Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Government Suppresses Major Public Health Report

By Maggie Mahar -- BAD, DON'T USE, AlterNet. Posted February 12, 2008.


The public has been denied important information on the link between pollution and health problems including lung, colon and breast cancer.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This article originally appeared on Health Beat.

The Center for Public Integrity, a public interest investigative journalism organization, has obtained copies of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study of environmental and health data in eight Great Lakes states that was scheduled for publication in July 2007. The report, which pointed to elevated rates of lung, colon, and breast cancer; low birth weight; and infant mortality in several of the geographical areas of concern has not yet been made public.

A few days before the report was slated to be released, it was pulled. Meanwhile, at precisely the same time, its lead author, Christopher De Rosa, has been removed from the position he held since 1992. The Center for Public Integrity is asking why.

The study, "Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern" was developed by the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the request of the International Joint Commission, an independent U.S-Canadian organization that monitors and advises both governments on the use and quality of boundary waters.

The CDC report brings together two sets of data: environmental data on known "areas of concern" -- including superfund sites and hazardous waste dumps -- and separate health data collected by county or, in some cases, smaller geographical regions.

The study does not try to prove cause and effect. Instead, it outlines areas for further study and data collection on the link between pollution and health.

"Let's say we have a superfund site and we also find elevated risk of leukemia in the county -- is that related? We don't know, but people living in the area can logically argue that we ought to find out," Dr. Peter Orris, a professor at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and one of the peer reviewers of the study told Oneworld.net.

Since 2004, dozens of experts have reviewed various drafts of the study, including senior scientists at the CDC, Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies, as well as scientists from universities and state governments, according to consumeraffairs.com. Orris is just one of the several experts who reviewed the study and who, along with the International Joint Committee in a December letter to the CDC, have called for the report's publication.

Canadian biologist Michael Gilbertson, a second peer reviewer, told the Center for Public Integrity that he felt the findings were being suppressed because they were "inconvenient." On the record, he added: "The whole problem with all this kind of work is wrapped up in that word 'injury.' If you have injury, that implies liability. Liability, of course, implies damages, legal processes, and costs of remedial action. The governments, frankly, in both countries are so heavily aligned with, particularly, the chemical industry, that the word amongst the bureaucracies is that they really do not want any evidence of effect or injury to be allowed out there."

Orris also raised concerns that the publication may have been halted based on orders outside the CDC. Once again, it seems that the Bush administration is trying to shrink government by making sure that a federal agency doesn't do its job-a problem that I wrote about here in a post titled "The FDA-- What Happens When You Starve the Beast." Corporate interests are protected--at the expense of the nation's citizens.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: cancer, health care, cdc

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Did De Rosa keep a copy of his original report at home?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 12, 2008 10:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did De Rosa keep a copy of his original report at home printed
out on hard copy? Either the government and industry can and
will get into his home computer and delete it or Adobe Acrobat
documents have a "delete on date" feature. Therefore, he should
print it out, make many copies, and send them to safe places and
people for safekeeping. It happened to me once from each : the
government and a corporation. Excessive honesty is dangerous to
your career.

I notice the article omitted the worst source of pollution and the
worst poisons that come from there. COAL contains:
URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, mercury, Antimony, Cobalt,
Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium,
Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Thorium,
Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, CHLORINE, Aluminum,
Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. Most people don't seem to
know that coal contains any poison other than mercury and sulfur.
There is so much of this long list of elements in coal that cinders
and coal smoke are actually valuable ores. We should be able to
get all the uranium and thorium we need to fuel nuclear power
plants for centuries by using cinders and smoke as ore.
Remember that, to get a given amount of energy, you need about
100 MILLION TIMES as much coal as uranium. That means the
coal mine has to be 100 million times larger than the uranium
mine, not counting the recycling of nuclear fuel, which eliminates
the need to mine uranium. It isn't just chemical factories that you
have to look at. The non-obvious sources are more dangerous.
Coal fired power plants are killing you and coal fired power plants
will cause our extinction if not converted to nuclear. Nuclear
power is the safest available that works for the base load.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All this clown EVER does Posted by: boydranchitos
Concete batching plants....
Posted by: Smiggsy on Feb 13, 2008 1:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read that cement factories & concrete batching plants are as bad as any emission polluting plants due to the use of toxic & carcinogenic fine particles. Cement is a fine dust & easily released into the atmosphere prior to mixing with gravel, sand & water to make concrete products.

A prime ingredient of cement is of course pot-ash, the by-product of burnt coal sourced from cleaned-out coal fired furnaces. Therefore I expect cancer clusters would predictably form around concrete batching plants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Add It To Your List
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 13, 2008 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The next time someone you know tell you that there is no difference between the parties you can add this to the litany of Repugnican crimes against the citizens of this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NO Difference! Posted by: Andie927
Health and Science Media Moved To Fast on This One
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 13, 2008 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know Dr. Howard Frumkin who heads ATSDR. He is a reputable physician-scientist with intergrity.

The health and science media was too quick to report this story as an example of government suppression of scientific data.(although there is ample evidence that it DOES occur in other cases)

As far as I can acertain this delay in release of this data was related to differences in scientic opinion. So the question becomes perhaps when to release data that may be incomplete or in question? That is not blatant supression.

Here is something from Henry Anderson from the State of Wisconsin-

"All,

I would tread lightly on the conspiracy component of the report release delay. It makes for a tantalizing story, but not the whole story. The state/local public health concerns probably contributed to its initially being put on "hold". Though the delay in revising isn't our fault. From our perspective ATSDR management acted responsibly to rethink the report. The whole story is too long to tell"

AlterNet readers- This story is NOT over.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» so says you Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: so says you-YES MY OPINION Posted by: drricklippin
Studying Ourselves to Death
Posted by: Liberty G on Feb 13, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of sticking our heads in the sand, we are burying the truth in mounds of "research" that will never give us the "proof" on which we insist before recognizing we need to change our ways. Moreover, what's in the lakes comes from a variety of sources - including those in our own homes. While we wait for answers, we're adding to the problem.

Studies galore can't give us definitive evidence of cancer or other health connections that involve multiple causation factors over many years. Moreover, studies are human-influenced. Bisphenol-A, for example, was found perfectly safe by 100 per cent of those funded or connected with industry - while 100 per cent of independent research found it associated with serious health effects.

Unless we wise up and take real action to clean up our act based on the Precautionary Principle (if there's a suspicion it is bad, get rid of it and find an alternative) we will indeed be "studying ourselves to death".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conference to Consider Great Lakes Report
Posted by: DDTConference on Feb 13, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On March 14, 2008, in Alma MI, by the country's largest DDT waste site [the Velsicol Chemical superfund site], there will be a conference bringing together experts on the health and environmental impact of persistent organic pollutants - especially in the Great Lakes region. The conference is co-sponsored by the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology. We'd like all concerned with suppression of the CDC/ATSDR report to attend. Go to www.alma.edu/academics/ddt for information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thank you for your comments
Posted by: maggiem on Feb 13, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for your comments.

Normally, I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories. But the circumstances are strange.

Why ,after 4 years of reviewing the study, did
ATSDR suddenly pull it and demote DeRosa in July, just before it was going to be released?
Why wait until the last minute--surely, if the study was of such poor quality, this should have been evident much earlier.

Also, the people who reviewed it and say it should be released are all reputable people.

Rick-- I appreciate the fact that you know Dr. Howard Frumkin who heads ATSDR. And while you and I have never met, I feel that I know you from the many times you have commented on things I have written.

At the same time, just saying that you believe that he is a "reputable physician-scientist with intergrity." doesn't answer the questions that have been raised. Also, the person who says "the story is too long to tell" only adds to the mystery.

And as you will see below Congressmen have accused Frumkin of suppressing information about toxins in the trailers that FEMA used to house victims of Katrina.

Moreover,the fact that the study was pulled just before it was supposed to be released does suggest (but certainly doesn't proove) that someone higher up--who hadn't been reading the drafts--got a copy of it just before it was supposed to go out and nixed it.

Let me share some more information from the Center for Public Integrity report:

ATSDR has been stonewalling Congress:

" In a February 6, 2008, letter to CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding, who’s also administrator of ATSDR, a trio of powerful congressional Democrats—including Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology—complained about the delay in releasing the report. The Center for Public Integrity obtained a copy of the letter to Gerberding, which notes that the full committee is reviewing “disturbing allegations about interference with the work of government scientists” at ATSDR. “You and Dr. Frumkin were made aware of the Committee’s concerns on this matter last December,” the letter adds, “but we have still not heard any explanation for the decision to cancel the release of the report.”

Re De Rosa and Frumkin, the report says: " De Rosa, a highly respected scientist with a strong international reputation from his 15 years in charge of ATSDR’s division of toxicology and environmental medicine, was demoted after he pushed Frumkin to publish the Great Lakes report and other studies. De Rosa is seeking reinstatement to his former position, claiming that Frumkin illegally retaliated against him.

“I think this is really pretty outrageous, both to Chris personally and to the report,” said Dr. David Carpenter, a professor of public health at SUNY Albandyanother of ATSDR’s peer reviewers.

Moreover, "In the February 6 letter co-signed by Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina, chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Science and Technology Committee, and Rep. Nick Lampson of Texas, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, they expressed concern that “management may have retaliated against” De Rosa for blowing the whistle on ATSDR’s conduct related to this investigation and another involving work on formaldehyde in trailers supplied by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. “The public is well served by federal employees willing to speak up when federal agencies act improperly, and Congress depends upon whistle blowers for effective oversight,” the letter states. “We will not tolerate retaliation against any whistle blowers.”

See http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/29/fema_coverup/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yay! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Who would trust the US govt?
Posted by: Cathyc on Feb 13, 2008 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or ANY govt that "does business" (colludes) with them? Nobody, but the foolish and the totally corrupt. That's who!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Support & Go Green
Posted by: Andie927 on Feb 13, 2008 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PARTY!!

Please! Obama and Clinton support Coal and Nuclear! The Dem. Blue-Dogs vote Repug. anyway!

Edwards, and True Progressive Dems. are different, but there's not enough of them to change anything.

If ALL the Progressive Dems. would take over the Green Party, they'd have a better coalition, and could get more done! The Green Party already has a better agenda, and party platform then the Dems. That are top heavy, and Corporate Controlled.

I live in rural central Florida, we live 20 miles from three hugh coal power plants,for seven years now. The health effects are overwhelming! Even with air'cleaners, and central air, the black soot is everywhere! Even our dogs are having breathing problems. Yes, we're selling!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: Public Health Report supressed by government
Posted by: estherme on Feb 13, 2008 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I noticed the article didn't mention anything about the daily spraying of Chemtrails that the government is doing through out the U.S. This spraying is leaving chemicals in the air that we are all breathing in. If you are an outdoors person or someone that works outside you are getting these chemicals daily. This has been going on since about 1987 and really expanded since 1999. The long term affect on the body causes respiratory problems, suppresses the immune system and other health problems. Why are more people coming down with cancer than ever before! You can not trust anything the government says! They are owned by the corporations and governments mission is to protect corporate profits no matter what. It is profit before people as usually so they are not going to admit anything and will suppress everything they can for profits. This spraying may also have a sinister aspect to it, to change weather, to experiment on people for biological warfare. The information is out there if people care to look. Americans rely on TV news, but the media doesn't report anything the corporations want suppressed. There is no longer a Free Press! You have to get your news on the Internet and now gov't and big corporations (AT&T, Verizon etc) are trying to implement a filter system so they can tell you what they want you to view on the net. If Congress gives it to them, you can kiss all real news deleted. This Fascist government is already heading in that direction. Search the Internet for "Chemtrails" and see what is going on with the spraying of our air. See www.educate-yourself.org/ct (Chemtrails Introduction). See YouTub Videos on the subject at www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvioxjul6co&feature=related. There are many reliable websites on the net that are not government information sites. People need to question everything the government says and trust them on nothing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On the throne
Posted by: willymack on Feb 13, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Great Denier, er, I mean Decider sits serenely atop his throne while those supposedly subordinate to him pick apart our country, brick by brick. This can only end one way, with the thorough rejection of everything bush, but probably only after there's nothing of value left for the rat bastards to steal from us. As usual we, the people are too numb, dumb,or lazy to "get involved".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DON'T CHASE THE WRONG ENEMIES- WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 13, 2008 1:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a portion of an e-mail I circulated today on the ATSDR issue-

I am not an investigative reporter.But here are a few thoughts-

- The complete data set is NEVER in. Science is evergreen and always evolving.

- What do we do in the absence of complete data? Precautionary principle? To what level of risk do we regulate?

- I am afraid that we cannot afford to allocate large amount of $ to the hypothetical verses proven risks? Grow up!- Rationing is an economic imperative in health and medicine.

- Generally speaking, the reductionistic model applied to contemporary Occupational and Environmental Medicine (OEM) is in my opinion a failure (see appendeded below*) – perhaps this is my contribution to OEM)

- Generally we are improving cleaning up US workplaces and the US environment.

- Yes synthetic chemicals, heavy metals and other exposures, etc,are still with us BUT my biases for resource allocation are-

-etoh and tobacco

-illicit and licit drugs/”medicines”

- obesity

- work stress

- global warming

The granddaddy of them all of course is to - eliminate POVERTY!

I guess we all have our pet issues that we believe need to be prioritized and funded? But we can’t do everything? That is for sure. If we chase the wrong enemies in health and medicine we are negligent in my opinion.

Feedback sought.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

*“Reductionism’s last Hurrah”

In 1985 I declared, to the dismay of my colleagues in Occupational and Environmental Medicine (OEM) the application of the miraculous infectious disease model (single agent-single health outcome) was essentially a failure (with some notable but very few exceptions.) I called it “reductionism’s last hurrah”.

My premise was that we are all living in a highly complex and ever-changing chemical and radiation “soup” especially since the industrial revolution-but even before. The attempt to fully understand the reaction of these exposures on highly complex human physiology (26,000 genes interacting with 300 million proteins in 100 trillion cells) was mathematically not feasible –essentially unfathomable. Add to that the excessive consumption of illicit, OTC and prescribed medications, tobacco, alcohol and natural and synthetic chemicals in our diet. The question remains – what to do? Venter’s phrase “Probabilistic statistics” may apply.

Also, I stand in favor of more dollars for CARE and less on CAUSE which only makes lawyers and insurance companies rich at least in my field of OEM.

Rick Lippin
November 2002

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bill Frist was a 'doctor', too Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» Sick of Scapegoating Obesity Posted by: Gravitas
BUSH PERE (BARF)
Posted by: fg on Feb 13, 2008 7:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the "administration" of Bush pere, the EPA issued a draft report on the health effects
of electric and magnetic fields, which were therein identified as ("possible"?, "probable?"--I can't recall) human carcinogens. The White House Science Council--so-called (isn't this body comprised of lawyers?)--forced the EPA to drop that finding in its ultimate version of the report.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't you understand
Posted by: oxheadone on Feb 13, 2008 11:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that we need the money to promote terrorists through the Iraq war. Unless we have an increasing number of potential haters of the US, the military industrial complex will feel neglected. If we can't afford simple medical care for poor children, how can we afford chasing the complexities of pollution?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just Blame Obesity
Posted by: Gravitas on Feb 15, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, I say just blame obesity. The truth is the confounding of obesity, poverty, and exposure to pollution make it a perfect scapegoat. The people who live in the most polluted areas are statistically poorer. They are also statistically fatter. Since everone, including "independent thinking" progressives never question the dangers of obesity, it is the perfect fall guy. We can blame all health problems on the victims and never have to change the way we do things. Any wonder the Council on Science and Health declared obesity a moral evil. Pure coincidence they funded by chemical companies!!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fast overnight delivery
Posted by: doctorrr on Mar 4, 2008 9:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
drugstore
Posted by: doctorrr on Mar 7, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FDA approved drugs
Posted by: doctorrr on Mar 7, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]