“I was hoping at the beginning that I’d stumble upon this body of epidemiological research that would show a correlation between pharmaceuticals in the drinking water and people. There was nothing like that,” said Donn, “and there may be nothing like that for years. But it turned out that there was a small body of research, much of it unpublished, on the impact of pharmaceuticals at very low environmental concentrations on human cells. Only a very narrow group of scientists was aware of this research. So, part of the challenge was persuading scientists to share unpublished research – and as the science reporters here know, that’s not so easy because scientific publications frown on it.”
Many of the AP’s member newspapers ran the series—but, having received the stories in advance, often added their own articles attesting to the safety of local water. The investigative team’s hard work paid off, however.
“If anybody in this room is wondering about the impact of environmental journalism and whether it should be supported, within hours of our story there were callings for a Senate hearing [which occurred in April 2008],” Mendoza said. “And within week of our story we had Barbara Boxer saying to the EPA, the Associated Press did your work. Why are telling us what’s in our water? Why aren’t you telling us what’s in our water?”
The Journal Sentinel’s series about lax chemical oversight is also having an effect, albeit less directly. In February, Kissinger reported that House of Representatives held the first of several hearings “intended to overhaul the nation’s laws overseeing toxic chemicals.”
This year, the Oakes Award received a record ninety-five applicants from about eighty news newspapers and magazines, according to Arlene Morgan, the prize’s director and a dean at Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism.
“We really look at this project as recognizing uniqueness in the field,” she said. “The ‘Chemical Fallout’ series really broke new ground and brought us to deeper level of understanding, and so did the ‘PharmaWater.’”
The Oakes judges did not award a prize in the magazine category, however—a first since the prize moved to Columbia from the Natural Resources Defense Council in 2005. Next year, Morgan said, the school will begin accepting entries from online-only publications.
This is great; I'm glad there are papers supporting this sort of work by science journalists, which truly serves the public. I'll never forget the weeks in 2001 when I was allowed to hole up in the library, digging into scientific studies for my stories about a water fluoridation controversy in Flagstaff, Arizona. In that case, my efforts revealed that fluoridation fears were overblown based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature, a fact which -- when I revealed it in the Arizona Daily Sun -- did not make me popular with some readers! Still, I remain grateful that the paper (a small daily) saw fit to let me do my homework, rather than churn out the he said/she said party lines. Good for these reporters who dug in, and good for their papers who allowed them the time and freedom to do it.
#1 Posted by Anne Minard, CJR on Sun 8 Mar 2009 at 01:51 PM
Some day the fluoridation story will also win an investigative award too. But I believe, complications arise because the corporations who profit from selling fluoridated products and who subsidize organized dentistry (who promote fluoride use) are the same corporations media depends upon for advertising, such as Proctor & Gamble, etc.
If P&G is miffed at a newspaper story about one of their products, they have been known to pull out all of their product advertising which would be suicide for some outlets.
So here we are with the internet getting our information directly to the people who have to take action in their own hometowns.
We applaud Anne Minard for taking on this unpopular story, fluoridation, and her newspaper for having the courage to tell the truth. Someday she'll be on 60 minutes.
The belief is so deep that fluoridation is a safe and effective method to reduce tooth decay, that officials themselves aren't fact-checking their own information.
Case in point, the American Public Health Association re-stated its support of water fluoridation, citing many studies that prove fluoridation is safe and effective. However, a cursory look at those studies shows that many of them don't even address the safety and efficacy of fluoridation and, in fact, show that fluoridation is NOT safe for everyone.
See our news release at:
http://tinyurl.com/APHAdeception
#2 Posted by nyscof, CJR on Tue 10 Mar 2009 at 12:39 PM
For Anne Minard's edification and others interested, I list here 2 government reports and an entire journal's report;
1. Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F), 1993, US Dept. Health & Human Services/ATSDR. This book notes the problems with some of the studies that have been touted by dentists. See pages 112; Subsets of the population unusually susceptable to toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds are the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems. Page 125: Neurotoxicity. Because fluorides interact with calcium ions needed for effective neurotransmission, fluoride can affect the nervous system.
2. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, NAS report for Congress, 1993. see pages 11, 16, 34, 44-45, 128, and 129.
3. Journal of Dental Research, Special Issue, Vol.69, Feb. 1990, Worldwide Symposium on Fluorides. Entire book is important, especially article by Drs. Pendrys and Stamm. And Poster No. 7, page 826-827 (notes combinations of caffeine and fluorides resulted in two-fold increase in blood plasma)
#3 Posted by Anita, CJR on Sun 15 Mar 2009 at 12:35 AM