The main takeaway I got from the report is that we don't know much about health effects, whatever they may or may not be, based on any substantial evidence. For instance, about the much cited Goddard and Goddard Engineering study they say
quote:
Based on Goddard & Goddard's modeling analysis of emission concentrations of the 1991 blow-out as well as subsequent volunteered reports and medical diagnoses of symptoms, the Study Group concludes there is evidence that there were health effects from the exposures early in the development of geothermal (before 1993).
But then they go to say, effectively, "we know nothing":
quote:
The full extent and severity of those effects has not been documented.
So not only do we know there is no substantial documentation of harm, it turns out that the Goddard analysis was
quote:
based on surveys conducted by Big Island Rain Forest Action Group, the Kapoho Community Association, and community member Colleen Mandala
Not exactly a controlled survey or disinterested organizations. Characteristic of the type of conclusions the report includes is
quote:
While hypothetical, a factor of 100 could be applied to past exposures to estimate worst-case peak short-term exposures.
Completely hypothetical and scary, but the x100 speculation was treated as if it was numerically factual in the subsequent discussion.
A large part of the report elaborates extensively on both documented and speculative effects of H2S, but there is next to nothing on any evidence on harm. The bulk of any indication of harm is associated with the 1991 blowout. Nonetheless, over 20 years later
quote:
Since the blowout, DOH has recorded six incidents when permitted H2S limits were exceeded by PGV
There were also 70 incidents ("upset conditions"), 28 of which were on the level of courtesy notices to DOH. One additional citing for exceeding the .025 ppm H2S limit. Some of the report was taken up with generic overviews of the health of people in Puna with enumerations of various maladies suffered here. No explicit attempt, thankfully, was made to tie geothermal issues to the general incidence of these maladies. But the implication was clear.
Finally, while it was good to see a number of professional/UH people involved in the report, inclusion of notorious anti-geothermal personalities (who, according to the report, have apparently made money from lawsuit settlements with PGV) makes one wonder how much the tone and thrust of the report was influenced by attitude and ideology rather than fact. But given the scarcity of evidence, the report's major contribution is its theme that real research is needed, rather than depending on the cloud of speculation currently available about any current geothermal health effects in Puna.