Mar 28: The Brookings Institution has issued a new report entitled, The Vital Connection: Reclaiming Great Lakes Economic Leadership in the Bi-National U.S.-Canadian Region.
The report recommends the following: establishing a bi-national innovation fund that targets investment and research in next-generation energy technologies, the science of the Great Lakes, and areas such as advanced manufacturing and medical health; enhancing and marketing the "Freshwater Coast" with a deeper investment in Great Lakes restoration and the establishment of a new Great Lakes Coastal Development Authority; improving the movement of goods along the U.S.-Canada border; creating a common market in the Great Lakes region for human capital and commerce; and setting and meeting renewable energy standards and carbon-reduction goals.
According to the report, "The bi-national Great Lakes region can continue to model what economic regions will look like in the global economy -- and also how they can thrive. To realize this vision will require leadership and purposeful actions that acknowledge the unique opportunities provided by the Great Lakes economy. Only the U.S. president and Congress, along with the Canadian prime minister and Parliament, can promote understanding of the economic opportunities to be realized. Working together, and working with federal leadership, the opportunity is real for the Great Lakes region to forge a new economic leadership position, and serve anew as a model for world economic and social innovation."
Access the complete 28-page report (click here). Access a presentation to Canadian officials (click here). Access the Brookings the Great Lakes Economic Initiative website (click here).
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Great Lakes Attorneys General Support State Ballast Regulations
Mar 20: Six Great Lakes state attorneys general have filed an amicus brief defending the right of states to protect their natural resources from aquatic invasive species. The brief specifically voices support of the Michigan regulations for ocean-going ships. The rules, based on a 2005 law, are the focus of a federal lawsuit now being heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. A U.S. district court judge ruled in favor of the Michigan law last year. Legislation has been introduced in several Great Lakes states to follow Michigan's lead on ballast water regulations. In addition, state regulators in Minnesota and Wisconsin are considering the adoption of statewide ballast water rules. Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, on February 26, 2008, led the coalition of six Great Lakes attorneys general in filing the brief.
Michigan issued its first 10 Ballast Water Control General Permits in February 2007, under its law that went into effect January 1, 2007, and is designed to prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes. Under the controversial new law, oceangoing ships must obtain a permit from MDEQ in order to use Michigan ports. Permits are issued only if the applicant demonstrates that they will either not discharge ballast water or will use one of four approved environmentally sound technologies and methods to prevent the discharge of aquatic invasive species.
On August 15, 2007, in the case of Fednav et al., v. Steven E. Chester, et al (U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Southern Division, Case No. 07-cv-11116), U.S. District Judge John Feikens ruled that Michigan's Ballast Water Statute, (Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3112(6)), is constitutional and dismissed a lawsuit by nine shipping companies and associations that had challenged the new State law [See WIMS 8/16/07].
Access an release from the Great Lakes Legislative Caucus with links to Minnesota Attorney General announcement (click here). Access the complete 32-page opinion from Judge Feikens (click here). Access legislative details for PA 33 of 2005 (click here). Access the Michigan Ballast Water Reporting website for extensive background information (click here). Access a Sea Grant Law Center legal review white paper (click here).
Michigan issued its first 10 Ballast Water Control General Permits in February 2007, under its law that went into effect January 1, 2007, and is designed to prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes. Under the controversial new law, oceangoing ships must obtain a permit from MDEQ in order to use Michigan ports. Permits are issued only if the applicant demonstrates that they will either not discharge ballast water or will use one of four approved environmentally sound technologies and methods to prevent the discharge of aquatic invasive species.
On August 15, 2007, in the case of Fednav et al., v. Steven E. Chester, et al (U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Southern Division, Case No. 07-cv-11116), U.S. District Judge John Feikens ruled that Michigan's Ballast Water Statute, (Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3112(6)), is constitutional and dismissed a lawsuit by nine shipping companies and associations that had challenged the new State law [See WIMS 8/16/07].
Access an release from the Great Lakes Legislative Caucus with links to Minnesota Attorney General announcement (click here). Access the complete 32-page opinion from Judge Feikens (click here). Access legislative details for PA 33 of 2005 (click here). Access the Michigan Ballast Water Reporting website for extensive background information (click here). Access a Sea Grant Law Center legal review white paper (click here).
Friday, March 28, 2008
IJC Plan For Regulating Lake Ontario & St. Lawrence River
Mar 28: The International Joint Commission (IJC) of Canada and the United States released for public comment a proposed new Order of Approval and a proposed new plan, called Plan 2007, for regulating the flows through the Moses-Saunders Dam between Cornwall, Ontario and Massena, New York. The regulation affects water levels and flows in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River downstream to Trois-Rivières.
For nearly 50 years, the Commission has regulated levels and flows of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River as far as Trois-Rivières. In addition to the economic benefits from hydroelectric power and the St. Lawrence Seaway, regulation has provided benefits, by reducing the occurrence of extreme high and low water levels, which annually average (in value) $28.5 million to shoreline property owners and $3.5 million to recreational boaters. Plan 2007 would provide $5.5 million in new benefits on average each year.
Irene Brooks, Chair of the U.S. Section of the Commission said, "We are releasing Plan 2007 and a proposed new Order for public comment today because we believe they are the best that can be implemented at this time. The Commission must consider the requirements of the Treaty for protection and indemnification of interests that may be injured by the project. It also must consider the goals of the two federal governments when the project was developed which included providing benefits to Lake Ontario shoreline owners and protecting interests downstream."
A number of organizations issued a joint release saying the plan, "does nothing to end fifty years of documented environmental degradation along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. After more than five years of study funded by $20-million taxpayer dollars, the IJC has the opportunity to select a scientifically-based and publicly supported management plan -- Plan B+ -- which would have delivered significant environmental improvements to the region. Instead, the IJC has turned its back on the Lake and River environment by proposing a plan that continues, and perhaps even worsens, the environmental destruction of the Lake and River. . ."
Access a release from IJC (click here). Access the complete proposal documents, background and further details (click here). Access a release from the opposing organizations (click here).
For nearly 50 years, the Commission has regulated levels and flows of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River as far as Trois-Rivières. In addition to the economic benefits from hydroelectric power and the St. Lawrence Seaway, regulation has provided benefits, by reducing the occurrence of extreme high and low water levels, which annually average (in value) $28.5 million to shoreline property owners and $3.5 million to recreational boaters. Plan 2007 would provide $5.5 million in new benefits on average each year.
Irene Brooks, Chair of the U.S. Section of the Commission said, "We are releasing Plan 2007 and a proposed new Order for public comment today because we believe they are the best that can be implemented at this time. The Commission must consider the requirements of the Treaty for protection and indemnification of interests that may be injured by the project. It also must consider the goals of the two federal governments when the project was developed which included providing benefits to Lake Ontario shoreline owners and protecting interests downstream."
A number of organizations issued a joint release saying the plan, "does nothing to end fifty years of documented environmental degradation along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. After more than five years of study funded by $20-million taxpayer dollars, the IJC has the opportunity to select a scientifically-based and publicly supported management plan -- Plan B+ -- which would have delivered significant environmental improvements to the region. Instead, the IJC has turned its back on the Lake and River environment by proposing a plan that continues, and perhaps even worsens, the environmental destruction of the Lake and River. . ."
Access a release from IJC (click here). Access the complete proposal documents, background and further details (click here). Access a release from the opposing organizations (click here).
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
U-M's Ballast-Free Ship Could Block Invaders
Mar 25: University of Michigan (U-M) researchers are investigating a radical new design for cargo ships that would eliminate ballast tanks, the water-filled compartments that enable non-native creatures to sneak into the Great Lakes from overseas. At least 185 non-native aquatic species have been identified in the Great Lakes, and ballast water is blamed for the introduction of most -- including the notorious zebra and quagga mussels and two species of gobies.
This week, the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. will implement new rules designed to reduce Great Lakes invaders [See WIMS 2/28/08]. Ships will be required to flush ballast tanks with salt water before entering the Seaway, a practice corporation officials describe as an interim measure, not a final solution. Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation that would force freighters to install costly onboard sterilization systems to kill foreign organisms in ballast water. The systems use filters, ultraviolet irradiation, chemical biocides and other technologies, and can cost more than $500,000.
The U-M ballast-free ship concept offers a promising alternative that could block hitchhiking organisms while eliminating the need for expensive sterilization equipment, according to Michael Parsons, professor of naval architecture and marine engineering and co-leader of the project. Parsons said, "There is no silver bullet. But the ballast-free ship has the potential to be an economic winner while addressing the ballast problem in a serious way. Ships take on ballast water for stability when they're not carrying cargo. They discharge ballast when they load freight, expelling tons of water and anything else -- from pathogenic microbes to mollusks and fish -- that's in it.
Instead of hauling potentially contaminated water across the ocean, then dumping it in a Great Lakes port, a ballast-free ship would create a constant flow of local seawater through a network of large pipes, called trunks, that runs from the bow to the stern, below the waterline. The U-M ballast-free ship concept was conceived in 2001 and patented in 2004. It is intended for new-vessel construction only. With funding from the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute, Parsons and his colleagues recently built a 16-foot, $25,000 wooden scale model of an oceangoing bulk carrier to test the concept. The work is underway at the U-M Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory's towing tank, the oldest facility of its kind that is owned by a U.S. educational institution.
In addition to helping fine tune the design, results from the latest round of tank tests and computer simulations suggest the ballast-free ship will deliver an unforeseen benefit. The design appears to provide a significant savings -- possibly as much as 7.3 percent -- in the power needed to propel the ship. For a 650-foot bulk carrier hauling 32,000 metric tons of cargo from the Great Lakes to Europe and back, that translates into a roundtrip fuel savings of roughly $150,000. A report on the latest test results, including their economic implications, will be published next month in the Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
Access a release with additional details (click here). Access photographs and color illustrations (click here). Access a video on the ballast free ship (click here).
This week, the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. will implement new rules designed to reduce Great Lakes invaders [See WIMS 2/28/08]. Ships will be required to flush ballast tanks with salt water before entering the Seaway, a practice corporation officials describe as an interim measure, not a final solution. Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation that would force freighters to install costly onboard sterilization systems to kill foreign organisms in ballast water. The systems use filters, ultraviolet irradiation, chemical biocides and other technologies, and can cost more than $500,000.
The U-M ballast-free ship concept offers a promising alternative that could block hitchhiking organisms while eliminating the need for expensive sterilization equipment, according to Michael Parsons, professor of naval architecture and marine engineering and co-leader of the project. Parsons said, "There is no silver bullet. But the ballast-free ship has the potential to be an economic winner while addressing the ballast problem in a serious way. Ships take on ballast water for stability when they're not carrying cargo. They discharge ballast when they load freight, expelling tons of water and anything else -- from pathogenic microbes to mollusks and fish -- that's in it.
Instead of hauling potentially contaminated water across the ocean, then dumping it in a Great Lakes port, a ballast-free ship would create a constant flow of local seawater through a network of large pipes, called trunks, that runs from the bow to the stern, below the waterline. The U-M ballast-free ship concept was conceived in 2001 and patented in 2004. It is intended for new-vessel construction only. With funding from the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute, Parsons and his colleagues recently built a 16-foot, $25,000 wooden scale model of an oceangoing bulk carrier to test the concept. The work is underway at the U-M Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory's towing tank, the oldest facility of its kind that is owned by a U.S. educational institution.
In addition to helping fine tune the design, results from the latest round of tank tests and computer simulations suggest the ballast-free ship will deliver an unforeseen benefit. The design appears to provide a significant savings -- possibly as much as 7.3 percent -- in the power needed to propel the ship. For a 650-foot bulk carrier hauling 32,000 metric tons of cargo from the Great Lakes to Europe and back, that translates into a roundtrip fuel savings of roughly $150,000. A report on the latest test results, including their economic implications, will be published next month in the Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
Access a release with additional details (click here). Access photographs and color illustrations (click here). Access a video on the ballast free ship (click here).
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Lake Superior VHS Emergency Prevention & Response Plan
Mar 17: The four units of the National Park System on Lake Superior (Isle Royale National Park, Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshores, and Grand Portage National Monument) and the Grand Portage Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa have approved a plan to protect park and tribal fishery resources from viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus, (VHS or VHSv) [See WIMS 1/24/08]. VHSv is the deadly fish virus that has been recently detected in lower Great Lakes’ freshwater fish. It has not yet been found in Lake Superior. VHSv can infect a wide range of fish species and has been the cause of large fish kills in other parts of the Great Lakes. Great Lakes fish have no exposure history to VHSv and, therefore, are especially susceptible to the disease. In fact, according to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, there has not been a virus in the past that has affected so many fish species from so many fish families in the Great Lakes. VHSv does not pose a threat to human health.
The plan -- Emergency Prevention and Response Plan for Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia -- is focused on (1) preventing contamination of the waters of the four units of the National Park System located in the Lake Superior basin and the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, (2) detecting the introduction of VHSv and (3) responding to VHSv detection and outbreaks. The plan will assist park and tribal managers, staff and cooperators in assessing the risk of VHSv introduction and, subsequently, planning and implementing the appropriate levels of prevention and monitoring actions for their area based upon that risk. The plan also provides a framework for response. Implementation of this plan will require close coordination with tribes; federal, state and provincial agencies and other organizations as they implement their own plans around the basin. The plan includes an analysis of the risks posed by the various pathways, or vectors, for transmission of the virus; a listing of known measures to prevent or contain the virus; an overall plan for the prevention of or response to the virus in the four National Park System units and the Grand Portage Indian Reservation and recommendations for enhancing cooperation with tribes, agencies and other organizations.
Emergency recommendations for the parks and the Grand Portage Band include an outreach campaign; boat decontamination; restrictions on the use of bait; and insuring that agency operations and practices do not spread the virus, including agency-controlled vessel ballast water. All of these actions will be implemented in close coordination and collaboration with the respective tribal and state regulatory agencies. Longer-term, non-emergency recommendations include research; enforcement of laws and regulations; collaborating with the U.S. Coast Guard and the states and commenting on the development of their ballast water regulations; engaging with other stakeholders on aquatic invasive species prevention measures and the harmonization of regulations amongst agencies; conducting pre-infection fisheries assessments; and working with other stakeholders to conduct a detailed risk assessment.
Access a release from NPS Midwest Regional Office (click here). Access an overview of the Plan on the NPS Apostle Islands National Lakeshore website (click here). Access the complete 149-page Plan (click here).
The plan -- Emergency Prevention and Response Plan for Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia -- is focused on (1) preventing contamination of the waters of the four units of the National Park System located in the Lake Superior basin and the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, (2) detecting the introduction of VHSv and (3) responding to VHSv detection and outbreaks. The plan will assist park and tribal managers, staff and cooperators in assessing the risk of VHSv introduction and, subsequently, planning and implementing the appropriate levels of prevention and monitoring actions for their area based upon that risk. The plan also provides a framework for response. Implementation of this plan will require close coordination with tribes; federal, state and provincial agencies and other organizations as they implement their own plans around the basin. The plan includes an analysis of the risks posed by the various pathways, or vectors, for transmission of the virus; a listing of known measures to prevent or contain the virus; an overall plan for the prevention of or response to the virus in the four National Park System units and the Grand Portage Indian Reservation and recommendations for enhancing cooperation with tribes, agencies and other organizations.
Emergency recommendations for the parks and the Grand Portage Band include an outreach campaign; boat decontamination; restrictions on the use of bait; and insuring that agency operations and practices do not spread the virus, including agency-controlled vessel ballast water. All of these actions will be implemented in close coordination and collaboration with the respective tribal and state regulatory agencies. Longer-term, non-emergency recommendations include research; enforcement of laws and regulations; collaborating with the U.S. Coast Guard and the states and commenting on the development of their ballast water regulations; engaging with other stakeholders on aquatic invasive species prevention measures and the harmonization of regulations amongst agencies; conducting pre-infection fisheries assessments; and working with other stakeholders to conduct a detailed risk assessment.
Access a release from NPS Midwest Regional Office (click here). Access an overview of the Plan on the NPS Apostle Islands National Lakeshore website (click here). Access the complete 149-page Plan (click here).
Monday, March 17, 2008
Lt. Governors Adopt Great Lakes Compact Resolution
Mar 14: At its winter meeting on March 13, the National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA) unanimously supported a resolution that encourages state legislatures in the region to quickly pass Great Lakes Compact legislation that will protect and preserve Michigan's greatest natural resource. Michigan Lt. Governor John Cherry co-sponsored the resolution. Cherry, former chair of the NLGA, said that the resolution also urges all three presidential candidates from both parties to outline their plans and priority actions for Great Lakes restoration and protection that will be initiated in 2009 and beyond.
Cherry said, "This resolution sends two clear messages: State legislatures around the region -- including our own here in Michigan -- must ratify the Great Lakes Compact as soon as possible, and individuals who are interested in being our country's next president must outline in detail what they plan to do to protect and preserve our Great Lakes. Our country's next president must make the Great Lakes a top priority -- both today and tomorrow." The resolution was sponsored by Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton (D-WI), and Lt. Governor Carol Molnau (R-MN).
Four states have now enacted the Compact including: MN; IL; IN; and NY. WI, OH and PA have all passed a bill in one legislative Chamber. MI has bills pending on the floor of both Chambers awaiting a final vote. Recently, however, the bills in the Ohio and Wisconsin legislatures have become bogged down in political controversy and their future is in doubt [See WIMS 2/19/08]. When all eight state legislatures in the Great Lakes region pass the Great Lakes Compact, Congress will be asked to provide its consent, which will turn the compact into state and Federal law.
Access a release including a copy of the resolution (click here). Access the current status of enacting the Compact from the Council of Great Lakes Governors (click here).
Cherry said, "This resolution sends two clear messages: State legislatures around the region -- including our own here in Michigan -- must ratify the Great Lakes Compact as soon as possible, and individuals who are interested in being our country's next president must outline in detail what they plan to do to protect and preserve our Great Lakes. Our country's next president must make the Great Lakes a top priority -- both today and tomorrow." The resolution was sponsored by Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton (D-WI), and Lt. Governor Carol Molnau (R-MN).
Four states have now enacted the Compact including: MN; IL; IN; and NY. WI, OH and PA have all passed a bill in one legislative Chamber. MI has bills pending on the floor of both Chambers awaiting a final vote. Recently, however, the bills in the Ohio and Wisconsin legislatures have become bogged down in political controversy and their future is in doubt [See WIMS 2/19/08]. When all eight state legislatures in the Great Lakes region pass the Great Lakes Compact, Congress will be asked to provide its consent, which will turn the compact into state and Federal law.
Access a release including a copy of the resolution (click here). Access the current status of enacting the Compact from the Council of Great Lakes Governors (click here).
Friday, March 14, 2008
CDC/ATSDR Release Great Lakes AOC Health Report
Mar 14: Following an inquiry and investigation from Representatives John Dingell (D-MI), the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-MI), the Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has publicly released a study that reportedly demonstrates a correlation between pollution in the Great Lakes and health issues such as cancer mortality and higher infant mortality rates [See WIMS 2/29/08].
On February 7, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) announced that the massive 400-page study, officially entitled, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern [AOCs], completed in July 2007, was being withheld [See WIMS 2/8/08]. The report follows several years of work and extensive scientific peer review. CPI released an unofficial redacted copy of the report and said it had been withheld for 7 months because it contained potentially “alarming information” as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates."
Representative John Dingell issued a statement on the decision to release the report and said, “The good news is that the CDC finally decided to make the report public. The bad news is that it took the urging of this Committee to make them do it. What we still do not know is why this agency, given its historically credible reputation, has kept this report under wraps for almost a year. The Committee will continue its investigation into who made the decision to withhold the publication of the report, the basis for doing so, and how the CDC and ATSDR treated the scientists involved in conducting the study and writing the report.”
In releasing the report, ATSDR also issued what it called a 9-page, "Statement of Scientific Concerns About the Draft Report." According to the Statement Summary, "Understanding environmental conditions in the Great Lakes region and protecting residents from possible health effects is a priority for CDC and ATSDR. Community members in the Great Lakes region deserve accurate information provided in a timely manner. The decision to take additional time to improve the draft report in order to ensure its scientific quality was difficult, but it was necessary. The delay in issuing the draft report has not deprived the public of critical environmental health information because the health assessments and other environmental data on which the draft report was based already are publicly available elsewhere.
"CDC and ATSDR consistently have provided the people living in the Great Lakes states with up-to-date information to help protect them from exposures to toxic chemicals. Between January 2001 and February 2008 in the 8 Great Lakes states, ATSDR has developed and supported 756 documents pertaining to 528 sites and both ATSDR and CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health have many ongoing scientific and programmatic activities in those states. CDC and ATSDR are committed to providing useful, scientifically sound information that will help decisionmakers protect public health and the environment."
ATSDR indicates further that the intent of the draft report was to help decision-makers set future priorities for research and public health action. Accordingly, "ATSDR staff identified and assembled certain existing data related to both environmental pollutants and health, and they distributed a draft report for peer review in 2004. Between April 2004 and July 2007, the draft report underwent revision. When the draft report was reviewed by ATSDR leadership in June 2007, significant scientific shortcomings were identified. Similar concerns also were expressed by multiple levels of scientific leadership within CDC, ATSDR, and among various partners and stakeholders. The report is being rewritten to address those scientific concerns.
"The draft reports from 2004 and 2007 were provided to the Institute of Medicine -- an independent, unbiased, authoritative source of science-based health information -- to conduct an independent review of the science presented in the draft report and the decision to improve its scientific content and communication prior to release. Those drafts are made available here. When the 2008 revised draft is complete, it will also be made available here."
Access the ATSDR website for the Great Lakes report which contains extensive links to background information, the Statement of Concern, the 2004 & 2007 drafts, and more (click here). Access a statement from Representative Dingell (click here).
On February 7, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) announced that the massive 400-page study, officially entitled, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern [AOCs], completed in July 2007, was being withheld [See WIMS 2/8/08]. The report follows several years of work and extensive scientific peer review. CPI released an unofficial redacted copy of the report and said it had been withheld for 7 months because it contained potentially “alarming information” as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates."
Representative John Dingell issued a statement on the decision to release the report and said, “The good news is that the CDC finally decided to make the report public. The bad news is that it took the urging of this Committee to make them do it. What we still do not know is why this agency, given its historically credible reputation, has kept this report under wraps for almost a year. The Committee will continue its investigation into who made the decision to withhold the publication of the report, the basis for doing so, and how the CDC and ATSDR treated the scientists involved in conducting the study and writing the report.”
In releasing the report, ATSDR also issued what it called a 9-page, "Statement of Scientific Concerns About the Draft Report." According to the Statement Summary, "Understanding environmental conditions in the Great Lakes region and protecting residents from possible health effects is a priority for CDC and ATSDR. Community members in the Great Lakes region deserve accurate information provided in a timely manner. The decision to take additional time to improve the draft report in order to ensure its scientific quality was difficult, but it was necessary. The delay in issuing the draft report has not deprived the public of critical environmental health information because the health assessments and other environmental data on which the draft report was based already are publicly available elsewhere.
"CDC and ATSDR consistently have provided the people living in the Great Lakes states with up-to-date information to help protect them from exposures to toxic chemicals. Between January 2001 and February 2008 in the 8 Great Lakes states, ATSDR has developed and supported 756 documents pertaining to 528 sites and both ATSDR and CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health have many ongoing scientific and programmatic activities in those states. CDC and ATSDR are committed to providing useful, scientifically sound information that will help decisionmakers protect public health and the environment."
ATSDR indicates further that the intent of the draft report was to help decision-makers set future priorities for research and public health action. Accordingly, "ATSDR staff identified and assembled certain existing data related to both environmental pollutants and health, and they distributed a draft report for peer review in 2004. Between April 2004 and July 2007, the draft report underwent revision. When the draft report was reviewed by ATSDR leadership in June 2007, significant scientific shortcomings were identified. Similar concerns also were expressed by multiple levels of scientific leadership within CDC, ATSDR, and among various partners and stakeholders. The report is being rewritten to address those scientific concerns.
"The draft reports from 2004 and 2007 were provided to the Institute of Medicine -- an independent, unbiased, authoritative source of science-based health information -- to conduct an independent review of the science presented in the draft report and the decision to improve its scientific content and communication prior to release. Those drafts are made available here. When the 2008 revised draft is complete, it will also be made available here."
Access the ATSDR website for the Great Lakes report which contains extensive links to background information, the Statement of Concern, the 2004 & 2007 drafts, and more (click here). Access a statement from Representative Dingell (click here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
