Obama scandals dominating the news about how the administration failed our Libyan delegation at Benghazi, about how the IRS targeted conservative groups, and about administration spying on the Associated Press, now have another contender.

It seems that the Environmental Protection Agency has been giving preferred treatment to environmental groups while denying similar treatment to watchdog groups.

More on the story may be read at the Washington Examiner here and at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) here.

CEI: “Public records produced by EPA in response to a lawsuit filed by CEI under the Freedom of Information Act illustrate a pattern of making it far more difficult for limited-government groups – in particular those who argue for more freedom and less EPA – to access public records.”

Examiner: “For 92 percent of requests from green groups, the EPA cooperated by waiving fees for the information. Those requests came from the Natural Resources Defense Council, EarthJustice, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, The Waterkeeper Alliance, Greenpeace, Southern Environmental Law Center and the Center for Biological Diversity. CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time.”

CEI: “This demonstrates a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly. The left hand of big government reaches out to its far-left hand at every turn. Argue against more of the same, however, and prepare to be treated as if you have fewer rights.”

See also:

How NEPA crushes productivity

The EPA is destroying America

EPA sued in federal court over illegal human testing

A press release on EurekAlert caught my eye because it looked suspicious. The headline: “Children living near toxic waste sites experience higher blood lead levels resulting in lower IQ.” That assertive headline implies a rigorous study that tested the blood lead levels of many children, but, as we will see, the assertion is an assumption based on computer modeling, not testing.

We often see ominous headlines similar to the one above in the mainstream media. They can cause great concern. But it pays to look at the details. The headline is qualified in the first sentence of the press release with the phrase “may experience higher blood lead levels” but many of the media reports went with the headline. This headline came from a press release by the  Mount Sinai School of Medicine (see the entire press release here).  So, what methods did the researchers use to justify even the modified description?

The operative paragraph in the press release is this one:

“Researchers measured lead levels in soil and drinking water at 200 toxic waste sites in 31 countries then estimated the blood lead levels in 779,989 children who were potentially exposed to lead from these sites in 2010. The blood lead levels ranged from 1.5 to 104 µg/dL, with an average of 21 µg/dL in children ages four years and younger. According to Dr. Chatham-Stephens, first author of the study, these higher blood lead levels could result in an estimated loss of five to eight IQ points per child and an incidence of mild mental retardation in 6 out of every 1,000 children.”

There are many precise numbers implying rigorous research. But, the phrases “estimated the blood levels,” “potentially exposed,” and “could result” should raise a red flag.

The whole thesis of this research is based on guesswork and assumption. The researchers did not measure lead levels in children’s blood; nor did they test IQ levels; and they did not interact with 779,989 children. Further investigation reveals that all the numbers, including the reported blood lead levels, are extrapolations from computer modeling.

The paper title is “The Pediatric Burden of Disease from Lead Exposure at Toxic Waste Sites in Low and Middle Income Countries.” I could not find the full published paper, but I did find the abstract here. From the abstract we find that the numbers reported in the press release are indeed products of computer modeling, not from actual measurement. The paper in question is apparently a subset of a larger study by the same authors:“Burden of disease from toxic waste sites in India, Indonesia, and the Philippines in 2010″ which is available online. The methodology described there confirms that no blood tests were performed. So, all those impressive looking precise numbers in the press release are mere artifacts of the assumptions used in a computer model.

The point here is that while the contention of the research might be correct, the reality is that we don’t know because the researchers, as far as I can tell, never validated the modeling with ground truth. We know no more now than we did before the research was conducted and the relationship postulated.

I think stories like this reflect poor practice in both journalism and science. I also noted that the study was done in conjunction with the Blacksmith Institute, an advocacy group, so there may be some promotional incentive for the press release headline.

The principle danger from this kind of study, besides worrying the public, is that policy makers may read only the headlines and propose inappropriate solutions to problems that may not exist.

A version of this article first appeared in the Arizona Daily Independent.

See also:

Be wary of statistical traps

The Arizona Geological Survey (AZGS) has just published its study of the mineral potential of the Sonoran Desert Heritage Area (see full study here, 25Mb). Establishment of the heritage area, which consists of several detached conservation areas and wilderness areas, would prevent mineral exploration and development on almost one million acres west of Phoenix. A general location map, with mineral potential is shown below:

 The AZGS assessment was limited to the following types of deposits: (1) sand and gravel (aggregates), which are used for concrete and asphalt, (2) porphyry copper deposits, which may yield large amounts of byproduct molybdenum, silver, and gold, (3) gold deposits in veins, some of which contain substantial silver, and (4) manganese deposits.

Some highlights from the report:

Aggregates:

“Rapid population growth in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area over the past several decades required enormous amounts of aggregate for construction of new homes, buildings, roads, and other facilities and infrastructure. Once urban development occurs, however, underlying aggregate resources are no longer accessible, and nearby resources may become inaccessible because of concerns about noise, dust, and truck traffic associated with quarry operations. Transportation costs, a major factor in aggregate costs, increase greatly if aggregate must be imported from distant areas.”

AZGS has identified five areas within and adjacent to the Heritage Area that are especially favorable as a supply for much needed aggregates.

Precious metal deposits:

The Harquahala – Big Horn Mountains area, which is included in the Heritage plan, has geology favorable for gold vein deposits. The map below shows the northern part of the area. On the map, orange areas show existing wilderness areas, purple areas show Sonoran Desert Heritage proposed wilderness areas, and the light blue line shows the boundary of the proposed Sonoran Desert Heritage National Conservation Area.

Small mines and prospects within the proposed conservation area have produced 506,000 ounces of gold and 549,000 ounces of silver.

Copper Deposits:

Arizona is the center of one of the world’s three great clusters of porphyry copper deposits

(the other two are in northern and central Chile). At the current copper price, Arizona total copper production from 1874-2010, would be worth $472 billion.

The Big Horn Mountains contain rocks of the right type and age for large copper deposits. Historic mining in the Big Horn Mountains yielded millions of pounds of copper and lead as might be expected for mineralization peripheral to a porphyry copper deposit.

The Gila Bend Mountains to the south are largely covered by younger volcanic rocks. The uncertainty in evaluating the possibility of porphyry copper deposits is high because of this cover, but there are enough indications of mineral deposits, including minor production from the Webb district (27,000 lbs. historic copper production) and scattered evidence of historic prospecting and small mines, that this area is considered to have moderate potential for porphyry copper deposits.

Manganese:

Manganese is used in the production of steel. Currently, the U.S. imports 100% of its manganese. Numerous manganese deposits are scattered over a large region in western Arizona and extend into southeastern California. These deposits are low grade (generally only a few percent Mn) and formed during the past 25 million years. Most historic production occurred between 1953 and 1955 when the US Government purchased manganese at above-market prices. Total historic production is ~100,000 metric tons of manganese (226 million lbs.) from 24 mining districts.

The Aguila manganese mineral district, with 42 million pounds of historic manganese production, is within the proposed SDH National Conservation Area in the northern Big Horn

Mountains. The Black Dome district, with 344 thousand pounds of historic manganese production, is located north of the Hieroglyphic proposed Special Management Area.

Manganese in these districts has not been in economic concentrations historically, but could become so if serious supply disruptions occur and/or prices increase sufficiently, see map below.

The study should be considered an overview assessment. Note that the Arizona Geological Survey is serving as a scientific advisor and is not advocating any position, but I will. The Sonoran Desert Heritage Area proposal, if passed at all, should be reduced to exclude areas with medium to high mineral potential as a matter of economic and national security. If established there should be no additional “buffer areas” adjacent to the heritage area.

See also:

The importance of minerals to our economy and national security