Wow!
I come back to the office and I've got another Christmas present waiting: a red hot discussion of REACH on the LF forum!!!
Santa's been good to me this year!
;-)
I especially want to thank Mr. Dolci for dragging Bruce Ames's name into the discussion. Many years ago he presented at AT&T Bell Labs and said (paraphrase): Our tests for risks are tending to make us far more paranoid than can be supported by the real numbers we collect. (BTW: although I don't have the references he has some very good descriptions of this published in Science.)
For those of you who love statistics and are in need of a document to combat insomnia I suggest the 50 year long government study of cancer in the US.
http://www.seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2000/results_merged/sect_01_overview.pdf
I find Table I-2 especially interesting. As I interpret it, and as has been pointed out, much of the cancer "epidemic" is associated with more people with extended life spans. If many cancers can be assigned to mistakes made in the body's repair process over the years then if we live long enough we'll probably get some form of it.
For my part I expect my lifestyle choices and genetics will be the determining factor in my demise.
And so I tend not to worry too much about all the minor environmental pollutants that I hear so much about.
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Charles Dolci
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] REACH
This post is in reponse to a number of earlier postings that are long on opinion and short on facts.
First of all, there is evidence to show that there are increased cases of cancer today, but that is purely the result of two factors - there are more people around and they are living longer. By and large (except for tobacco) cancer is a function of old age. In fact, cancer death rates in the US have dropped by 19% since 1950.
And let's discuss risk and exposures. Extensive work has been done by Bruce Ames and his colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley (you know, that bastion of right wing idealogues on the left coast) regarding the cancer cusing properties of both man-made and natural chemicals. If you go to one of their reports at http://potency.berkeley.edu/pdfs/herp.pdf you can see that most of the foods we eat (and we always thought were "healthy") in fact contain natural pesticides that are carcinogens by all current definitions. Also check out http://potency.berkeley.edu/text/Politicizing_Science.pdf
For a bio on Ames go to http://mcb.berkeley.edu/faculty/BMB/amesb.html
In an earlier posting Ray Fanklin claimed " A further consequence has been a surge in cancer rates, obesity, reproductive disorders and other unexplained medical conditions." This puts me in mind of those hucksters who sold what we used to call "snake oil". They would claim that their single concoction was good for curing all ailments from headaches, warts, in-grown toenails, liver dysfuntion, and ED." We thought it was silly when someone claimed that a single "medication" could cure all kinds of unrelated ailments, why are we so willing to accept the claim that all of mankind's ills are the result of industrial chemicals.
BTW, can someone tell me the difference between industrial chemicals and "natural" chemicals"?
Of course, "cancer, obesity, reproductive disorders and other unexplained medical conditions" never existed before in man (BTW just what are those "unexplained medical conditions"). They are all products of our modern capitalistic society.
Ray also said "Simple logic of coincidence draws the conclusion that our pollution is
likely responsible for our new ills. Proof is served up by numerous
scientific studies." Not being a scientist I have never heard of "logic of coincidence". Is that like "post hoc ergo propter hoc"? I guess "logic of coincidence" means that there really is no such thing as coincidence.
Also, which one of the ailments described above are "new ills"?
Regarding the study on obesity - it lists "so-called" EDs as a possible explanation of (their claim that there is) an increase in obesity. It is only 1 of ten - and they don't give ay weighting factors. Maybe 90% of the increase in obesity is due to "sleep debt" and not EDS.
First, they clearly state that there "may be" a link. They use the word "may" twice in connection with their association with obesity. Second, I find it odd that they talk of increased levels of PBDE in the breast milk of Swedish women; but if obesity is a new "epidemic" then what about the ED levels in other women? Are Swedish women fatter than others? It has been my experience from travelling around Europe and the US that when it comes to fat women, the US takes the cake (no pun intended ..... alright a pun was intended). Finally, they talk about ED being "positively correlated" with obesity. I have always been told that correlation proves nothing. Does new age science hold to the notion that correlation proves causation?
Moreover, they admit that "The evidence for the putative roles of the 10 Additional Explanations in the epidemic is compelling and in most cases consists of the concurrence of ecological correlations, epidemiological study results, model organism studies, and strong theoretical or plausible mechanisms of action models.Nevertheless, we do not claim that all of the Additional Explanations definitely are contributors, but only that they are plausibly so ... and deserve more attention and study."
In the article at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031025/bob10.asp, when linking one or more BDE's to problems (in mice - not people) they used the word "could" 3 times; "may" 3 times; "might" once, "suggested" once. Sorry, folks but I don't consider this proof of anything.
According to "Linda S. Birnbaum, EPA's director of experimental toxicology ... [t]he animal studies are still preliminary and fall well short of proving that PBDEs pose a major threat to people, Birnbaum says. However, if people prove as vulnerable, the concentrations showing up in North Americans leave "no margin of safety,"... IF? IF?
Also, I have a hard time giving much credence to work done by the Environmental Working Group, it is an NGO with an agenda. Let's take whatever they say with a grain of salt. And I am totally ignorant of the Freie Universität Berlin. Can anyone fill us in on their credentials?
The last two references I could not access, since they require a subscription. However, the last one (according to its abstract) merely talks about debromination of PBDE and it does not appear to be independent research about the toxicity of PBDE or any of its cogeners. Moreover, I find their comment "Currently, little is known about the fate of these compounds, and in particular, about the microbial potential to degrade them" to be interesting. We find proof in something that is "little known"?
The biggest concern about the cogeners of PBDE is that they create dioxins. I know that dioxins are the boogeyman for todays children, but, according to Ames "... there is no persuasive evidence that TCDD [dioxin] is either carcinogenic or teratogenic in humans, although it is both at near toxic doses in rodents. If one compares the teratogenic potential of TCDD to that of alcohol for causing birth defects (after adjusting for their respective potency as determined in rodent tests) then a daily consumption of the EPA reference dose of TCDD (6fg) would be equivalent in teratogenic potential to a daily consumption of alcohol from 1/3,000,000 of a beer). That is equivalent to drinking a single beer (15 g ethyl alcohol) over a period of 8,000 years.
A comparison of the carcinogenic potential for rodents of TCDD with that of alcohol (adjsuting for potency in rodents) shows that ingesting the TCDD refernce dose of 6 fg per kilogram per day is equivalent to ingesting one beer every 345 years." See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/pdf/ma_reding_annex1.pdf
'nuff said
Chuck Dolci
BTW, you all have a merry Christmas (or whatever special event you celebrate this time of year) and a happy and prosperous new year.
Mike Kirschner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Gordon,
No matter how much you argue you're not going to put the toothpaste back in
the tube; government regulators have found a new toy to play with that
resonates with their constituents...even communist governments like China
are playing... no - think more subversively. ;o)
You state that "one would have to conclude that REACH opponents must have
devious motives". One does NOT have to come to that conclusion by any
stretch; that is NOT a logical conclusion of my statement. Some NGOs are
opposed to REACH because they believe it doesn't go far enough. Some
companies and industry groups are opposed to any government regulation at
all. For others it's a financial issue. And for still others they think
current regulation is adequate (and that boils down to finaces too). None of
these, and other reasons, are "devious". There is validity to all these
perspectives.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
