PFOA stories

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A timeline or exact plan for doing so has not been put together, Haddysaid. "It's still in the evolutionary phase," Haddy said.As for why the agency did not make public the preliminary findings inthe draft study, Haddy said that decision was made by one of hersuperiors, Joe Barker, DHHR's director of Epidemiology and HealthPromotion. Barker did not return repeated phone calls Tuesday.Dan Turner, a media spokesman for DuPont, released a short statementabout the study from Robert Rickard, DuPont's science director."We agree with the authors that studies of this kind can provide auseful initial screen of differences in disease rates across geographicareas," Rickard said. "But, as the authors themselves acknowledge, thestudy cannot and does not identify any cause that explains theobservations."To contact staff writer Ken Ward Jr., use e-mail or call 348-1702.
Publication: THE SUNDAY GAZETTE-MAILPublished: 10/14/2007Page: 1AHeadline: DUPONT DISTORTED C8 STUDY: SCIENTISTSByline: KEN WARD JR.kward@wvgazette.comOn Jan. 11, 2005, DuPont publicists invited reporters to the company'sWashington Works plant south of Parkersburg for a major announcement.Scientists had completed a study of the potential health effects of thechemical C8, or PFOA. They had some good news."To date, no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA," announcedthe headline on DuPont's news release.Plant manager Paul Bossert repeated the line in a letter to WashingtonWorks employees. The study results, Bossert said, "Reaffirm what we havesaid all along: There are no known human health effects associated withexposure to PFOA."DuPont officials touted the study as having the seal of approval fromthe company's Epidemiology Review Board, a team of independent expertsfrom various universities, including Johns Hopkins and Yale.It turns out those independent experts weren't really on board, at leastnot with the way DuPont chose to present the study results to companyemployees, the press and the public.One of the experts, Noah Seixas of the University of Washington, was "abit shocked" by DuPont's press statements. Another, David Wegman of theUniversity of Massachusetts at Lowell, was "quite uncomfortable" withthe way the company described the findings.Four members of the expert team agreed that Bossert's letter toemployees "was somewhere between misleading and disingenuous.""We were unanimous in believing that the results do show a healtheffect," Wegman wrote in a Feb. 4, 2005, e-mail to other members ofDuPont's Epidemiology Review Board, or ERB.The board's concerns are spelled out in previously confidential e-mailmessages. The messages were made public last week as part of a federalcourt filing in a lawsuit over PFOA pollution from DuPont's ChambersWorks in Salem County, N.J.
Page 5 and 6: animals through ingestion, inhalati
Page 8 and 9: Staff Welfare Introduction of a wel
Page 10 and 11: Publication: THE CHARLESTON GAZETTE
Page 12 and 13: Publication: THE SUNDAY GAZETTE-MAI
Page 14 and 15: Finally, someone from the EPA regio
Page 18 and 19: Funded through a four-year grant fr
Page 20 and 21: Emmett's C8 findings highlight what
Page 22 and 23: Jessica Greathouse, the DEP's curre
Page 24 and 25: "I just spoke with Ann [Bradley], w
Page 28 and 29: In his deposition, Karrh reported t
Page 30 and 31: "There were so many other things go
Page 32 and 33: internal corporate records uncovere
Page 34 and 35: In the interview, Evers said he was
Page 36 and 37: middle, level - which would be less
Page 38 and 39: the public. Scientists, activists a
Page 40 and 41: "During her presentation last week,
Page 42 and 43: "These data do, however, establish
Page 46 and 47: DuPont has used the worker health s
Page 48: "I think the level of evidence prod

PFOA stories

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?