So here it is, one month and 13 posts later. You know how many comments I've received for all this effort? One, and that was from a lady who hopes no one believes what I wrote. So the question I have to ask myself is why bother?
Does anyone really care about facts or data in pursuit of making a decision on something? The answer to that is 'yes' but only, it appears, if that information is able to support an idea that they want supported. So why share my thoughts with a public that has, for the most part, already chosen a side on this topic? What do I hope to gain from all of this?
What I know to be true is this. At one time I believed certain things to be true based on what I was told. After a few decades on this planet and a lot of observation and research, I have found some beliefs to be false. It was not fully my fault in what I thought to be true. I have been taught these beliefs by ignorant folks, misguided folks, folks with an agenda, and downright liars. All the while, though, what is true, remained that way, regardless of what I believed.
The field I have spent the last 25 years in, Environmental Management, is ripe with regulations and methods that are based on a poor knowledge of how to calculate risk. And it is because of this, that the public - who initiates the do's and dont's we live under in the form of laws and regulations - is often confused on what is a proper course of action to take.
So with the Oil and Gas fracing, exploration, and pumping that is taking place, misinformation, mistrust, and agenda is drawing a line in the sand 180 degrees from where it needs to be drawn. And if I were to look at this from a completely selfish point of view, I would conclude, so what? I have no stake in oil and gas, no shares, job, financial gain or loss. I don't live in an area affected nor do any of my family. I have no dog in this hunt. So why bother writing about this?
Because there is a chance that someone who has not made up their mind yet, may stumble across this blog when searching for information on health, oil & gas, or the Barnett Shale, and may come away with enough information to at least ask the question - Is what I am being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And why should that matter to me? I don't know, it just does. It's important to me that ignorance is not the norm, that those with a personal agenda don't dominate the thinking, that liars are exposed, and that laws, rules, and regulations be established based on good science and sound engineering practices.
If I can add fact, clarity, and insight into the discussion, then all of this is not for naught. Even if only one person reads it and comes away better informed, then why bother is moot. The world is full of people who misuse science and data to further their own agenda. In the course of doing this, people get hurt and resources are pulled away from issues that really are causing an impact. If I can provide information that helps one person understand dose, exposure, risk, or impact, then they will be able to spot the people who - for their own personal agenda or beliefs - are trying to manipulate the system their way.
So when I read the reports on potential health concerns regarding oil and gas production for the Town of Dish, Texas, and I see that they were produced by someone who holds a Master in Public Health - Alisa Rich - I have a reasonable expectation that the work should be, at the very least, sound in what it puts forth.
And when I determine that it is so fundamentally flawed as to make it worthless, I am left with having to not only defend the integrity of my profession, but my degree as well. I am also left with the ugly truth that Ms. Rich is either woefully ignorant on the topic or is being purposely disingenuous. In either case, she should apologize and ask the Town of DISH, Texas to remove her reports.
But even if that were to happen, the damage has already been done. What Alisa Rich and Wilma Subra so carelessly have done is presented to the public what is referred to as a preinstructional theory. That is, without informing the public on how dose, exposure, pharmacokentics, and risk play into the development of health issues, they lead people to a theory that because chemical A can cause harm, and operation X produces chemical A, operation X will cause harm. The danger here is that it now becomes very difficult to get the public to abandon what soon becomes a well-entrenched theory of what is happening to them. (1)
So even when presented with 12 individual posts of what Chinn and Brewer call Anomalous Data (evidence that contradicts their preinstructional theories) the unfortunate result will not be a change in the theory but a hunkering down in that belief (see comment in post 10).
So what's the harm if people believe that oil and gas production is affecting their health? Well if it leads to bans on drilling (NIMBY), pretty much nothing more than economical harm (although an argument could be made that burning gas for fuel is less damaging than coal or oil or the risk of transporting oil from oversees).
But what happens if the theory is brought forward by a professional that early childhood vaccinations can cause autism? (2). In this case, "the British medical journal the Lancet retracted a study it had published in 1998 in which British researcher Andrew Wakefield suggested that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine triggered autism. Wakefield's science proved shoddy and his methods questionable." (3).
So what's the harm with that? Because of shoddy and questionable work, along with his role as a researcher, and the publication in a very well respect journal, a lot of new parents failed to have their babies vaccinated for PREVENTABLE diseases. They failed to do this because of a belief of a risk that was not there. And in doing this - following this incorrect theory - they needlessly exposed their children to a REAL risk.
On 4/3/11 I read in our Sunday paper: "Health officials struggling to contain a measles outbreak that's hit hard in Minneapolis' large Somali community are running into resistance from parents who fear the vaccine could give their children autism." (1)
This is similar to what Alisa Rich and Wilma Subra did when they produced these reports for the Town of DISH, Texas. They focused the attention on a risk that is not there forcing agency and industry time and energy away from issues that are REAL. As an MPH, Alisa Rich has an obligation to that credential to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Misleading, biased, incorrect, poor, and shoddy information presented by public health professionals that should know better causes harm. That's inexcusable for an environmental professional, especially an MPH from the University of North Texas and a Ph.D candidate from the University of Texas at Arlington.
And that is why I bother writing this.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment