|
on his own and independently identify by a series of large scoping interviews - a group of people that
<br />sizes up to him, could be a dozen, could be more, people who represent a cross section of both the
<br />community and of the science that’s necessary to be billed here -. Cause this isn’t a community
<br />contention between believe and not believe. It’s a conversation about what is good science, what is
<br />good epidemiology, what’s toxicology, how do the public health professionals address these kinds of
<br />issues; and hold that group in a conversation, a sustained conversation, for a period of three to four
<br />months in which they’re listening, they’re reviewing all of the work that has been done nationally and
<br />internationally on this topic; and also then listen to the list of community concerns, understanding what
<br />kinds of health issues are we looking at; and then come up with some guidance for this Commission
<br />particularly on what would a good, what are the priorities for new knowledge, what knowledge do we
<br />need in this circumstance as opposed to what we already have, and what kinds of studies would be
<br />useful, how would you design such a study so that it is useful.
<br />
<br />Let me give you just a couple of suggestions in this. So, anyway, that process may take up, you know,
<br />probably into February of next year. But it’s basically he’s out now already talking to community
<br />members, setting up appointments, been talking to volcanologists and toxicologists, people doing these
<br />studies around, laying a foundation for this conversation. And we’ll convene this working group, I
<br />would imagine, within the next 30 days, whenever he feels he has clarity on this.
<br />
<br />So the Administration sees this as a third-party process. We’re not involved in selecting people, we’re
<br />not going to be involved in any part of his business, and will simply receive the report from him at the
<br />end of this process. A couple of thoughts just so you understand the complexity of this, is that, you
<br />know, some forms of epidemiological studies, you know, maybe the most difficult ones are the ones
<br />where you kind of go out and self-select a group of people who are sick, and then you study them and
<br />wonder if they’re, you know, to identify their sicknesses, and then you go look at a place that’s distant
<br />and you look at their studies and you look at the clusters of illnesses that people have, and you blame it
<br />on an outcome. You blame it on something that you think is causing that. And that’s one outcome,
<br />that’s one kind of study that’s out there. And I think that we need to be really clear about what level of
<br />exposure people are experiencing and what, and then look at those illnesses based on the kinds of
<br />individual exposure that’s going on today.
<br />
<br />There’s a study underway, a three-year process that has been going on in Rotorua currently that’s been
<br />studied by Stanford University, Berkley and Otega University in New Zealand. Their focus has been
<br />on trying to, Rotorua is one of the largest geothermal-producing regions in the world, and it’s right
<br />next to a large population base. So they’ve actually gone through a detailed study for three years
<br />trying to get a handle on what is the level of exposure. They’ve interviewed some 1600 people in this
<br />process. And their report is out probably next year some time. But they’re beginning to collect their
<br />individual data. But they actually went through, and everybody that they studied, they actually put
<br />monitors on or portions of them. They monitored so you could tell was this person exposed for a day,
<br />or for, you know, 24 hours, or periodically when they went through an area for some reason or another.
<br />It just gives you a way to rank the individuals involved in the study. So methodology is important
<br />here, particularly since you’re working with very small levels of exposure, relatively, and you’re
<br />dealing with a relatively small population. So getting random studies would be your best option. But
<br />if you’re in a small place, it’s hard to do because it’s hard to get a random study and still come up with
<br />statistical certainty. So it’s a complex circumstance. We need to match our study to this location.
<br />And that, in using best science and best circumstance is an important thing.
<br /> 12
<br /> EXHIBIT C
<br />
<br />
<br />
|