-->
From the Desk of John Stossel
June 12, 2012
Dear
I'm sorry for scaring you to death.
I admit that in my early days as a TV news reporter, thought that was part of my job. I did stories
about defective products
and con artists lurking around
every comer.
But by the time I did my first one-hour TV special, Are We Scaring Ourselves
to Death? in the mid-90s, I had begun to question
whether we in the media should treat everything as a crisis. That's when the American
Council on Science and Health
(ACSH) became a very valuable
source of information for me.
ACSH puts health risks in perspective- combating hype and paranoia.
For that one-hour special,
they helped me construct a huge chart that ranked
risks and showed that mundane things like car accidents
and (perhaps worst of all) smoking
are risks that dwarf the tiny, hypothetical, maybe not even real scares
that the media love to keep
you alarmed about, such as pesticide residues
on vegetables or radiation from power lines.
They helped change
my thinking and helped infonn my audience.
By reaching
out to reporters, editors and policymakers across the country,
they continue to push back against the quacks, the scaremongers and, perhaps most important, against the all-too-easy assumptions we all tend to make - as reporters or consumers
of · health news - assumptions like "natural things are safer than mamnade things" or "chemicals are bad for you" or "alternative medicine
treats the whole body instead
of just iso
Those sorts of assumptions pervade the stories about environmental doom or mystical cure-alls, but they're almost
never backed up by serious, peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Still, they become the foundations for newer stories (about whatever
chemical the eco-activists or New Age healers have targeted
this week) . . . and then they become
the basis for lawsuits ... jury decisions ... and new draconian regulations. These things,
I became increasingly convinced, are the real threats to our health, our lives and our
libe1iy.
Reporters love the scare stories - such as the ones implying
that night lights
give children leukemia
or cell phones cause cancer. We live for unexpected, alarming news.
That's how unscientific stories get spread.
ACSH combats those unscientific, hyped-up stories, and reporters like me are lucky
to have them around.
I hope they'll be here for another thirty years and more.
Sincerely,
John Stossel
AMERICAN COUNCIL
ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH
1995 BROADWAY, SUITE 202, NEW YORK, NY 10023-5882
TOLL FREE: (866)
905-2694 • TELEPHONE: (212) 352-7044 • FAX: (212) 362-4979
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan
President
Dear
It's so frustrating.
Science is giving us answers to our urgent energy needs ... but fanatical
ideologues keep the science from being implemented.
I'm talking
about "fracking"- or hydraulic
fracturing- the technique of using water, sand and chemicals to extract natural gas from shale formations
deep underground.
America is floating on a sea of clean-burning natural gas, enough to last more than a hundred
years, enough to put thousands
of our citizens to work for decades,
and certainly enough to decrease
our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.
But so-called "environmental" activist groups have increased their attacks on the energy source and the technology
behind fracking.
We're at the mercy of a hardcore group of environmental extremists who won't let us extract
these resources! And they have alarmist regulators firmly embedded in the Obarna Administration on their side.
These extremists
try to hide their anti-business, anti-technology agenda behind the guise of "public health." Their goal is to stampede regulators, legislators and the media into buying into their alarmist
propaganda.
And right now, it's working. These extremists are winning.
It's time to fight back. Not with heated rhetoric, but with facts and science.
That's our job andI am asking
for your help.
My name is Dr. Elizabeth
M. Whelan, and I serve as President of the American
Council on Science and Health (ACSH).
I founded ACSH in 1978 along with a group of like-minded scientists who were concerned that many important public
policies- especially those related to health and the environment- were not based on sound science.
At ACSH, we are committed
to ensuring that puplic policy is based on scientific facts
-not
exaggerations, emotions
or ideologies. We are also committed to defending the
American people from needless panic caused by pseudo-science.
Remember the Alar scare back in 1989? Environmental activists created mass hysteria about a chemical used on apples. CBS's "60
Minutes" reported that Alar was a
"cancer threat for children." American
apple growers suffered
grievous financial losses because of that little bit of misinformation.
We
now know that Alar posed no danger to the public. And leading scientists from the American Council on Science
and Health were the ones who repudiated and uncovered the phony science
behind the scare.
Thanks to the ACSH-led
efforts, which fought hysteria
with facts, the American people learned the truth. Eventually, even the media came around. The Washington Post described the Alar panic as "one
of several food scares that turned out to be baseless."
Many wild claims by extremists have been completely unfounded. And ACSH has led the way in proving dozens of such cases over the years, reassuring the public and defending companies and products that have been unjustly targeted
by enviro-extremists.
But now, many of these activists have been appointed to oversee public
policy!
As
a result, our challenge to keep ideologically-driven pseudo-science out of public policy is greater than ever!
The
environmentalist "Green" movement, which dominates so much oftoday's public policy, doesn't want
natural gas and other carbon-based fuels to be cheaper.
In fact, they want just the opposite.
They want traditional fuel to be even more expensive than it is today.
In
its place, the Greens are committed to so-called renewable
energies - wind and solar power.
But what they won't admit is that the technology required
to efficiently harness
wind and solar energy does not exist. It is- at best- decades
away. And right now, wind and solar energies cost as much as 10 times the cost of coal, gas and oil resources.
· And we still haven't
licked the problem
of windless or cloudy days!
America needs energy.
Abundant, affordable energy
is the foundation for our standard ofliving. It's what makes us competitive. It's what keeps us out of the kind of systemic poverty seen in Third World nations.
And
right now, fossil fuels play an indispensable role in providing
the energy we need to light and heat our homes, run our businesses
and basically keep our civilization intact.
Just a few short yea,rs ago, energy
experts worried that the United States was in danger of running
out of gas. No more!
The
government estimates that we have 2,552 trillion
cubic feet of potential natural gas resources. That's a 110-year supply of natural gas at current rates of consumption.
And
over the past several years,
vast caches of this energy source, trapped
in deeply buried rock, have been made accessible by advances in fracking.
Fracking was first used in Oklahoma
in the 1940s, and in the years since has been employed in more than a million
oil and gas wells across the nation. The process
involves pumping millions
of gallons of chemically-treated
water into deep shale formations at pressures of9,000 pounds per square inch or more. This fluid cracks the shale or widens existing cracks, freeing hydrocarbons to flow toward the well.
Advanced fracking techniques have led to an eight-fold
increase in shale gas production over the past decade. Reports
say that shale gas will account for nearly half of the nation's
natural gas production by 2035.
Keep in mind that burning natural
gas is cleaner than burning
oil or gasoline, and it emits half as much carbon dioxide,
less than one-third
the nitrogen oxides,
and 1 percent as much sulfur oxide
as coal combustion. And vehicles
powered by liquefied
natural gas, propane or compressed natural
gas run cleaner than cars with either gasoline or diesel in the tank.
So
when science hands us something
like "fracking" - which
has the potential to transform America from an energy dependent
nation to an energy exporter
- America should jump
for joy. We could be the Saudi Arabia of natural gas!
Instead, we are under siege
from uncompromising ideologues who value their radical environmentalist agenda more than the well-being of our country.
Their fear campaign
against fracking has led to stringent regulatory barriers that amount to a de facto ban
on this
promising technology in many parts of the country.
A report written by environmental hard liners Representatives Henry A. Waxman of
California, Edward J. Markey ofMassachusetts, and Diana DeGette of
Colorado faulted gas
and oil companies for, at times, "injecting fluids containing chemicals
that they themselves cannot identify."
This report also alleged
that 14 of the nation's most active hydraulic fracturing
companies have used 866 million
gallons of hydraulic
fracturing products-
not including water. More than 650 ofthese products, the report claimed,
contain chemicals that are either known or potential human carcinogens, regulated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act or listed as
hazardous air pollutants.
Following the release
ofthe
House report, the notoriously alarmist
New York Times
reporter Ian Urbina devoted himself
to finding ways to upset readers about fracking.
Among other claims, he asserted that chemicals used during natural
gas extraction may ultimately end up in our drinking
water. Urbina even cited a previous report by the equally alarmist
Environmental Working Group, claiming that benzene levels
in fracking ingredients were as much as 93 times higher than those found in diesel
fuel.
Urbina was also responsible for an entire anti-fracking series
in The Times titled,
"Drilling Down," which examined the risks of natural gas drilling. In one ofhis pieces, "A Tainted Water Well, and Concern There May Be More," Urbina accused energy
companies of keeping
instances of contaminated water wells hidden,
especially from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
These claims
are unsubstantiated!
In
fact, numerous academic,
federal and state investigators have conducted extensive
research on groundwater contamination issues and have found that drinking
water contamination from fracking has not been documented and its future occurrence is highly improbable.
The truth is fracking
involves deep drilling- far below the aquifer- and the wells are encased
in steel pipes before fracking
fluids are ever released, making
groundwater pollution extremely unlikely.
Geologists point out that a fracture
caused by the drilling process
would have to extend through
the several thousand
feet of rock that separate
deep shale gas deposits from fresh water aquifers.
Much of the current
fracking controversy was spurred by the highly misleading 2010 film "Gasland," a documentary that criticizes the natural gas drilling process.
In
the film's signature moment,
Colorado landowner Mike Markham ignites
his tap water. The film leaves the viewer with the false impression that the flaming
tap water is a result of natural
gas drilling.
However, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which tested Markham's water in 2008, there were "no
indications of oil and gas related impacts
to water well." Instead, the investigation found that the methane was "biogenic" in nature, meaning it was naturally
occurring and that his water well was drilled into a natural
gas pocket.
Environmental extremists also claim that fracking
leads to the contamination of drinking water with chemicals
such as benzene. But my ACSH colleague
Dr. Gilbert Ross has shown
that "carcinogenic effects associated with benzene come from studies
ofhigh-exposure occupational workers."
This has little or nothing to do with the traces of benzene present in "hydro··fracking" liquids, let alone the hypothetical amounts
that might conceivably migrate from shale gas deposits to drinking water.
Even President Barack Obama's hyper-environmentalist EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, admitted at a U.S. House Oversight
Committee hearing that the environmental risk of hydraulic
fracturing is practically nonexistent, saying:
"I'm not
aware
of any proven case
where the fracking process itself has affected water, although
there are investigations
ongoing."
Hollywood is already working
on "Gas/and II," a
sequel sure to provoke a resurgence of unfavorable media coverage.
Their scare stories of environmental degradation from fracking are hypothetical. Water contamination
from fracking
is highly unlikely.
Perhaps the anti-fracking activists should consider the damage that results from avoiding fracking
-more
pollution from, and reliance upon, foreign oil.
Simply put, hydraulic fracturing has been safely used in oil and gas production for more than 60 years.
What can be done? Plenty! And we're doing it.
Countering anti-fracking hysteria is one of ACSH's
top priorities right now. With the help of people
like you, we intend to continue to expose the shoddy science and questionable sources in the reporting
oflan
Urbina and others.
We will expose and debunk the outright
distortions in ugly propaganda efforts like "Gas/and."
We
are working on a
new, comprehensive peer-reviewed report
that will expose and refute the anti-fracking hysteria
point by point.
Our
report will use hard science and documented evidence to debunk anti-fracking claims, including alleged:
• "Toxic" chemical water contamination;
• Radioactivity (radium, other radionuclides) leached into groundwater; and
• Air pollution, said to result from toxic gas releases.
Once our initial study
draft is completed, we will solicit
peer-review commentary from experts in this and related fields and from among our own distinguished ACSH scientific panel.
We
know from experience
- from our fight against the Alar scare and countless
other battles in which ACSH has helped truth prevail
over hysteria- that this kind of study is absolutely essential in turning the media around.
Our
ability to get media attention comes from our long history
of credibility and sound science regarding public and environmental health
issues.
We
know of no other group looking
at fracking comprehensively from a sound science perspective. Our report will address the whole spectrum
of public health-related issues.
Of
course, just producing
the report is not enough.
We must then undertake a massive media relations
campaign to get our study read and reported.
And
we're not just targeting the media. The vast majority
of Americans want energy independence. And more than that, they want jobs and a better economy.
Americans must know that a narrow-minded group of environmental extremists is standing in the way. They need to know the objections to fracking are based on a radical
environmentalist agenda - not science.
In
addition to our primary report,
we are producing a "consumer" version accessible to non-technical audiences.
Our
goal is to unleash the enormous grassroots potential of millions of Americans armed with the facts.
We
will achieve this goal through
our numerous television and radio interviews,
through op-eds in leading newspapers and magazines, and of course through aggressive
exposure of our study via the Internet using social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter.
ACSH is uniquely
suited to separate
the facts from the hype.
We are the only group in America whose sole mission
is refuting irresponsible, un
scientific, hysteria-based claims
such as those directed at fracking.
John Stossel is just one noteworthy example
of the few intelligent, articulate and right-minded members of the media who support
our work to promote sound science.
As John mentioned
to you in his accompanying letter, we at ACSH tirelessly battle
Big Government regulation of important health
issues each and every day.
Of course we do not receive one dime of taxpayer money.
It is only because
of the generosity of people like you that we are able to speak out on such controversies.
Without ACSH, the fear mongers would
often go unopposed,
and nobody would be there to defend
against the sea of lies and the needless government intervention so prominent
today.
You
should know that the nucleus
of ACSH, the secret of our effectiveness in this and all our campaigns, is our board of nearly 400 physicians, scientists and policy
advisors world-renowned experts in a wide variety of fields.
Our
advisory board knows better than anyone that distorted and overstated scientific
evidence - when used to promote
public policy - threatens our nation and our personal
health and well-being.
ACSH is the only organization of its type backed by a full range of scientific and medical experts
who have fought to defend the benefits
of solid science.
The
unmatched prestige of the ACSH Scientific and Policy Advisory Board is
the reason why we at ACSH lead the fight to debunk the junk, confront the alarmists and hysterics, and insist that public
policy is based on
sound
science.
It is
the most powerful weapon the forces of freedom
have in the war for sane public policy!
Mr. Rice, will you help us fight the anti-fracking hysteria
that is so destructive to our economy?
Will you help us get thousands
of our fellow Americans back to work in high-paying
jobs that will make our energy more abundant and affordable and reduce our dependence on foreign sources?
Your generous contribution today to the American Council
on Science and Health will help combat the current
anti-fracking hysteria that now dominates
the media mindset
and regulatory policy.
Your contribution will not just enable ACSH to write op-eds, make media appearances
and maintain websites
countering hype. It will also help make possible the definitive, peer reviewed, technical
science report upon which our op-eds and layman-friendly literature and websites are built.
Please join us and make a contribution to ACSH today. I'm hoping your tax deductible donation can be as much as $50 or $100. Gifts of $250, $500 and even $1,000 or more are
especially needed.
I promise you that we will immediately use your gift to generate
more material aimed at ending the reign ofthe anti-energy hucksters, fear mongers and doomsayers.
Thank you in advance for your participation in this crucial fight.
Sincerely,
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan
President
American Council on Science and Health
P.S. Abundant,
safely extracted, clean-burning natural gas could be a Godsend for the
American economy and the
environment.
But the anti-fracking extremists are sounding needless
alarms and manufacturing
crises based on junk science and false claims. They say they want to protect people from "evil" energy companies, but you and I know they have a different agenda ... an ideological agenda that is actually
against affordable energy.
It's an agenda hostile to free enterprise and the remarkable
innovation only a free economy
can deliver.
Your gift, and those of others like you, is the true key to defeating the fear mongers and freedom-hating zealots. Please enclose
your most generous
possible tax deductible donation of$50 or $100, $250, $500 and even $1,000 or more.
As John Stossel says, we are a small but vital organization, doing work that nobody else
dares to do. Thank you!
