So...What's the 'scientific evidence' to support it?

Kaiser wouldn't hire him at this point in his career. He's stuck - either he parrots Randy's position on public health issues or he heads to the unemployment line.

This is a great example of the severe confusion that massive propaganda has caused, making people mistake physicians (folks skilled in diagnosis and treatment of diseases) with people who know anything about public health. In many more cases than not, the two camps have a vanishingly small overlap. A Venn diagram would show a circle the size of the sun labeled "Doctors" with a circle the size of Pluto contained within it that is labeled "Doctors who are worth listening to on public health."

I loved the Orwellian phrasing of the story -- it said that the statement was issued because there was a chance that the public was confused about the department's position. In classic Orwell fashion, it was the "clarifying" statement that was indeed intended to obscure what is still obvious to anyone not in line for a juicy contract job on the project: there is no public health threat and no evidence of any public health threat. The threat is to the rule of the Great American Mindless Bureaucrat who believes, like the good Soviets whom he so often emulates, that there is no project so ludicrous that it can't be forced upon an unwilling populace, provided sufficient force is applied. And there is nothing that persuades this creature that more force is called for than having the actual rationale for building the project be shown to be entirely without sound basis.

The interesting book "1968" tells of a town in then-Communist Czechoslovakia (the only Warsaw Pact nation that voted in communism) that, learning of plans to build a cement plant nearby, happily put together a plan that would locate the cement plant atop the limestone deposits, which would keep the dust out of the town. The plant was instead built away from the limestone deposits in just the location where the town was coated in and constantly choking on dust, and the limestone had to be carried through the town a good distance away from where it was mined.

What's that about the more things change, the more they remain the same?

I might be a little confused, but how is what he did a 180 degree turn?

In your first post you didn't have any quote from him, just some paraphrasing from an obviously interested party (the land use chair of the Mount Tabor neighborhood association). From my perspective it just seems like a cover version of the same old song we've heard time and time again: science type states the facts, and person with political motivations misstates science type in order to get their way. But I must admit I haven't been following it very closely so I might have missed a step along the way.

But after reading the County's report, it seems like if the reservoirs have to be replaced anyways, they should be covered.

No. For one thing, he clearly changed his statement between the first retraction and the second retraction. Read them.

Oxman has a new boss - Jeff Cogen, former Dan Saltzman aide. I think that explains everything.

Jack,

I re-read the doctor's statement and the Health Department's statement (calling them "retractions" is a complete mischaracterization.) I still can't see any 180 degree turn - what am I missing? Is there a document you did not post?

Here's my paraphrasing:
Statement 1 (Doc, personally): Proponents of open reservoirs have pointed out that the open reservoirs have not yet been associated with any illness, but documented health impacts alone can't give us a good answer to these public policy questions. We need to consider additional information.

Statement 2 (Health Dept., as a whole): We believe Portland's water system should have covered reservoirs. And we have believed this for years.

It seems obvious, at least to my reading, that the Doctor's first statement was trying to give scientific context to the arguments that the reservoirs should remain open. (i.e., "Saying that no incidents have arisen might *sound* like a good argument, but it's not scientifically. We need to consider additional factors.") He phrased it in neutral, scientific language, as a good scientist should. Unfortunately for the citizens of Portland, his statements were widely mis-characterized by the proponents of open reservoirs.

Once again, as I said in my first post, it's just another example of politically-motivated people twisting the facts and statements of the honest scientists.

George is correct in his assessment of expertise. No doubt political pressure from Father Randy is playing a part. The county has contracts with the water bureau so those come into play.

We respect Dr. Oxman, but he knows no deaths have been linked to chemicals or microbes in open reservoirs. Deaths from chemicals and microbes in closed reservoirs are well documented. Posted here last week was a summary of potential public health problems from Seattle's closed reservoirs.

Today Council is voting to add another (unnecessary)closed reservoir, wasting millions of $$$ for Kelley Butte. The whole point of covering reservoirs was to prevent one parasite, that has never been found in our open reservoirs. The most troubling part of this whole EPA issue is: engineers wrote the language, oversaw the committees that adopted the final draft, and administered the Regulation at EPA. Several token science people were involved, standing to make a financial windfall in consulting, etc.,in the process.

There is no political agenda on the side of open resevoirs. The community just does not want Radon, etc., because of closed reservoirs coming into our homes. And maybe a couple of extra dollars to enjoy life, not wasted on unnecessary projects, .

D.J. said
Once again, as I said in my first post, it's just another example of politically-motivated people twisting the facts and statements of the honest scientists.

So who had to do the twisting? honest? Let us all take a look at how honest this was?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/04/epa_scientists_complain_about.php
EPA scientists complain about political pressure.
Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists complain they have been victims of political interference and pressure from superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group.

Who has the political motives here?
Leonard and water bureau with a rigged EPA LT2 rule based on politics not science?
The rule lobbied by those who stand to benefit financially?
Who has the motives, cronies who get contracts, or the citizens who aren't getting a dime out of this but know the facts and do not want to swallow either the bull from the city nor the toxic chemicals that will degrade our health after they are done with their plan.

Do the research before you carry on about who is politically motivated here. Some citizens spent six weeks, 8 hours a day going through water bureau documents, on the behalf of the rest of us and are on the side of truth and facts. What do they get out this and now your terrible mischaracterization of them being politically motivated??

Lets take another look at who is really politically motivated here?

Why did Leonard not want a microbiologist to serve on PURB anymore?
There is nothing scientific about this that is being pushed on us. What is being pushed is a billion dollar with debt crisis and chemicals down our throats and radon backed into our homes. Want more?

I cannot sit by here and have you rail on the citizens who are sacrificing their time and their own small funds to save our community from financial disaster and drinking chemicals in their water. You sound ungrateful or are you mad at them because they are exposing the truth? Are you are on the receiving $$ end of this or a Johnny come lately who hasn’t done anything except parrot what Leonard and bureau want. Or perhaps you are the bureau?

DJ: you don't have the foggiest notion about how to read his statements. No credible scientific statement is couched in "weasel words" and his statements have them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Otherwise, he could not retract or redo his statements as he has.

It seems that weasel words are used by many, and unfortunately, also may include people in the scientific community.

A clue to weasel words: Can you find them in my last sentence?

Actually, it's the sentence beginning with "It seems....

Since Jack Nicholson is too old to play the lead, who shall we get for our own version of China Town?

Ralph - Ray Liotta always makes for a nice villian (John Huston part) ..... not sure who gets the Nicholson part...