According to recent figures, 138 people have been released from death row because of DNA evidence, and an almost equal number have been released from prison. Each of these cases represents an instance where a jury relied on eyewitness accounts and probably some form of semi-quantitative evidence. But without definitive science, they were wrong.

Environmental science can be a lot like detective work. We look for the agents of environmental impacts. To assist in finding the right agent, there has arisen a very useful infrastructure of methods, procedures, and rules from EPA, the state, and from third-party organizations like the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

Kwiaht turns out a prolific volume of interesting work products. Nevertheless, these work products do not follow standard methods for producing scientifically defensible data. In fact, they frequently fail to come even close, but that is not a criticism. They do the best they can. It would be impossible to turn out defensible reports given their limited resources. Overall, I support citizen-based efforts like theirs.

But I question the motives of people like Mr. Olson who try to use questionable data to advance their own limited views. Mr. Olson inflates the certainty of Kwiaht data and conflates the effects of different surfactants. Generally, if you do not know the difference between an ELISA and an HRGC/HRMS, or if you do not understand the need for organic carbon normalization for non-ionic compounds in sediment, or if you think that parts-per-billion is the same as micrograms-per-liter of seawater; then you have no business drawing risk-based conclusions from environmental studies.

Mistaking eyewitness accounts, qualitative, or semi-quantitative information for definitive science is the biggest mistake of all. That is the problem that is all around us.

Ed Kilduff

Lopez Island