broad benefits of fracking rests on the shoulders of the local communities where drilling takes place, or could take place. And the lower emissions are certainly good news for our health with large reductions in air pollution dispersed across the country and, at least for the near term, our climate. The lower energy prices have meant more money in the pockets of American families and businesses. This increase has abruptly lowered energy prices, strengthened energy security and even lowered air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions by displacing coal in electricity generation. production of oil and natural gas has increased dramatically. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is perhaps the most important energy discovery in the last half century.