ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund. (More. . .)
FEED

An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
TIPS
Did we miss something? Email Amanda.
BLOGROLL
STAY CONNECTED
Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]
Confirmed: New shower curtain smell is gross
House bill would ban BPA in food, beverage packaging
Chemical injections in Colorado
FEATURED
BPA in your body: How to minimize your exposure
Caution: These 7 household items may feminize baby boys
BPA in infant formula: This is not a call to panic
7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs
Ask EWG
Is there eco-friendly jewelry?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
SEARCH
« A silent killer | Main | Facebook contest: Love EWG, get cool stuff »
May 27, 2008
Confidential information
In last week's edition of Mixed Greens we talked about a recent study of the effects of PFOA, a persistent perfluorochemical with toxic effects on the liver, thyroid and immune system. That study, funded by part of DuPont's multi-million dollar settlement over poisoned river water in the mid-Ohio valley, is the largest of its kind ever performed.
Researchers on the study have only just begun to crunch the mountains of data that have been collected. But those mountains may pose a problem, according to an area judge who has sealed the data from the public. The records contain details about blood-PFOA levels as well as health and demographic information about 70 thousand mid-Ohio valley residents. Citing confidentiality concerns, the judge sealed the data – including the version which omits identifying data.
Qualified researchers will be able to petition for access to the data, and results from the WVU study will be released over as they become available.
So, what do you guys think? Does sealing the data put up unnecessary road blocks for those looking to study the health effects of PFOA? Or is the judge doing right by the study participants?
Comments
Privacy concerns are overblown in most cases, especially in this public health issue. The information collectively shared between 70k individuals pales in comparison with the larger consequences this has for the public at large.
Posted by: digraph
|
May 28, 2008 9:47 AM