"Twenty-four research and assessment projects that have national and global interest were potentially affected by erroneous information" from a USGS geochemistry laboratory that had a “chronic pattern of scientific misconduct” where “data produced by the Inorganic Section were intentionally manipulated by the line-chemist in charge" including for "assessment of uranium in the environment in and around Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona for possible groundwater restoration." [Right, USGS report published in 2010 on hydrology of uranium in northern Arizona that could be be called into question over potentially doctored data]These are the findings of an investigation by the Inspector General of the U.S. Dept. of Interior, dated June 15, 2016, following an inspection of a "scientific integrity incident involving the Inorganic Section of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado."
Once the results of the inquiry became known, USGS closed the Inorganic Section, effective February 25, 2016. "USGS accused the chemist of data manipulation by intentionally changing the results produced by the mass spectrometer."According to the report, the matter was discovered in late 2014, but had been taking place since 2008. This covers the time period when the Secretary of Interior was conducting a review of impacts of potential mineral exploration and development, particularly of uranium, in northern Arizona. As a result of the federal studies, the Secretary placed a 20-year moratorium on exploration and mining on nearly 1 million acres of federal lands in the region [Left. Source, US BLM]
The fraudulent data could bring into question the scientific justification of the land withdrawal, and the current political effort to establish a 1.8 million acre national monument in the region specifically to protect the area from impacts on water from uranium mining.
The IG's report also added that they "noted that USGS has taken a long time to inform its many stakeholders about this scientific integrity incident. To date, only the direct lab customers as well as selected scientist collaborators and related journals have been notified. Considering that the incident was discovered in October 2014 and that its serious nature became apparent shortly thereafter, USGS has had ample
time to make a public announcement. Many organizations rely on USGS publications and could potentially make decisions or policy based on flawed information."
Ref: Scientific Integrity Incident at USGS Energy Geochemistry Laboratory, Report 2016-EAU-010, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior, 15p, June 2016.
The Grand Canyon water samples were not processed in the subject lab. You could have simply called USGS staff and asked that simple question before waxing eagerly about undoing uranium mining protections. That Arizona Geology can always be counted on to do the uranium industry's bidding is enough to make one appreciate the Arizona legislature just a little bit.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteBefore you wax so eagerly at accusing the blogmaster of being a tool for the uranium industry, perhaps you should have first done the simple work of reviewing Interior's OIG report. For example, right in the introductory section:
"In the long run, we determined the scientific misconduct and data manipulation also impacted USGS organizational integrity in ways that are still unfolding and difficult to quantify."
Hmm, seems like OIG's opinion is that this is not a simple matter nor one that has been closed.
Of course, if you had done the work, you would have found on page 5 of the OIG report:
"PRODUCTS AFFECTED
"The affected coal and water quality related work products from this scientific integrity incident included the following:
• Twenty-four research and assessment projects that have national and global interest were potentially affected by erroneous information. ... ERP officials stated that they were in the process of assessing the impacts on each project for determining future actions. Among the projects—
... assessment of uranium in the environment in and around Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona for possible groundwater restoration;"
Seems like OIG's conclusions might differ with yours. But then, why ruin the fun of displaying your righteous indignation with the accusation of doing "the uranium industry's bidding" by having to put in a little intellectual effort beforehand?
I stand by my post. I have spoken with and emailed with a number of USGS officials on this matter. There is no documentation yet to support your claim the water samples were not processed in the Inorganic Geochem Lab.
ReplyDeleteThe Inspector General's report identified "Twenty-four research and assessment projects that have national and global interest were potentially affected by erroneous information," including "assessment of uranium in the environment in and around Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona for possible groundwater restoration."
There are six individual lab studies listed under "Uranium in the Environment." The first on the list is "8930-C5G1A/Otton." James K.Otton is a USGS geologist who is lead author on two of the four technical sections in “Hydrological, Geological, and Biological Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona”, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5025.
While the USGS officials I spoke with say the falsified data were not published in the SIR, they have yet to identify what labs did produce those data nor have they have not linked the lab codes in the IG report to USGS projects or reports and publications. The SIR describes quality control processes in detail but fail to identify the source of any of the reported data.
Their assertions appear to be based on talking to the scientists on the projects and asking them if they think they know where the data came from.
Given the concerns and criticisms in the IG report, the USGS has more work to do to document the source of data for its uranium-water projects in which the Inorganic Lab was involved.
I will be blogging more about this issue. We continue to gather and analyze information.