Erin Brockovich -- more "Political" Science at the Wall Street Jo urnal

["Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow@pnl.gov>]

This shouldn't be construed as saying anything pro or con about the 
movie Erin Brockovich, which I have read about, but haven't seen.

The 28 March 2000 issue of the Wall Street Journal and the 29 March 2000 
issue of the National Post contain almost identical versions of an op-ed 
piece by Michael Fumento on Erin Brockovich.  The WSJ piece ['Erin 
Brockovich,' Exposed] is probably not available online to anyone not a 
subscriber to WSJ Online, but the National Post version [The Dark Side 
of Erin Brockovich] is available at <www.fumento.com/erinpost.html>. 

Fumento is a lawyer with an undergraduate degree in political science.  
He is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, a gifted polemicist, and 
describes himself as having "lectured on science and health issues 
throughout the country and in Europe, Hong Kong, China, and South 
America".  His bio is available at <www.hudson.org/staff_bio.cfm?SID=2>. 

Briefly put, Fumento argues that PG&E settled the Hinkley lawsuit, 
Anderson et al v Pacific Gas & Electric, because 

   "much of this medical evidence came in after the settlement.  
   Further, Ms. Brockovich's small firm enlisted high-powered lawyer 
   trial lawyer Thomas Girardi, a specialist in toxic pollution 
   suits.  Slick lawyers and sympathetic witnesses could have cost 
   the company much more at trial or arbitration."

The medical evidence referred to in the above quote is mostly related to 
ingestion toxicity of chromium 6 in water.  By focussing on the 
groundwater, Fumento is indulging in a shell game.  He notes that 
chromium is classified by EPA as a human carcinogen, but argues that 
since the identified cancers are of the septum and lung, it is only a 
respiratory pathway carcinogen.  Thus, since the studies he cites 
"prove" that chromium in groundwater is safe at the concentrations 
present at Hinkley, he argues that chromium 6 could not be responsible 
for the illnesses that he admits were present in part of the class of 
plaintiffs. 

The one piece of evidence Fumento cites that is not necessarily limited to
ingestion toxicity is a recent study in the Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine of 52,000 PG&E employees, which Fumento asserts "worked
at three PG&E plants over a quarter of a century."  The plants he cites are
Hinkley, Kettleman, and an unnamed plant.  Hinkley and Kettleman are gas
compressor stations.  I would be surprised if either of them employed more than
50 people at a time or if they had much turnover.  The results of the study were
that "cancer rates were no higher than in the general California population and
death rates significantly lower than expected".  Actually, both of these results
seem pretty "expected" in a healthy worker population, which may not be very
representative of the Hinkley/Kettleman workers and their exposure to chromium
6.

PG&E added chromium 6 to open cycle cooling towers as a corrosion 
inhibitor.  As the cooling water falls through the cooling tower air 
flow, some of it will evaporate.  That water accounts for approximately 
80% of the cooling effect and escapes the tower as water vapor, which 
will not contain any chromium 6.  Some water will escape from the tower 
as large and small water droplets, which will evaporate partially or 
completely before they settle onto the plant's surroundings.  Some 
towers will have drift eliminators that redirect most, but not all, of 
those droplets back into the water pool.  That water that escapes as 
droplets will carry chromium 6 with it into the environment, some of 
which will be available to be breathed in by the population.  Some will 
settle onto the soil and be available for resuspension by the wind, 
again becoming available to the population by the inhalation pathway.  
When the chromium 6 reaches a certain level, it is "blown down" and 
fresh water and chromium 6 is introduced into the cooling system. 

Everything's got to be somewhere.  Where does the chromium that was 
blown down go?  It could go to treatment to remove the chromium 6.  PG&E 
sent it untreated to an unlined pond or sprayed it onto soil for about 
40 years.  Whence contaminated groundwater and soil.

After PG&E informed the State of California in 1987 that it had found 
chromium 6 in wells near its Hinkley plant in concentrations above the 
allowed level in drinking, it was telling residents of Hinkley that they 
should not drink their well water, but that all other uses were OK, 
including showering, swimming, etc..  Showering and swimming, of course, 
make the chromium available to both inhalation and ingestion pathways. 

Fumento says that PG&E was worried about "Slick lawyers and sympathetic 
witnesses" at "trial or arbitration".  In fact, the suit was never going 
to go to trial.  Both sides agreed on 19 Sept 1994 to arbitration before 
two retired judges, Justice John Trotter and Judge Daniel Weinstein.  It 
is interesting that Fumento perceives retired judges as being 
susceptible to slick lawyers and sympathetic witnesses. 

One of Fumento's arguments is that no one pollutant could be 
responsible for all of the illnesses and symptoms averred in the suit, 
and that "Chromium 6 almost certainly didn't cause any of them".  Anyone 
interested in the toxicity issues, might look at the MSDS's for chromium 
6.  Some of the history of the plant and the lawsuit, told from the 
plaintiff's side, is available at 
<www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/erin_brockovich/erin_brockovich.htm>.  It 
includes links to toxicological information on chromium and to 
information from the LA Board of Public Works on the use of chromium in 
cooling towers.  The LA information **assumes** that the blow down is 
always treated to remove chromium and points out that the use of 
chromium in cooling towers was outlawed in the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District in 1990.

As noted above, Fumento says new medical evidence, unavailable at the 
time of the settlement, exonerates chromium 6.  We may have a chance to 
see that claim adjudicated, since he also notes that Brockovich and her 
boss, Ed Masry, are collecting plaintiffs for another suit, related to a 
similar PG&E plant at Kettleman, CA, as well as other Hinkley residents 
who did not join the initial class.

Best regards.

Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
jim.dukelow@pnl.gov

These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my 
management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
         

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html