Bon courage (talk | contribs) →Objection to revert: once again |
→Objection to revert: extended response |
||
Line 258: | Line 258: | ||
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=627591947 These six,] not counting the one about which you said that an indexer with no independent review is more accurate at identifying literature reviews than peer reviewers. Please stop telling other people what words to use. "Conclusive" is entirely appropriate. If you believe it is not, then you ought to be able to provide a reason. Thanks! [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 00:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=627591947 These six,] not counting the one about which you said that an indexer with no independent review is more accurate at identifying literature reviews than peer reviewers. Please stop telling other people what words to use. "Conclusive" is entirely appropriate. If you believe it is not, then you ought to be able to provide a reason. Thanks! [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 00:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::We use some of those already, and I'm surprised I have to re-state that propublica.org is not a [[WP:MEDRS]]. There's nothing here to contradict our best sources that specifically give us the current state of human knowledge about the public health impact of fracking (it's pretty much unknown). This issue has been to two noticeboards now and the application of [[WP:PAG]]s has been stated & consensus established. This is beginning to look like a display of [[WP:IDHT|"I didn't hear that"]] from {{u|EllenCT}}; time to [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]] maybe ... [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 04:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
::::We use some of those already, and I'm surprised I have to re-state that propublica.org is not a [[WP:MEDRS]]. There's nothing here to contradict our best sources that specifically give us the current state of human knowledge about the public health impact of fracking (it's pretty much unknown). This issue has been to two noticeboards now and the application of [[WP:PAG]]s has been stated & consensus established. This is beginning to look like a display of [[WP:IDHT|"I didn't hear that"]] from {{u|EllenCT}}; time to [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]] maybe ... [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 04:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::Thanks for providing the list. |
|||
::::* Centner2013: Terence J.. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420713000147 Oversight of shale gas production in the United States and the disclosure of toxic substances]. Resources Policy. September 2013. |
|||
::::* Colborn2011: Colborn, Theo. [http://cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Documents/PDFs/fracking%20chemicals%20from%20a%20public%20health%20perspective.pdf Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective] Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 17(5): 1039-1056 |
|||
::::* Saberi2013: Saberi, P. [http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?id=f633t6120x765648 Navigating Medical Issues in Shale Territory]. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 2013 23(1):209-221 PMID 23552656 |
|||
::::* eaton2013: Eaton TT. Science-based decision-making on complex issues: Marcellus shale gas hydrofracking and New York City water supply. Sci Total Environ. 2013 Sep 1;461-462:158-69. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.093. Epub 2013 May 28. PMID 23722091 |
|||
::::* Vidic2013: Vidic, R.D., et al. [http://www.eichrom.com/PDF/vidic-et-al.,-science,-2013.pdf Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality]. Science 2013 340(1235009): 826 PMID 23687049 |
|||
::::* lauver2012: Lauver LS Environmental health advocacy: an overview of natural gas drilling in northeast Pennsylvania and implications for pediatric nursing. J Pediatr Nurs 27(4): 383–9 PMID 22703686 |
|||
::::* EPA study. sources are [http://www.propublica.org/article/epas-abandoned-wyoming-fracking-study-one-retreat-of-many Lustgarden/ProPublica] and [http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/epa-defends-pavillion-tests-but-cautions-on-fracking-link Fugleberg2012/Casper Star Tribune]. These are popular media and by definition fail MEDRS as has been already discussed. Not listing them in the table below. |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
|- |
|||
! article !! biomedical journal?!! indexed in pubmed? !! primary or secondary!!MEDRS-compliant?!! sample statement !! risk, or "conclusive" statement on health effects? |
|||
|- |
|||
| Centner2013|| [http://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-policy no] || [http://www.elsevier.com/journals/resources-policy/0301-4207/abstracting-indexing no] || primary || no || "more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances" || risk |
|||
|- |
|||
| Colborn2011|| [http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=bher20#.VC9SAildUVo somewhat]|| [http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=abstractingIndexing&journalCode=bher20#.VC9SACldUVo no] || kind of || no || "more than X% "of the chemicals '''could''' affect" Y.... '''may have''' long-term health effects" || risk |
|||
|- |
|||
| Saberi2013 || [http://baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=1048-2911 yes] || [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23552656 yes] || primary|| no || "Some community residents, as well as employees of the natural gas industry, believe that their health has deteriorated as a result of these operations and have sought medical care from local practitioners" || risk |
|||
|- |
|||
| eaton2013 || [http://www.journals.elsevier.com/science-of-the-total-environment some] || [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23722091 yes] || secondary || yes || "regulatory framework... in inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply" || risk |
|||
|- |
|||
| Vidic2013|| yes || [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23687049 yes] || secondary || yes || "technologies are not free from environmental risks"; "controversy whether the methane detected in private groundwater wells ... was caused by well drilling or natural processes" || risk |
|||
|- |
|||
| lauver2012 || yes || [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=22703686 yes] || secondary || yes|| "effects of these agents on the water supply and subsequent human health are not well known and require further investigation" || risk |
|||
|} |
|||
So out of these 6, 3 are arguably compliant with MEDRS, and none of those three describe "conclusive" health effects; all three are conclusive in describing '''risks'''. Risks are not effects. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 11:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Source cited in the opening sentence of this entry did not at all align with the conclusions outlined within the report == |
== Source cited in the opening sentence of this entry did not at all align with the conclusions outlined within the report == |
Revision as of 11:07, 4 October 2014
Environment C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Scientific issues
In discussing the impacts of hydraulic fracturing, and the means by which it can be safely carried out, it might be useful to reference the 2012 report by the Royal Society (Shale gas extraction in the UK), which dealt with the technical and environmental aspects of shale gas extraction. Significantly, the report contains 10 recommendations for operators and regulators that, if faithfully followed, will likely mitigate the dangers associated with fracking. As such, mention of the report would help to frame the issue in this section. Disclosure: I am a former intern at the Royal Society, the science academy for the UK. BeecherP (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT of new study: "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status" (2014)
@Tillman: I came here to add [1] but then I noticed your recent deletion. Could you please explain how WP:WEIGHT applies to the recency of peer-reviewed studies? The PNAS report was in BBC and on NPR today, and the EHP paper got similar widespread secondary media coverage a few days ago, as per Google News. EllenCT (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- The classic problem of epidemiological studies like this one is false positives, ie correlations by chance. This has plagued innumerable studies of (forex) cancer "hot spots". Also many problems of Confirmation bias elsewhere, especially in politicized topics. So, premature to put much weight on this one.
- That said, I haven't read this study. Does it look legit? No objection to mentioning it in the body, maybe with a caveat, but inappropriate in the lede, as the IP had placed it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- The EHP study says n=492 people in 180 households using groundwater, with p-values of 0.004 for the lung problems and 0.01 for the skin problems, which means no more than a 0.4% and 1% chance of false positives, respectively. The usual standard for reporting epidemiological results is a 5% chance of error, so I would certainly include it. The PNAS paper used noble gas spectrography to trace sources of methane, and they say p<0.01 for all the sources of contamination they identified, so it's just as good. Given how much press both studies got, I would be inclined to summarize both of them per the WP:LEAD instructions on prominent controversies. EllenCT (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I took a look. Here's the full text: [2]
- Per the abstract, "Methods: We conducted a hypothesis generating health symptom survey..." This is unpromising.
- "Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that natural gas drilling activities could be associated with increased reports of dermal and upper respiratory symptoms... (p. 19, PDF) They recommend "further research". OK, but it's all pretty vague. So -- summarize, but best to wait for some third-party RS reactions. We don't have deadlines here ;-] --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do you know what a hypothesis-generating survey is? As opposed to a hypothesis-testing survey? Both reports have already appeared in several international news media RSs. EllenCT (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Any source for health information need to be a WP:MEDRS. This isn't one. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- The EHP study has widespread coverage in international secondary news e.g. [3] and the PNAS study's health claims are all part of its WP:SECONDARY literature review section. The remainder of the article makes no health claims, just showing the routes and magnitude of groundwater contamination. EllenCT (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Any source for health information need to be a WP:MEDRS. This isn't one. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do you know what a hypothesis-generating survey is? As opposed to a hypothesis-testing survey? Both reports have already appeared in several international news media RSs. EllenCT (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that natural gas drilling activities could be associated with increased reports of dermal and upper respiratory symptoms... (p. 19, PDF) They recommend "further research". OK, but it's all pretty vague. So -- summarize, but best to wait for some third-party RS reactions. We don't have deadlines here ;-] --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
"Although potential benefits of Marcellus natural gas exploitation are large for transition to a clean energy economy, at present the regulatory framework in New York State is inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply. Major investments in state and federal regulatory enforcement will be required to avoid these environmental consequences, and a ban on drilling within the NYC water supply watersheds is appropriate." -- from the WP:MEDRS PMID 23722091.
http://libgen.org/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1016/j.pedn.2011.07.012 (PMID 22703686) is also a MEDRS, and is very informative as to the specific details. EllenCT (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
NPOV?
It doesn't seem the article is written with a very neutral point of view, and seems to jump to conclusions, at least in the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kupiakos (talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, and have tried to make it consistent with the MEDRS sources above. EllenCT (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Shale gas
It seems that information about shale gas life-cycle emissions and leakages during shale gas development is misplaced and belongs in Shale gas, not here. While HF is used for shale gas production, it is incorrect to assume that relevant information about shale gas or shale gas production is relevant also for HF. If the emission is not caused by HF, but by other stages of production, it does not belong here. Therefore I propose to move relevant paragraphs into the Shale gas article. Beagel (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Once more, shale gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing ARE NOT synonyms. While hydraulic fracturing is often (but not always) used in the shale gas extraction process, it is only part of the process, not the whole process. E.g. some shale gas extraction impacts take a place due to bad casing and cementing which should be done for every well notwithstanding if it is hydraulically fractured or not. At the same time hydraulic fracturing is used not only for hydrocarbons (oil and gas) wells and also e.g. for water wells.Therefore, these are not synonyms and clear distinctions should be made. If necessary, Environmental impact of shale gas or Environmental impact of shale gas extraction should be created as proposed several times before. Beagel (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Earthquakes
Who has the best sources on earthquakes? What does an initial fracking event usually measure on the Richter scale? EllenCT (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- This information is already in this article and sourced. The briefing paper by the Worldwatch Institute says: "Slickwater increases water pressure in these microfractures, inducing shear-slip, or micro-seismic events that generally have magnitudes of less than -1.5 on the Richter scale—about as much energy as is released by a gallon of milk dropped from chest height to the floor." The source of bigger tremors seems to be disposal of flowback water if injected into disposal wells. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- What should the introduction say about the risk of dangerous quakes? EllenCT (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- @EllenCT: Perhaps link Injection well#Injection-induced earthquakes or something more relevant if it exists. The fluid injection is the primary cause for concern when it comes to earthquakes. Dustin (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- What should the introduction say about the risk of dangerous quakes? EllenCT (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Edits contrary to MEDRS conclusions
I disagree with these edits by User:Alexbrn because both the changed and removed texts were consistent with the conclusions of the MEDRS sources which express any conclusions stronger than "more research is needed." I propose "Health issues" and restoring the recent epidemiological measurement consistent with the firmly conclusive MEDRS sources:
- "A 2014 study of households using groundwater near active natural gas drilling in Washington County, Pennsylvania found that upper respiratory illnesses and skin diseases were much more prevalent closer to hydraulic fracturing activity. Respiratory problems were found in 18% of the population 1.2 miles or more from drilling, compared to 39% of those within 0.6 miles of new natural gas wells. People with clinically significant skin problems increased from 3% to 13% over the same distances.[1]"
EllenCT (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
References
- ^ Rabinowitz, P.M., et al. (2014) "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status: Results of a Household Survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania" Environ Health Perspect DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307732
A study relaying the results of a small self-reporting telephone survey is primary research and not a WP:MEDRS. Even if it were, we are now overstating its tentative conclusions, which were: "these results should be viewed as hypothesis generating". Misuse of a poor source. Smells of POV-pushing to me. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you believe the survey was self-reporting? Let's take a step back before we get into your allegations of "smells of POV pushing." How many MEDRS are consistent with the results? Multiple. How many are inconsistent? Zero. If you have reason to believe otherwise, please state it. EllenCT (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The results are stated to be of "reported health symptoms" (you cannot really get otherwise from a phone survey). Our best MEDRS sources (e.g. PMID 24119661) say the health effects of fracking are generally unknown, as was discussed at WT:MED. So this is mis-using a primary source, which states its own findings may only be used to form hypotheses, to push a view on Wikipedia at odds with the generally accepted one in the best sources - which is not neutral. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do you understand the difference between a self-reported, voluntary survey, and a telephone survey? Why do you believe PMID 24119661 is "best" when we have multiple conclusive MEDRSs? When is an inconclusive MEDRS ever superior to one which finds solid conclusions? A hypothesis-generating survey is one where they ask "have you had medical problems, and if so which?" as opposed to "have you had medical problems X, Y, or Z?" EllenCT (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
When is an inconclusive MEDRS ever superior to one which finds solid conclusions?
← when it's a superior source. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do you understand the difference between a self-reported, voluntary survey, and a telephone survey? Why do you believe PMID 24119661 is "best" when we have multiple conclusive MEDRSs? When is an inconclusive MEDRS ever superior to one which finds solid conclusions? A hypothesis-generating survey is one where they ask "have you had medical problems, and if so which?" as opposed to "have you had medical problems X, Y, or Z?" EllenCT (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The results are stated to be of "reported health symptoms" (you cannot really get otherwise from a phone survey). Our best MEDRS sources (e.g. PMID 24119661) say the health effects of fracking are generally unknown, as was discussed at WT:MED. So this is mis-using a primary source, which states its own findings may only be used to form hypotheses, to push a view on Wikipedia at odds with the generally accepted one in the best sources - which is not neutral. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you believe the survey was self-reporting? Let's take a step back before we get into your allegations of "smells of POV pushing." How many MEDRS are consistent with the results? Multiple. How many are inconsistent? Zero. If you have reason to believe otherwise, please state it. EllenCT (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The question is if this typical in all HF cases, relevant to the certain countries due their regulations concerning certain chemicals or relevant only for some cases (due to violation of regulations or for some other reason). It should be certainly be clarified in this article if this the case with all HF sites or if it is something which may happen in some certain cases but which is not typical for all sites. Also, if this is about the U.S. only, it belongs to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States rather than here. Beagel (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is exactly the reason why I am asking. Because providing just example from certain limited area without proving a context if this is typical for all HF operations or what reasons are behind of these consequences is problematic as it creates an understanding that this is typical for all HF operations. It may or may not be the case but it is not clear from the source. So, the first question is if this global, US-specific, or Washington County-specific. If this global, it belongs here. If it is US-specific, it probably belongs to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. The other question is what is the reason for that impact: is it specific chemical in the fracturing fluid or release of specific substance from the ground due to HF. In the second case it is location geology specific and not global. If it due to certain chemical, the question is if this chemical is allowed to use and if yes, in which countries/states. There is a number of chemicals allowed for HF in the US, but not in Europe. Again, if this country specific, it probably belongs to the relevant country article. This article should reflect the overall global overview while country-specific information should go to the country-specific articles, e.g. Hydraulic fracturing in the United States and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Locale-specific articles on global controversies are WP:POVFORKs. EllenCT (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is exactly the reason why I am asking. Because providing just example from certain limited area without proving a context if this is typical for all HF operations or what reasons are behind of these consequences is problematic as it creates an understanding that this is typical for all HF operations. It may or may not be the case but it is not clear from the source. So, the first question is if this global, US-specific, or Washington County-specific. If this global, it belongs here. If it is US-specific, it probably belongs to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. The other question is what is the reason for that impact: is it specific chemical in the fracturing fluid or release of specific substance from the ground due to HF. In the second case it is location geology specific and not global. If it due to certain chemical, the question is if this chemical is allowed to use and if yes, in which countries/states. There is a number of chemicals allowed for HF in the US, but not in Europe. Again, if this country specific, it probably belongs to the relevant country article. This article should reflect the overall global overview while country-specific information should go to the country-specific articles, e.g. Hydraulic fracturing in the United States and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but it depends if the reason and impact is global or country/location/ etc specific. E.g. if the impact is caused by chemical X which is allowed in the country Y but not in the other countries, it is country Y specific and not global issue. If the impact is caused due to the unique geological structure in location Z, it is also not the global issue. On the other hand, if the impact is universal notwithstanding country or location specific conditions, it is the global issue. This is exactly the reason why I asked (without any prejudice) if the results of this study are universal or country/location specific. It is not clear from the source but from your answer (locale is described at the beginning of the paragraph) one could make a conclusion that this is rather location specific, not global. Beagel (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- saw the posting at ProjectMedicine:
- EllenCT was Bold and added a WP:PRIMARY source (Rabinowitz) in this dif on 17:14, 28 September 2014
- Alexbrn Reverted in this dif on 18:16, 28 September 2014
- instead of allowing Discussion to play out per WP:BRD, EllenCT edit warred and re-reverted in this dif. There is no agreement above to include this source,
- I just restored Alexbrn's original reversion in this dif. EllenCT per WP:BRD please finish discussion here and establish consensus for including this source and content based on it before re-adding. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- saw the posting at ProjectMedicine:
I invite further comment at dispute resolution: WP:RSN#Health effects of fracking. EllenCT (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- thanks for the notification. btw, that is the "Reliable sources noticeboard". DR is something else. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Your assertion that RSN isn't a DR noticeboard is false and absurd. EllenCT (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see that you have now actually gone to DR: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing. glad you figured that out. :) Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your assertion that RSN isn't a DR noticeboard is false and absurd. EllenCT (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Draft report by EPA
"Investigation of Ground Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming" is a draft report not final report. It was issued for public comment and independent scientific peer review. However, due to critics the final report was never issued and investigation on the Pavillion case was conveyed to the state of Wyoming. Therefore we should be careful using this draft report. Beagel (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- What is your source that the final report was never issued, and what do you mean "due to critics"? The MEDRS [4] describes the EPA report as follows, "recently, EPA stated that from analysis conducted in Pavillion, Wyoming ‘‘the data indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing’’, the first time such direct link has been suggested by the federal agency (DiGiulio et al., 2011)." EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- E.g. this news. There are more, this was just the first one to pop-up by search. Beagel (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- That story should be summarized in the article. EllenCT (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- There was a case that a study by Texas University was considered unreliable as the team leader failed to disclosure its links to the subject. At the current stage when EPA is not able to peer review its preliminary report and publish the final report due to critics about methodology, reliability of the draft report raises concerns. That means it is not the best source to use, at least if we talking about its conclusions, particularly when EPA itself has said that the linkage expressed in the draft report is not confirmed by the additional studies. And again, this is about one company activities in certain limited area which does not necessarily reflects the global context. Beagel (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- That story should be summarized in the article. EllenCT (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- E.g. this news. There are more, this was just the first one to pop-up by search. Beagel (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- hmm. The draft report deals with 2 key sorts of contamination: shallow and deep. On page 33 it is clear that they made a definitive finding that waste pits are causing shallow contamination, and that the site's operators are taking action to remediate several of the pits. Especially since the site's operator is taking action, there is nothing fuzzy about that finding. With respect to deep contamination, on page 33 the draft report says "the explanation best fitting the data for the deep monitoring wells is that constituents associated with hydraulic fracturing have been released into the Wind River drinking water aquifer at depths above the current production zone." I think it would be appropriate to use this draft as a source for content about the specific site, with a footnote transmitting the notice on the report, namely "This report has been reviewed and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use." Please note that per congressional testimony of the regional EPA administrator,
"Their findings were subjected to intensive review by career management and staff of our research organization. In addition, a technical review of the results was conducted by independent experts before the full draft report was made available to the public." So this is not some slop job. In that testimony, the administrator said that EPA intended to have an independent panel review that study. i found no discussion of that panel or its findings on othe EPA website (which just sucks to search).Beagel, I was going to ask for your source that EPA is not going to finalize the draft nor have it peer reviewed after all but I found one - an EPA press release from June 2013 - which says that; it also appears that the state of wyoming had plans to issue a report on Sept 30! (tomorrow) hm. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Revamped "Health issues" section
I just cleaned this up. I found inconsistent reference formatting, use of press releases and low quality sources for health content, other cherry-picked and misrepresented sources, and plagiarism. I almost fear to look elsewhere in the article, but notice from the reference list there appears to be a lot of press releases used. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- I fully agree. This is one of articles which has suffered from a campaign of certain editor with very strong POV against HF. Any assistance to clean it up and making more encyclopaedic is welcome.
- P.S. You probably would like to check against WP:MEDRS also Hydraulic fracturing, Hydraulic fracturing in the United States, and particularly Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Beagel (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
nondisclosure laws & confidentiality of proceedings
In this dif, EllenCT added: "Mandatory nondisclosure laws and confidentiality requirements of legal proceedings prevented earlier conclusive studies." Three sources provided:
- jenner says nothing about nondisclosure laws or confidentiality of court proceedings
- the propublica source says nothing about nondisclosure laws or confidentiality of court proceedings
- Casper Star Tribune says nothing about nondisclosure laws or confidentiality of court proceedings
So I deleted content, pending sources that WP:VERIFY the content. This sentence also is significant violation of WP:SYN - nothing in those sources says that a) the eaton source is "conclusive". Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have changed the paragraph to read:
- "A 2013 review concluded that confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations impede peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts.[1] Additional irregularities involving the US Environmental Protection Agency defending their research while simultaneously disclaiming its conclusions have arisen.[2][3]"
- EllenCT (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- please do not use refs on talk unless you include the reflist template. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- the new 2nd sentence about "irregularities" is not good - weasel-wordy WP:SOAPBOX-y. deleted it. what is it you are trying to say here, EllenCT? thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- i don't ask rhetorical questions -- I don't know what you want to express. Now you have added "The US Environmental Protection Agency has defended their research into hydraulic fracturing while simultaneously attempting to downplay its results". This really doesn't say anything. As I wrote away above, I think the draft EPA report is a good source and I am working to include it and content based on it. am waiting to hear from beagle and alexbrn and you on that. (in contentious articles i try to go slow when adding content, and try to gather consensus. just being Bold is often counter-productive in articles like this where there are different perspectives) Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- ^ Vidic, R.D.; et al. (May 17, 2013). "Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality" (PDF). Science. 340 (1235009): 826. doi:10.1126/science.1235009. PMID 23687049. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|first1=
(help) - ^ Lustgarten, Abrahm (July 3, 2013). "EPA's Abandoned Wyoming Fracking Study One Retreat of Many". Fracking: Gas Drilling's Environmental Threat. ProPublica. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
- ^ Fugleberg, Jeremy (January 21, 2012). "EPA defends Pavillion tests but cautions on fracking link". Casper Star Tribune. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
Endocrine
EllenCT please make your edits more piecemeal. You added the following in this dif: A study conducted in Garfield County, Colorado and published in Endocrinology suggested that natural gas drilling operations may result in elevated endocrine-disrupting chemical activity in surface and ground water." Source: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/en.2013-1697 This is WP:PRIMARY and per MEDRS we do not use primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy. Since this report is also consistent with what I have now shown to be several highly cited conclusive recent MEDRSs, I am inclined to replace it. EllenCT (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- i am sorry but nobody here agrees that you brought any " conclusive recent MEDRSs". This is unfortunately a common and therefore predictable tactic - pile up a bunch of WP:PRIMARY sources and then use the pile to say "look it is conclusive." that is not how things work here, and is WP:SYN. we rely on reviews, and the most recent review says "inconclusive". Again, the EPA report is coming out soon and that should be very very interesting for all of us. I am really looking forward as it will be the most authoritative thing out there. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- What evidence do you believe supports the extremely questionable assertion that I have not, over the past few days, added multiple highly-cited and recent MEDRSs sources which are all in agreement that there are very substantial negative health effects from groundwater contamination? Do you have any evidence than any of the conclusive MEDRSs are not in agreement with those that I have added? Why do you continue to pretend that all of the MEDRSs are inconclusive? EllenCT (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- per discussion above, took out Endocrine source which is WP:PRIMARY and fails MEDRS. no consensus to keep this source. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- What evidence do you believe supports the extremely questionable assertion that I have not, over the past few days, added multiple highly-cited and recent MEDRSs sources which are all in agreement that there are very substantial negative health effects from groundwater contamination? Do you have any evidence than any of the conclusive MEDRSs are not in agreement with those that I have added? Why do you continue to pretend that all of the MEDRSs are inconclusive? EllenCT (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- i am sorry but nobody here agrees that you brought any " conclusive recent MEDRSs". This is unfortunately a common and therefore predictable tactic - pile up a bunch of WP:PRIMARY sources and then use the pile to say "look it is conclusive." that is not how things work here, and is WP:SYN. we rely on reviews, and the most recent review says "inconclusive". Again, the EPA report is coming out soon and that should be very very interesting for all of us. I am really looking forward as it will be the most authoritative thing out there. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Compromise proposal
At WP:RSN#Health effects of fracking, I have proposed the following language as a compromise proposal for including Rabinowitz, P.M., et al. (2014) "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status: Results of a Household Survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania" Environmental Health Perspectives DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307732
- A 2014 telephone survey of households using groundwater near active natural gas drilling in Washington County, Pennsylvania reported that upper respiratory illnesses and skin diseases were much more prevalent closer to hydraulic fracturing activity. Respiratory problems were reported in 18% of the population 1.2 miles or more from drilling, compared to 39% of those within 0.6 miles of new natural gas wells. The number of people reporting skin problems increased in from 3% to 13% over the same distances.
Given that this is completely consistent with what I have now shown to be several highly-cited conclusive MEDRSs, what reasons remain for excluding this primary report?
Secondary news sources covering it include [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Would it be better to summarize any or all of those instead? Here are the first three paragraphs of that last Weather.com story:
- Those who live 1 kilometer or closer to natural gas fracking wells are more than twice as likely to report skin conditions and upper respiratory symptoms, such as nose bleeds and coughs, as those living more than 2 kilometers away, a new report from Yale University found.
- The study, which tracked self-reported health data from 180 households containing 492 people in Pennsylvania's Washington County, is the largest of its kind, lead author Peter Rabinowitz, M.D., who is now with the University of Washington's School of Public Health, told weather.com.
- "We got interested in this issue because there were concerns that had been brought up about people complaining of some health symptoms when living near natural gas drilling or extraction facilities," he said. "At the time we started this study, most of these reports were really just that: isolated case reports of a handful of individuals."
(emphasis added.) EllenCT (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- please see Respect secondary sources which says (am copying what it says here):
- "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. Such sources should generally be entirely omitted (in accordance with recentism), because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them). "
- please also see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Popular_press:
- "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[20] costs, and risks versus benefits,[21] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[22] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center.[23] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources."
- so no, the news reports are not WP:SECONDARY under MEDRS. What you have is a primary source. Please wait until its findings are included a review article that is actually aiming at synthesizing the research that has been done on health effects of fracking. I understand that the EPA is coming out with their review pretty soon. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why is adhering to the MEDRS guideline more important than reporting on the largest primary study's confirmation of the unanimous view of all of the conclusive MEDRSs? EllenCT (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- MEDRS flows directly from the more general guideline, WP:RS. That guideline in turn, fleshes out two policies, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Those policies, and RS, and MEDRS, all express the consensus of the community that secondary sources are more reliable sources, and strongly preferred, compared to primary sources, and primary sources are to be avoided. All that MEDRS does, is define what "secondary" and "primary" sources are for health-related content, and amps up the preference for secondary sources more strongly. All these sources you are bringing are primary. That is the key issue. Does that answer your question? (I very much tried to respond directly to it, so please tell me if anything is not clear) Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. Why are you calling professional journalism from widely respected national and international news organizations with editors and reputations for fact checking and accuracy primary, or am I misunderstanding you? EllenCT (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I directly answered your question, quoting the relevant guideline, which has a clear explanation of why we don't use the media for health-related content. your argument is with the guideline, not with me. again, we all need to work within what relevant policies and guidelines say; we don't make things up as we go along. that is how wikipedia works. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. Why are you calling professional journalism from widely respected national and international news organizations with editors and reputations for fact checking and accuracy primary, or am I misunderstanding you? EllenCT (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- MEDRS flows directly from the more general guideline, WP:RS. That guideline in turn, fleshes out two policies, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Those policies, and RS, and MEDRS, all express the consensus of the community that secondary sources are more reliable sources, and strongly preferred, compared to primary sources, and primary sources are to be avoided. All that MEDRS does, is define what "secondary" and "primary" sources are for health-related content, and amps up the preference for secondary sources more strongly. All these sources you are bringing are primary. That is the key issue. Does that answer your question? (I very much tried to respond directly to it, so please tell me if anything is not clear) Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why is adhering to the MEDRS guideline more important than reporting on the largest primary study's confirmation of the unanimous view of all of the conclusive MEDRSs? EllenCT (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
content based on "New Solutions"
In this dif EllenCT introduced the following:
"A 2013 review of environmental exposure studies stated that, "introduction of natural gas drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing to Pennsylvania and neighboring states since 2004 has been accompanied by numerous reports of varied symptoms and illnesses by those living near these operations.""
the source is published by the "New Solutions" journal, article is here (website says it is free access).
This article is in their "movement solutions" series of articles, which are "Papers that describe progressive social movement activities and efforts, describing successes and the steps toward them, as well as challenges and barriers faced in efforts to promote environmental and occupational health, and prevent morbidities and mortality due to occupational and environmental exposures and conditions." (see [11].
I am not at all sure this is MEDRS-compliant.
More importantly, the source is very similar to phone-survey study reported above.
Even more importantly, the article itself makes it clear that we don't know if those reports are related to fracking, and presenting that quote makes it seem like they are. This is not how we present health-related information in Wikipedia. I have removed this content pending discussion here of the source and the content presented. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC) (note - corrected dif per ellenCT's note below. sorry for the error Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC))
- That diff has nothing to do with the insertion of the source to which you refer. The content you removed was:
- A 2013 review of environmental exposure studies stated that, "introduction of natural gas drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing to Pennsylvania and neighboring states since 2004 has been accompanied by numerous reports of varied symptoms and illnesses by those living near these operations."[1]
- A 2013 review of environmental exposure studies stated that, "introduction of natural gas drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing to Pennsylvania and neighboring states since 2004 has been accompanied by numerous reports of varied symptoms and illnesses by those living near these operations."[1]
- ^ Saberi, Pouné (2013). "Navigating Medical Issues in Shale Territory". NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy. 23 (1): 209–221. doi:10.2190/NS.23.1.m. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
- The journal is indexed by medline, and the article is a secondary review meeting WP:MEDRS. The assertion that it is "similar to phone-survey study reported above" is absolutely false. If you are "not at all sure this is MEDRS-compliant" then what are your reasons? The quote is taken directly from the abstract as vetted by the peer reviewers. EllenCT (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- On the MEDRS question. yes the journal is indexed by medline and pubmed. both of those are good things. However, here is the article's Medline entry, and this (PMID 23552656) is the pubmed entry. neither index classifies this as a Review. The article is advice from one doctor to other doctors - to goal is to provide guidance about how to treat patients who present with complaints about health effects from fracking, and how to track those complaints. (in that sense it is much like the article about nurses). It is not a "review" as Medline and Pubmed use the term, "Review" (which is the same way that MEDRS uses it).
- On the content question. Per its purpose, the article is not quantitative (it doesn't actually count the number of these complaints (except roughly - the author says he has had "about fifty"). More importantly, the article does not draw conclusions that the complaints actually stem from fracking. The author, a scientist (!), is very concerned about the risks from fracking - that these complaints might indeed be from fracking (and that there may be many more in the future!). But he is not saying that they are.
- it is like the phone survey source and content, because the sentence that you quoted is about self-reports. This is not like real epidemiological studies, where scientists and doctors actually collect samples from people (urine, blood, etc) and clinically assess those people, and then record their observations and measurements, and then analyze the data they collected. This is very different from "self-reports" like phone surveys or presenting at a doctor's office with a complaint and its cause.
- pretty much all the health-related articles you have brought are like this. they are not actually reporting the scientific consensus on health effects (which is that we don't know yet). They are expressions of concern about risk. Which is why I suggested moving the section into the risk management section... Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- How is a review of environmental exposure study methodology, which clearly states it is such a review, anything like a phone survey? "Pretty much all the health-related articles" I have brought are conclusive MEDRS reviews, utterly disproving your repeated false statements that the MEDRSs are all inconclusive. But instead of trying to correct your mistake, you have attempted to dig in. By all means, please continue. EllenCT (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- You pointed to the article's being indexed by pubmed and Medline. Neither of them classify this as a review. Why are you classifying it as a review? thanks Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Did you read the part where it says it's a review? EllenCT (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- sure i read that. did you read how both medline and pubmed classify it?Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Who do you trust more, the peer reviewers and authors, or a government employee indexing thousands of articles per day? EllenCT (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- sure i read that. did you read how both medline and pubmed classify it?Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Did you read the part where it says it's a review? EllenCT (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- You pointed to the article's being indexed by pubmed and Medline. Neither of them classify this as a review. Why are you classifying it as a review? thanks Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- How is a review of environmental exposure study methodology, which clearly states it is such a review, anything like a phone survey? "Pretty much all the health-related articles" I have brought are conclusive MEDRS reviews, utterly disproving your repeated false statements that the MEDRSs are all inconclusive. But instead of trying to correct your mistake, you have attempted to dig in. By all means, please continue. EllenCT (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Risk management debate" violates WP:CRITS
The old "Scientific debate" and new "Risk management debate" section is a controversy section in violation of WP:CRITS, so unless good reasons for keeping it separate are forthcoming, I intend to re-integrate it. EllenCT (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- can we discuss that? i think it is very helpful to have a discussion about risk management in the article. it is an important topic and very germane to fracking. plus, please see below... Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please strike your repeated false statements here and elsewhere that the MEDRSs on the topic are inconclusive, and I will be happy to discuss it with you. EllenCT (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- From what I'm seeing in the literature, Jytdog is right: the best sources conclude that the health effects of fracking are currently unknown, that there is concern and risk, and that this topic should be studied. We shall reflect that accepted knowledge here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- EllenCT this is not a CRIT section. Risk management and risk assessment are legitimate topics in this. in some sections we discuss what the science is telling us about actual and potential issues; in this section the article discusses various approaches governments are taking to address those actual and potential issues. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- From what I'm seeing in the literature, Jytdog is right: the best sources conclude that the health effects of fracking are currently unknown, that there is concern and risk, and that this topic should be studied. We shall reflect that accepted knowledge here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please strike your repeated false statements here and elsewhere that the MEDRSs on the topic are inconclusive, and I will be happy to discuss it with you. EllenCT (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Our best sources say that right now we don't know what the health impact is. The content and sources EllenCT have been adding all (appropriately) are subjuntive, and use verbs like "might" and "may" etc. I just made a Bold edit, and moved current health content into the Risk management debate section. Please take a second to really consider it - I think it is a good way to go, because it puts all the "may" and "might" into their proper context -- these are all potential risks that people are concerned about, and that we as a society need to figure out a way to manage. I will not object to this being reverted, but hope folks will consider it and discuss. thanks.Jytdog (talk) 29 September 2014 21:38 (UTC)
- That assertion is completely false, and was disproved beyond a shadow of any doubt hours ago. Please remember to sign your talk page posts. EllenCT (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: why do you continue to imply that the inconclusive MEDRSs are superior to the conclusive MEDRSs? Are you in denial? EllenCT (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- please see above in the "compromise proposal" section. you are making up your own rules; in Wikipedia "conclusive" is not a criterium under which we analyze sources per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We all need to understand these policies and guidelines and reason from them; without them this place would be a wild west and there would be no way to rationally work out disagreements. Please ground your arguments on what policies and guidelines actually say - and most importantly on their spirit. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Why isn't whether a MEDRS is conclusive a criterion? It follows from common sense and the spirit of preferring new MEDRSs to old ones that a review which reaches a strong conclusion should be preferred to those which claim more research is needed, unless the latter are more recent. When all of the conclusive MEDRSs are in agreement, as is the case here, then why isn't preferring inconclusive reviews anything more than POV-pushing the view from nowhere in an attempt to downplay the results? EllenCT (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- This factor, "whether a MEDRS is conclusive" is entirely your invention and plays no part in our WP:PAGs. What does it even mean? Practically all MEDRS sources will have a section called "Conclusion" (or some equivalent). If your argument is with MEDRS, the place to discuss it is at WT:MEDRS. I also recommend this helpful essay. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why isn't whether a MEDRS is conclusive a criterion? It follows from common sense and the spirit of preferring new MEDRSs to old ones that a review which reaches a strong conclusion should be preferred to those which claim more research is needed, unless the latter are more recent. When all of the conclusive MEDRSs are in agreement, as is the case here, then why isn't preferring inconclusive reviews anything more than POV-pushing the view from nowhere in an attempt to downplay the results? EllenCT (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- please see above in the "compromise proposal" section. you are making up your own rules; in Wikipedia "conclusive" is not a criterium under which we analyze sources per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We all need to understand these policies and guidelines and reason from them; without them this place would be a wild west and there would be no way to rationally work out disagreements. Please ground your arguments on what policies and guidelines actually say - and most importantly on their spirit. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I think moving the health content into the Risk management section improves the article as it better reflects what the sources are saying. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
New source from South Africa
Might be useful:
- Mash R, Minnaar J, Mash B (2014). "Health and fracking: Should the medical profession be concerned?". S. Afr. Med. J. 104 (5): 332–5. PMID 25212197.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
—Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Objection to revert
I object to this revert by User:Alexbrn. The edit summary "Npov" is not sufficiently descriptive. "There is concern over the possible adverse public health implications" is poor writing in the passive voice and insufficiently representative of the most recent MEDRSs. The claim that "there is little evidence from which to draw a conclusion" has repeatedly been shown to be false, and no evidence to the contrary has been forthcoming. The scare quotes around "potential negative impact" in the context of several recent and well-cited MEDRSs showing proof of actual negative impact is indeed a violation of WP:NPOV as well as very poor quality writing. For these reasons I am adding a NPOV tag to the section. EllenCT (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hydraulic fracturing and shale gas extraction are not synonyms. Beagel (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- What specific improvements do you propose? EllenCT (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- If it is not about hydraulic fracturing but about shale gas extraction in more general, it does not belong here but in shale gas-related articles. Beagel (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- PMID 24119661 considers "unconventional drilling for natural gas by means of high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing". That's on topic ain't it? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- I say nothing about the source but terminology used in the article. If there is a statement that "unconventional gas extraction has impact" in the article about hydraulic fracturing, it creates a false impression that hydraulic fracturing and unconventional gas extraction are synonyms. They are not. Beagel (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- PMID 24119661 considers "unconventional drilling for natural gas by means of high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing". That's on topic ain't it? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- If it is not about hydraulic fracturing but about shale gas extraction in more general, it does not belong here but in shale gas-related articles. Beagel (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- What specific improvements do you propose? EllenCT (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- "there is little evidence from which to draw a conclusion" is what the cited source effectively says. We can't misrepresent a source just because you don't like what it says! The sentence is not in the passive voice. The quotation marks are not "scare quotes" but delmit a - quotation; this helps avoid plagiarism and indicates to the reader the source is cited precisely here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- We can't use Wikipedia's voice to make a false statement. You can say, "A 201_ review said that there was little evidence from which to draw a conclusion." You can not imply that there are not abundant conclusive MEDRSs which draw strong conclusions from abundant evidence. Please see passive voice. The sentence, "There is concern over the possible adverse public health implications," is most certainly in the passive voice. The idea that a three word quote is addressing plagiarism concerns instead of serving as dismissive scare quotes is absurd. EllenCT (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- The statement is not "false", it is accepted knowledge as supported in our best sources and is contradicted by no good source. You are also incorrect about passive voice. "There is concern ..." is active; a passive form would be "Concern has been expreessed ...". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- For what reason do you claim that the multiple well-cited MEDRSs which draw strong, specific, and prescriptive conclusions contrary to the assertion that "there is little evidence from which to draw a conclusion" are not good? EllenCT (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- We seem to be going round in circles and you are not engaging with the discussion but repeating questions rhetorically. Primary sources are not usable here as they fail WP:MEDRS. We cannot slide from concerns about risk to statements about health, that's OR or synthesis. Your category of "conclusive" sources (==ones you like) has no meaning here. Meanwhle, you continue to chip away at the article trying to skew its POV. This is disruptive. For the health section please only make proposals based on strong secondary sources that directly address the topic of fracking and health. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- The question is most certainly not rhetorical. Fact: at least five well-cited secondary MEDRSs since 2011 claim that fracking is dangerous and contaminates groundwater. Fact: none of the other MEDRSs express any conclusions contrary to those conclusive sources. Fact: the conclusive sources were not in the article until I added them. Fact: all of the prior MEDRSs concluded that additional research was required. Fact: you, User:Alexbrn, claimed that the conclusive sources are not as "good" as the inconclusive sources. Fact: when asked to provide reasons for that claim, you did not provide any such reasons, and instead attempted to avoid the question. Serious question: is there any evidence contrary to or sufficient reason to doubt any of these facts? EllenCT (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- We seem to be going round in circles and you are not engaging with the discussion but repeating questions rhetorically. Primary sources are not usable here as they fail WP:MEDRS. We cannot slide from concerns about risk to statements about health, that's OR or synthesis. Your category of "conclusive" sources (==ones you like) has no meaning here. Meanwhle, you continue to chip away at the article trying to skew its POV. This is disruptive. For the health section please only make proposals based on strong secondary sources that directly address the topic of fracking and health. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- For what reason do you claim that the multiple well-cited MEDRSs which draw strong, specific, and prescriptive conclusions contrary to the assertion that "there is little evidence from which to draw a conclusion" are not good? EllenCT (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- The statement is not "false", it is accepted knowledge as supported in our best sources and is contradicted by no good source. You are also incorrect about passive voice. "There is concern ..." is active; a passive form would be "Concern has been expreessed ...". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- We can't use Wikipedia's voice to make a false statement. You can say, "A 201_ review said that there was little evidence from which to draw a conclusion." You can not imply that there are not abundant conclusive MEDRSs which draw strong conclusions from abundant evidence. Please see passive voice. The sentence, "There is concern over the possible adverse public health implications," is most certainly in the passive voice. The idea that a three word quote is addressing plagiarism concerns instead of serving as dismissive scare quotes is absurd. EllenCT (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- These six, not counting the one about which you said that an indexer with no independent review is more accurate at identifying literature reviews than peer reviewers. Please stop telling other people what words to use. "Conclusive" is entirely appropriate. If you believe it is not, then you ought to be able to provide a reason. Thanks! EllenCT (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- We use some of those already, and I'm surprised I have to re-state that propublica.org is not a WP:MEDRS. There's nothing here to contradict our best sources that specifically give us the current state of human knowledge about the public health impact of fracking (it's pretty much unknown). This issue has been to two noticeboards now and the application of WP:PAGs has been stated & consensus established. This is beginning to look like a display of "I didn't hear that" from EllenCT; time to drop the stick maybe ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- These six, not counting the one about which you said that an indexer with no independent review is more accurate at identifying literature reviews than peer reviewers. Please stop telling other people what words to use. "Conclusive" is entirely appropriate. If you believe it is not, then you ought to be able to provide a reason. Thanks! EllenCT (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing the list.
- Centner2013: Terence J.. Oversight of shale gas production in the United States and the disclosure of toxic substances. Resources Policy. September 2013.
- Colborn2011: Colborn, Theo. Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 17(5): 1039-1056
- Saberi2013: Saberi, P. Navigating Medical Issues in Shale Territory. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 2013 23(1):209-221 PMID 23552656
- eaton2013: Eaton TT. Science-based decision-making on complex issues: Marcellus shale gas hydrofracking and New York City water supply. Sci Total Environ. 2013 Sep 1;461-462:158-69. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.093. Epub 2013 May 28. PMID 23722091
- Vidic2013: Vidic, R.D., et al. Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality. Science 2013 340(1235009): 826 PMID 23687049
- lauver2012: Lauver LS Environmental health advocacy: an overview of natural gas drilling in northeast Pennsylvania and implications for pediatric nursing. J Pediatr Nurs 27(4): 383–9 PMID 22703686
- EPA study. sources are Lustgarden/ProPublica and Fugleberg2012/Casper Star Tribune. These are popular media and by definition fail MEDRS as has been already discussed. Not listing them in the table below.
article | biomedical journal? | indexed in pubmed? | primary or secondary | MEDRS-compliant? | sample statement | risk, or "conclusive" statement on health effects? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Centner2013 | no | no | primary | no | "more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances" | risk |
Colborn2011 | somewhat | no | kind of | no | "more than X% "of the chemicals could affect" Y.... may have long-term health effects" | risk |
Saberi2013 | yes | yes | primary | no | "Some community residents, as well as employees of the natural gas industry, believe that their health has deteriorated as a result of these operations and have sought medical care from local practitioners" | risk |
eaton2013 | some | yes | secondary | yes | "regulatory framework... in inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply" | risk |
Vidic2013 | yes | yes | secondary | yes | "technologies are not free from environmental risks"; "controversy whether the methane detected in private groundwater wells ... was caused by well drilling or natural processes" | risk |
lauver2012 | yes | yes | secondary | yes | "effects of these agents on the water supply and subsequent human health are not well known and require further investigation" | risk |
So out of these 6, 3 are arguably compliant with MEDRS, and none of those three describe "conclusive" health effects; all three are conclusive in describing risks. Risks are not effects. Jytdog (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Source cited in the opening sentence of this entry did not at all align with the conclusions outlined within the report
The conclusion of this government work is here; "Hydraulic fracturing has opened access to vast domestic reserves of natural gas that could provide an important stepping stone to a clean energy future. Yet questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. This analysis is the most comprehensive national assessment to date of the types and volumes of chemical used in the hydraulic fracturing process. It shows that between 2005 and 2009, the 14 leading hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States used over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 compounds. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants."[1]
Other than the question raised above, this source makes no conclusions whatsoever.
Even if it is highly probable that "chemicals that are known human carcinogens are present" nothing can be factually proven. You are likely to find sources denying any linkage to widespread impact, and you will find many sources acclaiming widespread impact.
The European fracking study was misquoted as well, it being a preplanning document to avoid risks and mitigate exposures through the implementation of standards and policies to be developed in the future..[2]
Lfrankbalm (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- In this series of difs Lfrankbalm made some extensive changes to the lead. I reverted them. Per my edit note:
- these edits added content not found in body to the lead (the lead just summarizes body per WP:LEAD)
- the edits changed the first sentence to read "hydraulic fracturing has raised questions..." which makes no sense. fracking is a process not a person. People have raised questions about fracking. perhaps. but the former language "The environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing includes..." is altogether more simple and direct. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
DR opened
Notice to everybody, EllenCT has opened a DR thread on this Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing. Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)