[Dioxin-l] Reply

[Jon Campbell]

Risk assessment is not protective of human or environmental health. Use =
of
the Precautionary Principle is the only way we will get ourselves out =
of the
industrial-generated mess in which we find ourselves today.

For a frank explanation of the Precautionary Principle and why risk
assessment is not protective, see Rachel's Weekly:

#586 The Precautionary Principle, 19-Feb-1998
#519 Ethical Hazards of Risk Assessment, 07-Nov-1996

and for its application (or lack thereof) see:

#541 - Bad Decisions Again And Again, 10-Apr-97 =20
#540 - History of Precaution, Part 2, 03-Apr-97 =20
#539 - History of Precaution -- Part 1, 27-Mar-97

Jon =20

-----Original Message-----
From: david bell [mailto:burnt_paper@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 1:03 PM
To: superjicb@email.msn.com; dioxin-l@lists.essential.org
Subject: Re: [Dioxin-l] Reply


Dear Connie

I think your suggestion that industry should be able to horse-trade =
with=20
frank toxicity is both vile and odious. I don't see any place for any =
horse=20
trading with industry in the regulatory process, nor for finding acute=20
toxicity to be acceptable; risk assessment should protect human health. =
Any=20
discussion about acceptable levels starts at a level below toxicity to=20
humans.

><Snip>I cannot comment on the validity of the EPAs numbers but plain =
>old=20
>common sense tells me that here we are not even talking about >erring =
on=20
>the side of risk.  If scientists already think our dioxin >intake is =
too=20
>high, then we are talking about blatent disregard

The EPA's own Science Advisory Board rejected the conclusions of =
chapter 8=20
of the 1994 dioxin assessment, and their sole remit was whether the =
chapter=20
was scientifically sound (Science Advisory Board. 1995. An SAB Report: =
A=20
Second Look at Dioxin. Review of the Office of Research and =
Development=92s=20
Reassessment of Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds by the Dioxin =
Reassessment=20
Review Committee.). The US is unique in having a TDI for dioxin 100 =
times=20
lower than the WHO, or Canada, or the European Union.

cheers
david



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



_______________________________________________
Dioxin-l mailing list
Dioxin-l@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/dioxin-l