Babies born near hydraulic fracturing sites are 25 percent more likely to have a low birth weight than those born only a few kilometers away, a new study of more than 1 million births in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region concludes.
The study, published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, provides some of the most compelling data to date linking the process of hydraulic fracturing to negative health effects. It found that babies born within 3 kilometers of fracking sites were less healthy than those born farther away, and that babies born within 1 kilometer saw the largest effects.
“We have pretty good evidence of a causal effect of health outcomes and fracking—not just a correlation,” said lead author Janet Currie, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University.
Hydraulic fracturing—known as fracking—has transformed energy production in the United States, resulting in a boom in unconventional natural gas production and lowering the cost of energy. But as it has spread, those living close to production sites have raised concerns about the potential for water and air pollution. Some people living close to fracking operations have said that they believe it has made them sick, but those links have been hard to conclusively prove.
“It’s surprising, a decade after this all started, that we don’t have much data,” said Robert Jackson, a hydrogeologist at Stanford University who was not involved with the study. “We still have so little information about air quality and water quality monitoring around these sites.”
Currie’s study took a novel approach—it analyzed the vital statistics records for more than 1.1 million births in Pennsylvania between 2004 and 2013. It was during that period that fracking took hold across the Marcellus Shale, bringing an economic boom to some communities, while also bringing fears about how the process could impact health.
The authors looked at health measurements including low birth weight (less than 2500 grams), prematurity, congenital abnormalities and other abnormalities for babies born to women living within 15 kilometers of a fracking site—both before and after fracking began—and then compared those living close, at 1, 2 and 3 kilometer intervals, with those living farther away.
Being able to compare babies born in the same community but living at different distances from fracking wells was key, Currie said. “They have the same racial composition, the same education—it’s all people living in rural areas, for the most part. So we’re comparing apples to apples,” she said.
In some cases, the researchers were actually comparing babies born to the same woman. Of the records examined, 594 of the infants born within 1 kilometer of a fracked well had a sibling who was born before fracking began, allowing the scientists to compare the birth weights among children born to the same mother. A larger group, 3,538 infants, lived between 2 and 3 kilometers from a well and had an unexposed sibling.
Babies born at a low birth weight face a number of risks. The study lists infant mortality, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, lower test scores, lower schooling attainment, lower earnings and higher rates of social welfare program participation, among them.
Air, Water, Stress: Cause Is Less Clear
Despite the statistical link that the study found between proximity to fracking sites and birth weight, a number of questions remain—first and foremost, Jackson said, is what aspect of the process contributes to the low birth weight?
“They don’t know what causes the apparent effect,” Jackson said. “It could be air quality issues, it could be dust from roads, it could be water issues, it could be stress.”
Jackson’s work has taken him to Pennsylvania to research air quality around wells. In the course of that work, he said he visited hundreds of homes near fracking wells where he saw another effect that could impact a pregnant woman’s health—high levels of stress. “I’ve seen headaches, gastrointestinal problems, people who are emotionally distraught, people who break down and cry when you have a conversation,” he said. “The ironic thing is, if you’re afraid, fear can have a health effect even if what you’re afraid of doesn’t—though I’m not saying there isn’t.”
The industry group Marcellus Shale Coalition disputed the findings and questioned the study’s methodology, including the fact that actual exposure levels were not measured—something that the study acknowledges.
Researcher Suspects Air Pollution
Currie and her co-authors acknowledge that the study leaves unanswered the question of what causes the negative health impact. But Currie has a hunch.
“We think that given the pattern of results that we see, it’s more likely to be air pollution than water,” she said. That’s because the impacts are so localized. Air pollution tends to dissipate as it gets further from the source, much like the health impacts that Currie and her co-authors found.
Another question is whether that air pollution might come from the fracking process itself or from the trucks and machines that are required to make it work.
“What would be really useful to try to unpack these effects more would be more studies where we measure near fracking sites to see what can be detected in the air,” she said.
In addition to the public health implications of the study, Currie said she thinks there are policy implications. Because the effects the study documents are so localized—after 3 kilometers they essentially disappear—Currie said decisions about where to place wells could have a big impact. “It could mitigate the health effects,” she said.
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
Sabrina Shankman
Reporter, Maine
Sabrina Shankman is a reporter for InsideClimate News focusing on the Arctic. She joined InsideClimate in the fall of 2013, after helping produce documentaries and interactives for the PBS show “Frontline” since 2010 with 2over10 Media. She worked as a co-producer, field producer or associate producer on the Frontline films League of Denial (2013); Money, Power and Wall Street (2012); A Perfect Terrorist (2011); Dr. Hotspots (2011) and Law and Disorder (2010). In 2012, she produced the online interactive A Perfect Terrorist: David Coleman Headley’s Web of Betrayal, which won an Overseas Press Club of America award. She is the author of Meltdown: Terror at the Top of the World. She has also reported for ProPublica, the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press. Her work has been honored by the Society of Professional Journalists and the Society of Environmental Journalists, and she was named a finalist for the Livingston Awards for Young Journalists in 2010 and again in 2015. Shankman has a Masters in Journalism from UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism.
