Re: GP sampling

["Jon Campbell" <jon@cqs.com>]

   Sam,
  
  I think you have it all wrong. These are the same
  companies that
  have conspired to keep the public in the dark about the
  dangers
  of Agent Orange and 2,4,5-T. Documented cases. That was
  not that long ago; they have not reformed. Again, I
  applaud Greenpeace
  for finding a way to get the actual waste samples,
  whether
  they had to do it in dark of night or at the front
  office.
  
  Companies and government agencies who are fixed on the
  righteousness
  of the status quo HATE direct analysis of REAL data,
  because
  REAL data often shows that their modeling and
  assumptions
  are fallacious. They would much rather keep things
  theoretical.
  That's the ESSENTIAL difference between health
  assessments
  (what has happened) and risk assessments (in which you
  make
  a judgement that it's OK to kill one person per million
  exposed
  according to theoretical calculations of exposure). The
  risk
  assessors job is, to quote Peter Montague, to keep the
  trains
  to the death camps running on time.
  
  This is a silly debate. Let's get on with the work of
  eliminating
  dioxins and PCBs from the biosphere.
  
  Jon
  
  
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Sam McClintock <scmcclintock@ipass.net>
  To: Multiple recipients of list
  <dioxin-l@essential.org>
  Date: Sunday, August 03, 1997 9:32 PM
  Subject: Re: GP sampling
  
  
  
  >> From: Delores Broten <dbroten@rfu.org>
  >
  >> To compare GP "stealing" samples of streams of waste
  which are going
  >> into the public water and air, with industrial
  espionage for private
  >> profit, is pure sophistry.
  >
  >The problem with "stealing" samples at the source is
  that a certain
  >amount of legitimacy is lost whether we are willing to
  recognize it or
  >not.  Just as the industry can falsify data, so can
  the activist.  The
  >activist's data may be absolutely correct, but without
  the same level
  >of standards with chain-of-custody, field notes, and
  documentation, the
  >court or regulatory office has the same obligation as
  if that
  >information came from industry - the data would be
  void.  Most
  >industries do not faslify data, but enough do (whether
  on purpose or by
  >incompetence) that the average citizen has ample cause
  to be worried
  >about the data.  The laws are written to catch and
  punish this type of
  >falsification, but the enforcement officers a) are
  overworked b) have
  >to know where to look.  Sometimes industries are
  caught, many times
  >they are not.
  >
  >ONE Solution:  Whether many of you realize it or not,
  technology has
  >quickly ramped up to a stage of answering these
  questions without
  >touching foot on the facility.  Whether we are talking
  about fenceline
  >monitoring for air emissions, open path FTIR, or
  taking waste stream
  >samples, there are ways to do this legally and still
  prove that a
  >company is in violation of its air/water/waste
  permits.  So instead of
  >relying on enforcement personnel, which are overworked
  (and some of you
  >could care less for), you could become more active in
  the enforcement
  >role (instead of reviewing paperwork supplied by the
  industry itself)?
  >
  >Maybe we/you should be thinking about coordinated
  efforts to bring
  >together a testing group that can approach this
  problem actively,
  >accurately, and honestly, with the full weight of the
  law AND science
  >behind them?  Very few organizations can fund even
  limited sampling
  >efforts.  But a coordinated effort by all could field
  a small team and
  >keep them busy year round to the benefit of all
  concerned.
  >
  >Food for thought.
  >
  >Sam McClintock
  >scmcclintock@ipass.net
  >