Great Lakes Danger Zones
By Sheila Kaplan
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.
Researchers found low birth weights, elevated rates of infant mortality
and premature births, and elevated death rates from breast cancer, colon
cancer, and lung cancer.
The 400-plus-page study, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances
in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, was undertaken by a
division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the request of
the International Joint Commission, an independent bilateral organization
that advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on the use and quality of
boundary waters between the two countries. The study was originally
scheduled for release in July 2007 by the IJC and the CDC's Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
The Center for Public Integrity has obtained the study, which warns that
more than nine million people who live in the more than two dozen "areas of
concern"-including such major metropolitan areas as Chicago, Cleveland,
Detroit, and Milwaukee-may face elevated health risks from being exposed to
dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury, or six other hazardous pollutants.
In many of the geographic areas studied, researchers found low birth
weights, elevated rates of infant mortality and premature births, and
elevated death rates from breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer.
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 sources familiar with the history of the project.
"It raises very important questions," Dr. Peter Orris, a professor at the
University of Illinois School of Public Health in Chicago and one of three
experts who reviewed the study for ATSDR, told the Center. While Orris
acknowledged that the study does not determine cause and effect-a point the
study itself emphasizes-its release, he said, is crucial to pointing the way
for further research. "Communities could demand that those questions be
answered in a more systematic way," he said. "Not to release it is putting
your head under the sand."
In a December 2007 letter to ATSDR in which he called for the release of the
study, Orris wrote: "This report, which has taken years in production, was
subjected to independent expert review by the IJC's Health Professionals
Task Force and other boards, over 20 EPA scientists, state agency scientists
from New York and Minnesota, three academics (including myself), and
multiple reviews within ATSDR. As such, this is perhaps the most extensively
critiqued report, internally and externally, that I have heard of."
Last July, several days before the study was to be released, ATSDR suddenly
withdrew it, saying that it needed further review. In a letter to
Christopher De Rosa, then the director of the agency's division of
toxicology and environmental medicine, Dr. Howard Frumkin, ATSDR's chief,
wrote that the quality of the study was "well below expectations." When the
Center contacted Frumkin's office, a spokesman said that he was not
available for comment and that the study was "still under review."
De Rosa, who oversaw the study and has pressed for its release, referred the
Center's requests for an interview to ATSDR's public affairs office, which,
over a period of two weeks, has declined to make him available for comment.
In an e-mail obtained by the Center, De Rosa wrote to Frumkin 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."
Some members of Congress seem to agree. 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."
Canadian biologist Michael Gilbertson, a former IJC staffer and another of
the three peer reviewers, told the Center that the study has been suppressed
because it suggests that vulnerable populations have been harmed by
industrial pollutants. "It's not good because it's inconvenient," Gilbertson
said. "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."
The IJC requested the study in 2001. Researchers selected by the ATSDR not
only reviewed data from hazardous waste sites, toxic releases, and
discharges of pollutants but also, for the first time, mapped the locations
of schools, hospitals, and other facilities to assess the proximity of
vulnerable populations to the sources of environmental contaminants. In
March 2004, an official of the IJC wrote to De Rosa to thank him for his
role in the study, saying that he was "enthusiastic about sharing this
information with Great Lakes Basin stakeholders and governments," and
adding, "You are to be commended for your extraordinary efforts."
Unlike his Canadian counterpart, however, the ATSDR's Frumkin seems anything
but thankful. 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. Phone calls to ATSDR seeking comment about the
pending personnel dispute were not returned.
"I think this is really pretty outrageous, both to Chris personally and to
the report," Dr. David Carpenter, a professor of public health at the State
University of New York at Albany and another of ATSDR's peer reviewers, told
the Center for Public Integrity.
Some members of Congress have also taken De Rosa's side. That same February
6 letter to Gerberding, which was 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, 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."
Barry Johnson, a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service and
a former assistant administrator of ATSDR, told the Center that before he
left in 1999 he recommended that the agency investigate the dangers that
chemical contaminants might pose to residents of the Great Lakes states.
"This research is quite important to the public health of people who reside
in that area," Johnson said of the study. "It was done with the full
knowledge and support of IJC, and many local health departments went through
this in various reviews. I don't understand why this work has not been
released; it should be and it must be released. In 37 years of public
service, I've never run into a situation like this."
Sheila Kaplan is a journalist who divides her time between Washington, D.C.,
and Northern California. Research support for this story was provided by the
Nation Institute Investigative Fund.
For additional articles like this one, go to the Tittabawassee River Watch web site www.trwnews.net for complete coverage of the Tittabawassee River Dow Chemical dioxin contamination saga. . The Newspaper / Media page of our site contains an extensive archive of media articles dating back to January 2002. The source organization's web site link is listed to the right of the article, visit often for other news in our area. The Newspaper / Media page may be accessed by scrolling down to the bottom of the CONTENTS section and clicking on the Newspaper/Media link.