Group items tagged

Dans le rapport de 2006 du National Research Council des États-Unis, on explique comment le système endocrinien et les fonctions thyroïdiennes sont altérés à la suite d'une exposition à des concentrations de fluorure inférieures aux valeurs associées à la consommation « d'eau fluorée de façon optimale »; « plusieurs données indiquent que l'exposition au fluorure affecte la fonction thyroïdienne ». Selon le rapport de 2006 du NRC sur les fluorures dans l'eau potable, l'ingestion d'aussi peu que 0,7 mg de fluorure par jour par une personne de 75 kg ayant une carence en iode peut entraîner un freinage de la fonction thyroïdienne [P. 263, Tableau 8-2]. Selon de nombreuses sources [voir ATSDR 1993, CNRC 1977], nous consommons en moyenne environ 3 mg de fluorure par jour. Selon les Centers for Disease Control, aujourd'hui, les concentrations d'iode dans l'urine sont la moitié de ce qu'elles étaient en 1971. L'agence estime que 36 p. 100 des femmes américaines ont un apport en iode sous-optimal. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/iodine.htm (en anglais seulement) « [Traduction] En résumé, des preuves issues de sources diverses indiquent que le fluorure affecte la fonction et la réponse endocrinienne normales; les effets des changements causés par le fluorure varient en intensité et sont différents d'une personne à l'autre. Le fluorure est donc un perturbateur endocrinien. » NRC, Report on Fluorides in Drinking Water, 2006.

Une récente étude publiée dans The Lancet décrit le fluorure comme une « substance neurotoxique émergente » en raison des preuves qui associent le fluorure à des QI inférieurs chez les enfants, et à des lésions cérébrales chez les animaux121. « [Traduction] Les fluorures augmentent également la production de radicaux libres dans le cerveau par l'entremise de divers processus biologiques. Ces changements ont un rapport avec la possibilité que les fluorures augmentent le risque de maladie d'Alzheimer. » NRC 2006 « [Traduction] … les animaux auxquels on a administré la dose la plus faible d'AlF [fluorure d'aluminium], soit 0,5 ppm, étaient plus sensibles à la maladie, et on a observé un taux de mortalité plus élevé chez ces animaux que chez ceux auxquels on a administré des concentrations plus élevées [5 ppm, 50 ppm]. » Varner, J.A., et coll., 1998, « Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride and sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity ». Brain Research, vol. 784, p. 284-298. « [Traduction] L'association possible entre la présence d'effets cytogénétiques et l'exposition au fluorure laisse entendre que le syndrome de Down serait une issue biologiquement plausible de l'exposition au fluorure. » NRC 2006 p. 170 Une étude réalisée en 1995 par une neurotoxicologue de renom, Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., et publiée dans la revue Neurotoxicology and Teratology révèle que les bébés rats — selon le moment auquel ils sont exposés à des doses de fluorure semblables à celles que reçoivent les enfants — montraient des signes d'hyperactivité et d'hypoactivité; lorsque les animaux étaient exposés au fluorure avant la naissance, ils avaient un comportement hyperactif, tandis que lorsqu'ils y étaient exposés après la naissance, ils devenaient plutôt hypoactifs. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A., Kernan, W.J.,  1995 « Central Nervous System Damage from Fluorides », Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 17(2),

Qui sont les plus sensibles au fluorure? On estime la population actuelle du Canada à 33 millions d'habitants. Environ 43 p. 100 des Canadiens ingèrent de l'acide fluorosilicique en buvant de l'eau potable fluorée artificiellement41 et bon nombre d'autres Canadiens ingèrent du fluorure présent naturellement dans l'eau à des concentrations supérieures à 0,5mg/L. Voici les groupes les plus sensibles à l'eau fluorée : Jeunes enfants et fœtus Personnes qui boivent plus de 2 litres d'eau par jour (athlètes, soldats, ouvriers, mères qui allaitent, diabétiques) Personnes qui ne peuvent pas filtrer l'eau dans leur corps (personnes souffrant d'insuffisance rénale, jeunes enfants) Personnes souffrant de maladies cardiovasculaires Personnes âgées 1 à 4 p. 100 des Canadiens pourraient être sensibles au fluorure [330 000 à 1 320 000 Canadiens] 5 p. 100 des Canadiens souffrent de diabète [1 650 000 Canadiens] 5 p. 100 des Canadiens sont atteints d'une affection rénale [1 650 000 Canadiens] 27 à 44 p. 100 des Canadiens ont un régime alimentaire faible en calcium, en magnésium et en iode (qui aide à neutraliser la toxicité du fluorure) [8 910 000 à 14 520 000 Canadiens] 5 à 40 p. 100 des Canadiens souffrent d'un dysfonctionnement de la glande thyroïde [1 650 000 à 13 200 000 Canadiens]

Le fluorure est distribué comme médicament dans notre eau potable, mais il n'a jamais été approuvé comme médicament aux États-Unis (on ignore où en est le processus d'approbation du médicament au Canada). « [Traduction] La Food and Drug Administration Office of Prescription Drug Compliance a confirmé, à ma grande surprise, qu'il n'existe aucune étude démontrant l'innocuité ou l'efficacité de ces médicaments que la FDA classe comme nouveaux médicaments non approuvés. » Lettre du Dr David Kessler, M.D., commissaire, Food and Drug Administration (États-Unis), 3 juin 1993 au membre du Congrès Kenneth Calvert, président du sous-comité sur l'énergie et l'environnement du comité sur les sciences, Washington, D.C. « [Traduction] Lorsque le fluorure est utilisé dans le cadre d'un diagnostic, ou pour guérir, soulager, traiter ou prévenir des maladies affectant les humains ou les animaux, il s'agit d'un médicament qui est assujetti aux règlements de la Food and Drug Administration (FDA). » Lettre de la Food and Drug Administration (États-Unis), décembre 2000, au membre du Congrès Kenneth Calvert, président du sous-comité sur l'énergie et l'environnement du comité sur les sciences, Washington, D.C « [Traduction] En pharmacologie, si l'effet d'un médicament est local (topique), il est tout à fait incongru de l'utiliser autrement qu'en application topique. Cela va de soi. Les dents sont là; elles sont facilement accessibles. Alors, pourquoi en boire? » Dr Arvid Carlsson, lauréat du prix Nobel de médecine, 2000.

As Meeks continued his quest, hydraulic fracturing was transforming the energy industry and unfurling a wave of drilling that rippled quickly across the country. The fracturing technology that was first used commercially by Halliburton in 1949 had been reworked until a sweet spot combination of chemicals and pressure was derived that made it possible to reach gas far deeper in the earth than energy companies had previously been able to. In 1995 hydraulic fracturing was used in only a small fraction of gas wells, and the nation’s gas reserves were around 165 trillion cubic feet. The United States was so desperate for energy that energy companies were scrambling to secure foreign oil and building $300-million ports to import liquefied natural gas from Russia, Qatar and elsewhere.

By late 2008, however, fracturing was being used in nine out of 10 of the roughly 33,000 wells drilled in the United States each year, and estimates of the nation’s gas reserves had jumped by two thirds. Drilling was taking place in 31 states, and geologists claimed the United States contained enough natural gas to supply the country for a century. Russia’s president (and former chairman of its state gas company, Gazprom), Dmitri Medvedev, said he would curtail his own nation’s gas drilling efforts because he thought the United States might have so much gas that it wouldn’t buy more from Russia.

As more wells were drilled, however, more reports began to emerge from people who had similar experiences to that of Louis Meeks.

Much of the land in Sublette County is owned by the federal government, which meant that the Environmental Protection Agency — not just state regulators — was charged with conducting an environmental review before drilling is allowed. As part of that review, in 2007 EPA hydrologists sampled a pristine drinking water aquifer that underlay the region. What they found was a show-stopper: frighteningly high levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, in 88 separate samples stretching across 28 miles. “It was like, holy shit, this is huge,” said Greg Oberley, a groundwater specialist at the EPA’s Region 8 headquarters in Denver. “You’ve got benzene in a usable aquifer and nobody is able to verbalize well, using factual information, how the benzene got there. Nobody understood what caused this.” One thing was clear: There was little industrial activity in the Pinedale area other than drilling, and few other potential causes for the pollution.

It wasn’t at all clear that the EPA had the budget, the political fortitude or the impetus to pursue the thorough study that Oberley and other scientists thought was needed. The agency had looked, briefly, at hydraulic fracturing before. In 2004 it published a report examining how it affected water supplies in a type of geologic formation, called coalbed methane, which is different from the rocks being drilled in most of the nation’s new gas fields. The report detailed numerous concerns about the potential for dangerous fluids to migrate underground. But then, in an abrupt turn, it concluded that hydraulic fracturing “poses little or no threat” and “does not justify additional study.” The one exception, it found, was when diesel fuel was used in fracturing fluids. But the industry insisted that it was discontinuing that practice. The EPA’s findings were criticized in some scientific circles at the time, and by an EPA whistleblower, Wes Wilson, for bending to Bush administration dictates and ignoring scientific methods for analyzing contamination complaints.

In March 2009, six weeks after President Obama’s inauguration and four years after Meeks first had trouble with his water, a team from the EPA’s Superfund program began collecting 39 water samples from properties around the Pavillion area. It was the first formal investigation into complaints of water pollution in Pavillion after many years of letter writing and phone calls and visits to the governor’s office and even a couple of lawsuits. Across the mountains in Pinedale, Oberley had also continued to collect water samples from the aquifer underneath the Anticline drilling fields — where he’d found the benzene the year before — and was carefully assembling a broader body of data. The EPA scientists preferred to keep a low profile and dodge the political canon fire that was bound to be returned from any perceived assault on the oil and gas industry. But, in effect, the EPA had begun its first robust scientific examination of the environmental effects of natural gas drilling on the nation’s water supply. By this time, complaints about water contamination in drilling areas had become a national issue.

In the face of this tornado of worry, the drilling industry remained steadfast in its insistence that fracturing and all the drilling processes related to it were completely safe. They continued to spend tens of millions of dollars lobbying against regulation and peppered websites and publications with pro-gas advertisements. Industry trade groups pointed out that drilling development brings jobs and economic bounty to ailing communities and painted critics as unpatriotic heretics working against U.S. energy independence. They drew support from local businesses and residents whose communities needed the money and needed the jobs.

In the fall of 2009, Meeks got a call to meet Randy Teeuwen, the EnCana representative, at the Holiday Inn in Riverton. The company had warned him months earlier that it would stop paying for his water supply and had given him the option to continue the service and pay for it himself. Meeks declined. There was no way he could afford the payments. He was still hoping that a broader settlement might be reached and EnCana would buy him out. If his property was worthless, Meeks wanted them to pay for his entire loss.

On September 14, HB Rentals, the global oilfield services supplier EnCana had hired to supply Meeks with water, sent Scott Farrell with a truck to remove the tanker of water from Meeks’ home. Farrell found himself facing a cluster of television crews and reporters. But Meeks, for all his blustery anger, was uncharacteristically quiet. After all these years the wind seemed to have been sucked out of his lungs, and he had nothing to say. He fought tears, and his voice quivered as he told his story to the TV cameras. Taking the water was like issuing a life sentence. Once it was gone, there was no way he would be able to replace it. “I can’t believe someone would do something like that,” he told the reporters. Farrell was visibly affected. “We decided that we were not going to leave Mr. Meeks without any water,” he said, when the cameras turned to him. “We’re going to leave the tank and everything here at no charge.”

But a few hours later, HB returned, loaded the tanker, and finally took Louis Meeks’ water away.

Whatever the EPA does, its environmental research is guaranteed to go slower than the pace of drilling development. In 2010, another 14,324 new gas wells were drilled in the United States, including in Wyoming. “If things don’t change now it’s going to be just a big polluted dump,” said Meeks Jr.

“I think a lot of people look at me and think what did I end up with after five years,” Meeks says. “I’m stupid for going up against a billion-dollar company.” “There is no end in sight,” he adds. “But at least they are listening now.”