Residents of the Mid Ohio Valley have been waiting for more than five years for the Environmental Protection Agency to complete a risk assessment on perfluorooctanoic acid, or C8. Now, a prominent attorney says they may have to wait forever.
Rob Bilott, who represented plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against DuPont over local water supplies contaminated with C8, recently sent a letter to the EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, urging them not to delay any further release of information.
Bilott says the agencies are under pressure to drop their work on the manmade chemical, which has been the target of a voluntary global phaseout agreement with industry initiated by EPA.
It has been two years since the EPA released any new information about its risk assessment, despite the fact that new scientific data is becoming available.
Bilott said the “new studies should be evaluated to determine whether present agency conclusions warrant modification, but the present conclusions should not be held by the agencies while researchers continue their work.”
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Duplicates Available for C8 Health Project Participants
People who participated in the C8 Health Project can now receive duplicate copies of their test results from the Science Panel.
Duplicates are being made available to those individuals who have consented to participate in the ongoing community study.
To request a copy of lost or misplaced results, participants can visit the website at c8sciencepanel.org. It’s recommended that individuals request the duplicates by mail using a sample letter available at the website.
Roughly two thirds of the 70,000 individuals who participated in the project also consented for their results to be used in the community study. Those who have not yet done so can fill out a form available on the website.
Additionally, participants who have moved since the time of the testing, which took place in 2005 and 2006, should update their address with the science panel. Instructions are available online.
Duplicates are being made available to those individuals who have consented to participate in the ongoing community study.
To request a copy of lost or misplaced results, participants can visit the website at c8sciencepanel.org. It’s recommended that individuals request the duplicates by mail using a sample letter available at the website.
Roughly two thirds of the 70,000 individuals who participated in the project also consented for their results to be used in the community study. Those who have not yet done so can fill out a form available on the website.
Additionally, participants who have moved since the time of the testing, which took place in 2005 and 2006, should update their address with the science panel. Instructions are available online.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Judge Seals C8 Health Project Results
A Wood County Circuit Court Judge has sealed the results of the C8 Health Project in an attempt to protect them from “data snoopers”.
Several days ago, preliminary findings from the data collection portion of the study found their way into news reports after being used in a presentation at West Virginia University where the raw data is being databased and stored. According to the order of Judge J D Beane, the data will be sealed with few exceptions permitted for researchers that petition the judge in writing for access.
The WVU presentation suggested that C8 or PFOA may negatively impact the liver, thyroid and immune functions of humans and contribute to higher cholesterol levels in children.
But a statement from the C8 Science Panel says it’s too early to draw such conclusions. The three-member science panel consists of epidemiologists appointed by the court to study the raw data and make a determination as to whether C8 can be linked to human disease. The results of the project were expected to come through this panel according to a very strict protocol ironed out between the parties involved in the class action settlement brought by residents against DuPont over the presence of the manufacturing chemical in local water supplies.
Panelist Dr. Kyle Steenland said the data from WVU does not represent a thorough analysis. “Therefore, the C8 Science Panel does not believe they provide valid information regarding the presence or absence of association between C8 exposure and health outcomes.”
Steenland said the data from the C8 Health Project by itself is insufficient, even when completely analyzed, to draw any firm conclusions about whether C8 is linked to disease.
When complete, the Science Panel reports will be filed with the Court, published in academic journals, and shared directly with the interested public. Their first analyses of the C8 Health Project data is expected to be made public later this year.
Several days ago, preliminary findings from the data collection portion of the study found their way into news reports after being used in a presentation at West Virginia University where the raw data is being databased and stored. According to the order of Judge J D Beane, the data will be sealed with few exceptions permitted for researchers that petition the judge in writing for access.
The WVU presentation suggested that C8 or PFOA may negatively impact the liver, thyroid and immune functions of humans and contribute to higher cholesterol levels in children.
But a statement from the C8 Science Panel says it’s too early to draw such conclusions. The three-member science panel consists of epidemiologists appointed by the court to study the raw data and make a determination as to whether C8 can be linked to human disease. The results of the project were expected to come through this panel according to a very strict protocol ironed out between the parties involved in the class action settlement brought by residents against DuPont over the presence of the manufacturing chemical in local water supplies.
Panelist Dr. Kyle Steenland said the data from WVU does not represent a thorough analysis. “Therefore, the C8 Science Panel does not believe they provide valid information regarding the presence or absence of association between C8 exposure and health outcomes.”
Steenland said the data from the C8 Health Project by itself is insufficient, even when completely analyzed, to draw any firm conclusions about whether C8 is linked to disease.
When complete, the Science Panel reports will be filed with the Court, published in academic journals, and shared directly with the interested public. Their first analyses of the C8 Health Project data is expected to be made public later this year.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
GAO Blames White House for Delay in Regulatory Action on PFOA
The Government Accountability Office claims that the White House is holding up the EPA when it comes to regulatory action on PFOA – or C8 – a manufacturing substance used to make Teflon and thousands of other consumer products.
The recent report specifically blames the EPA's lack of productivity on the management decision to suspend activity pending the outcome of additional scientific studies. The GAO says that in the 1990s the EPA's general approach was to use the best science available as the basis for assessment. But, the administration's new means of assessing chemicals for harm is delaying the completion of the process - sometimes for years.
The PFOA risk assessment is used by the GAO as one prime example of such a delay. The agency says the EPA should complete chemical reviews within a reasonable amount of time and minimize the need for conducting several levels of rework.
The recent report specifically blames the EPA's lack of productivity on the management decision to suspend activity pending the outcome of additional scientific studies. The GAO says that in the 1990s the EPA's general approach was to use the best science available as the basis for assessment. But, the administration's new means of assessing chemicals for harm is delaying the completion of the process - sometimes for years.
The PFOA risk assessment is used by the GAO as one prime example of such a delay. The agency says the EPA should complete chemical reviews within a reasonable amount of time and minimize the need for conducting several levels of rework.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
C8 Health Project Releases Raw Data on PFOA Exposure
Some of the most important and highly anticipated data from the C8 Health Project was released online this week.
The results posted include a summary of the concentrations of the manufacturing chemical known as C8 or PFOA detected in the blood of 70,000 local participants. The new information is available on the West Virginia University website. The summary of raw data confirms that the people who have consumed water from the Little Hocking Water Association display by far the highest exposure levels on average.
The health project detected an average of 83 parts per billion across the study population, but trends become more obvious when comparing participants by water district. The average in Little Hocking was 226 parts per billion. For people who lived in the Lubeck public service district 94 ppb was the average, in Belpre it was 43 ppb, Tuppers Plains 40 ppb, Pomeroy 15 ppb and participants from Mason County, West Virginia averaged 14 parts per billion.
Yet, the study also reveals some of the highest levels observed in human studies of perfluorinated chemicals. In fact, the highest level recorded in the project may be the highest concentration on record for a human exposed to C8. One Little Hocking resident tested as high as 22,412 parts per billion. A Lubeck resident exhibited a level of 17,557 parts per billion, a Tuppers Plains resident had a concentration of 8,162 parts per billion, and a Belpre resident tested at 7,932 parts per billion.
Industry studies show workers with elevated exposure levels, but they only go up to 5,000 parts per billion.
Project administrators warn against drawing health conclusions from the raw data. Little is known about what levels may prove to be "acceptable" or "harmful". Numerous scientific studies are underway to examine potential human health effects. The US EPA is trying to determine whether C8 should be classified as a “suggested” or “likely” carcinogen.
You can view the results online at: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed/c8/results/C8AndPFCLevels/index.asp
The results posted include a summary of the concentrations of the manufacturing chemical known as C8 or PFOA detected in the blood of 70,000 local participants. The new information is available on the West Virginia University website. The summary of raw data confirms that the people who have consumed water from the Little Hocking Water Association display by far the highest exposure levels on average.
The health project detected an average of 83 parts per billion across the study population, but trends become more obvious when comparing participants by water district. The average in Little Hocking was 226 parts per billion. For people who lived in the Lubeck public service district 94 ppb was the average, in Belpre it was 43 ppb, Tuppers Plains 40 ppb, Pomeroy 15 ppb and participants from Mason County, West Virginia averaged 14 parts per billion.
Yet, the study also reveals some of the highest levels observed in human studies of perfluorinated chemicals. In fact, the highest level recorded in the project may be the highest concentration on record for a human exposed to C8. One Little Hocking resident tested as high as 22,412 parts per billion. A Lubeck resident exhibited a level of 17,557 parts per billion, a Tuppers Plains resident had a concentration of 8,162 parts per billion, and a Belpre resident tested at 7,932 parts per billion.
Industry studies show workers with elevated exposure levels, but they only go up to 5,000 parts per billion.
Project administrators warn against drawing health conclusions from the raw data. Little is known about what levels may prove to be "acceptable" or "harmful". Numerous scientific studies are underway to examine potential human health effects. The US EPA is trying to determine whether C8 should be classified as a “suggested” or “likely” carcinogen.
You can view the results online at: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/cmed/c8/results/C8AndPFCLevels/index.asp
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Elevated C8 Levels in 9/11 Responders
An article published in Science News last week revealed that elevated levels of four perfluorinated chemicals including C8 have been found in emergency workers who responded to the World Trade Center on 9/11.
New biomonitoring results have revealed that the responders have levels about twice as high as expected in the general public. The tragedy exposed thousands of people to smoke and dust containing the remains of the burning towers and including dioxins, fire retardant chemicals, and construction materials.
Researchers examined the blood of 457 workers - state personnel and national guardsmen - who worked at the site. The data will be used as a baseline for further study of the responders.
New biomonitoring results have revealed that the responders have levels about twice as high as expected in the general public. The tragedy exposed thousands of people to smoke and dust containing the remains of the burning towers and including dioxins, fire retardant chemicals, and construction materials.
Researchers examined the blood of 457 workers - state personnel and national guardsmen - who worked at the site. The data will be used as a baseline for further study of the responders.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Congress Investigates Weinberg Group
The same congressional committee investigating steroid use in baseball is getting ready to examine an issue that directly relates to a Mid Ohio Valley controversy.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce is investigating the use of Bisphenol A in products intended for use by infants and children. The committee is trying to learn whether or not scientific evidence about the chemical has been manufactured by a public relations firm working for industry representatives.
As part of their investigation, the committee has asked the Weinberg Group to hand over documents and information relative to their handling of C8 or PFOA. In an April 2003 offer to DuPont, the Weinberg Group stated they could “harness, focus, and involve the scientific and intellectual capital of our company with one goal in mind – creating the outcome our client desires.”
Members of congress want to know what tactics were employed by the pr group to influence the public discussion about C8. As part of the services offered to DuPont, the Weinberg Group said they would facilitate the publication of scientific papers about C8, conflict out experts to keep them from consulting with plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against DuPont, and reshape the debate about C8 to make it appear as though exposure results in real health benefits.
Bisphenol A and C8 are not related, but the Weinberg Group has done work to promote both chemicals.
Specifically, congress wants to understand the strategies used with C8 to learn how similar tactics may have been applied to Bisphenol A. On February 5, Committee Chairman John Dingell of Michigan asked the Weinberg Group to submit all of their records and emails on C8 within two weeks.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce is investigating the use of Bisphenol A in products intended for use by infants and children. The committee is trying to learn whether or not scientific evidence about the chemical has been manufactured by a public relations firm working for industry representatives.
As part of their investigation, the committee has asked the Weinberg Group to hand over documents and information relative to their handling of C8 or PFOA. In an April 2003 offer to DuPont, the Weinberg Group stated they could “harness, focus, and involve the scientific and intellectual capital of our company with one goal in mind – creating the outcome our client desires.”
Members of congress want to know what tactics were employed by the pr group to influence the public discussion about C8. As part of the services offered to DuPont, the Weinberg Group said they would facilitate the publication of scientific papers about C8, conflict out experts to keep them from consulting with plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against DuPont, and reshape the debate about C8 to make it appear as though exposure results in real health benefits.
Bisphenol A and C8 are not related, but the Weinberg Group has done work to promote both chemicals.
Specifically, congress wants to understand the strategies used with C8 to learn how similar tactics may have been applied to Bisphenol A. On February 5, Committee Chairman John Dingell of Michigan asked the Weinberg Group to submit all of their records and emails on C8 within two weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)