This week’s edition of the State Register contains no meetings that violate the public notice requirement of West Virginia’s open meetings law.

As we’ve reminded folks before, the West Virginia Open Governmental Proceedings Act requires agencies to send meeting notices to the Secretary of State in time for notices to appear in the State Register five days prior to a scheduled meeting. Every week, we list the agencies that didn’t comply, thanks to the Secretary of State’s office, which kindly marks those agencies with an asterisk in the list of meetings published each Friday in the Register.

There’s a major new study out this week that provides more evidence to support questions about whether natural gas is really better than coal in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and dealing with the climate crisis.

I first saw a report of the study on Joe Romm’s excellent Climate Progress blog. Joe is calling this a “bombshell study,” and he explains:

How much methane leaks during the entire lifecycle of unconventional gas has emerged as a key question in the fracking debate.  Natural gas is mostly methane (CH4).  And methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than (CO2), which is released when any hydrocarbon, like natural gas, is burned.

Even without a high-leakage rate for shale gas, we know that “Absent a Serious Price for Global Warming Pollution, Natural Gas Is A Bridge To Nowhere.”

But the leakage rate does matter.  A major 2011 study by Tom Wigley of the Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) concluded:

The most important result, however, in accord with the above authors, is that, unless leakage rates for new methane can be kept below 2%, substituting gas for coal is not an effective means for reducing the magnitude of future climate change.

Now, as the journal Nature reports, we finally have some actual air sampling measurements, and they appear to confirm the higher estimates put forward by Cornell professor Robert Howarth:

When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog — but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.

Led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder, the study estimates that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere — not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system. This is more than double the official inventory, but roughly in line with estimates made in 2011 that have been challenged by industry. And because methane is some 25 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, releases of that magnitude could effectively offset the environmental edge that natural gas is said to enjoy over other fossil fuels.

Methane is 25 times  more efficient than CO2 trapping heat over 100 year — but it is 100 times more efficient than CO2 trapping heat over two decades.

 

“If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced,” says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. “I think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale.”

Four years ago today, a huge explosion and fire at the Imperial Sugar refinery northwest of Savannah, Ga., killed 14 people and injured 38 others. Fourteen of the injured suffered serious and life-threatening burns. The explosion was fueled by massive accumulations of combustible sugar dust throughout the packaging building. After the incident, here was one fascinating paragraph included in a U.S. Chemical Safety Board press release on the board’s investigation:

The CSB report said that the sugar industry was familiar with dust explosion hazards at least as far back as 1925. Internal correspondence dating from 1967 showed that Port Wentworth refinery managers were seriously concerned about the possibility of a sugar dust explosion that could “travel from one area to another, wrecking large sections of a plant.” Precursor events included a 1998 explosion at Imperial’s plant in Sugar Land, Texas; an explosion at the Domino Sugar plant in Baltimore in November 2007; and two sugar dust explosions in the 1960’s that killed a total of ten workers. However, Imperial management did not correct the underlying causes of the sugar dust problem at the Port Wentworth facility, where workers testified that spilled sugar was knee-deep in places on the floor, and sugar dust had coated equipment and other elevated surfaces.

The report marked one of many times that the CSB has recommended that the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration adopt a broad industry rule to protect American workers from all sorts of combustible dust. As explained in my previous post, Obama’s OSHA puts protecting workers from dangers of combustible dust on back burner:

The CSB first called for an OSHA regulation on combustible dust after issuing a 2006 report that identified 281 dust fires and explosions that killed 119 workers and injured 718 others nationwide between 1980 and 2005. In a November 2011 report, board investigators noted 17 other deaths in dust incidents the agency is examining, including three in a December explosion that killed three at the AL Solutions Inc. metals recycling plant in New Cumberland, Hancock County, W.Va.

There’s been some good news reporting in recent days about OSHA and the dust standard.

The Tennessean had this story:

The one-year anniversary today of the Hoeganaes Corp. combustible dust flash fire that killed 42-year-old Wiley Sherburne has been haunting his widow.

Castalian Springs resident Chris Sherburne has been dreading it for weeks, preparing to relive the moments she lost her husband all over again.

There are three times in particular that she anticipated would be especially painful on Jan. 31.

“I’ll get up Tuesday morning, and I’ll remember 6:37 a.m. when I got the first text from a friend of mine – that’s when I turned the TV on; then at 7:09 a.m., when Hoeganaes called me,” she said last week. “Those times are going to be marked.”

At 9:30 a.m., she’ll remember the moment at Vanderbilt Burn Center when she and her son Cody were told by doctors that her husband wouldn’t survive with burns covering 95 percent of his body.

“Coming up on the one-year anniversary, it is just as bad as the day it happened because it brings it all back,” she said. “This time last year I could say that he was still here and everything was normal, and in a couple days it’s going to be where nothing was normal.”

And then the Savannah Morning News had this:

She sat at her machine on the third floor of the Imperial Sugar Co. plant in Port Wentworth.

It was about 7:20 p.m., four years ago today.

She heard a faraway boom and another louder one, she told investigators. Then the room blew up.

Flames leaped at her. The blast tossed her head over heels. She landed more than a dozen feet away.

She crawled through rubble. Debris pinned another worker to the floor.

Some of the floor was gone. She saw exposed pipes and wiring. When she reached what she thought was a stairwell, it was gone, too.

Somehow, the woman — her name was blacked out on a federal report — found another stairwell. She survived.

But 14 people didn’t.

And finally, the AP put out a national story on OSHA’s inaction on combustible dust, reporting:

New safety rules will not be approved any time soon even though they could prevent accidents like the ones last year at a Tennessee metal powders plant, where fireballs fueled by iron dust contributed to five deaths.

The Occupational Health and Safety Administration is developing rules that would require many industries to better control combustible dust hazards. The rules were recently moved to a long-term agenda, despite pleas from the Chemical Safety Board to put them on the fast track. The Chemical Safety Board investigated accidents Hoeganaes Corp., a plant near Nashville, where five people died a year ago.

“Hoeganaes should have made a believer out of everybody. It’s appalling what went on there,” said Bill Kauffman, a retired professor of aeronautical engineering with the University of Michigan.

Kauffman helped develop rules in the 1980s that have led to a steep decline in deaths from grain dust explosions and was an expert on a panel last May that discussed crafting the new regulations. He believes some officials at OSHA are trying to make them too complicated.

“They seem to be splitting hairs — ‘This dust. That dust.’ — Why don’t they just say ‘Anything that burns?’” he said.

Remarkably, here’s all the AP could get out of our nation’s Department of Labor about all of this:

OSHA spokeswoman Diana Petterson did not offer much explanation. She said the agency continues to develop the rules, and preventing worker injuries and deaths remains a priority. She would not discuss the matter further.

CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso certainly wants to discuss the matter further. The CSB issued this statement to mark the Imperial Sugar disaster’s anniversary:

CSB board members and investigation staff keep the memory of this tragedy close to us as we continue to advocate for changes in national workplace rules aimed at preventing such accidents in the future. We believe the safety recommendations that followed from our investigation of this accident will go far in saving lives. I am pleased to report that on this accident anniversary all but one of our recommendations have been successfully adopted by their recipients.

Specifically, the CSB called on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, to “proceed expeditiously” on our 2006 recommendation that OSHA promulgate a new combustible dust standard for general industry. We believe such a standard is necessary to reduce or eliminate hazards from fires and explosions from a wide variety of combustible powders and dust.

I am disappointed that OSHA has not moved forward on this recommendation. Completing a comprehensive OSHA dust standard is the major piece of unfinished business from the Imperial Sugar tragedy.

Here’s the CSB’s video of what happened at Imperial Sugar:

Today’s edition of The State Register contains no meetings that violate the public notice requirements of West Virginia’s open meetings law.

As we’ve reminded folks before, the West Virginia Open Governmental Proceedings Act requires agencies to send meeting notices to the Secretary of State in time for notices to appear in the State Register five days prior to a scheduled meeting. Every week, we list the agencies that didn’t comply, thanks to the Secretary of State’s office, which kindly marks those agencies with an asterisk in the list of meetings published each Friday in the Register.

The good folks at the West Virginia Center for Budget and Policy have a fascinating report out this morning that examines the potential costs – in revenues lost to local governments and school systems — because of the Legislature’s big rush to pass Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s tax break to try to lure a natural gas “cracker” plant to our state.

The bottom line?

Over the course of 25 years the facility will have paid $32.6 million with the tax incentive in place, compared to $335.8 million under a normal assessment. The amount of revenue forgone over 25 years totals $303.9 million, an average of approximately $12.1 million per year.

In an “Issue Brief”, the center’s Sean O’Leary dissects H.B. 4086, with a special emphasis on examining the Legislature’s “fiscal note” about potential costs of the governor’s tax break legislation. Incredibly, the fiscal note projected the costs of the legislation at $0 — that’s right, nothing. But O’Leary explains:

… There are several problems with the reasoning behind the $0 fiscal impact, and it is likely that there will be a significant fiscal impact if a facility is built, and takes advantage of the tax incentive.

He continues:

While legislators debated and ultimately passed H.B. 4086, the fiscal note, which informed them that there would be no fiscal impact, did not include:

– An estimate of the revenue forgone

–  An estimate of the costs of increases in demand for government services

– A model to estimate the economic impact and corresponding increases in revenue

– An explanation for how state revenue increases offset forgone local revenue

The fiscal note also assumes that a cracker facility would not locate in West Virginia without the tax incentive, due to the state’s uncompetitive property taxes. This assumption relies on misconception about the state’s property tax system and ignores many factors more influential to business location decisions.

How does the tax break legislation work? O’Leary explains:

The tax incentive would allow the cracker facility to be assessed at 60 percent of its salvage value. Salvage value is defined as five percent of a property’s original cost. The cracker facility would enjoy the special tax treatment for 25 years. The special assessment valuation for the cracker facility would dramatically lower its assessed value, greatly reducing its property tax burden. Under a normal assessment and State Tax Department depreciation guidelines, the assessed value of a $2 billion cracker facility would fall from $1.14 billion to $362 million over the course of 25 years, as the value of the facility depreciates. Under salvage value treatment, the facility would be assessed at $60 million for the entire 25 year period, between $1 billion and $300 million below a normal assessment.

O’Leary modeled three different counties that are potential locations for a “cracker” plant — Kanawha, Marshall and Wetzel — and found that each could miss out on $3 million to $4 million a year in county levies, while local school districts could forgo between $8 million and $10 million per year due to the tax incentive.

But won’t other tax revenues that a “cracker” helps create make up for this? O’Leary explains:

If revenue increases from new job creation occur, it would mainly increase for state revenues, like personal income, corporate income, and sales tax revenue.  he forgone revenue from the tax incentive is all property tax revenue, which is the main source of tax revenue for local governments. The amount of property tax revenue collected by the state is insignificant. If the assumption is true, increases in state revenue do not offset forgone local revenues, with the limited exception of the school aid formula. Reductions in revenues collected through school excess and bond levies have no state revenue replacement. The assumption in the fiscal note did not account for these differing revenue streams.

Was the tax break needed to try to land the cracker?

… There is very little evidence to suggest that West Virginia’s property taxes are a deterrent, or that the tax incentive will be the reason why West Virginia would be chosen. While West Virginia does have a higher tax rate on business personal property, its rate on real property is far below both Pennsylvania and Ohio, according to the Council on State Taxation. Taken together, West Virginia’s business property tax rates are close to the national average. On average over the past three years, business property taxes nationally have totaled 1.8 percent of private sector GDP. In West Virginia, businesses have paid 2.1 percent in private GDP, while in Ohio and Pennsylvania, businesses have paid 1.9 and 1.7 percent respectively. The difference between the three states is not small enough to be offset by any number of other business taxes or costs.

O’Leary concludes:

While the location of a new cracker facility in West Virginia would be a great asset for the state, generating hundreds of jobs and boosting manufacturing, it is imperative that state and local officials understand the fiscal impact of tax incentives contained in H.B. 4086.

In this regard, the fiscal note prepared for H.B. 4086 failed. The fiscal note provided no estimate of the tax revenue forgone, had no analysis to justify the assumption that forgone revenue would be offset by economic activity, did not address the infrastructure and other costs created by a cracker facility, did not account for the differences between state and local tax revenue, did not account for existing tax incentives, and assumed that a cracker facility’s location decision is driven by property taxes. The $0 price tag attached to H.B. 4086 was based on an incomplete analysis. As it stands, the fiscal impact of H.B. 4086 is undetermined, but to say it is $0 is highly misleading.

Emergency vehicles are parked in front of the Holiday Inn Express and Suites in South Charleston, W.V., Tuesday Jan. 31, 2012 . One guest was found dead and at least four others were sickened, apparently from carbon monoxide poisoning. A natural gas heating unit on a pool at the hotel caused a carbon monoxide leak Tuesday, fire officials said. (AP Photo/The Charleston Gazette,Kenny Kemp)

In the wake of the preventable death of construction worker William J. Moran, 44, of Rhode Island, yesterday in a carbon monoxide leak at the Holiday Inn Express and Suites out on Corridor G, the Daily Mail reports this morning that South Charleston Mayor Frank Mullens wants his city to begin requiring all hotels in their jurisdiction to install life-saving CO alarms.

The bigger question, though, is why Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin and the West Virginia Legislature don’t just pass a simple law that mandates all hotels in our state install these life-saving devices.

Nationally, smoke alarms have been required in hotels since 1990. But that statute does not mandate carbon monoxide detectors or alarms.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 25 states have laws that mandate carbon monoxide detectors in residential buildings.  In West Virginia, such a statute was passed in 1998, after lobbying from 5th graders whose teacher nearly died of carbon monoxide poisoning (subscription required). But a look at the NCSL’s list indicates far fewer states acting to require CO units in hotels — Michigan, New Jersey and Vermont list hotels specifically.

In one widely quoted article from the American Journal of Preventive Medicine (I saw it in this New York Times piece and forwarded it to the Gazette’s Lori Kersey, who quoted it in today’s paper), Dr. Lindell K. Weaver of the University of Utah explained the importance of the issue:

Between 1989 and 2004, 68 incidents of CO poisoning occurring at hotels, motels, and resorts were identified, resulting in 772 accidentally poisoned: 711 guests, 41 employees or owners, and 20 rescue personnel. Of those poisoned, 27 died.

Interestingly, Dr. Weaver noted:

Poisoning has occurred at hotels of all classes, including those described as “luxury” hotels.

Dr. Weaver wrote that Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Minnesota have also required carbon monoxide detectors in hotels. But in a survey of more than 100 chain hotel properties, Weaver found that only 11 percent had installed the devices. Dr. Weaver concluded:

Despite evidence of efficacy, CO alarms have not been installed widely by the lodging industry, even at properties where guests and employees have been injured by CO.

Hotel fires are highly publicized, whereas CO poisoning is less dramatic. Therefore, the impetus for national legislation mandating CO alarms in guest rooms is lessobvious. Nevertheless, a single incident can result in multiple fatalities and dozens of injuries. Guests at hotels, motels, and resorts can be protected from CO poisoning by installing a CO alarm in every guest room, like the installation of smoke alarms.

I looked around for a position paper from the hotel industry on this issue, and found one on the website of the American Hotel and Lodging Association. Here’s what it said:

The safety of its guests is the highest priority of the lodging industry. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, practically odorless, and tasteless gas. It has multiple industrial uses. Trace amounts of it occur naturally and are part of the atmosphere. Nevertheless, in high enough concentrations, it can be deadly and the risks of exposure to abnormal levels of CO are well known and well publicized. Although there are no federal rules on CO detection, nor is AH&LA empowered to set standards and policies, we urge our members to continue their CO monitoring and prevention policies.

U.S. CSB photo

We ran a story at the top of the front page on Sunday about the aftermath of the propane explosion at the Little General Store in Ghent, W.Va. Four people died five years ago today in that disaster. As we explained:

On Jan. 30, 2007, propane gas at the Little General Store was suddenly released through a liquid withdrawal valve during a changeover between two tanks. Two propane technicians from Appalachian Heating, a firefighter and an emergency medical technician were among those killed when the explosion leveled the store.

Killed in the accident were Glenn R. Bennett, 44, of Appalachian Heating; Frederick Allen Burroughs, 51, of Cool Ridge, a Raleigh County building inspector and firefighter; Craig Lawrence Dorsey, 24, of MacArthur, a volunteer firefighter and EMT; and Jeffrey Lee Treadway, 21, of Beckley.

Six others were injured, but board officials said Friday the tragedy could have been even worse, given that the store had not been evacuated when the blast occurred. One of the injured, 74-year-old Donnie Ray Caldwell of Coal City, died in 2010.

CSB investigators concluded that the tanks involved were improperly located less than 10 feet from the store, a problem that propane company employees did not correct despite dozens of inspections. Board investigators also said that propane technicians were not properly trained to spot problems with the tank’s valves, and that local emergency responders had not been taught how to properly handle a propane accident.

In a statement issued Friday, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board had mostly good words for the way West Virginia officials and other responded to board recommendations for reform after the explosion. But the CSB’s original statement also noted one “disappointment”:

The Board was compelled to vote as “Unacceptable” action not taken by the West Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services. We urged the agency to require annual hazardous materials response refresher training for all emergency medical personnel in West Virginia. To date, training occurs only once every two years. The CSB believes recurrent annual training is critical for responders who must deal with hazardous materials emergencies such as with propane.

After the statement was issued, through, officials from the Office of Emergency Medical Services contacted the CSB to say that they had only the day before sent a letter saying they were rethinking the situation and planned to comply with the board’s recommendation. CSB spokesman Daniel Horowitz told me:

The letter did not arrive as of Friday. It was the West Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services who is making the change to their training requirements for annual hazmat training for EMTs. The staffer said it was put in the mail Thursday and I should receive it sometime this week.

I’ve reached out to the Office of Emergency Medical Services and its parent agency, the state Department of Health and Human Resources, but I’ve gotten no response so far.

It’s worth going back today, though, and revisiting this disaster by watching the CSB’s video animation recreating what investigators believe happened:

Today’s issue of The State Register includes four meetings that violated the public notice requirements of West Virginia’s open meetings law.

The agencies involved: The Bureau of Senior Services, the West Virginia Prosecuting Attorneys Institute, the Public Defender Services Corp. for the 11th Judicial Circuit, and something called the WRMS-EMS Beckley Field Office.

As we’ve reminded folks before, the West Virginia Open Governmental Proceedings Act requires agencies to send meeting notices to the Secretary of State in time for notices to appear in the State Register five days prior to a scheduled meeting. Every week, we list the agencies that didn’t comply, thanks to the Secretary of State’s office, which kindly marks those agencies with an asterisk in the list of meetings published each Friday in the Register.

In this Jan. 23, 2012 file photo, Gillie Waddington of Enfield, N.Y., raises a fist during rally against hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells at the Legislative Office Building in Albany, N.Y. President Barack Obama the f- word during his recent State of the Union speech nor did he mention the technology used to get it, known commonly as fracking. That’s because the word has become a lightning rod.  (AP Photo/Mike Groll, File)

Well, The Associated Press spent 888 words toying with whether the use of one word — ‘fracking’ was appropriate when the media covers the continuing controversies over natural gas drilling.  The thrust of the story is that industry is upset with the phrase, and blamed environmental activists for the media’s continued use of it:

The word is “fracking” — as in hydraulic fracturing, a technique long used by the oil and gas industry to free oil and gas from rock.

It’s not in the dictionary, the industry hates it, and President Barack Obama didn’t use it in his State of the Union speech — even as he praised federal subsidies for it.

The word sounds nasty, and environmental advocates have been able to use it to generate opposition — and revulsion — to what they say is a nasty process that threatens water supplies.

“It obviously calls to mind other less socially polite terms, and folks have been able to take advantage of that,” said Kate Sinding, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council who works on drilling issues.

One of the chants at an anti-drilling rally in Albany earlier this month was “No fracking way!”

Industry executives argue that the word is deliberately misspelled by environmental activists and that it has become a slur that should not be used by media outlets that strive for objectivity.

“It’s a co-opted word and a co-opted spelling used to make it look as offensive as people can try to make it look,” said Michael Kehs, vice president for Strategic Affairs at Chesapeake Energy, the nation’s second-largest natural gas producer.

This is the kind of story that New York AP writers love — it will get a lot of play, ending up on front pages all around the country, just as it did here at the Gazette.  But the story reminded me of a discussion a while back here on this blog in which our old buddy Bill Howley, author of The Power Line blog, about whether the right spelling is “fracking” or “fracing” and — more importantly — whether use of the phrase was leading to some fundamental misunderstandings about the potential dangers of the larger natural gas drilling and production process. Take a minute and go back to read the comments section of the previous post, Report ties ‘fracking’ to W.Va. well contamination and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

You see, environmental groups do love the word “fracking.” It makes for great signs and slogans and chants. From a public relations standpoint for them, it’s almost perfect. But the industry’s huge and growing PR machine, despite their protestations in this AP story, well, they like it to — because it’s allowed them to deflect the real issues about potential drinking water contamination into an almost absurd game of word play. Environmental groups have turned “fracking” into short-hand for the entire gas drilling and production process, and in some ways that’s given the industry a big advantage.

The main talking point for industry and its political friends regarding potential drinking water contamination from natural gas drilling and production has become this:

There are no documented cases of ground water contamination from hydraulic fracturing.

Friends, family and people effected by well water problems surround Craig Sautner as he speaks outside his home on Friday, Jan. 20, 2012 in  Dimock, Pa.  prior to a water delivery provided by The Enviromental Protection Agency.  Under the authority of the Superfund law the EPA is delivering water to four homes and testing water at 61 homes in the Marcellus Shale gas drilling area in Susquehanna County. (AP Photo/Scranton Times & Tribune, Michael J. Mullen)

Now, maybe that’s true. Maybe it’s not. Regardless, the turn of phrase — making fracking and hydraulic fracturing the whole focus — has allowed questions about drinking water contamination to be unfairly dismissed by industry, its PR machine, lawmakers and even some regulators.  And there is plenty of evidence that other parts of the process — particularly poorly done well casing jobs — has and can continue to lead to drinking water contamination.  An expert panel appointed by the Obama administration explained it this way:

One of the commonly perceived risks from hydraulic fracturing is the possibility of leakage of fracturing fluid through fractures into drinking water. Regulators and geophysical experts agree that the likelihood of properly injected fracturing fluid reaching drinking water through fractures is remote where there is a large depth separation between drinking water sources and the producing zone. In the great majority of regions where shale gas is being produced, such separation exists and there are few, if any, documented examples of such migration. An improperly executed fracturing fluid injection can, of course, lead to surface spills and leakage into surrounding shallow drinking water formations. Similarly, a well with poorly cemented casing could potentially leak, regardless of whether the well has been hydraulically fractured.

Bill Howley probably explained it better in comments on this blog:

Casing failure is a real and continuing problem for the gas industry. Failed casings and cement jobs have been destroying water wells in West Virginia for over one hundred years, at well pressures far below those used in the 1987 Parsons incident. Sloppy and dangerous cementing caused the Macondo well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

There is extensive evidence, the Duke study being the latest, of contamination of water wells because of failed casing and cement work on Marcellus wells. This is a proven problem that needs to be dealt with now.

Searching for some holy grail that will prove direct migration of fracing fluids from gas formations to aquifers is a distraction from the real and immediate problem — sloppy and dangerous casing work. This problem has been with the gas industry from the beginning. The Marcellus drilling is different only because the fracing pressures are so much higher and because of the massive amounts of water injected into wells.

Getting caught up in whether “fracking” is the right word just takes time, energy, and newsprint away from focusing on the very real questions about the shale-gas drilling boom, including not only water pollution, but the long-term sustainability of this industry in terms of gas supply and global warming.

We had a story in this morning’s Gazette about another troublesome study of C8′s potential human health effects, reporting:

Researchers have found that children exposed to the toxic chemical C8 may experience reduced effectiveness of childhood vaccinations, according to a significant new study being published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The study discovered lower levels of antibodies that vaccines provide to fight infections among children with elevated exposures to C8 and similar chemicals that have been widely used in nonstick food packaging, stain-resistant textiles, nonstick cookware and water-resistant clothing.

Harvard University researchers warned that the results, if replicated in future studies, could indicate that perfluorinated compounds, or PFCs, are related to much broader immune system problems beyond the two vaccines they studied.

“These findings suggest a decreased effect of childhood vaccines and may reflect a more general immune system deficit,” wrote Dr. Philippe Grandjean, lead author and an adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health.

You can read the paper yourself here.

But there’s another paper just out in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives that is also worth a look. That paper reported:

In summary, we observed that children had higher PFOA concentrations compared to their mothers. The ratio was the highest among children up to age five years where, on average, children had PFOA serum concentrations 44% higher than their mothers. The ratio was significantly higher for boys compared to girls for children aged >5 years. In a population exposed to elevated PFOA concentrations via contaminated drinking water, children seemed to concentrate the chemical more than their mothers up to about age 12. This is probably due to exposure via drinking water as well as exposure in utero and via breast milk. Children had higher PFOS concentrations than their mothers and this persisted at least until 19 years of age, with on average concentrations in children 42% higher than in their mothers. In utero and lactational exposure appears to make less of a contribution for PFOS than PFOA. Further studies are warranted on the child-mother PFAA relationship to understand how children’s exposure and rate of uptake vary as they grow.