Re: ATSDR - more than meets the eye

[Harriet Rosenberg <hrosenbe@yorku.ca>]

(1)Am I correct in assuming that Canada has not set toxicity levels for
dioxin? If they have what are they, if they havent does anyone know why
not.

(2)Ha Italy set a level? If so, when and what is it?

(3)Does anyone have a reference to the work of Brenda Eskenazi who is
studying endometriosis in Seveso where there was an explosion in 1976
which released large amounts (exact levels still open to dispute) in the
air?

Thanks in advance,
H



Harriet Rosenberg
Health and Society Programme
Social Science Division (Arts)		 
York University
Note New E-Mail Address: hrosenbe@yorku.ca 
			
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Jon Campbell wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> 
>         There is more than meets the eye in the ATSDR detoxification of
> dioxin. Make no mistake about it - that is exactly what they are doing, and
> they are doing it quite purposely.
> 
>         The ATSDR is closely linked to the Centers for Disease Control; both
> agencies are part of Health and Human Services. Previous to 1986 (I believe)
> the CDC had responsibility of correlation of toxic substances and disease.
> Undoubtedly many of the staff positions at the ATSDR used to be in the CDC.
> 
>         Why is this relevant? The CDC was implicated in previous work to
> "detoxify" dioxin in the cases of Vietnam veterans who had been exposed to
> Agent Orange, canceling its Agent Orange study (1987) and releasing a study
> on the general health of veterans in 1988, which claimed that there was no
> evidence of health problems related to exposure to Agent Orange (see Dying
> >From Dioxin, pg 16).
> 
>         The EPA's original 1988 Dioxin Assessment specified .006 pg/kg/day
> as the "maximum allowable dose". It appears that, incongruously, ATSDR
> issued its first Tox. Profile for dioxin, at 1 pg/kg/day, at about the same
> time, apparently having relied on the same data that EPA used.
> 
>          Because the EPA has delayed release of the 1994 Dioxin
> Reassessment, the ATSDR is in a position to set the public standard for
> limits for dioxin intake.
> 
>           THE SETTING OF THE MDL AT 1 pg/kg/day IS NOTHING LESS THAN SETTING
> THE SOLE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT REGULATION ON ALLOWABLE DIOXIN INTAKE AT THE
> CURRENT LEVELS, including consumption of highly-contaminated beef, pork, and
> full-fat dairy products. It is an attempt to detoxify the meat and dairy
> industries, the incinerator industry, and the chemical and plastics industry
> by political proclamation.
> 
>           It is extremely important, in my humble opionion, to not only get
> opposing comments to the ATSDR, but to publicize those comments in the media
> in a way that can be understood by non-technically-trained people.
> 
>          Dioxin and PCB contamination of the biosphere represents one of the
> worst environmental threats facing us today. The epidemic of cancer and
> other environmental illnesses, as well as species extinction, will escalate
> rapidly unless we act to trap, destroy, and eliminate the sources of these
> powerful endocrine disruptors. (I know I'm preaching to the choir here. My
> point is that now is the time when we put our scientific knowledge to work
> to change the political climate, which, ostrich-like, seeks to hide from the
> menace by keeping it a secret.).
> 
>        I have no idea whether we can change the thinking in ATSDR. I know we
> must enlighten the U.S. (and the world's) citizens. Whether or not the ATSDR
> publishes this standard as is will not ultimately change the truth about
> dioxin toxicity. It would just be nice if we did not have the ATSDR as an
> adversary.
> 
> Thanks for your time
> Jon Campbell
> 
> 
>