Talk:Camelford water pollution incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

Links to health effects

I would like to see a clear separation between those health effects for which associations with the exposures of interest are proven, those which have been researched, and those which are just hearsay/hypotheses/anecdote! At the moment I think that the article runs the risk of perpetuating possible misinformation relating certain chemicals with certain health outcomes, which is not helpful. The information is all there, I just think that it would make sense to reword/edit the relevant sections so as to remove ambiguity and separate fact from conjecture.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the inquest in November '10 will provide more solid answers/information. At the moment it is difficult not to "run the risk of perpetuating possible misinformation" simply because the article reflects the current prevailing scientific stance on the incident ie inconclusive. It may not be the "Truth" but it is the verifiable version of the "truth" as we currently understand it =/ Keristrasza (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your contributions, Keristrasza. And thanks also for your response to my comment (above). I think that at the time I made that comment, I was concerned that the wording was too imprecise, and the citations not sufficiently clear, to separate out the science from anecdote. I should have been more explicit probably - I wasn't referring exclusively to the scientific findings relating to the incident, but rather to associations between certain chemicals and health effects documented in the epidemiological and toxicological literature. I also hope very much that the inquest will provide some answers to the many questions surrounding this incident and its effect on health.Jimjamjak (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the report came out in 2013, and the article needs a serious overhaul. --sciencewatcher (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The report is here if anyone is interested. At 677 pages excluding the 19 appendices it might take some time! --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a summary of the key points here which might be a bit easier to digest --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Fish

This edit [1] moved significant and notable effects of the incident on the environment away from the lead. I think this was a mistake, and should be undone. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The introduction needs to summarise the content of the article. There was no mention of fish in the article apart from in the intro, so I moved the sentence to the body of the article. If you think this single sentence now needs summarising in the intro then feel free to add this, although it might be better to write a bit more about the environmental effects (maybe a new section?) and then summarise that in the intro? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly shouldn't be in the "Causes" section. DuncanHill (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking that so split the section. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is scope for a section detailing the effects on wildlife and livestock – I've certainly come across references to cattle and pigs being effected by drinking the water. Keristrasza (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)