4/11/98 River Truth by Andy Mele Environmental Director, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater During the past year GE took a beating in the press over the Hudson River PCB problem. First, EPA's February Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report made a very compelling challenge to GE's science. Then U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Polychlorinated Biphenyl Contamination of Tree Swallows in the Upper Hudson River Valley, New York proved that relatively complex organisms are being adversely affected by PCBs which appear to have been coming from breaches in the allegedly secure remnant deposits of the upper Hudson. Governor Pataki announced that the State would initiate the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRD) process, opening the door to potentially huge ecosystem restoration settlements. At Clearwater's invitation, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt came to the Hudson Valley and denounced GE, urging it to spend its millions on cleanup instead of lobbyists. Scenic Hudson released a report proving the feasibility of low-impact river-bottom dredging, and Clearwater released the first-ever video about the PCB story. This situation was clearly unaccaptable: a $7 billion corporation with a CEO making $40 million losing the information war with a couple of environmental groups sporting advocacy budgets smaller than the salary of a single GE public relations person. GE, apparently feeling that a reality-based defense was getting it nowhere, prepared a rhetorical message composed of disinformation, misquotes, and pseudo-science, and flying below the radar of media fact-checkers took directly to the streets, unleashing an unprecedented corporate "grassroots" campaign. A team of GE public relations hirelings has been promoting the GE version of things before audiences once viewed as our constituency: school groups, colleges, boaters, sportsmen's groups, editorial boards, and municipal associations, extending beyond Fortress GE - the Washington County area - into the Mid-Hudson. The new GE version of reality is encapsulated in the most recent copy of River Watch, a newsletter that looks and feels like a river advocacy journal, but is actually the house organ of GE's anti-Hudson River agenda. Let's review and refute the biggest bloopers from River Watch, quoted in bold below: "[There are] No Adverse Health Effects [from PCB exposure]." GE stands alone in claiming that PCBs make good neighbors. There is an overwhelming body of evidence, spanning decades, that points to the role of PCBs in cancer, endocrine disruption, and neurological impacts. The public relations contractors who write River Watch have no knowledge of the science around the PCB issue, and are hired for the sole purpose of sowing the seeds of confusion. They accomplish this in large part by citing solitary reports, often from GE-funded research and chemical-industry scientists, as legitimate, unbiased sources. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Unfortunately, it is absolutely essential to follow the money trail to fully understand the results of scientific studies. Corporate money funds a very high percentage of scientific work, exerting a conscious or unconscious influence on study design, which can have a profound impact on conclusions. When you read anything under the GE logo, caveat emptor is the rule - buyer (or in this case, reader) beware! "Major study shows no link between PCBs, breast cancer." In this lengthy article .on pages 4 and 5, GE is leveraging one isolated study to the status of Absolute Truth, relying on the legitimacy of the New England Journal of Medicine and a review by a veterinarian researcher named Stephen H. Safe. In fact, the Hunter study in NEJM is thought to be seriously flawed, and is about to become the subject of some critical rebuttals. Wendy Levinson, MD, Editor-in-Chief of the Women's Health Journal Watch (published by the Massachusetts Medical Society, which also puts out the NEJM)), commented, "[The Hunter] study may be flawed by the authors' use of plasma levels of DDE and PCBs; plasma levels indicate only acute exposure. Long-term exposure to these agents is reflected in adipose tissue levels, which were not examined here." GE also makes no mention of the six other studies which have found a clear correlation between PCBs and breast cancer. "Respected toxicologist calls for end to paparazzi science'." The "respected toxicologist" in this case is a long-time advocate for the chemical industry, the aforementioned Ph.D veterinarian researcher, Stephen H. Safe. Dr. Safe's NEJM review of the Hunter study began with the words, "Chemophobia, the unreasonable fear of chemicals, is a common public reaction to scientific or media reports suggesting that exposure to various environmental contaminants may pose a threat to health." By suggesting that persons who evince concern about chemical contamination may be phobic and unreasonably fearful, Dr. Safe immediately establishes his a priori bias - a bias that fits GE's purposes like a glove. According to Dr. Peter Montague, of the Foundation for Environmental Research, Safe's work "...is often funded by the Chemical Manufacturers Association." "It's a whopper: The $40-million fish story." GE desperately wants you to believe that the environmental community has been overstating the value of the Hudson River fisheries that were closed in 1976, most of which remain off-limits to this day. In 1976 a DEC employee named J. Douglas Sheppard authored a report entitled Valuation of the Hudson River Fishery Resources: Past, Present, and Future. On page 40 Sheppard states, "...the total economic value will be in the area of $35 to $40 million. In the future, it would seem that this value can only rise..." The figure did not originate in 1986, as GE claims, and is supported by more than 35 pages of data. GE quotes an unnamed DEC source, whom because of graphics appended to the article we are led to presume is recently-appointed Commissioner John Cahill, as saying, "...no such records exist which constitute the source or basis..." for the $40 million figure. I have the report in my hand as I write. The $40 million figure has never been presented as absolute fact - but it is the only figure we have to work from. The range in the Sheppard report is wide, but allows ample cause for suspecting that the costs may be greater yet. In fairness, the report may indeed have overstated the value of foregone recreational fishing, but it almost certainly grossly understates the value of the commercial fishery, much of which was a cash-based "informal economy," with no records kept. Anecdotal reports and interviews reveal that the commercial fishermen may have greatly understated their catches out of fear of being held liable for back taxes. Furthermore, the $40 million figure has not been adjusted for inflation to 1998 dollars. The last time this was attempted (Clites et al, 1988), the total ranged from $747 million to $1.6 billion -- a decade ago. And no attempt has been made to assess the subsistence fishery: the poor, disadvantaged, or just plain fish-loving folks who can no longer eat Hudson River fish. The Riverkeepers, a recent book by Robert Kennedy, Jr., and John Cronin, describes New York's historic bond with the river's bounty: "In the Great Depression thousands of unemployed men flocked to the river..." How many poor live in the metropolitan area? How many could the river feed if not for GE's PCBs? "PCB levels in water and fish cut in half." Do not believe a word GE says until it is confirmed by several reliable independent sources, and holds true over time. With billions of dollars at stake, GE does not hesitate to bend the facts to its will. I personally witnessed GE scientist Dan Abramowicz, briefing DEC Commissioner John Cahill, describe proudly how GE gets the "best science" available: "We review all the scientific literature, and we find the people who are most likely to agree with us. And then we fund em!" I also witnessed six GE employees, including Vice President of Corporate Environmental Programs Steve Ramsey, hold up their hands under oath before a Legislative hearing, just like the tobacco executives who swore that tobacco was not addictive, and swear that dredging technologies have not improved since the mid-1980's. At the same hearing, GE displayed a large graph showing declines in fish PCB levels. After repeated attempts to avoid answering direct questions from legislators, the GE spokesmen were forced to admit that the PCB levels shown were from samples taken upstream of the Thompson Island Pool, thereby selectively omitting data from the area which, according to EPA, is the major source of PCBs entering the river. Given tactics like these, the public need not feel any obligation whatsoever to respect GE's science or rhetoric. "Reports of [the Hudson's] demise are greatly exaggerated." GE's goal with this section is to isolate Clearwater, Sierra Club, and Scenic Hudson by making us appear out of step with the rest of the Hudson River community. We are honored to be selected for this special recognition! But the problem with GE's technique is that again it relies on quoting authorities out of context. To suggest that Riverkeepers Robert Kennedy, Jr., and John Cronin somehow favor GE because they have celebrated the river is the sort of tortured logic that can only survive behind the looking glass - or in GE Land. Because Maurice Hinchey, Bruce Babbitt, and George Pataki celebrate the river, they support GE's position? These men are among the staunchest defenders of the Hudson, and in no way condone or support GE's desire to tear down Superfund law and leave the PCBs in the river. Clearwater celebrates the Hudson too, every year, multiple times, at shad festivals, pumpkin festivals, and at the ultimate river fest we call Revival - in fact, we have a whole department called Celebration! But we don't support GE. And neither do Hinchey, Babbitt, and Pataki.

Send comments and questions to EnvAction@Clearwater.Org