A major left-leaning website posted an article entitled, “New, Major Evidence That Fracking Harms Human Health,”claiming that a new study is proof positive Hydraulic Fracturing, known more commonly as fracking, harms our health.

Naturally, I perked up and read on, interested in what the latest scientific research has uncovered regarding the never-ending evils of fracking.

The first oddity I discovered was just who conducted the scientific study. I found that one of the researchers involved is Janet Currie, professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University. In other words, an academic quasi-government hack, but not a scientist, nor a health professional.

Another is Michael Greenstone, a 3M professor of Environmental Economics at MIT. Let’s see. An environmental economist working in academia. Surely he would never have an anti-fracking bias.

The third member of this “scientific” research team was Dr. Katherine Meckel. Finally, you may be thinking, as was I, a scientist or medical doctor as part of the scientific team. You and I would be wrong. Dr. Meckel is an assistant professor, whose research studies the design of public policies, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance.

In other words, there are no scientists or medical professionals working on this scientific study concerning health issues – just three entrenched academic/governmental hacks. That sounds about right.

The article begins with a dire warning regarding fracking: “Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, may pose a significant – but very local – harm to human health, a new study finds.” They claim that the closer families live to a fracking site, the lower the birth weight of their children, and that this “may” be caused by fracking.

Yes – it’s the famous “may.” Kind of like the equally famous “They,” as in “they say.”

May is a verb, or more precisely, an auxiliary verb, which is used to express possibility. It is not used to express likelihood or certainty. So when a left-wing website or a leftist researcher says something “may” happen, it is equally likely that it “may not,” which is why they use the verb “may.” You just have to be practiced in the art of reading liberal jargon.

May is a charged word, full of possibility, which can imply virtually anything the reader wishes, depending on his or her bias. I could just as easily and accurately conclude that a significant amount of Americans who drive cars may develop some form of cancer. Or they may not.

The researchers’ only conclusion is that fracking “may” cause health issues – and one could conclude this of almost anything. Allow me to demonstrate.

Those who eat bananas “may” be more susceptible to being struck by lightning. Scientist: “We’re conducting a scientific survey. We see you were recently struck by lightning.” Victim: “Yes, I was.” Scientist: “Well, did you happen to consume one or more bananas in the past six months?” Victim: “Why, yes I did.” Scientist: “Interesting.” Conclusion: “We found that 78.3 percent of lightning-strike victims ate one or more bananas in the six months prior to being struck. Therefore, our conclusion is that bananas may attract lightning.”

Now you try it. Just make something up. It’s fun and probably as legitimate as is the fracking study.

Admittedly, they did do some actual research and did find low-birth-weight babies in close proximity to fracking sites. But they didn’t appear to take into account any other factors, such as genetics, poverty, poor living conditions and nutrition – all contributing factors to low birth weight in inner-city children.

You may say – so the little tikes are lower birth rate – what of it? Well, I guess it’s a big deal. The article claims that, “Children with a low birth weight have been found to have lower test scores, lower lifetime earnings, and higher rates of reliance on welfare programs throughout their lives.” More reliance on government? You would think leftists would all be fracking fans.

As proof of this, the authors of the study cite “a different team of researchers who examined twins in Norway whose birth weight diverged by 10 percent or more. The lighter twin was 1 percent less likely to graduate from high school and earned 1 percent less than their sibling through their life.” Wow, what losers they turned out to be.

Really? One percent? Are you kidding me? But oh, they’re not kidding. Forget every other factor in the lives of these “lighter” children. It must be the low birth weight causing the virtually immeasurable difference of 1 percent.

And according to the latest scientific research, it’s all due to the evils of fracking.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.