Just got an announcement from the C8 Science Panel that they will have a press conference next Thursday at 9:30 a.m. to talk about the immune effects study that I’ve already written about (It is STILL not on the panel’s Web site, but is available from the Gazette).
[UPDATED 3:06 p.m. Friday, March 20: The C8 Science Panel has now added this study to its Web site here.]
Science Panel members are also planning to talk about:
– Rate of C8 clearance from the body after installation of water filters — I think that means how long after you get your water supply cleaned up it takes for your body to cleanse itself of this toxic chemical…but who knows, the Science Panel doesn’t speak very clearly.
– Reproductive outcomes in relation to C8 among participants in the C8 Health Project.
The press conference is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. at the Grande Point Conference Centre in Vienna. Lisa Collins, a spokewoman for the Science Panel, emphasized that this even is for the media only — and that a public meeting would be scheduled later. (When?)
For the record, the Science Panel members are, from top to bottom: Tony Fletcher, Kyle Steenland and David Savitz.
In addition, folks in the Parkersburg area might want to be aware of another potentially important meeting next week about C8.
Doug Hess at WLTP-AM pointed out to me that a Carnegie Mellon outfit that is doing peer-review for DuPont of an examination of C8 releases at the Parkersburg plant is having some public events.
The group has a two-day meeting scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, and the meeting notice is available here. I haven’t followed this particular project that closely, and would welcome any comments from anyone who has. There’s a preliminary report on their work available also, posted here.
The Frequently Asked Questions file says the peer-review project is aimed at answering this question:
Are current PFOA environmental releases and sources of those environmental releases from the Site and the presence of PFOA in environmental media on and around the Site sufficiently understood so that pathways of migration and exposure to PFOA associated with that Site are adequately characterized and assessed on a screening level basis?
Print 
PDF