Chuck,

> BTW, can someone tell me the difference between industrial chemicals and
"natural" chemicals"?

Industrial chemicals are made using synthetic chemistry processes.  Common
(but not universal) characteristics of the processes include high heat, high
pressure, other synthetic chemical inputs, and outputs that do not occur in
nature.  Natural chemicals tend to be made by biological processes at low
temperatures, atmospheric pressure and with inputs that are found in the
general environment.  Obvious exceptions to these characteristics exist,
such as thermophilic bacteria, and life-forms at mid-ocean vents.

> Of course, "cancer, obesity, reproductive disorders and other unexplained
medical conditions" never existed before in man.

The obesity study I referenced was drawing attention to additional factors
other than the "big 2" (food marketing and reduced physical activity).  I
have read a large number of articles in the past two years that have
identified a clear and persistent trend of increasing obesity.  It is
commonly referred to as an epidemic.  And no, it has not existed before in
man.  This is a unique situation in history.  The same can be said for the
upward trend in reproductive disorders among hundreds of surveyed species,
including humans.  None of the reports provide definitive proof because the
issues have not been studied enough (usually due to limited funding).  The
trends are based on science nonetheless, and the body of knowledge is
growing.  Unexplained medical conditions can include non-hodgkins lymphoma
(linked to glyphosphate, but not proven,
http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/gen-eng-KSF-2005.pdf), Parkinson's (linked
to pesticides, but not proven,
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20001202/note12.asp), insulin resistance
(a precursor to diabetes, is linked to bisphenol-A exposure, but not proven,
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060121/fob4.asp).

> Not being a scientist I have never heard of "logic of coincidence".

Pardon my imprecise language.  A large number of scientific studies began
with the observation of a coincidence, or correlation, a term you mentioned
later.  From such an observation, a simple logical inference leads to a
hypothesis.  A scientific investigation of the underlying causes then
produces real science.  Only fools would stop at the point of logical
inference and call it science.

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.  Perfection is something for the distant future, not now.

Ray Franklin

-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Charles Dolci
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:02 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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------