News

Perhaps motivated by the fact that their own research has failed to convincingly tie oil and gas development to reproductive problems, anti-fracking researchers from the University of Missouri recently released a “systemic review” of studies of the “association between oil and natural gas extraction processes and human reproduction” in an attempt to revitalize their tired narrative.

Their book report of studies however, is made up mostly of studies from foreign countries or of studies that have nothing to do with shale development at all — something these researchers have done before.

This isn’t surprising considering; EID has noted many times, the primary researchers — Susan Nagel and Christopher Kassotis — have a clear record of anti-fracking bias. Against that backdrop, here are five reasons the conclusions of this “review” don’t stand up to scrutiny.

#1: Most of the studies reviewed were from foreign countries and/or have nothing to do with the oil and gas development

Many of the studies used examined health effects near petrochemical plants in Asia, which obviously has nothing to do with oil and gas extraction in the United States. One study of particular note examined “Increased incidence of preterm delivery in mothers residing in an industrialized area in Taiwan,” while another preterm birth study looked at oilfields in proximity to the Amazon River in South America.

Another report studied sperm count for employees in a petrochemical complex in China. Yet even that study didn’t even make a link, as the report notes: “Because sperm counts were only decreased in the exposed smokers, Wang et al. suggested that the health effect from petrochemical occupation exposure may be exacerbated by smoking.”

The title of the paper, “Systemic review of the association between oil and natural gas extraction processes and human reproduction,” really couldn’t be clearer with regard to clarifying the review’s intended focus. But a quick glance at the report’...