Some thoughts on 'motives'

It's come to my attention that Dr. Pete Baddick and Joe Murphy, two Hometown area natives and environmental health advocates, are unhappy with something I wrote recently about their efforts to link the local polycythemia vera epidemic to the McAdoo Associates Superfund site.

In a post titled " AP story examines local polycythemia vera epidemic but overlooks some likely culprits," I criticized an article by Associated Press reporter Michael Rubinkam for reporting on the many cases of PV in the area but focusing the discussion of a possible cause on the McAdoo Associates Superfund site. I wrote:

Something else Rubinkam did not mention in his story is that Baddick and Murphy have a motive to focus on the McAdoo Associates site: They were deeply involved in an effort by the Locks Law firm of Philadelphia to bring suit for civil damages against the site's responsible parties. However, the firm concluded last year following a year and a half of work that it did not have a legal basis for proceeding with a civil action due to a lack of evidence that poisons dumped at the site have migrated to nearby wells or the reservoir. Murphy has told me that he regards the ATSDR's study as a piece of discovery that could lead to the suit's reopening.

An upset Baddick called me recently asking that I run a correction. I do not believe a correction is in order, though, because what I wrote is factually correct. Furthermore, I stand by my assertion that if a reporter is going to use Baddick and Murphy as his primary informants, he has a responsibility to tell his readers that they have been involved in an effort to bring suit over the site.

But I would like to make clear that in writing what I did, I didn't mean to criticize Baddick and Murphy for focusing their efforts on the McAdoo site. I wholly agree with them that the site represents a historic and continuing health hazard, has undoubtedly damaged the area's environmental well being, and definitely demands further study. I only question their claims that the site is responsible for the local polycythemia vera epidemic, which in fact is part of a much bigger statewide phenomenon that can't be explained by a single Superfund site.

I also want to make clear that I am not criticizing Baddick and Murphy for having "motives" for their work. That word has taken on negative connotations because it's so often paired with adjectives like "evil" or "base" or "ulterior." But according to my dictionary, a "motive" is literally something that moves a person to action. Those of us who are involved in this work to draw attention to and find answers about the area's environmental health crisis all have things that move us, and most often they're the same things: witnessing people we care about suffering and dying because of government and corporate irresponsibility.

So to Baddick, Murphy and everyone else pressing for answers -- for whatever motive -- I say: Keep it up. You're doing important work.