Air Quality in the Barnett Shale - Part 10: How not to describe Toluene

So here I am on my 10th rant...err, I mean post.  What started all of this was a simple Google search looking for information on air quality and oil & gas exploration/production involving frac'ing in Texas.  What I found mentioned over and over again mentioned sampling performed in the Town of DISH, Texas by Wolf Eagle Environmental.  Reading their report, written by an MPH named Alisa Rich, I come across a number of descriptions as to the hazards posed by the contaminants detected in the seven samples they took in the Town of DISH, Texas back in September of 2009.

The one on Toluene was what started these posts.  Nothing makes me madder than when someone who is in the know reports faulty, misleading or incorrect information to the general public.  As an MPH she knows better.  Although what she said was factually true, the context it was put in was misleading:

Lets look at a different chemical to illustrate how misleading a statement like this can be:

Phosphoric Acid - CAS Number 7664-38-2  

Corrosive. Causes skin and eye burns. Harmful if inhaled or swallowed. Irritating to respiratory system. Prolonged exposure may cause chronic effects.  This product is considered hazardous under 29 CFR 1910.1200 (Hazard Communication).  Risk of serious damage to eyes. Do not get this material in contact with eyes.  Causes skin burns. Harmful if inhaled. Inhalation of vapors or mists of the product may be irritating to the respiratory system. Prolonged inhalation may be harmful. Do not breathe dust/fume/gas/mist/vapors/spray.  Harmful if swallowed. Components of the product may be absorbed into the body by ingestion. Ingestion may produce burns to the lips, oral cavity, upper airway, esophagus and  possibly the digestive tract. Circulatory collapse. Unconsciousness, possibly death. Do not ingest. Components of this product are hazardous to aquatic life. May cause long-term adverse effects in the environment. (1)

Pay particular attention to the section in red.  Wow!  That phosphoric acid must be really bad stuff!  Now lets look at a can of Coke, or Pepsi, or Dr. Pepper, or any other carbonated drink.

So will drinking a can of Coke cause you to suffer "Circulatory collapse. Unconsciousness, possibly death?"  

No.

Is Coke, which contains phosphoric acid, "Harmful if swallowed?"

No.

Does ingestion of this product "produce burns to the lips, oral cavity, upper airway, esophagus and  possibly the digestive tract?"

No.

And the reason?  The dose!  In other words, there is a "safe amount" of phosphoric acid that a person can be exposed to.  Carbonated drinks contain that "safe amount."

So were the citizens of DISH, Texas exposed to an amount of Toluene that would/could present any of the hazards described in Wolf Eagle Environmental's report?

No. (2)(3)

And yet both Alisa Rich and Wilma Subra presented to the Town of DISH, Texas reports that imply that the amount of contaminants detected in the seven samples exposed the citizens to "a neurotoxin." (4)

If we go back to looking at chemical exposure in terms of exposure to a dog, in DISH, Texas a dog was indeed found to be present.  Even if we assume worst-case as the TCEQ did in their memo - increasing the amount of chemicals detected in a 24 hour sample to 24 times the levels detected - what was detected at the Town of DISH, Texas by Wolf Eagle Environmental, was a dog that looks like this:

But the way their report was worded, it describes a dog that looks like this:

So as Wilma Subra concludes in her report:

The data from the report should be used to educate community members living in the area with the highest concentrations of chemicals and chemicals in excess of TCEQ ESLs in the air they are being exposed to.

Well you now have the data and the correct context to help make a proper determination as to the risk posed by the oil & gas production that is taking place.


Next post: Air Quality in the Barnett Shale - Part 11:  Is there a real concern for DISH, Texas?


.

Air Quality in the Barnett Shale - Part 1: Introduction

It all starts like this.....

Researching air quality in areas where frac'ing is taking place in Texas to obtain natural gas.  Came across TCEQ web page titled "A Commitment to Air Quality in the Barnett Shale" that states:

“After several months of operation, state-of-the-art, 24-hour air monitors in the Barnett Shale area are showing no levels of concern for any chemicals. This reinforces our conclusion that there are no immediate health concerns from air quality in the area, and that when they are properly managed and maintained, oil and gas operations do not cause harmful excess air emissions.”

All is good!  Reading further, they mention that much of the concern has been from a town called DISH.  Yeah, DISH - they changed the name for free access to satellite TV as publicity for the company with the same name.

Going to the Town of DISH's website, I see a link called "Dish Air Quality Results" which brings me to a page with a number of reports.  Clicking "Dish, Texas Ambient Air Monitoring Analysis" I get a report by Wilma Subra titled "Evaluation of Town of DISH, Texas Ambient Air Monitoring Analysis" which summarizes the conclusion of a report by a company called "Wolf Eagle Environmental" which had been hired by the Mayor, Calvin Tillman, to perform ambient air monitoring analysis in the Town of DISH.

In the summary of the final report - and reiterated by Ms. Subra - the following statement is made:

"Air analysis performed in the Town of DISH confirmed the presence in high concentrations of carcinogenic and neurotoxin compounds in ambient air near and/or on residential properties.  The compounds in the air indicate quantities in excess of what would normally be anticipated in ambient air in an urban residential or rural residential area. Many of these compounds verified by laboratory analysis were metabolites of known human carcinogens and exceeded both Short-term and Long-term effective screening levels (ESL) according to TCEQ regulations."

OK, so the TCEQ says there are "no levels of concern for any chemical" but Ms. Subra and Wolf Eagle Environmental say the air contains "the presence in high concentrations of carcinogenic and neurotoxin compounds" and they "exceeded both Short-term and Long-term effective screening levels (ESL) according to TCEQ regulations."  So which is it?  Exposure at no level of concern or exposure to carcinogenic and neurotoxin compounds?

Hmmm?  What carcinogenic and neurotoxin compounds were detected in the air samples taken by Wolf Eagle Environmental?  Reading the report a little further I find Benzene and Toluene identified as two of the chemicals of concern found in the samples at "high" concentrations.  OK...what do they have to say about these two chemicals presenting a health concern at concentrations in the parts per billion (ppb) range...

...ding! ding! ding! warning! my "no they did not just say that did they?!" alarm goes off - in particular - over this one statement made by Ms. Subra in her report (emphasis mine) as well as one by Wolf Eagle Environmental:

"The air sample from Air Field - corner SE contained 8 chemicals that exceed the TCEQ ESLs.  Benzene, a know human cancer causing agent, was present in the highest concentration of all stations sampled.  The concentration of Benzene in the air exceeded the Short-term ESL by 1.45 times and the Long-term ESL by 55 times the standard.  The Benzene concentration at this sample location was 6 times the next highest Benzene concentration (at 9203 Chisum).  Xylenes (m & p), a neorotoxin, was present in the highest concentration of all stations sampled and exceeded the Long-term ESL by 2 times." [Subra]

 There is evidence that chronic occupational exposure to Xylenes is associated with neurological effects. [Wolf Eagle Environmental]

There is not too much that gets my blood boiling more than using factual and correct information in a way that is misleading and/or incorrectly used.  All this does - purposely or unwittingly - is perpetuate unnecessary confusion and/or fear in the public affected.  This is inexcusable in a scientific paper - especially when placed there by "experts" that should know better than to use wording that can easily be misconstrued by a public not very knowledgeable in understanding toxicity, toxicology, and risk.

So who are these experts?

• The Wolf Eagle Environmental report was signed by Alisa Rich who is working on her PhD and also, like me, is a MPH.  
• Ms. Subra owns a "chemistry lab and environmental consulting firm" and "provides technical assistance to citizens, across the United States and some foreign countries, concerned with their environment by combining technical research and evaluation. This information is then presented to community members so that strategies may be developed to address their local struggles."  She also received the MacArthur Fellowship Genius Award.

Great, I am going up against a PhD and a Genius.  But I am not daunted.  You can read my credentials by looking at my CV in the tab above.  All I have to challenge them with is a MSPH, but after these next few posts, you can either agree with my indignation over how they worded their reports or you can choose to accept what is unequivocally implied from their conclusion. All I am attempting here is to help "ordinary" citizens understand, cope with and combat environmental issues" using data and information in the correct context and actual reality in which it is found.

So before we move on to the next post, let me spell out my bias.  I have no "dog in this hunt" in any way, shape or form.  I am pro business AND pro environment.  I am a scientist and a passionate defender of public health.  I take my MSPH and CHMM credentials serious and would never do anything to purposely taint them by not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  In short, it is my attempt here to be nothing more than an honest broker.

Edited 2/16/11 in green

Next Post.  Air Quality in the Barnett Shale - Part 2:  Exposure to a toxic chemical.


.