Elizabeth (Chris) Mobaldi's afflictions are of biblical proportions: fatigue, headaches, bloody stools, rashes, welts, blisters, a speech disorder, pituitary tumors and a swollen gallbladder that had to be removed.
"Several times Chris said, 'something is killing me living in this house,' so we packed up and abandoned the house (in Rifle, Colorado), in 2004 after trying to sell it for years," her husband Steve told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee October 31. Chris Mobaldi's problems began within weeks after drilling operations began on property 3,000 feet from her home."We now believe the oil and gas industry is to blame," Steve Mobaldi said.
Susan Wallace-Babb, of Parachute, Colorado, suffered from nausea, body pain, crippling headaches, vomiting, bloody mucus from nose and lungs, tongue ulcers, mental fogginess and neurological problems. Wallace-Babbs told the panel that she was unknowingly exposed to fugitive gases from two wells and open condensate tanks after she began working next to them as an irrigator.
"So, has the oil and gas industry changed my life?" she asked. "Yes, exactly, right down to my cellular levels."
These are tragic stories, painful to listen to, and industry critics contend becoming more prevalent with the explosive growth of oil and gas operations in the Rocky Mountain West, according to Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"Many people who live near oil and gas operations experience symptoms resembling those that may be caused by the toxic substances found in oil and gas or the chemical additives used to produce them," Mall told the panel. "Among the toxic chemicals that can be released during oil and gas operations are benzene, toluene, ethylbenze and xylene, radioactive materials, hydrogen sulfide, arsenic and mercury."
The increase in the overall number of wells being drilled "could exacerbate the risk of health and environmental problems faced by the thousands of people living in communities with these sources of dangerous pollution," Mall said.
Dr. Daniel Teitelbaum, a Denver-based occupational physician and medical toxicologist, cited industry exemptions from major environmental laws "that require them to identify and mitigate the impact of their activities on human health through air, water and soil contamination." (The industry contends that is it conducting its operations in a responsible manner that is protective of the environment and human health).
However, it is no simple matter linking source, exposure and effect, or demonstrating industry culpability, if any. Nor, if it comes to litigation, is it easy to overcome the tenacious and expensive legal battle companies mount when fighting such allegations.
Mall noted that a program sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2004 discussed the challenges of recognizing illnesses stemming from chemical exposure. Chemicals do not always cause acute and obvious health effects, and immediate symptoms of chemical exposure might be nonexistent or mild, she said. Because of this, it may be difficult to recognize the exposure source: exposure to multiple chemical agents could lead to difficulty in recognizing the source; chemical poisoning is notorious for resulting in nonspecific signs or symptoms that resemble other common diseases; and physicians may be unfamiliar with illnesses related to chemical agents.
The toxic impact on the human and animal populations of the [oil and gas] resource areas "is unevaluated," Teitelbaum said. "There is no public health oversight. There is no database of those exposed at work or as residents. The complete absence of a systematic approach to the identification of the exposures and their quantification and...of a registry of the exposed persons so that exposure-outcome studies can be done, is a disgrace."
As a result of a series of Supreme Court rulings between 1993 and 1999, starting with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, there has been an increase "in the likelihood that scientific evidence will be challenged and great variability from court to court in what potential testimony gets excluded." It's in a defendant's interest, under Daubert, to challenge "virtually every piece of expert testimony proposed," writes Janet Raloff in an October, 2005 issue Science News, citing a legal scholar. (In the interest of full disclosure, this reporter is Janet Raloff's husband).
According to another legal scholar cited by Raloff, "What seems clear is that because of the Daubert decision, the work, theories and interpretation of data, by even careful and credible scientists, are often barred from trials [which] can diminish the likelihood that justice will be served."
Leave a comment