The lefty blogs are talking about this study of hazardous substances and adverse health effects around the Great Lakes, alleging that the federal government has suppressed a study linking exposures to contaminants such as PCBs, dioxins and mercury to increased rates of cancer and infant mortality. As is typical in these cases, the rhetoric gets overheated, causing us to focus on the wrong things. Care of Public Integrity, some pages of the draft study are available, and I’ve taken the opportunity to skim through them, something I sense a lot of commentators haven’t gotten around to doing yet. Thanks to the Patriot Daily News Clearninghouse for the initial report.
The study reportedly was commissioned by the International Joint Commission (IJC) and prepared by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). I didn’t find specific references to the study on the web sites to either organization, and I don’t quite know what to make of that (feel free to insert your own conspiracy theory here). After the buildup of an "exhaustive federal study of environmental hazards in the eight Great Lakes states. . . ", I had to conclude I was decidedly underwhelmed. Not to minimize the environmental health concerns associated with the Great Lakes, another matter entirely as you’ll see in a bit, but it is curious this particular report is the subject of so much torturous and un-transparent review, or public uproar.
According to Public Integrity’s succinct news item, the IJC had requested the study in 2001, and as of 2004, it was still under review. It was scheduled for publication in July 2007, but was pulled back by ATSDR, claiming the need for further review. The lead author of the study had written in an e-mail to his supervisor stating that the delay in publishing the study has had "the appearance of censorship of science and distribution of factual information regarding the health status of vulnerable communities." While this is a valid claim, it doesn’t necessarily translate into conspiracies about suppressing health information; this may just be the result of awkward bureaucratic processes. Say what you will about the National Toxicology Program’s review of bisphenol-A, the NTP’s process is a model of transparency by comparison.
The study is remarkably simple and straightforward for something that has been in preparation for years. It’s essentially a compilation, by Area of Concern, of the available published information concerning releases of eleven substances identified by the IJC as requiring priority action. These include dioxins and furans, PCBs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides, lead and mercury. The report presents information from the TRI, NPDES and HAZDAT databases, and ATSDR public health assessments, alongside the available published information about health outcomes in those same AOCs, based on county-level health indicator data from the Public Health Foundation. The objective for this study was to identify areas where further investigation might be warranted. As stated in the executive summary:
This report should not be construed as a traditional analytic epidemiological evaluation. Instead, it should be viewed as an assessment to identify the co-occurrence of elevated patterns of morbidity and mortality and environmental contamination that may merit further hypothesis-based epidemiologic study.
So, it would be useful for identifying AOCs, and determining priorities (for purposes of programming funding), for more definitive epidemiological studies - it would be over-interpreting the data to draw any further conclusions about contaminants and health effects, something that is stated many times in the draft report. Regardless of why (attempt to suppress or awkward bureaucratic process), it's a shame this controversy has arisen. This kind of report, even with the very preliminary information presented, would be useful in stimulating public involvement in the health assessment process.
Another mark against the suppression theory is that information about public health concerns in the Great Lakes is widely available. ATSDR has been participating in Great Lakes research since 1994. Canada and the US have a bi-national toxics strategy for the "virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin. A whole series of remedial action plans for AOCs and "Lake-wide" management plans are discussed on the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office web site. A quick examination of the research findings and these mitigation activities indicates a possible reason for concerns about the ATSDR report - perhaps it needed to show better integration with these research findings and programs. The existing Great Lakes programs with regard to human health do have an emphasis on fish, water and sediments; if there was a desire to develop an estimate of cumulative health risks across Great Lakes contaminants and Superfund sites or other sources, the ATSDR report might provide a portal for such a cumulative assessment of health risks. However, that objective isn't brought up in the report. In addition, there are emerging contaminant issues not addressed in ATSDR's report - since it was started in 2001, the content now might be dated.
A better question to ask, rather than why ATSDR's Great Lakes public health report was pulled back, is whether or not the overall cleanup of the Great Lakes is proceeding in a timely manner. The most recent biennial report published by the IJC states:
Nonetheless, significant challenges persist and new ones are emerging. Beach closures are on the rise, all the Lakes continue to have advisories limiting fish consumption and only three of the 43 Areas of Concern (AOC) targeted for remediation have been delisted. Two other AOCs have improved enough to be designated by the governments as Areas of Concern in a recovery stage, generally known as Areas in Recovery.
Ongoing inputs of toxic substances from contaminated sediment, air and other sources; continuing polluted runoff from farmlands and urban surfaces; and inadequate capability to collect and treat sewage are persistent problems that we must more effectively confront to improve water quality. Also, the increasing number of alien invasive species and emerging issues such as new chemicals and personal care products, urban sprawl, shoreline development, global transport of airborne pollution and climate change all complicate efforts to improve the Lakes.
Insufficient funding remains a core issue. In both the United States and Canada there are significant gaps between the funds required and those appropriated to clean up contaminated sediment and improve wastewater treatment systems.
Without a clearer commitment to accountability the above problems and shortcomings will continue.
In a sense, there is already enough evidence of a problem to take action on the Great Lakes. There is value in running down the question of what happened to ASTDR's report, in the name of assuring objectivity and transparency in health assessment processes. There also may be benefit in improving surveillance of health status in Great Lakes communities. But, the real question that deserves attention is whether or not the existing programs are addressing health and ecological risks in the Great Lakes.