Science

Natural Gas Burns, and Communities Cry Foul

By |

By Jennifer Huang | World Power II: Environment

When 19th century entrepreneurs began drilling and refining oil, natural gas was an unwelcome byproduct. The fledgling industry lacked the pipeline technology now used to capture and transport the volatile fuel released when oil is extracted from the ground. Instead, gas was simply burned off — a process known as flaring. Today the natural gas industry is worldwide, netting billions of dollars each year. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts that demand for natural gas will double by 2020.

Science

Natural Gas Burns: Alberta’s “Sour Gas”

By |

By Jennifer Huang | World Power II: Environment

Page 3 of 4

In Alberta, Canada, many oil and gas operations are located near towns and farms, sometimes less than a kilometer away. Residents blame a rash of severe public health and environmental problems — from crop damage and childhood illness to miscarriages, livestock deaths and human brain damage — on the flaring and venting of natural gas at drilling sites and refineries. At the center of the controversy is hydrogen sulfide — or “sour gas” — a poisonous substance that has been compared to cyanide, and described by the 1924 U.S. Public Health Service as “one of the most toxic of gases.” According to Dr. Kaye Kilburn, a neurotoxicologist at the University of Southern California and the author of the book “Chemical Brain Injury,” hydrogen sulfide causes permanent brain damage at very low levels and can kill at 500 parts per million. Sour gas is widespread in Canada and throughout North America, he said, and “in Alberta, particularly, [oil companies] have exposed quite a few people who farm and ranch in the areas where they’re putting a lot of wells down …

Science

SIDEBAR: Breast Cancer: Toxic Links

By |

• Part One: Cause & Controversy
• Part Two: A Plague of Neglect
• Sidebars: Risk Factors; Toxic Links; Long Island
• Printable: Download the magazine-style PDF

No one is going to deny the cancer-causing potential of industrial, agricultural and consumer chemicals. What’s at issue is actual human risk from exposure to these chemicals in our daily environment. And even if a chemical or substance has been proven to be harmful, there’s no guarantee that a legislative body or regulatory agency will severely limit or ban its use. Consider the ongoing national debate over the sale and use of tobacco. “You have industries saying, ‘we can’t afford to meet this regulation and it’ll put us out of business, you have to be a little bit more lax,'” said Allan Hirsch, spokesman for the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in California.

Science

SIDEBAR: The Lessons of Long Island

By |

• Part One: Cause & Controversy
• Part Two: A Plague of Neglect
• Sidebars: Risk Factors; Toxic Links; Long Island
• Printable: Download the magazine-style PDF

Founded at the behest of Congress in 1993, the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project (nih.gov) was intended to deliver the definitive statement on environmental contaminants and high breast cancer rates — exactly the sort of thing being demanded now in the Bay Area. The study grew to encompass 10 projects (nih.gov), adding up to more than $26 million in special grants and various local and federal agencies. Missing links

“I think this process will ultimately disclose the environmental links to cancer,” said Karen Joy Miller, founder and president of Long Island’s 4,000-member Huntington Breast Cancer Action Coalition. She already has her suspicions that it will prove to be “many things in combination, what we drink and what we breathe, things we use for our manicured lawns, our pesticides, our household cleaners … We are doing it to ourselves.”