Media Reviews
EHS scientists and fellows critique media coverage.
Nanoparticles damage DNA? But which type?
An ABC-Australia news report falsely implies that all nanoparticles are alike.
Poisonous planes' story needs description of "poison."
A news report about aero-toxic syndrome was thorough in most aspects. But it lacked basic background information on the chemical that might cause the health problem.
Agent Orange distracts from diabetes story.
A recent article heads a little off track when it states that Agent Orange and DDT both are linked to diabetes.
Fish story needs fleshing out.
A recent pair of articles in the New York Daily News didn't go far enough to tell people why eating fish from local waters can be harmful.
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.
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.
Lead editorial is just "plumb" wrong.
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal leaves readers with the false impression that lead exposure in children is no longer a problem.
Pets story oversimplifies pyrethrins.
A recent news report rightfully examines the side effects caused by a common type of insecticide on dogs and cats, but oversimplifies a complex situation.
