[Dioxin-l] Reply

[david bell]

Dear Connie

I think your suggestion that industry should be able to horse-trade with 
frank toxicity is both vile and odious. I don't see any place for any horse 
trading with industry in the regulatory process, nor for finding acute 
toxicity to be acceptable; risk assessment should protect human health. Any 
discussion about acceptable levels starts at a level below toxicity to 
humans.

><Snip>I cannot comment on the validity of the EPAs numbers but plain >old 
>common sense tells me that here we are not even talking about >erring on 
>the side of risk.  If scientists already think our dioxin >intake is too 
>high, then we are talking about blatent disregard

The EPA's own Science Advisory Board rejected the conclusions of chapter 8 
of the 1994 dioxin assessment, and their sole remit was whether the chapter 
was scientifically sound (Science Advisory Board. 1995. An SAB Report: A 
Second Look at Dioxin. Review of the Office of Research and Development’s 
Reassessment of Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds by the Dioxin Reassessment 
Review Committee.). The US is unique in having a TDI for dioxin 100 times 
lower than the WHO, or Canada, or the European Union.

cheers
david



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com