On 21 April 2016 the Energy Resource Information Centre wrote a letter to the editor of the Border Watch newspaper.
Doctors for the Environment Australia took exception in a letter to the editor of Border Watch in May 2016:
It
is disappointing to again find myself misrepresented in letters to the Editor
of your good paper as an ‘activist presenter’ and to witness the Doctors for
the Environment Australia be identified as a ‘protest group’ by the Director of
the Energy Resource Information Centre. This Centre describes itself as a
‘research and advocacy group for the natural gas industry’ aiming to provide a
‘fact-based evidence-led source of information about natural gas and
development’.
I
hope that Border Watch readers felt fact-check bells ringing in their heads
while reading this letter. For readers unaware, DEA is a voluntary organisation
of doctors and medical students across Australia. DEA is guided by a Research
Committee that proudly includes a Nobel Prize Winner, the 2003 Australian of
the Year, Deans of Medicine at many of our leading medical schools and world
class researchers. Clearly the DEA is not well described as a ‘protest group’.
Furthermore,
motives need to be checked. DEA members are motivated by their deep concern for
the protection of human health in the face of damage to the environment. In
contrast the Energy Resource Information Centre emphasizes its ‘deep interest
in ensuring the development of natural gas resources’ (http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/151%20-%20Energy%20Resource%20Information%20Centre.pdf).
Which
group would you turn to for reliable information on current knowledge on health
risks and impacts of gas developments?
The
director appears to suggest he is perhaps more knowledgeable about health
research than myself? I have over 30 years experience and 70 peer-reviewed
publications addressing leading public health challenges. I have educated
hundreds of students to understand how essential a healthy environment is to
human health. I wonder what the director’s health research credentials
are?
An
analogy to the issues raised by the director would be, if I can’t prove that my
child will be hit if she runs across the street in moving traffic, and I can't
be sure if a Holden or a Subaru will hit her, I may as well let her run into
the traffic and see what happens. Environmental health studies don’t seek
proof, they seek evidence of the presence or absence of harm and this evidence
builds over time. The source of harm, be it air, water or distressing
experiences matters less than the fact that harm may be happening.
"The
key question for ‘proving’ is – is this industry safe to people and the
environment? Presently the evidence that it is not safe far outweighs the
evidence that it is safe"
Another
serious concern of the director’s letter is the nuance to readers that
‘fracking’ is the only part of unconventional gas mining that matters. In fact,
there are a range of risks to human health possible at each step of the process
which have not been adequately assessed - but for which there is accumulating
evidence.
I
understand the challenges researchers face in measuring the health risks and
impacts of this complex industry. I have watched the rapid growth of studies
and peer reviewed publications on the topic – now emerging almost daily,
shedding new light on potential harms across the United States.
The
key question for ‘proving’ is – is this industry safe to people and the
environment? Presently the evidence that it is not safe far outweighs the
evidence that it is safe. A publication in the highly regarded journal PLOS One examined peer-reviewed publications reporting
new research on water pollution (58 studies), air pollution (46 studies) and
health impacts (31 studies). Evidence of contamination were identified in 69%
of studies on water and 87% of those on air pollution, while 84% reported
negative health risks and impacts.
Australia
in general, and South Australia in particular, has enormous potential to develop
its wind and solar energy potential, creating opportunities with minimal risks
to both health and the environment.
Most
disappointing in this letter is evidence of a continued lack of real dialogue
and transparency regarding the risks and unknowns involved in unconventional
gas mining. This raises serious questions about the priority the industry
places on the health and wellbeing of our communities and our livestock, and
the productivity of our lands.
Associate
Professor Melissa Haswell,
Doctors for the Environment
Australia,
University of New South Wales
University of New South Wales
No comments:
Post a Comment