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. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« A silent killer | Main | Facebook contest: Love EWG, get cool stuff »
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?
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.