Does fracking make people sick? In this edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Dr. Ted Them and research fellow Isaac Orr discuss the scientific research that has attempted to determine if there are health impacts due to hydraulic fracturing. Dr. Them debunks the claims of Dr. Howard Zucker, the Commissioner of the New York Department of Health who’s recommendation to the Governor resulted in New York banning hydraulic fracturing.
In this edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, research fellow Isaac Orr and Roberta Walls, the point person for industrial sand mining at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, discuss a new document produced by the DNR to educate the general public and decision makers about the environmental, economic, and social impacts of industrial sand mining in the state.
In this episode of the Heartland Institute’s weekly Budget & Tax News podcast, managing editor and research fellow Jesse Hathaway talks with Nelson J. Rockefeller Institute of Government director of fiscal studies Don Boyd about a new study examining how the assumptions and gimmicks public pension boards use to fund pensions are affected by investment risks, and how those risks affect taxpayers and government employees.
Does fracking cause housing prices to fall? The answer to that question is more difficult that it might seem. Many anti-fracking activists have claimed oil and natural gas development has led to substantial decreases in property values in areas where drilling occurs, but other places, such as North Dakota, saw property values skyrocket during the boom in oil production.
A new study published in Environment International indicates hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking,” and the heavy truck traffic that is associated with it would have a negligible impact on air quality if fracking were to be used extensively in the United Kingdom. Interestingly, the authors of the study appear to be a little disappointed with their findings, which may be why they decided to emphasize maximum exposure in a shorter timeframe in their study, rather than exposures over more realistic scenarios.
The mining of sand used for hydraulic fracking has become a controversial issue in communities throughout Western Wisconsin. While many discussions examine the environmental and economic impacts of industrial sand mining, a new paper by an anthropology professor from the University of Wisconsin-Stout attempts to take stock of the social impacts of mining. This paper investigates a phenomenon called “loss of place,” which refers to an emotion people have when they lose a sense of their own identity due to changing physical or societal landscapes.
Anti-fracking activists have pointed the finger at fracking for the dramatic rise in earthquakes in Oklahoma over the last several years, however a new video featuring Dr. Mark Zoback, a professor of geophysics at Stanford University, explains fracking is not to blame for the quakes.
John Nothdurft returns to the podcast, joining Donny Kendal for episode #29 of the In The Tank Podcast. This weekly podcast features (as always) interviews, debates, roundtable discussions, stories, and light-hearted segments on a variety of topics on the latest news. The show is available for download as part of the Heartland Daily Podcast every Friday. Today’s podcast features work from R Street, the Cascade Policy Institute, and the James Madison Institute.
In this edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, research fellow Isaac Orr and Jackie Stewart, from Energy in Depth discuss a recent study conducted by the University of Cincinnati which found fracking has not contaminated water supplies. But here’s a twist, the study was actually funded by environmental groups who are not pleased with the results.
In today’s edition of the Heartland Daily Podcast, Isaac Orr, Heartland Research Fellow for energy policy, joins H. Sterling Burnett to talk about his newly released study on the impact of frac sand mining – Social Impacts of Industrial Silica Sand (Frac Sand) Mining: Land Use and Value.
As the number of frac sand facilities in Wisconsin has rapidly expanded over the past five years, residents and local government officials in areas near sand mining operations have understandably wanted to know what impact these facilities could have on air quality. Unfortunately, a new study titled “PM2.5 Airborne Particulates Near Frac Sand Operations,” conducted by students and Dr. Crispin Pierce from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire’s Environmental Public Health (ENPH) program, is so poorly designed it has no value for furthering our understanding of the impact of frac sand facilities on air quality. In fact, it reflects poorly on the university.
Some people incorrectly think hydraulic fracturing — fracking — is responsible for the increase in earthquake activity in Oklahoma and Texas. Scientists, however, believe the quakes are caused by the use of underground injection wells to dispose of oil and gas wastewater. The increase in tremors spurred a coalition of scientists, regulators, industry experts and environmentalists to produce a 148-page report exploring why these earthquakes are occurring and how to prevent future incidents.
The good news continues for people living near industrial sand facilities, with the release of the second in a pair of studies examining the impact of industrial sand mining on air quality. The researchers found concentrations of the small particles of silica dust that can lead to health problems if present in high concentrations are far below the levels considered harmful.
A recently released study claiming to have found a statistical association between hydraulic fracturing and hospitalization rates in Pennsylvania has been popular in the news. However, just about every aspect of this study is problematic, rendering it to the realm of speculation, not science.
In today’s episode of The Heartland Daily Podcast, managing editor Jesse Hathaway talks with Tax Foundation policy analyst Jared Walczak about a new study comparing states’ business tax rates and tax structures.
Government ought to rely on unbiased scientific findings when making policy decisions regarding important issues. But unfortunately, many government agencies undermine the scientific process by using it for their own purposes rather than to discover the truth, a reality President Dwight Eisenhower pointed out in his farewell address more than a half-century ago. The situation has only become worse since then, with government funding of tobacco studies providing a vivid example.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center researchers, led by first-author Sarah Borderud, claimed on September 22, 2014, that e-cigarettes did not help cancer patients quit smoking (media story here). They based that statement on a study they published online in Cancer, a journal of the American Cancer Society (abstract here).
The association of tobacco use and body weight has long been a matter of concern. In 2004, I collaborated with Swedish investigators to publish the first research on whether switching from cigarettes to smokeless tobacco blunts some of the weight gain normally seen with quitting via abstinence (abstract here, blog post here).
Publishing a study of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in American smokeless tobacco products (abstracthere), Dorothy Hatsukami and colleagues at the University of Minnesota called for the FDA to issue “regulations…to reduce levels of…NNK and NNN in smokeless tobacco products to the lowest levels possible.” The authors make illogical and unscientific claims in their article and media interviews (here).
The New England Journal of Medicine yesterday published a letter claiming that vapor contains “hidden” formaldehyde at far higher levels than cigarettes (here), which made headlines worldwide. That conflicts with a report I discussed last week, documenting that formaldehyde levels in e-cigarettes were far lower than those in traditional cigarettes (here).