Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
A half-million-dollar study on the effects that cleaning up meth houses has on law enforcement officers finds no evidence it makes them sick. The state legislature OK'd the study two years ago, and today one lawmaker called the report "botched" and wanted to start from scratch.
Dozens of drug enforcement officers could now be denied worker's compensation benefits, benefits they say they're due because of illnesses they suffered cleaning up meth labs. Kelly Call, a retired narcotics officer, said, "I'm honestly surprised there aren't a whole bunch more agents who aren't dead."
Three years ago, an Eyewitness News investigation reported a disturbing trend among narcotics officers. Of 42 officers we found exposed to meth in the ‘80s and ‘90s, just under half were suffering from chronic health problems or had died.
A year later, the Utah Legislature signed off on $500,000 to try to solve a medical mystery: Do meth lab investigations cause cancer, stroke or other illnesses? Today, that answer came back: no. Dr. Kurt Hegmann, with the University of Utah School of Medicine, headed up the study. He said, "We did not find a consistent pattern for elevated risk of cancer among the meth-exposed police officers."
But a Utah lawmaker claims the study didn't find evidence of a pattern because it didn't look hard enough. Rep. Jackie Biskupski, D-District 30, said, "There were so many complaints around that whole study, the way it was being handled."
Or wasn't handled, according to those we spoke with. Though the police officers at today's meeting wouldn't talk to us on camera, they did call the report "obscure" and the survey's questions "vague as vague."
Dr. Hegmann conceded the study's sample size was small and more work needs to be done. He said, "There are other things we could do to try and investigate this further. And we would be very interested in doing that, but that's a decision for the policymakers."
But Biskupski says the study needs to be redone by someone else. "To put more money into their hands to complete this critical study, I think, would be the wrong thing to do," Biskupski said.
This whole issue boils down to whether some law enforcement officers will be denied workers' compensation benefits because of this study. And though that wasn't decided today, it very well may be the case.
E-mail: lprichard@ksl.com
