American Council on Science and Health does GE's dredge work

[ttweed@wildrockies.org (Tony Tweedale)]

*****Features*****
*1.  American Council on Science and Health does GE's dredge work.

The New York-based American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has
stepped up to the plate for General Electric, which is faced with the
possible costs of dredging  a section of the Hudson River.  GE faces a
multi-million dollar cleanup of a Superfund site, caused by GE's dumping of
an estimated 209,000 to 1.3 million pounds of PCBs in the Upper Hudson
River during the 1970s.  (EPA National Priority Site Fact Sheet, "Hudson
River PCBs.")  Recent decisions have found GE liable for cleanup of PCB
contamination in two Massachusetts rivers, so the polluters have grounds
for concern.  In fact, since the Hudson is a Superfund site, the EPA has
even greater enforcement authority than in the Massachusetts cases.
Estimated cleanup costs for GE could run between $50 and $100 million,
according to ACSH.  ("Need to curb EPA's PCB zeal," _The Washington Times_,
August 6, 1998).

A recent EPA re-assessment of an interim "no action" decision for the
Hudson river found that PCB-contaminated sediment is being exposed to the
water through erosion, causing "hot spots" of elevated PCB levels in the
river.  Not surprisingly, a firm hired by GE to analyze the EPA results
declared that the EPA study was based on "limited and selective data."
(_Greenwire_, August 20, 1998).  Dick Stapleton, EPA spokesman, defended
the study, which took more than 150 core samples, stating, "We too, found
burial at some of those locations, but at the majority of cores, we found
PCB losses... [at] numbers so high we'd be negligent if we ignored them."
(_Associated Press_, August 20, 1998)  EPA Administrator Carol Browner told
the New York State Assembly in July testimony, "Fifteen of the nation's top
PCB experts reviewed the EPA report, and all agreed, including one GE
scientist, that the EPA scientific review fairly interpreted the body of
PCB science relative to carcinogenicity."  (Carol Browner's testimony
before the NY State Assembly Committee on Environmental Conservation, July
9, 1998).

Since Browner testified before the New York State Assembly on the Hudson
River Superfund site, ACSH has been busily defending GE in the New York and
national media, casting a wide net of doubt on the danger of PCBs and the
EPA in general.  ACSH has branded the EPA as "a beltway behemoth" in need
of a "spanking" for spreading needless fear and exaggerating the risks of
PCB exposure.  Elizabeth Whelan, ACSH president, described PCBs as having
performed "a life enhancing role" in their heyday, and stated that "PCB
traces in the Hudson pose the same level of health risks as falling
meteorites."  (Elizabeth Whelan, _The Washington Times_ "Need to curb EPA's
PCB zeal," October 6, 1998).  In a letter to the editor of the New York
Times, Whelan stated, "There is no credible scientific evidence that PCBs
at any level of human exposure causes cancer." (_New York Times_, August
16, 1998).  Dr. Gilbert Ross, ACSH medical director, commented on the EPA's
enforcement: "Either they're acting on good faith and they want to have
zero risk, or--and I'm afraid I have to say this is more likely--Carol
Browner is trying to attract attention."  (_Sunday Gazette_, August 23,
1998).

ACSH has received funding from GE for a number of years, a fact that has
been published in news accounts on the situation.  New York state
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky told the Schenectady Sunday Gazette, "They take
money from GE.  What else do you have to know? They're entitled to be part
of the debate, but they ought to have a warning label: 'The ACSH may be
hazardous to your health.'"  ACSH denies any connections between their
funders' interests and their own.  (_Sunday Gazette_, August 23, 1998).

GE has its own ongoing greenwash attempt, with a web site, "Hudson Watch"
(www.hudsonwatch.com) that is presented by "GE's corporate environmental
programs" and contains all of GE's information on the Hudson situation, but
does not mention direct sponsorship by GE.  There is also no information
offered about what "Hudson Watch" is or what it does.  CLEAR could find no
way to access this site from GE's corporate web site, and a simple search
for "PCBs" on the corporate site had zero returns.  The Hudson Watch sight
downplays risks of PCB contamination and denies any problems stemming from
PCB-laden sediment layers in the Hudson river.

So what does the science actually say about carcinogenicity and PCBs? Dr.
David Carpenter, a professor of environmental health and toxicology at
University at Albany's school of public health stated, "The evidence [that
PCBs cause cancer in humans] is very long-standing... It just blows my mind
that people at this stage of the game can make these statements.  Only the
most blind, or persons with the greatest conflict of interest, could say
those things."  (_Sunday Gazette_, August 23, 1998.  Ellipses and brackets
in original).  The EPA lists PCBs as a probable human carcinogen, as do the
International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health.  EPA has also found "serious non-cancer
health hazards to intellectual functions of the nervous, immune and
reproductive systems," and considers PCBs to be possible endocrine
disrupters.  (EPA: "PCBs and Human Health." from Hudson National Priority
Site Fact Sheet).

Additionally, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of
the National Institutes of Health very recently reconfirmed PCBs as
"reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" and stated "there is
sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of several mixtures of
polychlorinated biphenyls...in experimental animals" and though there is
inadequate evidence based on direct human exposure, the NIEHS report sites
a study where there was an increase of skin cancer in workers exposed and
another where 1,310 manufacturing workers exposed over at least six months
"showed an excess of all cancers among male workers." (NIEHS "Report on
Carcinogens: Eighth Edition, " August 5, 1998).  These two studies, while
inadequate to declare PCBs an absolute human carcinogen, support the
overwhelming findings from lab animals and fly in the face of Whelan's
statement that "After viewing the scientific literature on PCBs the ACSH
panel concludes that the collective weight of evidence of studies involving
PCB exposure is at odds with the critics' conclusion that PCBs are a
probable cause of human cancer." (ACSH press release, "Scientists Slam
Unscientific PCB Allegations," July 23, 1998.

True to form, ACSH once again ignores the consensus of  major reputable
scientific bodies in order to back the interests of one of its funders.