[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: stages of denial

  Charlie, and all:
  Let's not pretend that the recent toy report was science for its own sake.
   Break down the list of products and you find:
  Electrical wires.  They are not toys.
  Most of the rest.  Appear to be calendared films adapted for parts of
  articles.  Not many children suck on their raincoats.  The bulf of the lead
  contents are in the 100 ppm range.  These are not stabilizers, they are
  pigments and are used in other plastics and paints.  If Greenpeace was in the
  business of exposing risks to children, they would  have tried to find lead
  wherever it lurks.  On the other hand, since the objective is to get vinyl,
  rather than to protect public health, it was done the other way around.
  Lead pigments should not be used in toys, I agree.  On the other hand, they
  should not be used in any toy made of any material.
  Analytical chemistry is not Greenpeace's long suit: see Brent Spar and
  phthalates in blood (where large concentrations found were of materials that
  are not produced commercially--clearly an impossibility).  Kudos to CPSC for
  staying on this  issue and being forthright--despite much lobbying by
  Greenpeace, it should be added.
  Bill Carroll
  Chlorine Chemistry Council