LATimes On Perchlorate Post
Marla Cone responded to my earlier post. Email #1:
It's interesting that she thinks that by providing data on the parts per billion measured vs. the parts per billion deemed as safe she thinks she is providing context on the meaning of the data. She is not. The fact that we can measure a compound's presence more and more accurately does not alter the effect of the compound on the human body. The levels set by agencies as "safe" are meaningless unless we know what happens at the set level, or at a higher level. Typically, the answers are "nothing" and "nothing we can identify with any certainty at all."
The fact that Marla couldn't find any contrarian view is more a reflection on her Rolodex than on the validity of the story. If MSM environmental reporters courted industry sources as aggressively as they courted environmental and regulatory sources, they would know many people with credentials, credibility and contrarian views.
My post was not about perchlorate; it was about the chummy relationship between environmentalists and environmental beat reporters. Marla quoted two environmental groups in her story; both of their Web sites lead today with the perchlorate study. (here and here) This is not a coincidence; it is evidence of a concerted PR push by the environmental media, and the MSM's willingness to be used by them in that push, whistling merrily along the way. In my experience, they do not do the same with an industry effort of equal or greater validity.
Dear Laer,E-mail #2, responding to my response:
The panel of the National Academy of Sciences has ruled on the scientific data related to perchlorate, and I quote them.
This is not anything like alar, since the levels found in dairy milk and mother's milk exceed the levels that the NAS said would cause effects. My story specifically says that, so your claims that there is no perspective in the article are unfounded.
Your Nebraska information is off-point. The NAS relied on human data, not animal tests, to base its reference dose. Scientists concluded that perchlorate effects iodide uptake at levels like those found in breast milk. I include contrary scientific opinions when they are informed and relevant. Read the Texas Tech report and you will see that it is accurately reported.
Marla
You specifically said the story lacks perspective about the levels found in breast milk. It does not. You should correct that. And as far as credible scientific dispute of the findings, I could not find anyone yesterday. Everyone I talk to refers to the NAS study.
I'm not saying perchlorate is safe or the Texas Tech studies are flawed. I'm not a reporter, and I don't have chemical companies as clients, anyway. What I am saying is that I am critical of stories that fail to provide alternative viewpoints or a context for the data and the data sources. I may have been off on my Nebraska Med Center cite -- it was just the first Google click, after all -- but, that doesn't mean there aren't good sources or valid questions.
It's interesting that she thinks that by providing data on the parts per billion measured vs. the parts per billion deemed as safe she thinks she is providing context on the meaning of the data. She is not. The fact that we can measure a compound's presence more and more accurately does not alter the effect of the compound on the human body. The levels set by agencies as "safe" are meaningless unless we know what happens at the set level, or at a higher level. Typically, the answers are "nothing" and "nothing we can identify with any certainty at all."
The fact that Marla couldn't find any contrarian view is more a reflection on her Rolodex than on the validity of the story. If MSM environmental reporters courted industry sources as aggressively as they courted environmental and regulatory sources, they would know many people with credentials, credibility and contrarian views.
My post was not about perchlorate; it was about the chummy relationship between environmentalists and environmental beat reporters. Marla quoted two environmental groups in her story; both of their Web sites lead today with the perchlorate study. (here and here) This is not a coincidence; it is evidence of a concerted PR push by the environmental media, and the MSM's willingness to be used by them in that push, whistling merrily along the way. In my experience, they do not do the same with an industry effort of equal or greater validity.
posted by Laer at 2:25 PM
<< Home