RE: MRL; WORKING ASSETS TO TARGET DIOXIN IN JUNE PHONE BILL

[ttweed@wildrockies.org (Tony Tweedale)]

>The EPA "MRL" is 150 times lower than that of ATSDR. EPA refers to it as
>"maximum allowable" dose, and has set it to 0.006 picograms/kg/day.
---

yes, ATSDR's & *many other* 'MRL' (min. risk level)-type numbers to take
action on are way higher than EPA's estimated safe dose.  The draft dioxin
reassement, in studying EPA's original cancer risk asssmnt for dioxin
(2,3,7,8-TCDD), raised the estimated safe dose by about 40%, from 0.006 to
0.01 pg/kg of body weight./day.  This is based on a reexamination of the
data from the rodent dioxin cancer assay the first estimate was based on, I
believe--reassessing methodological questions.  Long & the short is, EPA
and their experts assidously reconfirmed the original data (ie, a 40%
increase is as nothing).

I believe the reassessment was instigated by the P&P and other industries,
who asked Bush EPA Admin. Reilly (I believe) to reassess dioxin as they had
data indicating that rodent assay was way too conservative (I believe
mostly claims that the original histologic assessment of the slides of
tumor tissues were flawed).  Aside form refuting that, EPA for the 1st time
in a quantitative risk assessment tried to account for real world
conditions such as:  cumulative exposures, other related compounds that act
by the same mechanism, and  non-cancer effects.  Such audacity was
apparantly rewarded (in the Agency/Clinton Administration)  by a political
deep-freeze on releasing or acting on their risk assessment.

Not that it really captures the risk--effects from the same chemicals that
act by a different mechanism (many substantiations already exist in the
literature) aren't captured, nor are non-cancer risks charecterized
anywhere nearly as well as the cancer risk (not EPA's fault, the data isn't
there yet to numerecally estimate the risk, but they laid out the available
evidence).  It's quite possible the risks for clearly detrimental effects,
e.g. reproductive & developmental, will eventually result in an even
tighter "safe" or "MRL" dose.  More impt. to keep in mind that our
adsorption is still--despite significant decrease in emissions &
exposure--far higher than EPA's current "safe" dose.  EPA claims its
'residual risk' stautory authorities will result in their being able to
protect public health & the env. from for all these additional risks, but
it's extraordinarily hard to get industry to accept stricter regulation,
much less as strict as is needed for such chemicals.  And this, assuming
that they even release and act on the current draft!
---


(it's not clear how to get reimbursed for your phone call below, or what
box on which phne-bill to check, but perhaps the web site will fill in the
blanks).

>ATTENTION DIOXIN ACTIVISTS
>WORKING ASSETS TO TARGET DIOXIN IN JUNE PHONE BILL
>
>
>Working Assets Long Distance Company has chosen dioxin to be one of it's
>target issues for the June phone bills. They are asking customers to
>contact EPA Administrator Carol Browner and demand the immediate release
>of the EPA's final Dioxin Reassessment.  You either do this by making a
>phone call to the EPA - which Working Assets will reimburse you for or
>you can check the box on your phone bill and they will send a letter in
>your name.  Or if you are a Working Assets customer you can send a
>letter by logging onto their web page - www.wald.com  - click on
>"Citizen Actions."
>
>As you know we have been waiting for years for the final dioxin
>reassessment which provides important information about the health
>effects of exposure to dioxin which is needed to protect our families
>and our children. Yet the failure to release the final reassessment
>provides an excuse for industry and policy makers to ignore the evidence
>provided in the draft reassessment and to avoid writing protective
>policies. Every month that goes by without a final version of the
>reassessment adds to the accumulating level of dioxin in the American
>people.
>
>This is a great time for all of us to be speaking out about dioxin given
>the recent events in Belgium with dioxin and PCB contaminated food.  So
>let your voice be heard.  We need to make sure that a similar situation
>doesn't happen here in the US.
>
>Spread the word to you friends, neighbors and relatives.  Let's flood
>the EPA with calls!
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Copy of the text:
>
>Time to Protect the Public from Deadly Dioxin
>
>Current regulations intended to protect us from dioxin are inadequate.
>Dioxin is a known human carcinogen that has been linked to birth
>defects, nervous system damage, skin disorders and cancer. There are
>numerous sources of dioxin, including municipal and medical waste
>incineration, pulp and paper production, and petroleum manufacturing.
>The Environmental Protection Agency has been studying the damaging
>effects of dioxin on public health and the environment for a decade, but
>has not released its findings. Dioxin will continue to poison our air,
>water and food until the EPA imposes stringent regulations on industry.
>
>Call EPA Administrator Carol Browner at 202/260-4700 and tell her to
>protect the public from dioxin by releasing the report and imposing
>strict regulations.
>
>
>Thanks for helping out.
>
>Monica Rohde
>Dioxin Campaign Coordinator
>
>--
>The Center for Health, Environment and Justice was founded in 1981 by

Tony Tweedale

Causality is a concept not subject to empirical demonstration. -David Hume
(1711-'76)

Temperate but endangered planet.  Enjoys weather, northern lights,
continental drift.  Seeks caring relationship with intelligent life form.
      -Friends of the Earth