Media Reviews
EHS scientists and fellows critique media coverage.
Chemicals linked to male breast cancer, but which ones?
Few details about the chemicals that the men with breast cancer drank in their water while at the Camp Lejeune marine base makes this otherwise exceptional article seem murky and vague.
Electronic cigarettes and your car's radiator: what they DON'T have in common.
In recent articles about electronic or e-cigarettes, reporters tie the chemical propylene glycol – a main ingredient in the devices – to products such as antifreeze and hand sanitizers. Although accurate, the statements are unintentionally misleading and do not productively contribute to the debate on the health implications of e-cigarettes.
Twisting concerns over BPA.
The reporter and a quoted industry representative ignore a major point of a recent BPA study.
Some forms of mercury more toxic than others.
An article describing high levels of mercury in the Mackenzie River missed the chance to explain how the metal is connected to human health risks and that one form of mercury is of greater risk than the other.
Remember methane and its dual persona?
Methane's animal sources and its heavy impact to climate change is sidestepped.
Recharged energy ignores larger health issues of lead.
The disposal costs and health hazards of reusable batteries should not be overlooked.
Glyphosate: public health vs profit in Argentina.
Argentina's herbicide controversy pits health against the economy, but a Financial Times article fails to capture the issue's global importance.
Proposed legislation regulating tobacco not so simple.
Congress is ready to give the US Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco, but an article tackling the issue needs a more thoughtful analysis of the health impacts behind the proposed legislation.
Chesapeake Bay can recover.
Remarks mislead readers about the cause of low oxygen and the likelihood of the Bay's recovery.
Can cosmetics cause cancer? Who cares?
A recent report sets out to address whether ingredients in cosmetics are harmful but winds up convincing readers the question is not worth asking.
Reporting the BPA ban in Chicago in bits and pieces.
Together, the hometown newspapers hit key aspects of Chicago's intended BPA ban, yet both omit important points that would add context for readers.
Underscoring health hazards of herbicides.
Missing is the science explaining the environmental health problems associated with lawn pesticide use.
Broader environment neglected in cancer cure.
New York Times article is an example of another lost chance to explore environmental exposures that cause cancer at key development periods.
Radio interview covers tough topic.
Reporter tackles a difficult subject—birth defects and time of conception—but omits some study details.
Strange omission in bottle assessment
Daniel Goleman and Gregory Norris present in the New York Times a life cycle assessment-lite in their comparision of stainless steel vs. plastic bottles that completely ignores the main point: stainless steel doesn't leach bisphenol A.
Phthalates as a public health concern.
An NPR reporter ignores results from decades of research conducted around the globe.
NPR commentator ignores climate-disease links.
Clive Crook, commenting on NPR's Weekend Edition about the EPA's decision to regulate carbon dioxide, incorrectly asserted that there are no health consequences of carbon dioxide emissions for the U.S.
NPR on precautionary principle.
NPR's exploration of the precautionary principal hits the right notes but gets a few key scientific details wrong.
Junk food is not the whole story.
Reporters can do a better job to address obesity as a complex disease where junk food is not the only culprit.
Washington Post tells a great fish story.
The Washington Post explores, in depth, if you can get mercury poisoning from eating too much fish.
