Re: AIDS and dioxin

[Patricia Dines <73652.1202@CompuServe.COM>]

<<(HR) I have sent the information on AIDS and dioxin to colleagues doing
research on AIDS education in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana. Am I correct
in assuming that domestic wood fires that may also contain plastics could be a
signifcant source of dioxins and hence immunosuppressants and thus play a role
in the progression  of AIDS. Wood fires are the dominant form of fuel for
cooking and  heating and in my experience in Botswana a common way of trash
disposal. I am also thinking that pesticide exposure might be very significant.
Should we be thinking about enviro exposures as well as condoms in AIDS
education?>>

<<(Philip Fleischer) Any fire may be a source but the volume burned makes a big
difference in how significant a source is.

Pulp mill power boilers amd municipal waste incinerators burn 100s and
even 1000s of tons per day.  Domestic cooking or disposal fires are
insignificant compared to these.>>

Harriet - 

(1) I can't speak to the impact of one fire overall, and I agree with Philip
that the amount of exposure _at the site in question_ would be a factor in
determining the amount of impact.  But I've smelled burning plastic and it
clearly isn't healthy to burn it near or in a home and breathe the smoke
directly.  Just because incinerators are worse or partially diluted by distance,
doesn't mean close and direct exposure is a good idea!  So I think it's useful
to tell people that burning plastic is unhealthy (which they probably suspect
anyway, if they're aware of their bodies at the time...).

(2) I think your underlying issue is vital to ask and explore - the overall
relationship between AIDS and toxic exposures, especially pesticides.  The book
_AIDS Inc._ discusses strong correlations between areas with AIDS concentrations
in Africa and toxic sites and other threats to the immune system.  Like so many
times when there's a possible connection between health problems and toxic
exposures, the chemical companies that develop the pharmaceutical solutions also
produce the toxins and thus it's not in their self-interest to explore toxins as
a possible cause of the disease.  Nevertheless, the evidence continues to grow
showing the immune-suppressing qualities of so many chemicals (as well as
carcinogenic, neurotoxic, etc...).   

I agree that it's vital that research and public education at least consider
that a key way to reduce the risk of diseases like cancer, AIDS, ADD, Alzeimers,
etc. is to assess and drastically reduce toxic exposure, both individually and
globally.  And I think it's a good way to take care of our own health as well.

So I encourage you to keep asking questions down that road.  If we can't depend
on the chemical-company researchers to bring up the issue, then it's up to us.
The total sum of our toxic exposure is quite high, once you start adding up the
sources....

Best regards, 

P. Dines