I continue to be disappointed with the state of environmental reporting in the U.S. If a study conforms to the climate change or anti-fossil fuel narrative, the Study makes headline news (e.g. “Fracking Puts Children’s Respiratory Health at Risk), usually without any real analysis of the work itself. In the recent UCLA, U of Chicago, and Harvard study, it is worth mentioning that all three of the professors are economists and that the report is filled with caveats aplenty. In response, Seth Whitehouse of Energy in Depth points to six or seven major equivocations or flaws in the study.
On the other hand, if a positive health and wellness report about “unconventional drilling,” (aka fracking) is published which uses Pennsylvania state health data it is largely ignored. Author Sue Mickley used state health data assembled for six fracking intensive counties in Marcellus Basin. (I have attached a link to her Health and Wellness Report so the reader can judge for themselves.)