[Dioxin-l] Re:Reply

[Jon Campbell]

Connie,

      David's disruption of the list has put people on edge, and people
start questioning each other's motives. That is too bad, we all need to be
focusing on stopping dioxin exposure, not questioning each other. I'm sure
you meant well and were as outraged at David's postings as many of us have
been.

      I can't speak for Tony, but I believe there was a discussion of the
chlorine disinfectant issue on the list quite a while ago. In any case, Pat
Costner's latest posting on the issue should have set to rest the notion
that chlorine is a good water disinfectant. Its efficacy is a popular myth
that is continued by the chlorine industry. This is not much different than
triple-bypass surgery for heart disease, mercury amalgam fillings for teeth,
fluoride in water, AZT for AIDS, chemotherapy and radiation for cancer, and
any of a number of other "accepted" practices. Drill down just a few
millimeters below the surface and you find they're statistical (or outright)
shams. That is the nature of true scientific discovery on the part of
ordinary people: we come experts, leaving the physicians and corporate
researchers (whose income derives from those "accepted practices" and their
corporate promoters) way behind.

Cheers and regards
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: "superjicb" <superjicb@email.msn.com>
To: <dioxin-l@venice.essential.org>; "Tony Tweedale"
<ttweed@wildrockies.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Dioxin-l] Re:Reply


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