Document 37zOGBYG1dkdM2dGdQQkNmvjD

Letters Chevron-Texaco's Science From the Guest Editors:--In their letter, "Elevating the Level of Scien tific Discourse,"1 Rothman and Arel lano claim that "it would be a misuse of science to use weak or flawed studies as a pretext to support the claim that the reason to preserve the Amazon environment is to avoid an adverse effect on cancer rates." However, as those authors know, there is no such thing as perfect sci ence. Weak or "flawed" studies can be useful in determining risk. On the other hand, as shown by Gennaro et al.'s article in this issue, the petrochemical companies, includ ing Texaco, manipulated studies to avoid liability and protective public health regulations. Obviously, manipulated studies should not serve as a basis for public health decisions. Such has been the case in the many studies produced by Texaco and Chevron that they claim show that their workers, exposed to many known carcinogens, are healthier than unexposed populations.2-6 This may in part be due to the healthy-worker effect, but the companies have also been known to use dubious methods to study their own workers' disease, including counting exposed subcontractors as part of "unexposed" control groups.7 These companies often use studies to justify workplace and envi ronmental exposures that are dan gerous according to both common sense and scientific evidence. Texaco has tried to use Rothman and Arrellano's work to discredit studies showing adverse health effects of its practices. Unfortu nately, a magnifying glass taken to the Ecuador studies cannot make the risk disappear. This is some thing that Rothman knows well; he begins his chapter in his jointly edited book with a critical analysis of Hill's seminal work on episte mology,8 pp. 24-8 yet he does not crit icize Hill's statement that, "All sci entific work is incomplete-- whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time."9 p 300 Hill also advises us to consider several "points of view" in consider ing causal relationships.9 Labora tory findings can confirm or sub stantiate meager or equivocal results in humans or identify car cinogenic risks to humans without having any other information. In the absence of reliable chemical carcinogenesis data for humans, the prudent public health path to take is to rely on controlled and well-conducted long-term carcino genesis bioassays using laboratory animals. Animal study findings have led to an international con sensus that a number of the agents generated during oil production are toxic and/or carcinogenic, and with foresight may be deemed to have the potential for constituting serious public health hazards. The evidence in this instance is that containment has been defi cient and that widespread environ mental damage has resulted.10-15 The responsible companies have either failed to conduct or have failed to publish the qualitative and quantitative environmental and bio logical monitoring that Rothman and Arellano deem valuable. Roth man and Arellano would appear more even-handed had they been as critical of their sponsors' failures to contain hazards and conduct ade quate environmental monitoring as they were of the scientists who inter preted the only data that were avail able. "Weak and flawed" or not, as a consequence of their sponsor's con duct these were the only data avail able to identify the public health impact of the exploitation of these natural resources. Rothman and Arellano should not be shocked to discover that the company that solicited their review and personal appearance at a press conference (entitled "Experts Say Health Studies Promoted by Lawyers and Activists are Flawed, Biased, and Inconclusive") was using them to influence public opinion, political leaders, and the courts in Ecuador. It remains to be seen whether these antics will help the oil company escape blame for the health and environmental damage in this part of the Amazon. During the more than two decades they operated in Ecuador, Texaco never reinjected wastewater from the drilling process, even though the company held patents on the most effective way to do so.16,17 Wastewater re-injection has been required since 1911 in Texas and by 1971 was described by industry as being "integral" to oil production in the United States.18 Reinjecting the wastewater in the Amazon would have cost Texaco only about $1 /barrel, according to conserva tive estimates.19 During most of the time Texaco was extracting oil from Ecuador, it was sold for US$12-35 per barrel.20 Surely the oil giant could have afforded to take the same precautions in Ecuador as it did in the United States. Despite Rothman and Arellano's claim, we do not wish to "contend that Chevron-Texaco would not be allowed to request an expert evalu- 456 ation of scientific work." Instead, we urge that scientists truly inter ested in the public and environ mental health be aware of the uses to which their work may be put. For Chevron-Texaco science is not a tool for pursuing truth or human happiness. Instead, it is a means to the corporation's goal of maximiz ing profit. Profit maximization is not the aim of public health, and public health scientists should not be surprised if they are called to task for serving the interests of cor porations with such self-interest. We wish the oil company had spent its resources to implement 90year-old hygiene practices that could have protected the environ ment and people. If they had done so, perhaps they could have avoided spending so much on hiring an army of lawyers, public relations specialists, scientific consultants, and expert witnesses, etc., to defend their indefensible conduct. David S. Egilman, MD, MPH Susanna Rankin Bohme, AM 8 North Main Street, Suite 404 Attleboro, MA 02703 References 1. Rothman KJ, Arellano F. Elevating the level of scientific discourse (letter). Int J Occup Environ Health. 2005;11:3278. 2. Wong O, Morgan RW, Bailey WJ, Swencicki RE, Claxton K, Kheifets L. An epi demiological study of petroleum refin ery employees. Br J Ind Med. 1986; 43:6-17. 3. Divine BJ, Hartman CM. Update of a study of crude oil production workers 1946-94.Occup Environ Med. 2000; 57:411-7. 4. Divine BJ, Hartman CM, Wendt JK. Update of the Texaco mortality study 1947-93: Part I. Analysis of overall pat terns of mortality among refining, research, and petrochemical workers. Occup Environ Med. 1999;56:167-73. 5. Divine BJ, Wendt JK, Hartman CM. Cancer mortality among workers at a butadiene production facility. IARC Sci Publ. 1993;(127):345-62. 6. Divine BJ, Barron V, Kaplan SD. Texaco mortality study. I. Mortality among refinery, petrochemical, and research workers. J Occup Med. 1985; 27:445-7. 7. Ludwig ER, Madeksho L, Egilman D. Re: Mesothelioma and lung tumors attributable to asbestos among petro leum workers. Am J Ind Med. 2000; 37:275-82. 8. Rothman KJ, Greenland S (eds). Modern Epidemiology, 2nd ed. Phila delphia, PA: Lippincott Raven, 1998. 9. Hill AB.The Environment and disease: association or causation? Proc Royal Soc Med. 1965;58:295-300. 10. San Sebastian M, Armstrong B, Cor doba JA, Stephens C. Exposures and cancer incidence near oil fields in the Amazon basin of Ecuador. Occup Envi ron Med. 2001;58:517-22. 11. San Sebastian M, Armstrong B, Stephens C. Health of women living near oil wells and oil production sta tions in the Amazon region of Ecuador. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2001;9:375- 84. [In Spanish] 12. San Sebastian M, Armstrong B, Stephens C. Outcomes of pregnancy among women living in the proximity of oil fields in the Amazon basin of Ecuador. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2002;8:312-9. 13. Hurtig AK, San Sebastian M. Gyneco logic and breast malignancies in the Amazon basin of Ecuador, 1985-1998. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2002;76:199-201. 14. Hurtig AK, San Sebastian M. Geo graphical differences in cancer inci dence in the Amazon basin of Ecuador in relation to residence near oil fields. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:1021-7. 15. Hurtig AK, San Sebastian M. Incidence of childhood leukemia and oil exploitation in the Amazon basin of Ecuador. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2004;10:245-50. 16. United States Patent 3,680,389. Freder ick H. Binkely, Jr., et al., assignor to Texaco Inc. August 1, 1972. 17. United States Patent 3,817,859. Jack F. Tate, assignor to Texaco Inc. June 18, 1975. 18. Water Pollution Control Legislation-- 1971 (Proposed Amendments to Exist ing Legislation). Hearings before the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Ninety-Second Con gress, First Section. July, September, and November 1971. Washington, DC: Committee on Public Works, p 1713. 19. Lawrence AW, Miller JA. A regional assessment of produced water treat ment and disposal practices and research needs: topical report. Pre pared by Remediation Technologies for Gas Research Institute, Contract No. 5091-253-2215. August 1995. 20. World Oil Market and Oil Price Chronologies: 1970-2004. March 2005. Energy Information Association. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/ chron.html>. Accessed 7/14/05. VOL 11/NO 4, OCT/DEC 2005 www.ijoeh.com Letters 457