Bootlegged Federal Report Spells Trouble for 8 States

February 7, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

The investigative group Center for Public Integrity this morning posted bootlegged portions of what appears to be a disturbing—and purportedly suppressed—government report about environmental contamination across the Great Lakes region. Six years in the making, the report assesses evidence of health-threatening contamination in 26 "areas of concern" covering parts of eight states, and it links contamination in many of those areas to high rates of infant mortality, other infant health problems, and adult malignancies, including breast, colon, and lung cancers.

The scientific evidence supporting those links is only circumstantial—the report describes geographic patterns of contamination and disease but explicitly makes no claims about causes or effects. Nevertheless, the number of people who might be at risk is staggering: The 54 affected counties have more than 9 million residents, including 230,000 whom the report deems particularly "vulnerable."

If those findings aren't bad enough, the government's alleged foot-dragging in releasing them may be worse. CPI's investigative account, by journalist Sheila Kaplan, begins:

For more than seven months, the nation's top public health agency has blocked the publication of an exhaustive federal study of environmental hazards in the eight Great Lakes states, reportedly because it contains such potentially "alarming information" as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates.

The eight states are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Some Canadian territory also fell within the report's purview.

According to the version of the report released today, 21 of the 26 areas of concern had elevated infant mortality rates, and 17 had elevated rates of breast cancer. The researchers mapped health data county by county and compared it with health data from other U.S. counties. It also related the health data to geographical information from two databases that track releases of certain toxic substances and pollutants.

The draft of the Great Lakes report appears one day after three members of Congress on the Committee on Science and Technology sent a letter to Julie Gerberding requesting access to the report and to documents pertaining to its delayed release. Gerberding runs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including its Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which has been preparing the report since 2002.

ATSDR had planned to make its work public last July but "abruptly canceled the release of the report ... days before its planned release," according to the letter sent by Reps. Bart Gordon, Brad Miller, and Nick Lampson, all Democrats. By that time, scientists within ATSDR and outside the government had reviewed the science in the report.

"I understand that the peer review was not critical, that the peer review supported the release of the document," North Carolina's Miller told me today, after his office provided me with a copy of the letter. Last December, he and his colleagues requested documentation from ATSDR to explain what had happened. The documents, he said, "are a month past due already."

But Glen Nowak, the government agency's chief spokesperson, said some peer reviewers raised questions about the report's scientific methods. Many of their concerns—such as discrepancies in the geographical information attached to the various types of data—have been addressed in the past seven months, he said. The report is still undergoing revision, he added. "We're cautiously optimistic that this report will be out [soon]. We're talking weeks instead of months."

"If the [agency's] concern is genuinely about...a lack of scientific rigor," Miller said, "there should be ample documentation of that. That is not the sort of decision that's made at the water cooler. If there is no such documentation, it is going to be very, very difficult to persuade me that that is the real reason" the report has been withheld from the public.

In their letter to Gerberding, Miller and his colleagues also criticized the agency's treatment of ATSDR scientist Christopher De Rosa, an author of the Great Lakes report, and asserted that he had been blocked from granting interviews to the media. "The CDC's conduct in denying the news media access to Dr. De Rosa certainly appears to violate [federal policy]," they wrote.

It's not the first time this administration has been accused of muzzling science. But is a federal agency really burying the work of its own scientists, or is all of this sound, fury, and politics as usual?

Nowak told me today that he would permit De Rosa to speak with U.S. News. I invite readers to suggest questions for the author of this long-awaited report.

Tags:
infant mortality,
science,
pollution,
cancer,
CDC,
environment

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

With what's been recently revealed, there's one thing that this report misses but a few of the above posters have touched upon--such as the Fallon group. That's the direct connection to past military-industrial activities. I reference: Niagara Falls, New York in specific (and Western New York in general) was the largest production center for radioactive materials, namely Uranium metals.

See: Niagara Falls, NY, Union Carbide Electrometallurgical Works, DOE records and other. Niagara Falls and Niagara County New York have a significant nationally high rate of cancer and other disease that can be directly related to these legacy activities. Pockets of extreme infant mortality, the MOST rare of cancer clusters and depression of the autoimmune system integrity. Search Niagara Atomic or Manhattan Project Niagara Falls, NY or the like.

The very fact that this report mainly deals with the currently known Areas of Concern (AOC), and has not addressed undiscovered or purposely ignored locations along the Niagara River Corridor, Lake Ontario etc serves to exemplify the degree to which this same report is lacking. Not only haven't you been told of the full contents of this report but the health ramifications of what is yet to be revealed will only add to the terrible statistics and costs in human health, misery and mortality.

The supression of this report and not allowing science to be followed for science's own sake is nothing less than a Crime Against Humanity!

Louis Ricciuti of NY 1:20PM March 20, 2008

There is an exciting environmental health movement that has been born out of this type of antics from the CDC for decades. From Fallon, Nevada (childhood leukemia cluster) to eastern Pennsylvania's Carbon, Luzerne, and Schuylkill counties (adult polycythemia vera cluster), communities no longer trust the CDC/ATSDR. The Public Health Assessments/Health Consultations ATSDR are mandated to deliver to communities who petition them to investigate their exposures to hazardous wastes are framed and delivered to avoid legal entanglements from corporate abuse of the environment. Given Dr. Gerberding's red ink is still wet from her highly edited testimony on global warming, along with the 9/11 toxic dust, and FEMA formaldehyde offgassing trailers, it implies the agency is getting bolder in the Great Lakes Report because the target population being harmed is so large. This chronic suppression is indicative of a political regime that seeks to cover up any connection it has to harming those whom it has been elected to protect. It is insidious and corrosive to a free society. Greedy and ungodly self absorption of power which is a deliberate violation of the oath of office has historically proven to be a catalyst for change. Looks as if Dr. De Rosa has stood up and refused to be a pawn of politics and industry. Good for him! Good for the movement!

Micah's Mom of GA 9:05PM February 09, 2008

The huge potential of science to help us, and the rampant suppression of it by the Bush administration, suggests we need laws protecting the integrity of science from political meddling. Maybe government scientific research should even be its own branch of the government, not beholden at all to the administrative branch. Just as the judicial and legislative branches do not answer to the President, neither should scientists.

Jeremy Scheidt of OH 3:00PM February 09, 2008

Thinking Harder

This blog is the public workshop of U.S. News writer and editor Ben Harder. In articles published in the magazine, he has covered a range of sciences, including medicine, human behavior, prehistory, and evolution. Here, he can explore those and other scientific fields more fully and more informally than is possible in print. He'll share whatever seems noteworthy or potentially useful, and he invites readers to do the same.

WTOP Audio
On Feb. 24, 2008, Ben discussed the link between artificial light and cancer on WTOP radio. Listen to the interview at WTOP News. He again talked about light pollution on WTOP on March 22, exploring its environmental effects.

advertisement

National Science Foundation

NSF

Hydrogen Gas in the Universe

Researcher believes it is key ingredient to Universe.

Chemistry and Clouds

Researchers look at water droplets and chemical reactions.

Learning and Play

Researcher studies children's unstructured playtime.