Lead in D.C. water Dear Editor: I was the lead author of a 2007 paper published in Environmental Health Perspectives (2007, 115 [5], 695-701; DOI 10.1289/ehp.8722) that documented patterns in blood lead levels in children in 2004, when lead levels were elevated in drinking water in Washington, D.C. (1) At the time I was the principal investigator on a contract to provide public-health and risk assessment services to the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), the municipal and regional water utility, and was leading a team at the George Washington University (GW). The 2007 paper reported on findings from a database of blood lead levels maintained by the D.C. Department of Health (DOH), which collaborated on the study. Rebecca Renner has published several articles in Environmental Science & Technology implying that the work was biased and that the newest study, by Edwards et al., refutes it (2-4). The Washington Post has also published a story raising the question of whether WASA exerted influence on our work (5). Local activists have leveled allegations of a sinister conspiracy among WASA, the D.C. DOH, the EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the team at GW to conceal the effect of
lead in drinking water on the health of children in D.C. I want to reassure you that WASA had no right of prior restraint or final approval on our findings and analysis. WASA at no time asked us to change our findings or interpretation or influenced the submission. The data we used was the best available at the time, and the analysis is valid. The new study by Edwards et al. study is based heavily on projections and did not attempt to explore and rule out alternative explanations for elevations in blood lead, including rehabbing and remediation activity removing lead paint in houses in the same neighborhoods at the same time. Ms. Renner has accused me in the past of minimizing the effect of lead on children’s health. In 2006, she made similar accusations and provided a link for readers to one of my PowerPoint presentations (6). Any reader who examined the PP presentation would have found that it did not support her allegations. I have never minimized the risk of lead to children and have always prefaced my remarks to the public by emphasizing that lead is a serious hazard. That is why we are concerned with it in the first place. I would like to see all pertinent studies and all relevant data reviewed by a dispassionate body of neutral experts such as the National Academy of Sciences. I
2996 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / May 1, 2009
would encourage you to play a much-needed role in promoting scientific objectivity and professionalism in the interpretation of these studies. TEE L. GUIDOTTI* c/o George Washington University
[email protected] (1) Guidotti, T. L.; Calhoun, T.; DaviesCole, J. O.; Knuckles, M. E.; Stokes, L.; Glymph, C.; Lum, G.; Moses, M. S.; Goldsmith, D. F.; Ragain, L. Evaluated Lead in Drinking Water in Washington, DC, 2003-2004: The Public Health Response. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115 (5), 695– 701. (2) Renner, R. Suspicion raised about possible ethics violation in paper on D.C. water; http://pubs.acs.org/ action/showStoryContent? doi)10.1021/on.2009.02.05.251768. (3) Renner, R. Mapping out lead’s legacy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43 (6), 1655. (4) Edwards, M.; Triantafyllidou, S.; Best, D. Elevated Blood Lead in Young Children Due to Lead-Contaminated Drinking Water: Washington, DC, 2001-2004. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43 (5), 1618–1623. (5) Leonnig, C. D. Agency’s Role Probed in D.C. Water Report. The Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2009, A01. (6) Renner, R. Mis-lead. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40 (14), 4333–4334. Environmental Science & Technology edits all Letters for length, punctuation, and clarification of references. Authors approve of changes prior to publication.
ES900484D
10.1021/es900484d
2009 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 03/23/2009
