Aug 31, 2023 By David Callahan 3 min read

The recent environmental and health studies from the University of Pittsburgh have led to a string of alarming headlines and misinterpretations regarding natural gas development in the region. Unfortunately, reporting has overlooked fundamental flaws of the studies that raise doubts about the outcomes, as well as how they were presented.

Pennsylvania’s natural gas sector is comprised of engineers, environmentalists, scientists, and others who take fact-based and objective research seriously. We believe readers, community members and policymakers deserve to have the facts around what the studies actually found.

With nearly $3 million in taxpayer funding allocated to this research, all three studies use a proximity metric rather than actual exposure pathways. Not once did the researchers visit a shale gas development facility, nor did they take any air or water samples to measure exposure. Instead, they used statistical models and ignored important factors like actual emissions, air dispersion, and weather patterns, not to mention exposure to other potential environmental sources.

Despite these limitations, no causation to any of the health risks studied was found in these reports.

Had Pitt conducted empirical field research, they would have observed what more than a decade’s worth of site-level and peer reviewed research confirms: natural gas development is safe, well-regulated, and produced here better than anywhere else in the world.

Studies of Pennsylvania communities – which never triggered the same sensationalized headlines – from our state’s Department of Environmental Protection, and researchers from Yale University, Duke University, Penn State, and University of Cincinnati, among many others, conclude no systemic, widespread air or water impacts tied to natural gas.

What’s more, the researchers admit the cancer study did not adequately account for variables the American Cancer Society lists as common lymphoma causes, including genetic predisposition, infection, and exposure to radiation – like the Canonsburg uranium waste facility where government monitoring has shown higher radiation levels.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the researchers followed a similar limited approach on asthma outcomes, using proximity-based metrics and failing to account for known asthma triggers, including indoor and outdoor air pollutants.

Perhaps most notably, Pitt’s own data regarding asthma in Western Pennsylvania show a 50% decline of severe asthma cases between 2014 and 2020 – even as production in the region increased by over 200% during this same period.

Pitt failed to present this data to the public, or to explain why they labeled all asthma cases as “severe” when other public health authorities categorize as “mild” or “moderate.” And nowhere do the studies note that air quality has been improving in Western Pennsylvania, particularly as more natural gas is used in power generation, with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data showing particulate matter locally – an asthma trigger recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – falling well below national air quality standards.

Actual data supports the facts we all know to be true: Pennsylvania has a strong, effective regulatory framework addressing every stage of natural gas development from site construction to waste management. Science supports the incredible advances that continue to be made to enhance and improve the process for natural gas development. The record and activity show we’re developing natural gas safely, responsibly and in a manner that’s consistent with protecting our environment, the health of our employees, and nearby communities.

David Callahan is president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, which educates and advocates for safe, responsible natural gas development in Pennsylvania. Learn more about the health studies at MarcellusCoalition.org.