Re: More or Less Dioxin???...good news and nad news

[philip@prcn.org (Philip Fleischer)]

  >Accept it or not, the data's the data.  Numerous studies of environmental
  [...]
  >at deposition in the environment and probably gives a better relative look.
  
  The original claim (Sam's post) against which the question was raised was:
  >fifteen years.  Yet, dioxin exposure has dropped by over 75% in the
  >last decade; I am talking the total biologically available as a
  >function of TEQ.  Seems to me that if the PVC industry was the smoking
  
  Current deposition of dioxin and the current exposure of life to it are
  not quite the same thing.
  
  Yes, they are related, and both can help to fill in the big picture of
  how good or how bad the news is.
  
  But let me repeat Marco's advice:
  >PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE MULTIPLE VARIABLES WITH SINGLE EQUATIONS.
  
  And yes, data is data.  But proposing an exposure or deposition curve depends
  on methodologies and paradigms.   These are questionable.  When I referred
  to bad news, I want to include the reluctance of industry, regulators,
  and even some 'independent' researchers to look hard for dioxin where they
  will find it.  And I should echo Alan's comment about wasting time trying
  to get data out of the Ministry that we paid for.  (In my case the BC Min
  of Env or Env Can but the UK situation sounds to me a lot like the Canadian
  situation.)
  
  I interpret at least some of the foot dragging in data release as suppression
  of info.  I do not think that the captured regulators are always aware of
  their capture nor understand the full depth of behaviours such as cause
  them to suppress information or avoid looking for trouble where they will
  find it.
  
  The recent news of dioxin in catfish, in chicken and in fertilizer are
  definitely bad news and can suggest increasing exposure.
  
  Yes, there is good news too.  For me at least some of the best news is how
  more people are coming to understand the problem of regulatory capture and
  even the similar phenomenon within the mainstream ENGOs.
  
  I would also like to confirm Alan's observation about how activists clamour
  can encourage regulators even though they don't acknowledge it.  This can
  be considered good news.
  
  
  
  
  Philip Fleischer   philip@prcn.org