Govt. Panel Tries to Shut Out Speaker for Verbatim Reading of Frack Toxin Facts from Safety Data Sheet: Hillsborough Public Consultation on Shale Gas

Note: The below article should be read in the context of the following information containing Material Safety Data Sheets: http://public.bakerhughes.com/shalegas/additives.html?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&TB_iframe=true&height=450&width=850

Shale Gas in Hillsborough, N.B. Canada.  There was a crowd of about 75 people who attended from as far away as Memramcook across the river and Fredericton - people who were incensed by what is being perpetrated against them in the name of Corporate Profit and made no bones about it.   I actually was not planning to speak at any of the Public Consultation meetings at all, but yesterday morning a friend whom I respect and admire - called to ask me if I would, and I could not turn him down.   I had no idea what I would talk about  10:00 a.m. yesterday morning as I had nothing prepared  and little time to do so, but I pulled together some research and a few comments a couple of hours before the meeting, and the gist of it - as I delivered it to the govt. panel and the public last night went something like this:

Hello, my name is Stephanie Stoneleigh and I am the Founder of Parents Against Everyday Poisons.   I started this organization several years ago and I originally studied the health effects of Fabric Softener for about 7 or 8 years.   It's amazing how - when you think you've conquered one thing a bigger and worse boogey-man appears on the scene.  And I believe that Shale Gas is the Real Boogey Man.

I'm speaking tonight as a person who has experienced first-hand the effects of chemically -induced illness.  Due to a chemical exposure some years ago I have suffered from Chronic Respiratory Problems since 2001.  Chemically-induced illness ravages its sufferers as it is often the case that it affects multiple organ systems of the body  -  I would not want anyone to have to suffer what I have suffered through in the last several years.  And I am sure this illness is not something you would want to have affect your family, your children or grandchildren.  But the risks for chemically-induced illness increase as we become more and more exposed to chemical pollutants.  And we know Shale Gas Industry utilizes a large array of chemical pollutants to frack gas wells.

So I have to wonder about my grandchildren, the children and grandchildren of New Brunswick and I worry - what kind of legacy are we leaving them?

I've obtained a List of some of the chemicals used in Fracking from a Supplier to the Frack Industry Baker-Hughes of Texas.  The Baker-Hughes List contains 46 Chemical cocktails and subsidiary list of 37 constituents of Frack Fluid.   I will direct my comments to only 2 or 3 of these chemicals.

The difference between the 46 Chemical Cocktails and the 37 constituents is that the 37 constituents are not accompanied by MSD Sheets.  The absence of such safety sheets might suggest that safety data sheets are not needed for the Constituents because they are innocuous substances, but as you will see in a moment this is not the case.

What I have here in my hand is a Material Safety Data Sheet also known as an MSDS. Now an MSDS is what we use in North America (for those of you who are not familiar) to tell us which substances are toxic, what their level of toxicicity is, and what organ systems of the body are targeted by a particular toxin because toxins tend to be attracted to particular organs in the body.   The MSD Sheet is supposed to be our  protection in North America against harm from chemicals.

I'm going to start with a Chemical Cocktail called CI-111- a corrosion inhibitor used in Frack Fluid and these are some of the facts about this "Cocktail". First of all, it's composed of three chemicals: Quaternary Ammonium Compound, Sulfur Compound and Isopropanol.  The primary routes for exposure are listed as skin, eye and lung (inhalation).  (The list of exposure effects was long so I pointed out only the first on the list and the most important:  which warned that the chemical may cause central nervous system depression or Lung Damage.)

As I continued to the section on Exposure Limits I pointed out that the LD50 was Not Available (LD stands for "Lethal Dose".  LD₅₀ is the amount of a material, given all at once, which causes the death of 50% (one half) of a group of test animals. The LD₅₀ is one way to measure the short-term poisoning potential (acute toxicity) of a material.)   And the PEL (Permissable Exposure Limit) for Quaternary Ammonium was also NOT AVAILABLE.  The information was simply not there (indicating at best that the substance had never been tested).  I pointed out to the Panel that the Document was incomplete and that this was the document that was supposed to supply us with the information for our protection.   Pointing out the first of what would become a litany of fatal flaws in the Material Safety Data Sheet's reliability, I then went on to discuss other important topics from the so-called "Safety Data Sheet".

For First Aid measures it was stated that, "if the victim is not breathing give artificial respiration".  (At this point, there was an audible gaffaw that arose from the crowd.)  I continued to read verbatim from the document: "Remove contaminated clothing and launder before re-use.  Remove contaminated shoes and discard.  "If breathing is difficult give oxygen.  Only Trained personnel should administer oxygen."   At this juncture I had to interrupt myself to divulge a little-known fact about Quaternary Ammonium compounds, and that is that there's a reason why this advice is given.  There are some Quats (Quaternary Ammonium Compounds) that actually damage the lungs so severely that adding oxygen to the mix merely compounds that damage because of a synergistic chemical reaction between Quats and Oxygen.   Was it a murmur or an audible hush that I heard after that revelation?  

It was at this point I believe that the Government's Moderator for the evening interrupted me telling me that there were a number of people behind me who wanted to ask questions and advising me that I could leave my research with "their people".  However, as I had not used up even a quarter of the time that had been permitted for some others to speak, I recognized this tactic as one intended to have the TRUTH shunted out the door and I would not tolerate it.  I stood my ground and continued with information that showed that even though the MSD Sheet is intended to be our protection, that the company Baker Hughes at the end of the MSD Sheet makes the following Disclaimer, and I quoted: "no warranty is expressed or implied regarding the accuracy of these data...... vendor (that is, the Seller of the CI-111) assumes no responsibility for injury to vendee or third persons (I interjected: "that would be us - the public, our families, our children and our grandchildren") ... even if reasonable safety procedures are followed."  

I then went on to talk about the Constituents List that is pain-stakingly "dressed up" in descriptions of Common Use so benign that one would think the Constituents could be added to one's morning coffee with no harm done.   I chose just one item from the "Constituents List" - Propargyl Alcohol on which to speak, starting with the fact that the PEL (permissible exposure limit) for that Constituent is 1 ppm over an eight hour time period and pointing out that the safety parameters have been based on this short space of time only.  (I noted for the benefit of the audience that the parameters established for safety of these chemicals is most usually based on an eight hour work period and testing is done for an average healthy male.) The further information on this "Constituent" revealed that it is classified as a harzardous waste by the EPA, has been placed on the Toxic Release Inventory in the States and is a reportable substance under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

I summarized thus: 

So I guess my question in all of this is "Who is going to oversee this "Constituent" of Fracking Fluids to make sure my eight year old grandson is not breathing in more than 1 ppm in an eight hour time period?

Can we reasonably expect this to be regulated?  I don't think we here in New Brunswick believe it can be done. 

At least not this Grandmother. 

My question was not a rhetorical one - but was never answered by the Govt. Panel.