Times Beach Blood Study

[Cdstelzer@aol.com]

DRAWING BLOOD

Opponents of the Times Beach incinerator question the results of
a newly released study measuring dioxin levels in nearby
resdents' blood

BY C.D. STELZER

first published in the Riverfront Times (St. Louis), Nov. 13, 1996

The Missouri Department of Health (DoH) refused on Friday to make public any
scientific data relating to its blood
study of residents who live near the Times Beach dioxin incinerator. 
The Riverfront Times had asked for the data so it could be independently
analyzed. The newspaper's request
follows the premature announcement by the DoH last week that indicates dioxin
levels in the vicinity of the
Superfund site are among lowest ever recorded in the nation.
Daryl Roberts, chief epidemiologist for the state, rejected the possibility
of releasing the raw numbers on the
grounds of protecting the confidentiality of the subjects involved in the
study. "I can't provide it," Roberts told the
RFT. "The best I can give you is what's in the news release."
Pat Costner, a chemist for the environmental group Greenpeace, took exception
to Roberts reasoning. "When
those samples go into the lab, they're numbered -- they don't have people's
names on them," says Costner. "As
long as there are no names on the data, it's not a violation of confidence." 
Environmentalists opposed to the incinerator contend that the DoH's selective
analysis is seriously flawed and that
publication of partial results is a violation of scientific standards that
require such studies be peer reviewed before
release. 
"This isn't science this is bullshit," says Steve Taylor of the Times Beach
Action Group (TBAG). "The methods
for testing dioxin blood levels can be complicated or even deceptive. Due to
the sensitivity of tests like these and
their impact on our community, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR)
recognizes the importance of having results peer reviewed before
publication." Taylor says the DoH released the
limited data in advance of the completion of the study in order to support
the position that the incinerator is not a
threat to public health.
In order to bolster the purported safety of the incinerator, the DoH
restricted its published analysis to 2,3,7,8
TCDD -- only one of many types of dioxins and other hazardous materials being
burned at Times Beach. "TCDD
represents about 10 percent of the total dioxin equivalents in a human body,"
says Costner. "Nobody even talks
about TCDD anymore because it's such a minor contributor." 
The agency first tested dioxin levels of nearby residents in September 1995
and then again in July, four months
after the incinerator began operating. Based on its analysis, the DoH now
claims dioxin blood levels of nearby
residents and a comparison group are far below the national average of 3.2 to
10.1 parts per trillion (ppt). Among
nearby Times Beach residents, dioxin blood levels allegedly declined from
1.81 ppt to 1.24 ppt, according to the
DoH. 
Taylor of TBAG debates whether the national average for dioxin blood levels
is valid because it is based on
discredited or obsolete studies. He also brands the current analysis
inconclusive in that it measures only dioxin
levels in lipids or fats. In addition, the DoH study excludes those most
likely to be effected: children, the elderly
and anyone exposed to excessive dioxin levels in the past.
Besides these drawbacks, the DoH estimates are based on only four months of
exposure to incineration. That
short period, says Taylor, allows for little more than an inhalation study
and ignores the long-term potential for
ingesting dioxins through the food chain, which experts consider the primary
path of exposure. 
On this point, DoH and TBAG are in rare agreement. "Yeah, we're looking at
the inhalation exposure at this
time," says Roberts. "However, as another part of the protocol, we have
collected vegetable and soil samples ...
and they are currently in storage." But the state epidemiologist would not
hazard a guess when those samples
would be analyzed. "I don't even have a laboratory that's going to do the
work (yet)," Roberts says. In regard to
other chemical contaminants, the DoH press release last week stated that "a
cursory look found no increased levels
to cause concern." None of the other data will be released until after the
completion of the third blood draw
expected within a month of the completion of incineration, according to
Roberts. At that late stage, it will be too
late to protect public health, if the incinerator is indeed dangerous. 
Roberts sees nothing sinister in the timing of the latest announcement, and
says it was part of the plan. "We talked
to ATSDR and discussed the need to release the first two values publicly to
provide information so the community
can at least determine whether it believes its had an excessive exposure or
not," says Roberts. "TCDD is the
congener of concern in Missouri. Other contaminants of concern have toxic
equivalence factors magnitudes lower
than TCDD. The best I can say is that we reported out the information as it
was provided to us from Centers for
Disease Control in Atlanta, and CDC is the best laboratory in the nation."
Costner of Greenpeace considers the DoH findings absurd. "If magically all
the people around Times Beach were
able to buy food with no dioxin in it, and breath air with no dioxin, it
would then still take more than two years
from September 95 for their TCDD levels to be expected to drop to the levels
that they (DoH) are claiming for the
second set of samples," she says. "Are they saying the incinerator is sucking
the dioxin out those people's bodies?
That's what their data suggests. Does that make sense?"
Results of a separate ATSDR study released in September found abnormally high
cancer rates among former
residents of Times Beach and other Missouri dioxin sites. Interestingly, the
DoH blood study, tentatively
scheduled for release around the same time, was held up due to delays at the
CDC laboratory, according to
Roberts. The DoH finally released its optimistic findings in the aftermath of
last week's state and national
elections. One day later, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
had more good news. A DNR
investigation absolved International Technologies (IT) of any possible
wrongdoing or conflict of interest regarding
its partial ownership of Quanterra Environmental Services ("Twice Burned,"
RFT, Aug. 28). The month-long
state inquiry found IT and Quanterra guilty of nothing more than poor
paperwork.
Meanwhile, the incineration forges ahead with no end in sight. Approximately,
228,000 tons of
dioxin-contaminated soil and other materials from 27 sites in Eastern
Missouri are expected to be burned before the
cleanup is completed. This is more than twice as much waste as originally
estimated by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). 
C.D. Stelzer