[Dioxin-l] Re:Reply

[superjicb]

Tony,

Maybe I'm not explaining what I think clearly enough.  Also maybe after
working almost 15 years altogether in the chemical industry (two firms)
there are concepts that I did not question that I should have questioned.
I've monitored this board for a long time without comment.  I only commented
because I found David so outrageous.  Trust that the intent of my posts were
pro human health (and therefore pro environmental health).

Drawing my data from published sources, in the US today we use about 4% of
chlorine for water treatment, and most of the 4% is for primary and
secondary water treatment.  My guess is that about 5% of the 4% is used in
residual water treatment. Multiplying the number out shows that I was
indicating that it could be necessary to continue to use .2% of all chlorine
made intentionally in the US for the purpose of residual water treatment.
That is a fifth of one percent.  I said this because I personally did not
know of any viable replacement for chlorine in residual treatment, and it
was my understanding that residual treatment is necessary for human health.
Over the years I cannot tell you how often I read and heard that
environmental advocates were fanatics for wanting to ban chlorine from water
treatment.  One way to stop this undeserved bad press is to concede using
chlorine where it makes sense.  If I'm wrong about my belief that chlorine
is needed for residual water treatment, then fine, help me learn. If I am
right, then it is my belief that environmental advocates should support
chlorine in this tiny application, while they look for safer alternatives.
Sometimes you need to be willing to lose a battle to win the war, especially
where human health is at stake, and when perception is an important
consideration, and when your educational budget is a small percent of their
PR and lobbying budgets.

PVC end uses are no mystery and I do not personally know of any uses where
PVC is a must-have.  If special uses exist, I imagine that they would
require a fraction of a percent of today's PVC demand (and that means an
even smaller fraction of a percent of today's chlorine demand).  In my
opinion PVC pipes, siding, car panels, etc., are not needed and all should
go.

For the last two years I've only followed environmental issues as a passive
observer, but David's statements were so defeating, that they outraged me to
comment, albeit without the data needed to refute much of what he had to
say.   If I'm wrong David, please let us know who you work for and what your
position is and why you asked these specific questions.

I'm the kind of person who needs to read it myself to believe it.   I had no
information to deny David's indication that dioxin levels in the US are
already well in excess of what the EPA has determined we can tolerate.  But
I found it suspect that David's questions indicated that the cost of
decreasing dioxin may not be worth the effort because nature makes more
chlorine than the EPA finds tolerable  -- yes David - logic tells us that if
you indicate that late 1800s dioxin levels are natural because there was no
industry at that time, and you combine this concept with the concept that
you held forth that dioxin is already way over EPA acceptable levels, then
you are indicating that NATURE makes more chlorine than the US EPA finds
tolerable.  I wondered if this was just your personal view or if industry
was propagating it, but even without data, plain old logic told me that if I
accept that we have moved beyond safe levels of dioxin in our environment,
that it becomes even more urgent to immediately stop producing more dioxin.

Tony, I want to make it clear to you that while I can now see your point,
that my statement was proffered to debate Davids, not to imply that dioxin
is safe at some specific level.  I'd like to imagine that I think for
myself, but I recognize that altogether I worked about 15 years in the
chemical industry and that I've been inundated with the idea that "the dose
makes the difference."   I never saw a problem with accepting this concept
until you questioned my motives.  You wrote: "Other posts from these people
have similarly been couched in reasonable sounding arguments but were
actually quite radical arguments--eg that dioxin in the env is safe if at a
certain level."  This obviously questioned my motives and at first I was
upset because my motives were on the side of human health, but then I calmed
down and starting thinking about it.

Dose normally refers to medicine or cures, but in general terms industry
tends to use it to include toxins.  Therefore, the question posed by
industry is more or less: "at what level is a dose of poison acceptable." I
accept that it is difficult to give credibility to any specific number,
especially because scientists change their mind so often, and have such
disparate views.  Also, when you combine science with politics - which is
what the EPA is all about, you must factor in ulterior motives.  And how do
you do this?  If you assume that at a point in time the EPA is pro-industry,
then you recognize that they can benefit industry by saying (for example)
that intolerable levels are any level greater than 1, but that today we are
only at .006 so we don't have to worry.  Or they can say that intolerable
levels are 1 but nature produces 1,000 - so the situation is helpless --
which seemed to me to be David's message, and I found the message
intolerable - David correct me if I am wrong.

Considering all factors, the only thing that makes sense to me is that we
accept the amount of dioxin that nature makes, as the maximum tolerable
level, and that we are therefore very careful to ensure that we work hard
towards making sure that we make NONE ourselves.  I say this because poison
is poison, and there are too many variables to consider, and about the only
thing that we can count on is that we can measure how much there is right
now and "maybe" compare that to what used to be.  I say "maybe" when I refer
to historical samples, because we determine historical levels by digging
holes in the ground to certain depths, and taking samples from what we
believe are levels of historical significance.  The problem with these
samples is that the dioxin in the sample may have been formed sometime after
the historical period that we believe the sample came from.  Or maybe there
was MORE dioxin present at the time of historical significance and over time
the dioxin that had been present broke down, which would lead us to believe
that there was less dioxin present in the past than there really was.
Either way the only thing we can be sure of is that we really don't know.
All we know is that any species that cannot survive in nature dies out, and
that we are still around.

Making core sample slides for oil exploration was something that I did to
put myself through college.  I have since observed that if man could really
depend on the chemistry of core samples, man would not be drilling so many
dry wells.  The only one thing we know for sure about nature and dioxin is
that so far nature has been kind, and has not made more dioxin than man can
tolerate.  I'm personally grateful for this and I think we all should be
grateful.  The one thing we can say about man, is that logic leads us to
believe that man has made more dioxin than man can tolerate.

Tony, I hope this has clarified my position and that I've redeemed myself
from being included as one of "these people."

Connie Hansson

From: Tony Tweedale <ttweed@wildrockies.org>
> Some posts from these people have been logical, others not.  >