 Okay, I'll keep letting you in if you'd like to go ahead and start. All right. Well, thank you everyone for coming. Welcome. This is part two of our what's in our air series. In the first part. We had data from Dr. Helmick about the monitoring stations and what he's finding with that data. And then we had Andrew from Earthworks. And we also had some photos from Mitzi and some personal accounts. So I was very, very helpful, I think. And that sets the stage for tonight's, which is what's in our air and why should we care. And tonight we're going to talk about some of the health implications. We'll have Dr. Lisa McKenzie. Talk about her research. And then we'll have. Dr. Gordon Carroll, who's with physicians for social responsibility. Talk about health impacts as a physician. We're going to start actually though with Andrew from Earthworks. It's going to update us on the current drilling up with the Nightwell. And, and then just a quick. Note that our, our part three, which is okay. So now what can we do about this? We'll be September 22nd. We still don't have. We're hoping we can do that in person. But, you know, we're kind of unsure what's going to happen with this Delta variant. So we'll let you know, we'll be sending that out. But as part of that, what can we do? We're going to have representatives at the city. County and legislative state legislature. Talk about what they're working on. And then a doctor. Doctor. No. Representative Joe Nagoos is going to also talk about what's being done federally. So it should be a really good presentation too. So we're going to start tonight by all of us. Introducing ourselves. And then Joan is going to start. So I'm Karen. I am a part of the planning committee from, from this long run climate committee. I also work a lot with Sierra club. And other. Other environmental groups. Lynette, do you want to go next? And my name is Lynette McClain and I'm a retired educator. And I'm working with this group and with a progressive Democrats. So go ahead. Virginia. Or no, I mean. Judith. I'm Judith Blackburn. Part of the planning committee for the climate community. And several other groups working on environmental. Issues. And it's a pleasure to see so many people interested in this these days. And Michael. Hi folks. I'm Michael Bell. I'm kind of emeritus. Member of the original. Fracking band where we. Did an initiative and successfully. Voted on a fracking band in Longmont. And just participating a bit here in the climate group. Grateful for. These presentations. And Missy Nicoletti. And I'm going to go ahead and. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. I'm a climate group. Grateful for. These presentations. And Missy Nicoletti is in another meeting, but she's on our team. Also, she's going to join us a little bit later on. And I should say that I am a retired nurse. And I am. Really. Overwhelmed with all of the pollution that we have to put up with here in this city. So. I find it really. Very exciting. And I'm going to start with. Joan Peck is going to give us a little quick. She has a few words to say. And she is city council member. Joan. Thank you, Karen. Welcome everybody. And. Hello. Good evening. I am very excited that you're all here to listen into. To this important subject. I'm a member of the climate community. And I'm really honored that they asked me to give you a quick hello. I am very interested in this subject. In 2012, I led the petition drive to ban fracking in Longmont. And have been continually working towards. Having a cleaner climate. So I'd like to welcome doctors, Corey Carroll and Lisa McKenzie. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do you want to, you're going to introduce Andrew. Okay. So I would like to introduce Andrew Cluster. He's a certified optical gas imaging thermometer. And that is a mouthful. And he's a Colorado field advocate for earthworks. And he's going to present some local data. He has gathered. Concerning what is in our air here locally. So go ahead, Andrew. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That's a perfect intro. Like I, like I said earlier, folks really want more of the in-depth bio. They can look, watch the first webinar. Catch up. So I'm going to share my screen. Cool. Everyone can see that. Well, everything's working. Perfect. So yes, my name is Andrew Cluster, Colorado field advocate with earthworks. And I was asked to give a quick update today. I'm going to focus in on one site in particular, and I think it's the site that's probably top of mind for most folks in Longmont and surrounding areas. And that is the Cub Creek night pad. And I, you know, before I jump right in here where we left off, just in case there's anyone on tonight who wasn't on the last webinar hasn't. And I'm going to try to be as quick as possible because I want to get plenty of time to our other panelists and this really important discussion tonight. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I wasn't on the last webinar, hasn't seen how earthworks presents our data. So earthworks. I use a optical gas imaging camera, which is the same camera that the industry themselves use regulators at the CDPHE EPA use to detect pollutants that oil and gas sites that are invisible to the naked eye. And that is primarily we're concerned about methane and volatile organic compounds. And I'm sure you're going to hear quite a bit more about volatile organic compounds during the remainder of this webinar. So on the right hand side of the slide here, you see an animated gift, which is pulled directly from a video I took with the OGI camera of the night pad. On the left hand side, you have digital camera photos taken around the same time from the same angle as this video, showing that these pollutants are not pollutants that you can see. If you were to just observe the pad with your naked eye, you need a very expensive piece of equipment. Unfortunately. You can see this plume of pollutants coming off the pad from behind the sound wall and drifting across the field there. When I last presented this to you all in May, this was fresh from the field. I had just filed a complaint with CDPHE. So as this update tonight, I can share that I have subsequently learned that on the same day that I filmed this pad on May 13th, the CDPHE also had actually VOC monitor set up on a plume property and they detected a plume or a plume, a spike of VOCs at about 6pm. This video was taken at 7pm. They detected as well a couple of spikes after that on this monitor that they had near the site. So armed with both their own monitoring data and with this footage that I had happened to get on the exact same day that they were also monitoring, they approached Cub Creek and Cub Creek. Unfortunately, the response to both of these data points was that what we're seeing in this video and what they detected in their monitor was just normal drilling operations. I wish I could clarify for you all tonight what exactly that means, but I myself don't know. It could be in a lot of things, honestly. And I think, you know, again, you can see in the footage and from the photos with the sound walls up, it's really hard to tell where these pollutants are coming from. It's hard to know what the source was on the site. I think this was the flare on the site. I don't believe it was that has been inspected by the COGCC multiple times. But I also, I just don't know. And it seems as if we never will know because unfortunately, Cub Creek has now moved on from, so this was taken during the drilling phase. Most of this year they've still been drilling these wells. As of just this weekend, they have moved into the completions phase or commonly known, I think to most people as the actual hydraulic fracturing phase. And that will be continuing for the next two or so months, eight to 10 weeks. And so the second part of this quick update, I just want to share with you all kind of a public service announcement about the fracking phase and what hopefully may not occur, but to at least potentially expect fracking historically, traditionally has been one of the more that phase of the wells life cycles been one of the more pollution heavy phases. And that's for a variety of reasons, including the fact that you have a lot of increased just vehicle traffic and activity on the site. They also are potentially burning their flares are combusting more frequently because they're burning off excess methane. And then there's also this really this process called flowback and flowback is where some of the fluids that they used to actually frack these fracking fluids that get pumped down into the well to fracture the earth and release the trapped methane, those a portion of those flow back to the surface during the process. And they're a pretty nasty concoction typically and they can off gas some pretty nasty things, including VOCs. So that flowback process has also traditionally been one of the very pollution heavy phases of the wells life cycle. In 2020, the state did adopt new regulations concerning flowbacks specifically. And now flowback fluids need to be stored in closed containers. They need to be flaring off excess gas during this process. And so fingers crossed, hopefully this will mean that on these new pads being fracked currently like the night pad, we won't see the same sorts of pollution events that we saw previously on the front range when prep had were being fracked. But I will be keeping a close eye on this pad during this process, monitoring it as much as I can with the camera and on the subsequent webinar in September, hopefully I will have something to share and let's hope for the best. But in the spirit of hoping for the best and preparing for the worst, I just want to also one last slide I want to share with you all some resources. If you live in and around the pad, which is not in the city of Longmont, it's outside of Longmont and Weld County just north of the Union Reservoir, but it still is near where a lot of people recreate and hang out on the reservoir. If you were for any reason in being in close proximity to the pad, experience anything that you might consider a health impact, whether it's dizziness, nausea, headache, something more serious like a nose bleed, please, please, please let the CDPHE know. They want to know from residents, they want to know from the public if people are experiencing impacts due to oil and gas development. And so I have on the slide here a couple of, some, a link plus some contact info. I'm also going to put it in the chat after I'm done so that people can grab it from there. But that link will take you directly to a web form that you can fill out to basically just, it's really quick, does not take too much time and you just give some info about yourself, the site and the health impact. There's also a non-health form that you can fill out that's much more concise. And then that phone number and the email are really for directly contacting the CDPHE with this info rather than going through the form. And I will say they tend to be very, very prompt and very sensitive to the health concerns. So again, urge you to take advantage of this resource. We all are sort of in this, this position right now of again, kind of watching this and watching and waiting to see if hopefully some of these regulations that have been adopted will make a difference in terms of the emissions that we may see during this phase. So that is all I have. Again, want to, want to give plenty of time to the, the meat of this conversation, but I'll be sticking around through the course of this webinar and if people have specific questions during Q&A, I'll be here to answer them. Can I just quit jump in about speaking with questions? Thank you, Andrew. Wow, poignant stuff. Speaking of the questions, we're going to take questions at the end, but as you have your questions, type them in. While they're on your mind into the chat, we will re note them. Judith and I will track, keep track of them and then ask those questions at the end of the appropriate presenter. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for saying that, Michael. I appreciate it. And also I'm going to try and put the information that Andrew just gave you into the chat too, so that you'll have, you can copy that down if you need to. Okay. Next up is Dr. Lisa McKenzie. She is a clinical assistant professor from this Colorado School of Public Health. And Dr. McKenzie's research has contributed to the understanding of how air pollutants and other exposures resulting from the unconventional development of petroleum resources may affect the public's health. Her studies investigating associations between adverse birth outcomes and childhood cancers and proximity to oil and gas development are among the first epidemiological studies on this topic to appear in the published literature. Her Sentinel human health risk assessment indicated the potential for respiratory, neurological and developmental health outcomes resulting from exposure to air pollutants emitted during natural gas development. She has testified before the United States Congress and the Denver Metropolitan Regional Air Quality Council on the public health implications of natural gas development. So thank you so much for being here, Dr. McKenzie, and you may begin. Okay. Well, good evening and Lynette, thank you for that introduction and the invitation to present here. I'm just going to get my screen up and hoping that everyone can see that. Now I'm going to try to get over. Okay, so what I'm going to be presenting to you this evening is just talking about some of the health implications and kind of where the current state of the science is on this. And I'm going to be talking actually a little bit more than just about our studies here in Colorado with studies that have been done in other states and kind of where we're starting to see some agreement and results. So I think that's important. And I'm going to start this with what if you've seen my presentations before, I'm going to start with this kind of bullseye map or figure, I should say. And if you think of the well site at the center, this is, you know, the source of the air pollutants, whether they're coming from the wells or the equipment on the well site. And so that's where you would expect the emissions and the hazards to be highest. And then as you move out from the site, the different hazards are changing. And so when you're close to the site, when we think about hazards around a well site, you know, there's things associated with the drill cutting, there's these air emissions, which we've mentioned, which are volatile organic compounds. Noise is a big complaint around these, which can also impact people's health. We have nitrogen oxides and the VOCs can work together in the presence of sunshine to form this ground level ozone, which is more of a regional component. Not, it also affects people close, but it's also affecting people further away from the site. I think that love is probably talked to you quite a bit about that. We have silica, we have particulate matter. So we have all these hazards. And what I want to do today is I want to put these hazards, take it from hazards and look at health effects. And so I'm going to reference back to this type of figure. And just reminding red is closest. And as we get out to green, this is what I would consider people that are fairly far from the site. And oftentimes our reference or comparison groups. Before I get to the health effects, I just want to reiterate that since our 2012. Risk assessment was published. When it was still being debated whether or not oil and gas development was a major issue, there were a number of oil sites where sources of volatile organic compounds, including a benzene and alkanes, which can impact people's health. This is well established now. I don't think this is argued anymore. This is a source of benzene. It's not the only source out there at benzene, but it is a source of benzene. And benzene, which is a hazardous air pollutant that has been associated with cancers and other. Oil and gas development at levels exceeding minimal risk levels for both chronic and acute health effects. We also know from more recent studies that our group has done that particulate matter concentrations and we're assuming these are mainly from the equipment in vehicles. As far as 1000 feet from the site are increasing during the well development activities. So that's drilling hydraulic fracturing, blowback those activities. And that noise measurements out to 1000 feet are at levels that can affect sleep and affect cardiovascular health. So these are all based on measurements that have been taken around oil and gas sites. We also have two fairly recent human health risk assessments that have been done here in Colorado. These health risk assessments inform some of the new setback rules at the COGCC, particularly the one done by the holder group. Our risk assessment that our group did, we used actually measurements from samples, collected at various distances from oil and gas sites. And we use quite a bit of that lot of helmets, data too for this. And what we concluded in that study was at about 2000 feet. We started seeing increases for risk for acute health effects. And at 500 feet, we started to see really steep rises in risk for lifetime cancer risks. The study that was done by the Colorado Department of Public Health was actually commissioned by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. That study actually used modeling from some emission ratios that were determined by Jeff Collette at Colorado State University. And they also found they started to see increases in cancer risk around 2000 feet. They didn't look at 500 feet. So they didn't, we couldn't compare that. They also saw increases in acute health risk starting around 2000 feet. So I just wanted to go over those studies. But what I mainly want to do today is talk about the epidemiological studies. And before we get into that, let's just do a quick review of epidemiology a little bit because I know this isn't really a familiar science to a lot of people. So we can start out with these predictive types of studies, which I just discussed, the risk assessment, things like the health impact assessment that was done in Battlement Mesa in 2010. And those help us generate some hypotheses of what some health effects around oil and gas development might be. But they don't tell us if there's a cause and effect. The next thing we can go on to in our tier of studies are these case series studies where we start looking at health effects in people around the site. So what they're reporting to physicians and things like that and start to see if we can develop symptoms that are common among people. And we have the ecological studies where we can compare counties, counties with development to counties without development zip codes with development to zip codes without development. And these also are good for generating hypotheses of what's going on. And then the next thing we want to go to are these analytics studies. And these are the studies where we can start thinking about cause and effect or establish what we call temporality, that an exposure might have occurred before the health effect occurred. And these are the case control studies. And I'll be talking about a few of these and cohort studies. And then so we're actually following populations, either going back in time and using data and following them or following them forward in time. Most of the studies around oil and gas have been what we call retrospective looking back in time. And to date there have been about 53 epidemiological studies published now. So this is, it goes up every year. There's just more and more. And most of these studies, what they're doing for their exposure to oil and gas is some sort of proximity measurement. So they're either looking at the distance of all the wells within a certain buffer around a home. And counting all those wells or they're looking at the density, giving more weight to wells that might be closer to the homes. Some of them have been looking specifically at different phases of development to look at differences in that. And our more recent studies, we've started looking at this measure we call intensity of oil and gas activities. So we look at the distance of wells from home, give more weight to the wells that are closer. And also take into account the activities that are occurring on the well pad to estimate an intensity of air pollution emissions. So with that I'm going to start with the studies that have been done on early life. What we're finding, what you'll see from this is early life is a particularly vulnerable time for these exposures. And that's where most of the epidemiological studies have focused to date. So two studies now have looked at fetal deaths and oil and gas development. And they looked at a range of dates between 2003 and 2012. And these studies were done, one was done in Pennsylvania and the other one was done in Texas. And the Pennsylvania study was one of those ecological studies. So it's kind of a hypothesis generating study. And what they found was that there was a significant increase in infant mortality in 10 counties with hydraulic fracturing present. And over the same time period in the state of Pennsylvania infant mortality had decreased. And they were actually not attributing that to air, they were attributing that to groundwater contamination. And a later study or in the same year in Texas, there was a study and this was a case control study where they looked at fetal deaths. And what they found was fetal deaths were much more likely 29 to 30% more likely in areas with the highest levels of oil and gas development. So once again, that's comparing to this reference with little or no development. And as you're getting closer to the sites, you're seeing this increase in fetal deaths. And then we have, all right, I'm having trouble with the slide here. Okay, then next we have four studies that evaluated specific birth defects or congenital defects. And two of these were studies we did here in Colorado. And then there's a very recent study that was published in the Eagle Ford in Texas and another one in Oklahoma. And of those four studies, what we're seeing is that both congenital heart defects and neural tube defects are much more likely if the mother is living in areas of dense oil and gas development. And it's a two-fold increase or 100% increase as you're getting into these high density areas. And for the congenital heart defects, we're actually seeing this dose response. So as we're getting more oil and gas development, the likelihood of congenital heart get very specific congenital heart defects is increasing. Neural tube defects, we didn't see the dose response. We basically just saw the jump in the higher areas of oil and gas development. Neural tube defects include things like spina bifida. And I can't say that very well. I think probably Dr. Carol could correct me on that pronunciation. And then we have over 10 studies that have looked at preterm births. And preterm births are defined as births that occur before 37 weeks of gestation or pregnancy. So they occur early. And these studies have been done in several states. They've been done in California, Texas. We've done it in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and British Columbia. And our first study on this in Colorado, we actually didn't see an association between preterm births and proximity to oil and gas development. But there were some limitations in that study that we think may have obscured our results. And most of the studies are starting to see an association between preterm births and oil and gas development, although it is a little mixed. So basically what they're seeing in the higher density areas is anywhere from zero, which is none like we observed to 40% increases in preterm births. The studies differ somewhat in their methodology. So I think there's more work to be done here. And some studies are starting to kind of coalesce around this association with preterm births, too. The studies have also been looking at birth weights, which is another indicator of infant health. And the studies have been pretty mixed on birth weights. Some of them are seeing associations with birth weights, decreased birth weights, and proximity to oil and gas development, or density development. And the ones that are seen in association, it's not a large, like when they actually look at actual birth weights, the decrease in birth weight is on the order of, you know, 5 to 10 grams. It's not a real large decrease. So for now, my conclusion would be this is kind of inconclusive right now on the birth weights. I think there's more work to be done, like that. Now, also, so that's looking at early life. And kind of pointing out there are several indicators here now that children, particularly the fetus and infants are potentially negatively being impacted by this. There have now been eight studies on lower respiratory effects, including asthma and pneumonia. And these studies have been done in California, Colorado right now. And what they've been finding is for asthma, that they're seeing really pretty dramatic increases in asthma. And what they've looked at for asthma are pediatric hospitalizations for asthma and exacerbations of asthma. And they've particularly seen more exacerbations for people with mild asthma. And I just want to point out, I mean, these are pretty significant increases. One of the four-fold increases is you get into the highest density of oil and gas development. Interestingly, also, in addition to kind of the general population in children, one study in Texas has observed a 5 to 8% increase in hospitalizations in elderly people for pneumonia. And this is one of the most recent studies that we've seen impacting another vulnerable population, which is our elderly population. And most recently in LA, a study done by Jill Johnson's group, is they're actually looked at people in Los Angeles that were living near active oil wells. And those people were reporting, self-reporting from the well sites. And they said that the risk of sickness and eye and nose irritation, dizziness and ringing of the ears, at about 650 feet from the well sites. And then compared to people further away. And then Dr. Johnson went in and actually measured two measures of lung function in these people. She measured the volume of the air they can expire from their lungs. She measured the volume of the air they can expire from their lungs, closer to the wells, closer than 650 feet, than people living further away. We have three studies that have looked at cancer. The first two studies that looked at cancer were done in Pennsylvania and they were both ecological studies. So comparing zip codes or excuse me, they were comparing counties pretty much. And then we looked at some of the other studies that looked at some of the other studies, including bladder cancer and possibly central nervous system cancers. But in Colorado, we were actually able to do a case control study, which is more analytic. And what we observed there is that childhood leukemias were increasing with increasing proximity to oil and gas development. So what we're seeing here is also this is the likelihood of the childhood leukemias was going up almost greater than a four-fold increase in our densest areas. And then finally, the last one I'm going to show you here with this kind of diagram is the cardiovascular effects. And now we have three studies that have actually looked at cardiovascular effects. And the first one was done here in Colorado. We did it here on the Denver-Jillsburg Basin seven volunteers in basically in Greeley and in Fort Collins and a few in Windsor. And what we found in that study is indicators of cardiovascular disease increased as you had greater intensity of oil and gas development around you. And while these might not have a great significant clinical impact, it is an increase in steric blood pressure as you're getting closer to the well sites. And we also say saw similar increases in a measure of arterial stiffness. In a study in Pennsylvania, they observed that hospitalizations for people that had heart failure increased by up to 70% as they got into the as they were living in the areas with denser oil and gas development. And this was in elderly patients. So this is again looking at that elderly population. And a similar study also observed increases in hospitalizations with myocardial infarctions. So there have been other studies that have looked at some other health outcomes that we don't have quite as many. These are kind of one study here and there. There was a study in Pennsylvania that saw significant increases in nasal and sinus infections, migraine headaches, and fatigue symptoms around oil and gas development. They're starting to be studies on mental health, so seeing increases in potentially depression and sleep disorders. And then there have been a couple studies looking at hospitalizations at the zip code level and they observed some increases in cardiology in neurology and geno urinary conditions in the areas of oil and gas development. So that's kind of where the epidemiological studies are starting to agree with each other. And I should also say they've also looked at some things that they have not found associations and I think that's important to point out here. The studies, there have been a couple of results. Our study in Texas before didn't find any associations with birth defects involving an oral cleft. When they've combined birth defects, have not looked at specific ones. They have not seen effects. Same thing when they combine different types of cancer. This is because when you define or when you combine outcomes, you can dilute your effect. You can look at non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and children did not see an effect. And the ecological study also did not see an indicator for thyroid cancer. So this is another paper that I think is important for you to consider. This was published by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2018. And what they're predicting is by 2025 there will be 960 and 1000 premature deaths per year from the ozone in particulate matter attributed upstream oil and gas. And the highest rates will be in the front range of Colorado. So that's quite a sobering statistic, I believe. And I will just conclude by kind of just once again emphasizing that many of these health effects, what the studies are seeing is fetal deaths, birth defects, childhood leukemias, preterm births, so these are all impacts in early life. We're also seeing things that are impacting our elderly populations, pneumonia, and then our general population decreased lung function, these cardiovascular effects, and asthma in this, this premature death from the fan study. So I think this is quite a few and what we've looked at so far, you can probably see that the studies have looked at everything and one thing that we still haven't been able to do that we'd like to do at some point is actually do a study where we can measure components in air and associate those and measure health effects in people. So do that concurrently. So we can actually get some stronger evidence on temporality and cause and effect. And I will stop there. Thank you. Dr. McKenzie, this is always always interesting and I thank you for your presentation and also for your commitment to this work. I think it's so important that we begin to have have this level of study. You know, a lot of things have to prove that they're safe before they can be in our neighborhoods and this has turned around. We have to prove that it's not safe in order to get it out of our neighborhoods and away from people. So it's a little bit upside down. It's sort of a precautionary principle. I think that's what it's called. So thank you so much. Dr. Carroll, if you want to start your screen sharing, I'll begin introducing you. Our next speaker is Dr. Corey Carroll. He's a board-certified family physician. He's currently in solar practice in Fort Collins. Dr. Carroll completed the residency in 1992 in Fort Collins family medicine after matriculating from the University of Cincinnati School of Medicine. His undergraduate degree was in mechanical engineering from Colorado State University and then he went into the Air Force upon graduating. Got a master's from the Air Force Institute of Technology was on active duty in the Air Force and then worked with a group of scientists to decrease injury to pilots ejecting from high-speed aircraft and he did that for six years before he went into medical school. His passion for our environment stems from the knowledge that health requires clean air, water and food, preventing disease is much smarter than treating it and has been the focus for the last few decades in medical practice. In 2007 he worked to have the Colorado Medical Society adopt a policy opposing the practice of in situ and open pit mining much to the chagrin of Colorado Mining and Oil and Gas Association. He's on the board of directors for physicians for social responsibility known as PSR Colorado and Northern Colorado Medical Society Puder Canyon Group of the Sierra Club and I know Cori through that venue. Cori enjoys the mountains riding his road bike making music with his friends and twice daily walks with his dog that allow him to hit much needed decompression in the area of medical practice and volunteer work and we all need to remember to take care of ourselves as we're doing that. So Dr. Carroll. Well, thanks. Hopefully my talk will be that much longer than what you just said. The oil and gas that I did earlier was against uranium and it was a mistake. I think Dr. Mackenzie has pointed out this is a zoning issue. We can't talk about it. We can't talk about it. We can't talk about other activities near people. I'm assuming everybody can hear me okay. I'm not hearing any feedback of no so I'll keep going. So I think everybody is well aware of this unconventional process that I'm sure others have talked about and have much better activities. What I'm going to focus is on the quite amazing work that's being done but the harms that are going on and sometimes the industry says don't worry it's fine and the truth is they're lying. Skin and respiratory conditions are just the beginning of this process. I really appreciate Dr. Mackenzie's work because she gives us in a medical view of the strong data a lot of times we're making observations. We call it the practice of medicine because sometimes we're not exactly sure what's happening and I'll get to a little bit of that where I don't think doctors are really taking it into a fact the environment but fracking is definitely a problematic situation for the entire human system. Not only the brain nervous system obviously we've heard about Dr. Mackenzie's work and other works with asthma. We're looking at irritation to skin, eyes, ears and nose. Andrew was talking about reporting if you have symptoms critically important to do and the heart and blood vessels, the increased number of people going to the hospital with heart attacks and just a heart failure. Even the digestive system of major concern to me is obviously the reproductive system and what's happening to the fetus as it is in very critical stages certainly in the first trimester what's happening and endocrine disrupting chemicals. So let's go what happened to my slides? I am not, there we go. So fracking is pulling out methane and other activities and we've learned about the videography that Andrew's doing through Earthworks and we can see what's happening when they're burning it. The diagram that shows all the yellow and red dots, I think that's Boston and that's methane leaking out of the intercity pipe system. Andrew actually has done some work. You see the storage tank down at the bottom left. I have a patient not too far away from there who's gone out and captured emissions that are causing headaches and issues. So the bottom line is when you look at this we're dealing with chemicals and small chain chemicals as we see at the top of the right cartoon there are those your domestic gas petroleum as you increase the carbons and you are refining this you're creating the gasoline the kerosene the diesel lubricants those aren't that good for us either but basically we're going to be focusing on the small carbon molecules. Just to throw this in we certainly have a concern with our and PSR Colorado with healthy electric homes because when you're in a home that's being that's using natural gas methane for heating of your water heater your furnace and your cooking you are creating a lot of these chemicals which are problematic and we found studies showing increased asthma and especially kids that have a pre-existing condition so why are these chemicals harmful to our health already mentioned some of these I'm going to take you on a no I'm not going to go into the organic chemistry but I'm going to kind of be in a nerd and a doctor I'm going to talk about kind of why this is critically important and also very hard to sort out as I look at the human body I'm just amazed at how it works and it has a lot of things that are necessary for healthy life a lot of things that have to be done right and it's an exercise when you're adding contaminated ingredients if you think of this as a cooking demonstration something that's better it's old or expired spoiled is going to have an adverse effect on the outcome which is the meal you're going to eat our bodies our cells are microscopic cooking factories that not only produce the right ingredients but we need to mitigate the bad ingredients so carbohydrates fat protein these are the macronutrients as you can see there's carbon oxygen hydrogen a little bit of nitrogen thrown in with the protein molecule these are the concerns that are mainly coming out of the ground when they're pumping out especially with the fracking methane is what you're going to do but you'll get propane cyclohexane ethanol and then you look at the benzene and the toluene and apthene and we know that the components of the bottom do are carcinogenic there's still kind of unknowns about some of the chemicals at the top so the cartoon of the cell is that you've got this amazing thing with the nucleus and the endoplasmic reticulum and I know things we were taught in physiology but we have to understand these are chemical factories that are working and as our bodies grew from that single cell and the mother fertilized by the DNA from the father we have these stem cells that begin to just become their final cell line such as neurologic system heart lung kidney skeletal and again each one of those cells has the organelles inside and they're all cranking out whatever they're supposed to be doing whether it's making serotonin in the neurologic system whether it's contracting such as in the heart they have to basically be healthy and the question is going to be and this is where Dr. McKinnon's work is critically important what do we know about chronic low exposure we need to know more we obviously know when you're hit with a large amount of any of these diseases it's terrible but the problem is as these wells are producing and the proximities etc but I kind of look at the volatile organic compounds as being things that can affect people much farther away how much we do know with ozone that's a regional issue and that's definitely related to that the oil and gas so again the leukemia we have data on but we also know that the endocrine disruption that occurs can affect the adrenal gland the testes, ovaries the endocrine function of the pancreas such as insulin other thyroid disease which is involved with your metabolism also the parathyroid hormones or involved with bone metabolism up in the brain hypothalamus etc so these are all going to have problems that there's these volatile organic compounds introduced typically through the respiratory system but it can come through the dermal system if you have skin exposure and we shouldn't forget about the water contamination as I mentioned the gestational period and the newborn those are the most susceptible times of human beings and we do know that everybody knows this is something we need to avoid the question is how much are we getting without knowing the asthma we talked about the combination of sunshine with VOCs and noxies I have patients that one gentleman actually moved from Fort Collins because every time he traveled back to Wisconsin he did need his rescue inhalers and he was breathing well the question is how many visits to the emergency room and probably more importantly how many doctors recognize that the ozone of VOCs could be contributing to the exacerbation of asthma in their patient exacerbation of heart disease in their patient again sorry to be a little redundant but we have to be worried about not only the vulnerable community members but the people that live near oil and gas it's not rich people in big beautiful homes it's folks that can't afford to live elsewhere and they definitely take the brunt of the industry we also have to worry about workers there and what's happening to them in the long term in the short term many of them are unaware of the concerns from a health perspective I kind of worry a lot about the bigger picture I think we have to understand with climate change as we all know we're looking at heat stroke we're looking at the potential changes in our virons that are passed on by mosquitoes and other arthropod vectors that basically will change as our climate changes we also to me and we know this from the Colorado River the stress that's going to occur as we're moving further and further away from snowpack and available fresh water to drink it's not a pretty picture I mean not only through the farmers that are trying to grow the almonds in California but the people trying to live on this planet when they don't have many resources and water is taken away so in the bigger picture from health we talk about heat stress, asthma allergies we talk a little bit about the Zika and the West Nile and even malaria are going to be concerns that our temperatures change those vector boring organisms move into our location and Dr. McKenzie mentioned the mental health issues that go along with the concerns and the noise and what's going to happen so I think it's important to maintain understanding I try to be very clear to folks and I don't want to put people out of business but I don't want people in business that are killing us and our children and ruin our future now I'm going to go a little further and kind of talk a little bit about maybe some of the problems we need to know in medicine a better idea of what's happening and thanks to Dr. McKenzie now that we're getting there there are some different organizations that have these services out Southwest Pennsylvania has a toolkit out this is a group in Alberta and Canada and again I think as clinicians we need to think is that child coming with asthma related to bad ozone days by the way I think July 20 out of the 29 30 days were ozone concerns and I've never seen that before that many bad ozone days but clinicians I think are sometimes oblivious to the facts and this is the an article published in 2016 that is kind of showing that the medical system is not really paying attention Dr. McKenzie is out doing her work John Adgate and others but the typical practitioner is really somewhat oblivious to not only these these carcinogens and volatile again in compounds and the ozone but a lot of the other issues like the heat stroke and other things that are related to this industry again the bloody nose and the skin irritation I don't like but what I really am concerned about is as that persists you see changes in the tissue and you get the exacerbation of asthma even the creation of asthma that's not proven but then you start getting into the economic dilemmas of doctor visits school absences work absences you can't work and then finally people with diet we do know that in coronavirus for example exposure to particulate matter you know we know particulate matter comes from various places but to me let's clean up where we can and keep moving on so the top 13 reasons a lot of these as I have highlighted in yellow are potentially related to exposures and I think doctors need to pay more attention when I went to the county commissioners meeting about setbacks and the rules here at Lerner McCounty Dr. McKenzie has articles in this compendium but it's a fabulous this is the sixth edition I printed out the seventh edition for them and it just goes on and on and on and more and more data is coming that is telling us that this is something that we need to move away from for our health and for our future I'm going to play a little game here and that's just going to say why do we drag our feet on tobacco we used to say it was cool we used to say what doctors do you smoke lucky strikes or camels it's fascinating Edward Bernays is a lab open to that but using subconscious to help sell products is something that the industry does and also denial is another thing we used to kind of keep us moving away but the reason I bring this up is that similar to what I think is happening in our oil and gas industry where this is known concerned we have all these reports in 1964 Dr. Luther Terry said you know I think we have enough data he's holding up the book as I'm holding up the compendium but he said I think we should do something about this thing called smoking and disease in our citizens as they do these things cause of lung cancer and laryngeal cancer probable cause of lung cancer and the most important cause of chronic bronchitis and what what he was hit with was a unified effort from the tobacco industry to draw confounding statements moving away from the discussion and saying you know we're just the right direction here we're not sure that really these things called cigarettes are that bad for you and maybe we should not put any warnings on the cigarettes and maybe we shouldn't do some of the things denying the harnesses product is spreading the scientific evidence that showed these harms funding research that was intended to divert attention kind of what we see today I know Dr. McKenzie's had her work criticize and again this is a classic what's the right word plan to move away from what we're looking at so it's not to me surprising that the industry is trying to discredit folks like Dr. McKenzie and all these things and there's just a lot of effort that's being put in because this industry really doesn't want to change its way so I think the same thing with our battle against tobacco which by the way doctors took about 20 years from that to really get on board but I don't think we have the time to do that now so I think that's just important to understand that with fracking we're seeing the same tactics the same playbook and what we need to do what doctors need to do what researchers need to do is just continue to stay focused in the science and the evidence I'm hoping more of my colleagues will take into account the possibility of these pollutants causing the diseases that we see on a day-to-day basis and be workers in the process of trying to make rules to create a safer and help us move away from our dependence on fossil fuel some other folks from PSR were on a conference call with Senator Bennett and Senator Hickenlooper to try to continue to ask them to push forward with the efforts to move us in that direction as a nation but however we can help the local folks even my colleagues understand the science would be something I would love to do but to me the evidence is overwhelming and we should not drag our feet on this for the sake of our patients our children, our future we need to get more aggressive in fighting this industry. Thank you Dr. Carroll and I also wanted to say I hear that Larimer County passed some pretty good regulations for oil and gas some increased setbacks and such 2000 foot is what the county commissioners and the the planning folks that were working there were much less they were okay with 500 feet in some locations so we have a hard setback of 2000 square feet obviously there are some rooms there a big disappointment was monitoring I want to have continuous monitoring in as many places as possible and I guess our next step will be not that and I know Karen one of your passions is water not only you know the potability of drinking water but the insanity of taking potable water and shoving it down a well site and forever destroying it so many many reasons to move on this topic you know I won't probably be happy until we ban it but that's just me hopefully someday right I would like to invite you to type in any questions into the chat and we'll have Michael and Judith will be sorting through any questions and then we'll have our speakers and Dr. Helmings also on the call he might be able to answer questions also I want to start though with having Mitzi introduce herself she's here from her meeting she's part of our committee Mitzi can you unmute yourself and no you can't because you aren't a co-host and I don't know how to do that and Lynette had to step off so we'll just go ahead with questions. Okay this is Judith I have a question I'm listening to this to write their questions into the chat so we can pass them along but this is a question for Dr. Carroll my understanding is that it's difficult for parents to get information about how many VOCs or other indicators that their children have been exposed to a great deal of pollution that doctors don't have adequate ways of testing that's affordable or covered by insurance and one parent told me that her doctor recommended a panel is what she called it and I don't understand what that is but that it cost several hundred dollars to get this her child tested for how much exposure was stuck with her body let's put it that way can you talk a little bit about what kind of measurements doctors can use to advise parents to make their complaints? Sure unfortunately this is a realm of unknown the actual measurement of volatile organic compounds occur and again I'm not the expert in this but at the 2019 oil and gas health effects of oil and gas that PCR put in February of 19 Dr. Butcher her last name but she was a mom and a clinical not a pharmacologist she was very concerned of living near oil and gas something she was not anticipating at that time she was able to use one of the outside laboratories not in the traditional system but I think it was Genova and put a panel and was very concerned with the results when she brought this up to the CDPHE the Colorado Department of Health and Education they said that those testings are invalid the only quote-unquote testing that is valid would be done through the CDC and you would require official approval now in hearing that as a physician it kind of blew me away thinking well why can't we get some of these tests online why can't we move in that direction and we don't have I think the data to really do the test really you have to understand even the rubber stopper on top of the vial collecting the blood could eliminate VOCs and contaminate the simple so there's all sorts of difficult issues that we just can't have every lab in the country running these tests that's number one number two is what does it mean because we really can't say you know I don't think all of us say it's probably not a good thing but then to say well this is the level that's going to create this and this is going to do that hopefully we may move in that direction I mean think about lung cancer and cigarette smoking when do we know when people have disease it's really hard to measure that quantitative when are you going to move from healthy normal lung to COPD emphysema when are you going to get the cancer that's very difficult to measure yeah okay I'm going to interrupt you Judith and Mitzi is unmuted now she can introduce herself thank you Dr. Carol thanks Karen my name is Mitzi Nicoletti and I'm also part of this group that put on the webinar and I'm a Union Reservoir on a regular basis because I'm a competitive rower and I do visit with my fellow rollers on a regular basis on Tuesday July 20th I was out there with some other rollers and one person left early because they felt lightheaded but we went ahead and went out halfway around I started feeling lightheaded then nauseous and I only got in and did not feel good at all and I had a friend with me and I said you know I think I got to go home and I cancelled the morning got in my house, made it upstairs and started throwing up so I felt like my body was really trying to throw something off and I got sick all day, cancelled all my clients my friend that left early I spoke to him on Friday and he actually went home and he felt like his stomach was well upset and ended up he's a software engineer laying on the couch for a few hours what I have also noticed is I've had a lot of sinus headaches so unfortunately I cancelled my work and this week I've been just working out with a mask on I bought a different mask so that I can breathe while I work out I did notice on Tuesday black smoke was coming out of the night well and so basically we keep an eye on it we don't know what we're doing to ourselves if you're an athletic person and you enjoy the outdoors and also want to protect the environment not only the air but the water it is kind of hard staying inside all the time but those are just some of my personal experiences that of course I've been very concerned about and just wanted to share that from someone that has had these things happen. Thank you. Thanks, Mitzi. Okay Judith take it over again. Okay well my another question I have is for Dr. McKenzie I'd like to know a little more about who pays for these studies and whether the funders of the studies respond to the outcome or expect a certain kind of outcome or how the sponsorship affects the design and results of a study or whether it does Okay so most of the studies that have been done have been what happens is an investigator puts in a proposal to either a the National Institutes of Health the National Science Foundation or sometimes the Environmental Protection Agency some of these studies or some sort of foundation like the American Heart Association some of my work and the American Cancer Society so we put in a proposal saying this is what we would like to do and that goes through a very rigorous review process and sometimes you submit several times sometimes we've submitted proposals that have never been funded as have other investigators and sometimes they're funded the funding organization then has involvement in what the outcomes of the study are they don't control what you publish they don't review what you publish or anything like that so they provide funding based on what you say you're going to do in your proposal and based on what a panel of reviewers thinks if they believe you can do it and if they feel that it is scientifically valid and so that's the way it works with most of these studies the first study we did back in Battlemont Mesa was funded by the Garfield County commissioners and that although we went on to publish the results as we saw them they they did have they had a lot to say about the results yeah what kinds of things did they have to say well so the way I just we also had citizen groups we were working with too so the way I described that study is no one was happy with us the commissioners weren't happy with us the citizens groups weren't happy with us because we didn't say we didn't say they should just ban fracking and stop the project which was what the citizens wanted to hear and we didn't say that it was perfectly okay and no health effects which was what the commissioners wanted to hear so we didn't say either one of those things and so everyone was a little unhappy with us sorry to hear that there is a question from Karen here and probably Dr. McKenzie for you is it possible that different health effects are seen at different sites because the pollutants vary among well sites it's definitely possible that some of the air pollutants might differ between air sites and the concentration of pollutants might differ between sites so as we know different operators are doing things differently and so a lot of the levels of pollutants are going to depend on how many controls and how well they've implemented the emission controls at their site they also use varying mixtures of fracking fluids and drilling months the sites differ the emissions may differ depending on the type of petroleum resource they're going into wet gas, dry gas oil usually most of the sites like the DJ are some sort of mixture of oil and gas over in Garfield County there's some higher on the gas side of things so yeah all those things can impact things so they can vary state to state too I mean California has a lot of oil wells historically for example and I had one quick one question that I wrote down and then if I don't see any further questions maybe we should wrap up shortly but also I think for you Dr. McKenzie the information you've presented for me specifically about stillbirths, defects and preterm birth that seems to be unequivocally associated with fracking operations I mean that's just particularly egregious and especially for those families and it seems critical that information and the results of those studies should be gotten to those that are in positions of power and influence as quickly as possible so do you know of any concerted effort and coordinated effort to get that information out to physicians, medical clinics and legislators in particular maybe from local, state and national so you know some of the study in Texas was just published this year so I don't know what they've done with their results but the study we did here, I think that was made available to the COGCC as they were making their rules I did testify on some of that I think Dr. Carroll can speak to what PSR is doing I think they've done quite a bit there is also I get all the names of these different groups but there are other activist groups that are bringing these studies in front of legislators and I have presented results to city councils to Boulder County commissioners when asked so it's the studies, the actual manuscripts are quite technical and I think you know it's pretty hard to interpret but we do try of course as researchers we also want to make sure that we also have the time to keep doing our research and writing the proposals and writing up the results so we have two ongoing studies we're looking one at atrial fibrillation to see if that is worsened during the development living near the sites and we're doing we just got funded by the American Cancer Society to do a more robust study on the childhood cancers I'll I'll weigh in real quick I brought up in my presentation with a tobacco kind of point out that issue of like here's what we all suspected here and I'll go back to the comments then said but then what happens when you put the data in front of people and start looking at it and you have to understand Michael that the industry is really unwilling to just roll over and say yeah you're right we were bad so they're going to fight and they're going to create doubt and other things that doesn't mean that we can't do what we're going to do but I think that was the scathing discussion that doctors aren't taught about the environmental impact especially as our world is moving more towards these potential exposures and that but it does I think that's our job here tonight is to continue to move forward try to get folks involved with that I just wanted to say to you suspect there is an exposure and you're having symptoms you know and yours I would absolutely say it was related to very likely volatile organic compounds make a report and do everything you can and I think if the CDPHE has more and more and more people complaining and more and more issues that'll get their attention when the politicians see more and more demanding things change when the people come to them saying I want to protect my daughter in law and I want to protect my family we need to move forward when I went to the county commissioners I literally gave them this nice compendium also the forever facting I mean I just I put it in their hands I said I know you're not going to read this but this is why many of us want to see this industry held accountable but it's frustrating the evidence and the science and the common sense and then we're sitting here wondering why people don't do more I think you just answered a question that Karen had put in the chat about even if we're unsure if our health impacts are from while on gas we should probably still report it the question is should we still report it and I think your answer is yes right Andrew you could probably comment on what that form asks yeah I mean really quickly I mean the form itself gives you a lot of leeway in terms of what health impacts you could be reporting I mean they even go into things such as anxiety and stress which are impacts that can especially you know during the fracking phase if you're on the site and if your home is across the street so you're getting lights flashing in or the noise I mean that's a health impact that if you're feeling anxious because of increased industrial activity in your neighborhood but so I mean the instructions I've received from the CDPHE when I've discussed this form with them is that they would rather that people sort of err on the side of oversharing I guess depending on your comfort level the goal of this tool is for people to use it and for people to use it in a way that will inform them of the potential impacts that may be occurring in proximity to certain sites so I would I mean I always encourage people even if there are doubts I mean this is environmental health and pollution 101 there's the causality can always be a little difficult for anyone to establish which is how some of these industries get away with what they get away with so these tools available to us to at least try to shine a light on what may be going on I think we should take advantage of them as much as possible I'll just emphasize Andrew did a great job with my patient I was fortunate to know some folks and he said you know my neighbors tell me they smell the same thing so if you're near and he was near storage tanks and again if you have two or three or four people making a complaint and it seems to coincide in a certain time because of venting or flaring or just poor maintenance that's much more powerful but that's what it's going to take it's going to take all of us to say we don't like what we're seeing we need to hold it accountable not with frivolous unsubstantiated but my gosh Mitzi what happened to you was absolutely exposure given the fact other folks were there as well so use the tools that we have them CDPHE also I know is using those complaints to decide where to send some of their mobile sampling equipment so if they're getting a lot of complaints in an area they're more likely to send something there to find out what's going on I know that Broomfield actually part of their program they have inspectors that they can send on to the sites to see what's going on I don't know if Longmont could do something like that we have Dr. Detlow's air monitoring pretty closely pretty close by so I think it picks up depending on the wind direction right because it's a stationary so maybe not as well as something on the fence line might I have a question I've always wondered this you know when we get high ozone alert they send out an AQI index that says unhealthy unhealthy for certain groups and it has you know like it 50 I think it starts into certain levels radio or green type of thing would it be possible to do that for any other VOCs or does the fact that benzene is never safe keep us from having that same level of sort of an alert to people stay inside today because the air pollution is bad I don't think it's on but unfortunately to my knowledge there's very few others he can probably answer I think the issue is are we measuring it and many places don't there's a great question I thought Andrew posed Dr. McKenzie in your studies are you coming up with similar or different conclusions than the CDP CDPHE specifically concerning their study from 2019 recently released yeah so that I did have that was the holder study that I had in referenced and I believe the conclusions between our risk assessment the holder study were actually quite similar where we have things that we can directly compare and what's interesting about that is we use different methods so we use direct measurements and they used modeling from emission rates that's very compelling yeah real quick I can't remember where I was on but I think there are folks trying to develop apps that can be on their phones which would make it a lot easier to make a report to get captured data GPS data all that fun stuff so let's just encourage that and find those industries support folks like that live who are constantly doing this and expand that me is going to show I mean Andrew with Earth is so powerful we need about a hundred of you out just calling the place and then we'll it's just irrefutable there you're muted Karen Karen you're muted I got another message sent directly to me I think it must be coming to my attention here so the question was can deadlift address the parent ramp up to and continued high levels of toluene and particularly benzene at Union Reservoir since the night we'll commence fracking honor about July 15th deadlift are you on and unmuted I don't think deadlift can unmute himself okay I don't know if Lynette are you on can you make deadlift able to oops I can do it just let me get it he's unmuted right now I think oh he is he's unmuted yeah go ahead can you hear me I'm not sure turn your mic up a little bit we can hold okay hold it up hi everybody I tried to say something earlier but I couldn't unmute myself because there was one question earlier about the air quality index and it's really a funky metrics for gauging air quality the EPA has a procedure to determine the air quality index and it's actually depending on I think it's five different criteria pollutant which is carbon monoxide it's ozone it's PM 2.5 it's actually SO2 and I think nitrogen oxide so to do it properly according to the EPA protocol you need to measure all those and you look at the actual concentrations versus some pollution thresholds that are being said and then you take the ratio you add them all together it's super complicated it's super complicated it cannot really be done in real time because these measurements are only done in very very few places in the region so because of that different groups organizations use different approaches and subset of these different variables that are being monitored and then try to present an air quality index based on one or two or three of these pollutants but just by looking at the air quality index you don't know right away does this now relate to particles or to ozone or to carbon monoxide there's really no one for VOCs that's included in this so the air quality indices you see do not consider VOCs typically I find it very confusing there was just an article about it in one of the papers a few weeks ago that addressed that difficulty and sometimes it's actually used on modeling and projections rather than actual data my recommendation is to look at the actual data this is real this is measured at that moment and you can see exactly if there's no for ozone or particles we're providing now these measurements and including many of these species in real time and you can see the levels as they were five minutes ago and you can see where this was monitoring so this is real this is concrete this is specific and it's not modeled you can see which levels are considered and the most concerning ones here in the area where we are our ozone and particles usually where we unfortunately over the past weeks and months have approached and exceeded health guideline values and thresholds very very regularly so those are the ones I would recommend to pay the most attention to the quality index and then the second question was concerning particular VOCs at the Union Reservoir and I just presented that to the Longmont City Council a couple days ago and you know we've had episodes at the Union Reservoir where we've seen an abundance of occurrences with highly elevated levels of oil and gas VOCs there was a stretch of almost two months in 2020 in February and March we observed that and then we had a number of events earlier this year in January and February we had highly elevated levels of methane of ethane and also benzene where some of these VOCs were to the best of our estimate several thousand times higher than the background which clearly shows there were plumes with vented gas moving across the reservoir and across the station where we were taking these data the last two months or so I showed that in my presentation a couple days ago it has been reasonably quiet it has been much quieter than what we saw earlier this year than what we saw last year so we haven't really seen a clear evidence that the activities at Nightwell have transported plumes with elevated methane or VOCs across the monitoring station at the reservoir of course it doesn't mean that there haven't been releases or plumes we are I would say a mile to two miles away southwest of that site if the winds are from the south we wouldn't encounter those plumes at the Union Reservoir so if I say we haven't seen them it doesn't necessarily mean there haven't been any releases you know the air so we float around most days usually given we are measuring all the time it's likely we will capture it and see it sooner or later but so far I don't see anything clearly in the data that shows there is a strong source, a new source that we haven't seen in the past originated from that well thank you Mitzi sent me a message that says it's spiking right now so you might have to take a look again some of us kind of follow that we are pretty I know whenever I start wheezing I look and I can always see the toluene and vent in or out did you have any other things Michael or Judith there one maybe quick answer would be probably from Lisa have there been any reviews comparing studies of health impact between traditional vertical wells and the current fracking unconventional wells there hasn't been a review of that that I know of so it gets really difficult so prior to kind of the boom and fracking there weren't a lot of health studies around residential areas and residential exposures to oil and gas with traditional oil and gas now that we have this the development of the unconventional resources with our new modern methods it's really hard to separate out what's going on at the older traditional sites from our newer modern sites they're all in there together so that makes it really difficult to separate out those kinds of exposures and oftentimes the hydraulic fracturing sites go right in on top of one of the old sites yeah and I think another concern of mine is when the sites are quote finished fact even sitting dormant whether they're old or new the concern of material continuing to come up through that portal is high and the industry is not going to really cap them correctly so you know there's I'll say there's the hazards their pollutants are coming from different various sources on the well pad but one of the sources is the petroleum resource itself so oil and natural gas have impurities in them or they have hydrocarbons in them and those include benzene toluene those are all hexane those are all hazardous air pollutants on our hazardous air pollutant list they're naturally occurring in petroleum products so whether it's a traditional site or unconventional site those pollutants are likely to be associated with the site and I was thinking about the comment about old wells some of you might not have been interested in fracking when Tony in graphia used to come and talk to us once in a while but he says that all wells the abandoned wells will eventually leak because they're plugged with concrete right and so there's just so many places that they can can begin to leak and it's very hard to stop gas from leaking it's hard enough to stop water from leaking right if you have a shower or something that has a leak it's hard to stop a drip and if it's a gas it's even harder and so concrete as it ages and cracks will leak so we have over 100,000 holes in the ground in our state that can potentially leak were there any other questions Michael or Judith I don't believe so I think that's it alright well I want to thank thank my committee members again so thank you for being here and thank you to our to our speakers Andrew and Dr. McKenzie and Dr. Carol and thank you Dr. for piping in and a reminder that you'll be receiving information about our next um um um part three of this webinar series on um sort of some of the things that we're trying to do to keep our land air and water a little cleaner and help our mother earth so thank you everyone have a good night