Ray, et alia;
  Interesting. But what are your sources for such statements?

  Check out http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15510/

  I find your supposition that nature knows enough to just make the right amount of a chemical and no more. I imagine that lends weight to the intelligent design theory of creation. I don't think I have  a problem with the claim that "When a living organism produces a chemical it is usually made in small quantities, just enough to meet the needs of the organism" particularly if the purpose of that organism is to kill off another organism that is a threat to it.  Such intelligent organisms.  But what about those natural chemicals that are not produced by "living organisms" such as chemicals produced in the heat of fires and from volcanoes.

  But I am not sure I can agree with the notion that natural chemicals are made in such small quantities compared to "industrial quantities". Have you calculated the amount of natural pesticides produced each year by corn crops? Well I haven't either (yet) but I suspect that the world wide production of corn is enough to produce some pretty staggering amount of natural pesticides. What about the huge amount of ethyl alcohol (known carcinogen) contained in alcoholic beverages - oops, Sorry that is man-made isn't it.
  How about the caffeic acid (carcinogen) in coffee, tomatoes and lettuce or limonene (carcinogen) in oranges, or safrole (carcinogen) in spices. Should I go on?

  I am interested to see your source for the statement "It is extremely rare for natural chemicals to be toxic, persistent and to bioaccumulate."  That runs counter to the information in the Science article referenced and linked above plus a lot of other research on this issue (see http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9602 )

  A report by the National Academy of Science stated "
  Overall, the basic mechanisms involved in the entire process of carcinogenesis-from exposure of the organism to expression of tumors-are qualitatively similar, if not identical, for synthetic and naturally occurring carcinogens. The committee conclud ed that there is no notable mechanistic difference(s) between synthetic and naturally occurring carcinogens. To assess relative potency, the committee compiled and analyzed data on over 200 carcinogens-65 of which were naturally occurring. The data set included agents identified by IARC as having sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans or animals, or by the NTP as known or reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. Based in part on this limited sample, the committee concluded that there i s no clear difference between the potency of known naturally occurring and synthetic carcinogens that may be present in the human diet. Of the selected agents tested, both types of chemicals have similar mechanisms of action,
 similar positivity rates in rodent bioassay tests for carcinogenicity, and encompass similar ranges of carcinogenic potencies. Consequently, both naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals can be evaluated by the same epidemiologic or experimental methods and procedures."  (see http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5150&page=9 )

  The statement "Nature has few uses for chemicals that cause genetic mutations or cancer.
Many industrial chemicals have these problems." is so far from the facts that it is hard to deal with. The reality is that natural chemicals are just as cancer causing as industrial chemicals - in fact, more so, because they are more pervasive in the environment.  Check out any of the numerous articles at http://potency.berkeley.edu/

  I would like to see some science behind the claims made by Ray.

  Chuck Dolci

Ray Franklin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  Chuck,

Regarding industrial vs. natural chemicals, there are three important
distinctions. And thanks to Brian Ellis for reminding me of persistence and
bioaccumulation, which I mistakenly assume everyone understands and takes
for granted.

When a living organism produces a chemical it is usually made in small
quantities, just enough to meet the needs of the organism. Industrial
chemicals are made in, well, industrial quantities, and as I pointed out
earlier, they are widely dispersed throughout the environment. Because
plants and animals are also widely dispersed, some of their chemicals can be
widely spread too.

It is extremely rare for natural chemicals to be toxic, persistent and to
bioaccumulate. It is common for industrial chemicals to have all three of
these charactistics. Natural chemicals tend to be broken down or
metabolized. Industrial chemicals rarely do this.

Nature has few uses for chemicals that cause genetic mutations or cancer.
Many industrial chemicals have these problems.

I think these distinctions are also partly responsible for the outrage so
many people feel around this issue. The presence of PCBs in their bodies is
something that was done to them, not by them.

Yes, the consumer bought all these products that resulted in the pollution.
If business had taken the time to educate customers about all the chemicals
used throughout the supply chain that produced the personal computer, then
it would be reasonable for business to say "We told you it was bad, but you
bought it anyway." To my knowledge, that never happened. RoHS and REACH
are now requiring it to happen to some degree.

And finally, there are a handful of natural chemicals that resemble
industrial chemicals. This Science News article describes some natural
chemicals related to DDT and PCB.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061028/fob7.asp They were found in
samples of whale oil from 1921. The article also points out that this in no
way lets PCB producers off the hook for their pollution. The compounds are
not identical to DDT and PCB, just similar. Furthermore, they were produced
by natural processes. That is the real value of the discovery: it may be
possible to learn how this was done. That is the basis of green chemistry.

Regards,

Ray Franklin
RoHSwell.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Charles Dolci
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] REACH


Ray:

I'll buy your distinction of the difference between "industrial" and
"natural chemicals", but it is irrelevant. First let me apologize for the
imprecise expression of my question. Let me restate it "Can someone tell me
the difference between "industrial chemicals" and "natural" chemicals" and
their impacts on human health?"

Are there any natural chemicals that are harmful to humans such as ... oh,
I don't know, let me go out on a limb here... like lead or mercury or other
heavy metals. How about arsenic? hemlock? Digitalis from the fox glove
plant? Ricin from the castor bean? Mushrooms in your garden after a storm?
To suggest that "industrial chemicals" are somehow more dangerous to human
health (or anything else for that matter) than "natural chemicals" ignores
the reality that the overwhelming majority of the things that harm man are
natural.

I do not doubt that there are more obese people today than ever before.
But I would not call it an epidemic. We all know that people are also taller
now than ever before - are we going to call that a height epidemic? We are
living longer than ever before - are we going to call that a vitality
epidemic? There are more medical interventions now than ever before - are we
going to call this a health epidemic?

The reality is that society today makes fewer physical demands on people
and rich foods are cheaper and more abundant than ever before. Increased
obesity is the result of a life style that is prevalent in Western society.
Let's step aside for a minute and look at reality. If the spread of
"industrial chemicals" is as widespread as we are told then how come this
obesity "situation" is not a problem in China, Asia, or Africa? Why is it
only evident in the affluent industrial countries. I have neighbors who
drive half a mile each evening to buy a cup of latte, mocha, frappe
super-whipped coffee (or whatever it is they buy) from Starbucks, then come
home just in time to pay the pizza delivery man who brought dinner for the
family. Who among us has/had a grandmother who would have thought of having
dinner brought in by a vendor? Why did our parents and grandparents tell us
of their walking three miles to school every day in the snow? - because they
did it.

Since we are eating a lot more and doing a lot less physical activity why
is anyone suprised that we are becoming more obese? Why does anybody, other
than a Ph.D. candidate looking for a dissertation topic, have to look for
obscure and arcane reasons for such a thing? Even if some of those putative
causes for obesity are valid, what are their contributions to the problem?
If the presence of some industrial chemical accounts for .0001% of a
person's excessive weight gain then what is gained by eliminating that
chemical. So rather than being 600 pounds the person would only weigh 599
pounds. If people today eat like pigs and move like sloths then why are we
looking for obscure and insignificant contributors to the obesity problem?
Or maybe the chemical just triggers a reaction in the body - if it wasn't
for the endocrine disruptors we could still eat three times as much as ever
before, never lift a finger all day and still look like Twiggy.

You say that "A large number of scientific studies began with the
observation of a coincidence, or correlation, a term you mentioned later."
Absolutley, no argument there - but let us not lose sight of the fact that
determining a correlation is only the beginning of the inquiry - not the
end.

You say "As engineers we must constantly make design decisions in the face
of
incomplete and faulty data. I see nothing wrong with doing the same in
politics, public health and environmental protection. I also think
policy should be based on science. And I accept the emergence of trends as
sufficient evidence for decisions. I do not require irrefutable proof,
or even reasonable proof. Rather, I trust in a decision-making system
that is less than perfect and has demonstrated an ability to learn and
correct
mistakes." - Fine, but that completely ignores the reality of politics.
Politicians are not interested in science or doing good - they are merely
concerned with currying favor with the right groups and financial sources.

I don't disagree with your ultimate goal - however, I require a higher
level of proof (i.e. presentation of evidence and facts) before I commit
resources to some new fad. It is axiomatic that all resources are scare and
have alternative uses. If we piss away scarce human and monetary resources
on the latest political/scientific fad de jour which yields no measurable
benefit that means resources were not invested in truly worthy ventures -
such as my retirement on a quiet Mediterranean island.

By the way - to pursue a more amusing and entertaining academic exercise
(perhaps on another forum) - I was just watching a program on one of the
science channels and it was talking about the rather alarming number of
large near earth objects (NEOs) that could actually slam into the earth,
and, if big enough, wipe out all life on Earth. The program mentioned that,
at present, the US is the only country spending any money on research to
find and track these NEO's and come up with ways to deflect or destroy one
should it be determined to be on a collision course.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this is true. Let's say that
the US gov't approaches the other nations of the world and asks them all to
contribute something to this effort. They all say "No". Let's also say that
a few years from now a NEO is found and monitored and it is determined that,
in fact, it is on a collision course with earth - but it will hit somewhere
in Asia or Eastern Europe and that North America will be the least impacted
by the adverse consequences of this event. The US has the technology to
deflect or destroy the NEO before it comes too close. Since all other
countries elected not to participate in the effort to avoid such disasters,
what should America's response be?
I know what my response would be.
Chuck Dolci

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------