Biased and twisted reporting by Kaiser Family Foundation (thoughtlessly echoed in the Sun), CompleteColorado will fight the state over emails, and a reminder re. your rights to opt your child out.
Ah, the delightfully twisted and biased news from Kaiser Family Foundation News (which the Colorado Sun is more than happy to blithely and uncritically amplify).
I have written in the past about my concerns over shoddy "science" reporting by Kaiser Family Foundation News (ne Kaiser Health News). I'm glad to see that under their new name** (and perhaps mission?) they're continuing their tradition.
The article below is a good example, and it's worth looking at couple things by way of helping you see the hallmarks.
Decent science writing states UPFRONT what the limitations are of their research and/or sources. In this article, however, I want you to note that it's not until the very end that this happens. I took a couple screenshots and attached to illustrate. To give you a sense of scale, in order to show you where this critically-important paragraph went, I scaled down the web browser screen to 25% of original and STILL could not fit it in with one screenshot.
Quoting: "But the epidemiological research has shortcomings because of confounding factors that are difficult to account for. Some people may be genetically predisposed to susceptibility and others not. Some may experience chronic stress or be very young or very old, which can increase their susceptibility. People who reside near a lot of green space, which reduces anxiety, may be less susceptible. 'Folks living in areas where there is greater exposure to pollutants tend to be areas under-resourced in many ways and grappling with a lot of systemic problems. There are bigger reports of stress and depression and anxiety,' said Manczak. 'Given that those areas have been marginalized for a lot of reasons, it’s a little hard to say this is due to air pollution exposure.'”
Why is this all the way at the bottom? It's pretty simple in my view: the truth doesn't sell as well. Complicated and grey areas don't sell well. When you read articles that claim to show some sort of association or relationship, keep this in mind and remember to read to the end.
Secondly, the studies that the author leans on heavily here relate to dogs and humans in Mexico City, a city that, even the article itself recognizes as, "the most polluted in the world". These studies (which you can link to at least one in the story itself) are then used to undergird and extrapolate to outcomes here in the US.
I'm sorry, but that's faulty reasoning and justification by way of implication. There is a world of difference between Colorado and the areas around Mexico City. To give you a quick sense, look at the map attached. It's from the third link below.
It is reasonable to expect that dirty air can have multiple ill effects on health. It is reasonable to expect that the particular way in which the air is dirty can do same. It is not reasonable to assume that the air around Mexico City and the air around Denver have enough in common that we should expect anything near the same effects here that the folks living in Mexico City experience. Without mentioning Mexico City, however, we'd have no story to talk about because the research, tenuous enough as it is, gets even more so when you look at US cities where years of environmental laws have greatly improved things.
I'm reminded (and I don't know if it's an urban legend or no because I wasn't able to find anything concrete) of the cancer scare that flashed when I was a kid about artificial sweeteners. There was a big to-do about how they give you cancer because rats fed artificial sweeteners got tumors. Then later, we learned that the rats drank the equivalent of 600 cans of diet soda a day to get cancer.
I see something similar here. Dosage matters. General health of the population going into bad situations matters. Again, things to keep in mind and things to ask if you find yourself in a discussion on this topic or read a similar article in the future.
** See the first link below. At some point the news organization expanded its mission.
https://www.kff.org/presidents-message/
https://coloradosun.com/author/kff-health-news/
https://gispub.epa.gov/airnow/?monitors=pm&contours=pm25&showlegend=yes&xmin=-17223058.506367777&xmax=-4699615.792127829&ymin=1168268.1071484738&ymax=6857628.996469201
An update on Complete Colorado's fight to get more emails out of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF).
I posted in the past about Complete Colorado's attempt to get information out of the Executive Branch's HCPF. In the first post, I used it as an example of our state level government's swampiness.
When you put in a CORA request, the government is allowed to withhold and/or redact some records for what is called "deliberative process". The idea is similar to what you may have heard of when they discuss executive privilege: you want advisors to the government to feel as though they can speak freely, thus you exempt the internal discussions among and between government agencies from discovery via CORA. That is what HCPF claimed in withholding and redacting some of CompleteColorado's request for the HCPF emails.
What exactly are the bounds on this exemption? Get a lawyer and find out, which is exactly what Complete Colorado is doing.
I wish them luck and will update as I hear.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2023/05/03/complete-colorado-sends-lawyers-over-withheld-emails/
I don't want to wade in too deeply on the culture wars, but I do want to take the opportunity to remind you of your rights (whatever your beliefs).
The link below discusses a fuss at a Roaring Fork District School Board meeting over sex ed. You have your beliefs, I have mine, and we can leave it at that.
A quote from the article, however, leads me to what I do want to talk about: "While the proposal [the proposed sex ed curriculum] does include an opt-out for families unwilling to have their students participate in the program, families such as those of Roaring Fork resident Angela Hands don’t believe the option would be held to the extent some Roaring Fork families want it to. 'I want to reiterate that the opt out options do not work,' Hands said. 'This year, my husband and I have made it very clear to school administrators and teachers what topics we want our children to opt out of as they don’t align with our values and beliefs. Multiple times our schools have failed to remove our kids from those classrooms and field trips.'”
Remember that for topics labeled as controversial, you as a parent have the right to request that your child be opted out of the lesson. The policies and procedures vary by district, so I think it would be best to start with your child's teacher, proceeding to principal and then central administration if you can't get answers.
Do not expect this (as the quote above hints at) to be automatic either. Remember that you need to be involved as a parent and you need to be in touch with your child's teacher regularly if you want to be on top of what they're learning, where they're headed, etc. It would be nice if the schools would do this automatically, but they won't so it falls to you.
If you've done that and your wishes are still not being respected, then you start again with the teacher, principal, superintendent, board in that order.
I want to, as I've done before, put in a word about remembering that your role as parent includes teaching your child your values. Don't abdicate that to anyone.
https://www.postindependent.com/news/roaring-fork-district-board-meeting-raises-more-questions-about-student-health-curriculum/