Good find on the Nature article. Thanks for posting it.

Bethany,

Ironically, EWG sent out junk-science news blitz last year critical of bottled water. This year, however, they are recommending consumers drink it: http://www.mynews4.com/story.php?id=7384&n=140,133

B

It was only four years ago that the Nobel Prize in medicine was awarded for the discovery that helicobacter pylori was the cause of peptic ulcer disease, stomach cancer and some other gastric cancers. Because of the prevailing paradigm, that chronic diseases like cancer are caused by environmental pollutants or “stress”, the paper for which the award was given was initially rejected and it was considered to be in the bottom 10% of poor science received the year it was submitted. Nowadays, freed of the anti-chemical dogma, scientists are finding more and more cancers with an infectious etiology.

So why is the EWG hawking a health scare based on essentially no science? You can blame its backers the trial lawyers. Human papillomavirus and helicobacter pylori don’t have deep pockets. The municipalities and companies responsible for the presence of trace contaminants do. Remember, Melanie, follow the money.

To say, “I should have written that people have gotten leukemia likely as a result of a combination of factors, possibly including arsenic,” is essentially meaningless until you can provide evidence to support such a statement. I look forward to you posting links to the peer-reviewed science.

“Why not go after climate change deniers?” Again, that’s a side issue irrelevant to the series, so I will not respond to it. So is this (even though I’ve already responded to it): “I don’t see the PR profession sufficiently going after its own liars and spin doctors.”

What I will respond to is your claim that Duhigg’s article is “largely on the money.”

I hope in reaching that conclusion, you have considered the following:

1. Duhigg claims he received data from all states (“Fresh Air,” 12/17/09) when NDEP told him the soonest it would be able to provide the requested information was the middle of December.
2. The data he used are virtually identical to EWG’s, a group with a well-documented history of using scare tactics and misinformation.
3. NDEP has not been able to verify the data published (which appear to be EWG’s) by the New York Times and told Duhigg so prior to publication.
4. TMWA claims the data are incorrect.
5. TMWA said it has never had health violations; both EWG and Duhigg say otherwise using EWG’s data that, again, has not been verified.
6. Both Duhigg and EWG are placing past data under current limits, not the limits that existed when the data were collected.
7. All of the above are just in relation to northern Nevada; I’m guessing the reporting standards at play here are likely to be present elsewhere.
8. The EWG stories were quickly discredited all around the country (see: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/dec/21/poor-water-quality-ranking-environmental-group-ran/).
9. Duhigg’s past stories on the topic have also been problematic in terms of data interpretation and presentation (see: http://coloradoindependent.com/38043/state-health-officials-say-new-york-times-water-quality-story-missed-mark and http://www.ecos.org/files/3827_file_New_York_Times_Response_9_15_09.doc).

Finally, I’ll state it again: What’s less clear is how reporters and editors spin news. The stated intent of the series is to explain how this occurs. I hope you’ll consider sticking to the topic in future replies.

Arsenic in combination with genetic factors and other perhaps other contaminants not required to be legally monitored, may be responsible for leukemia. That has not been ruled out. That’s what’s being studied now. I’ll get back to you with my research – - I have huge file. So to say that the CDC has clearly ruled it out misstates the science.

Arsenic is a known carcinogen, the CDC is clear on this:

“How likely is arsenic to cause cancer?

Several studies have shown that ingestion of inorganic arsenic can increase the risk of skin cancer and cancer in the liver, bladder, and lungs. Inhalation of inorganic arsenic can cause increased risk of lung cancer. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the EPA have determined that inorganic arsenic is a known human carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that inorganic arsenic is carcinogenic to humans.

How does arsenic affect children?

There is some evidence that long-term exposure to arsenic in children may result in lower IQ scores. There is also some evidence that exposure to arsenic in the womb and early childhood may increase mortality in young adults.

There is some evidence that inhaled or ingested arsenic can injure pregnant women or their unborn babies, although the studies are not definitive. Studies in animals show that large doses of arsenic that cause illness in pregnant females, can also cause low birth weight, fetal malformations, and even fetal death. Arsenic can cross the placenta and has been found in fetal tissues. Arsenic is found at low levels in breast milk.”

But my point is that while it is fair that you are pointing out errors in reporting, which I applaud, you are picking on an article that is largely on the money.

Why not go after the climate change deniers?

One more point: I don’t see the PR profession sufficiently going after its own liars and spin doctors.

I understand that many PR people are at odds with journalists, having been screwed over by them numerous times. I get that. But I don’t see PR people distancing themselves from folks like Rick Berman: http://www.bermanco.com/

(Full disclosure: I actually like some of Berman’s websites because I am partial to his anti-PETA position. That doesn’t make his pseudo-science OK.)

You say your research relied on CDC reports and scientists while your previous response indicates you believe environmental factors have “killed children in Nevada.” The arsenic/leukemia link was discredited early on (the CDC clearly states there is no connection) and to date no evidence exist that I am aware of — aside from speculative news reports and the suppositions of those who attempt to make such a link — that environmental factors, tungsten and arsenic in particular, “caused” the cluster.

Your own Silver & Blue story says: “Many likely suspects, but no known culprits. Not even arsenic, a known carcinogen, can be named responsible for the cluster because both sick and well children, as well as the rest of Fallon residents, had been drinking water with too much arsenic for years, and the cluster itself didn’t start until 1997.”

If the science hasn’t been able to confirm such links, how can you now assert they exist? (Your exact quote: “People have died or lost their childhoods to leukemia, possibly as a result or the arsenic, which is a known carcinogen.”)

I was waiting for somebody to string up a straw man about PR folks being the true spin doctors, which is a case easily made as I have done repeatedly in the past (and will continue to do). I don’t recall saying that PR people aren’t hacks; to me, that’s a given.

What’s less clear is how reporters and editors spin news. The stated intent of the series is to explain how this occurs. Like with PR people, the examples are readily available.

So I’m not sure what your point is.

B

While I agree that some, if not many, reporters are biased, cheap hacks, trying to make the case that PR people are NOT biased, cheap hacks based on the flaws of some reporters is specious. If you could actually prove that MORE PR people are NOT spinmeisters compared to reporters, you’d be onto something. Given the state of the news today, you might be able to do that. But what you’re dealing with is two different starting points: reporters are theoretically supposed to be unbiased and fair, PR people are supposed to be biased in favor of their company/product. They’re like lawyers representing a client. There’s no expectation of fairness, just a vigorous defense.

I’m glad you brought up Fallon. No doubt the blip on the New York Times map about Fallon was likely because of Fallon’s *past* arsenic levels (see http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/arsenic/casestudies/nv_fallon.html).

The best that I can recall, Duhigg failed to mention the well-publicized facility that treats arsenic in Fallon’s water (non-well water), just as he placed into his chart past arsenic levels in Reno (which TMWA says are incorrect) against current standards.

As far as current science goes about the alleged environmental causes of Fallon’s cancer cluster, especially arsenic, I rely on what the science says, not what journalists claim based on information received by activists with agendas. The CDC is a good place to start. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/clusters/Fallon/arsenicfaq.htm.

My point about the NY Times story isn’t whether or not EPA guidelines need to be updated; it’s about the route the reporter took to get his story. The best anyone I spoke with can tell, mentioning Reno as city with “toxic waters” is horseshit.

B