The Pollution Within: A NEW NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ARTICLE ABOUT CHEMICALS LANDS ME ON TODAY
In the October issue of National Geographic, I have an article called "The Pollution Within". For the piece, I had myself tested for 320 human-produced chemicals, everything from DDT and PCBs to plasticizers and flame retardants. I then retraced my life starting when I was a boy in Eastern Kansas to see where I might have been exposed to these chemicals. To read about the tests and my results, check out the full story on my website.
Yesterday, I did a bit of a media blitz to talk about the story, including an appearance on Today. I found the attention for the story curious because most of what I write about science doesn't get this kind of press; for many, genetics and the intricacies of chemical this and DNA that is eye-glazing stuff. This is why I did this journalist-as-guinea pig routine, because it humanizes science -- it takes an abstract notion like how much phthalates (a plasticizer) is in the environment and in people and makes it real. I'm a normal (well, mostly normal) person, and I had some blood extracted and tested, and voila! this stuff is inside me, and it might hurt me, or might not, no one really knows.
In 2002 I had similar tests done on my DNA, with scientists testing me for several hundred genetic markers associated with disease. That story was in Wired, and it's also on my website.
So what comes next? One of the hottest areas of bio-science right now is what impact environmental input has on genes -- that is, what happens genetically when someone is exposed to, say, mercury in fish. Some people are very sensitive to mercury exposure, others can take on huge loads and not be affected. Most likely, this difference has a genetic component. As one of the few people -- possibly the only person -- who has ever been tested for both large numbers of gene markers and environmental chemicals, it would be fascinating to cross-reference the two.
In fact, this is one of the components of a new book I'm thinking about writing... but more on that later!
Yesterday, I did a bit of a media blitz to talk about the story, including an appearance on Today. I found the attention for the story curious because most of what I write about science doesn't get this kind of press; for many, genetics and the intricacies of chemical this and DNA that is eye-glazing stuff. This is why I did this journalist-as-guinea pig routine, because it humanizes science -- it takes an abstract notion like how much phthalates (a plasticizer) is in the environment and in people and makes it real. I'm a normal (well, mostly normal) person, and I had some blood extracted and tested, and voila! this stuff is inside me, and it might hurt me, or might not, no one really knows.
In 2002 I had similar tests done on my DNA, with scientists testing me for several hundred genetic markers associated with disease. That story was in Wired, and it's also on my website.
So what comes next? One of the hottest areas of bio-science right now is what impact environmental input has on genes -- that is, what happens genetically when someone is exposed to, say, mercury in fish. Some people are very sensitive to mercury exposure, others can take on huge loads and not be affected. Most likely, this difference has a genetic component. As one of the few people -- possibly the only person -- who has ever been tested for both large numbers of gene markers and environmental chemicals, it would be fascinating to cross-reference the two.
In fact, this is one of the components of a new book I'm thinking about writing... but more on that later!
8 Comments:
David,
I'm curious about the choice of photos for your NG piece. What degree of input did you have? Two choices in particular bothered me. The second photo in the article is a two-page spread on pp 188-119 depicting three women who had breast cancer. It's early evening. One woman is holding a portrait of herself revealing the scars of her mastectomy. Behind the women, down a grassy slope, brightly lit chemical facilities stretch into the distance. A pretty powerful image, yes?
And yet the caption begins: "There's no proof that chemicals wafting from factories triggered breast cancer in three women who lived in Richmond, California. But Marleen Quint, with graphic proof of her ordeal, suspects living in sight of the plants was a factor."
So what is this photo doing here? It illustrates nothing but Quint's suspicions, and would be better suited for an article about public perception than a piece about the risks of chemical exposure, which should concern facts.
You've probably guessed the other photo I'm going to bring up: the Vietnamese girl born with fused eyelids on p. 138. That image is even more potent. But again, does it reveal anything? "She was born with Fraser syndrome, a genetic disorder marked by deformities including fused eyelids and digits. It can't be definitely linked to dioxin, but the Vietnamese are convinced." As a professional science writer, you must agree, I think, the answer is No.
The choice of this photo is particularly odd, considering that there is no lack of shocking photos of Minimata victims, whom you brought up, and the cause of that disaster was proven without doubt.
Clay Boswell
New York
clayboswell@yahoo.com
I just saw the interview on the Today show and was quite impressed. People in general have no idea how many toxins are in each and every one of us! Must say, though, that I am astonished that you don't seem to be aware of the product, invented by my friend, patent written at my home and granted on 9/11/01 only minutes before the plane hit the twin tower, that has been proven to remove heavy metals and other toxins from the human body - study to be published by the end of this year. It has been granted GRAS status by the FDA, has no known side effects and 8 studies completed this year with 2 others now in process. Natural Cellular Defense has made incredible inroads to health improvement and I would be happy to facilitate a conversation between you and the biochemist who brought the product to the market or the founders of the company. Because of my relationship with the inventor, I have had the opportunity to use the product for the last 4 years even though it has only been on the market since late August 2005.
Some information can be garnered at http://www.zeolitesfordetox.com or my website NCDfirst.com Please email me at NCDfirst@hotmail.com or call my office (973) 854-2568. I am confident that you will be amazed at the information.
Best Regards,
Kelley Spear
I just saw the interview on the Today show and was quite impressed. People in general have no idea how many toxins are in each and every one of us! Must say, though, that I am astonished that you don't seem to be aware of the product, invented by my friend, patent written at my home and granted on 9/11/01 only minutes before the plane hit the twin tower, that has been proven to remove heavy metals and other toxins from the human body - study to be published by the end of this year. It has been granted GRAS status by the FDA, has no known side effects and 8 studies completed this year with 2 others now in process. Natural Cellular Defense has made incredible inroads to health improvement and I would be happy to facilitate a conversation between you and the biochemist who brought the product to the market or the founders of the company. Because of my relationship with the inventor, I have had the opportunity to use the product for the last 4 years even though it has only been on the market since late August 2005.
Some information can be garnered at http://www.zeolitesfordetox.com or my website NCDfirst.com Please email me at NCDfirst@hotmail.com or call my office (973) 854-2568. I am confident that you will be amazed at the information.
Best Regards,
Kelley Spear
David,
Why didn't your article cite the Body Burden work done by the Environmnental Working Group? I just checked out their site (www.ewg.org) and saw that they provided extensive help to you for the article, including providing you a great deal of help with the science, methodology, etc.
I'm a bit surprised to see that you didn't mention their contribution. I think it would be good for you to respond to this.
Hello anonymous,
I suspect that "anonymous" is someone at the Environmental Working Group trying to direct bloggers to their site to state their grievance. If you are, 'fess up!
My response is -- by all means, check out the EWG's website, www.ewg.org. It's an amazing and useful site created by a group doing ground-breaking work in the body burden field. This makes it all the more perplexing why they chose to handle a grievance with a writer (me) and a magazine (National Geographic) that has just published a story highlighting a cause they support. Click on the part about National Geographic's lack of integrity, and you will see a rather vigorous assault aimed at me and the magazine for a grievance that boils down to a single regrettable fact: that this group did not get mentioned in the magazine after they helped me and others at Geographic as a source.
I say regrettable because it's true that EWG provided a great deal of help for the article, along with many others, and I believe that they should have been mentioned in the story, and as a source for the charts and graphs. One of their experts was quoted in an early draft of the text, but was later cut, I'm not sure why. When they brought the omission to my attention a few days ago, I apologized to them, and I asked the editors at NG to send EWG a letter acknowledging their role, which they did. (The letter is published on the EWG site).
To understand why this attack against me as the writer is especially unfair, I need to explain a writer's role in preparing a story at NG and many other media outlets. We write the text and turn it in, and then the editors take over. We see edits and drafts, and of course we have input, but the final version is approved by the editors. Still, I take full responsibility for not catching the oversight, though I was only one player among many, none of whom intentionally left out EWG.
As for the rest of the story-making process -- the making of graphs, fact-checking, and so forth -- I had a peripheral role, and I had no idea about the hours spent by others at NG working with EWG. EWG knows this is the process at a major media group, yet still chose to put a face on their website -- mine -- as if I was somehow in control of the entire process. They know better!
EWG was very helpful to me as a source for the article, but they were not the only source. I have three thick, 3-ring binders full of information, a box full of studies, and hours of notes and tapes from interviews with dozens and dozens of people, some of whom spent more time with me than EWG. Also, most of my testing was actually handled by Mt. Sinai and Dr. Leo Trasande -- with some key assists by EWG, the lab that did the testing, and others. And EWG did make suggestions about which chemicals to test for, though these were obvious and suggested by others as well. My major source for selecting chemicals was the CDC's 2005 study of chemical exposure.
I respectfully ask the EWG to remove my picture -- the little guy in this project, the independent writer trying to make a living – from their site, or at least remove the insinuation that I am the front man for some malicious intent to slight them. Beyond this, I also don't think anyone is served by keeping up this item on the EWG website as is. Surely a cool assessment of the oversight, and the response of myself, and the magazine, is more worthy of this excellent group, and gets the point across.
In the end, it's quite discouraging when a group doing such pioneering work feels a need to go after a writer and a magazine that has published an article highlighting that group's work and cause, if not them personally, with a vim and vitriol better left to true enemies and evil doers. Such are the times we live in, I suppose.
I personally can do no more than what I have done to make amends -- so EWG, please set this straight, and carry on with your fine work.
David,
My name is Charlie Groff. I am a Scientologist.I have specialized in the delivery of a program called the Purification Program.
I have been delivering it for about twenty six years and have done about 1,500 people on it so far.
You may or may not have heard of it but I am very willing to share any information with you if you have any interest.
I can be reached at charlieclass8@yahoo.com or by phone at 727 480 5690
Thanks,
Charlie Groff
Dear David,
I was watch CNN new this morning and they were reporting about your article in the National Geographic, I had to run down and buy every magazine on the stand. I just want to tell you about a product I am taking call Natural Cellular Defense. This new, effective, natural, oral detoxifying product is speciaslly processed zeolite crystal has many advantages over the standard chelating agents including: a FDA labe of GRAS - Generally Regarded as Safe, has a very high, specific affinity for toxic heavy metals, does not have affinity for nutrient minerals, corrects pH, removes other toxins such as DDE and pesticides, absorbs viral particles, does not interact with pharmaceutical drugs. If you would like to learn more about this wonderful product that every human being should be taking I have a web site at liquidzeohealth.com/gfloren or my e-mail is glfloren@msn.com
well, I'm popping in from nowhere - I looked on my absent (in Mexico) daughter's bookshelf for something new to read and found your HOPE/bike book, which kept me up pretty late a couple of nights. And then I thought your name might sound kind of familiar, so I googled, and here you are, and I remember just the stretch of road I was driving (woods, fall colors, Chinese casino workers on foot) while I heard this chemicals-in-body article on NPR. So, hello from the ether, and best wishes.
Post a Comment
<< Home