[Dioxin-l] Re:Reply

[Tony Tweedale]

Connie, if it's not obvious by now, my comments below simply weren't aimed
at you.  End of story. (You even seem to have misread my intent on the
residual Cl disinfection Q., as it should have been plainly evident that I
fully agree w/ you that little Cl is needed (if any, actually) and that it
may not be totally effective anyway).  So, jeez, take a breather, relax!)

Another of the radical argument examples I was talking about is the
repeated--almost in passing, but several times--unavoidable implication
that we should average the dioxin TDI's (tolerable daily intakes; "safe"
doses) of various agencies and countries.  This reminds me of Dr Commoner's
complaint of the late '80's EPA dioxin Workgroup trying to average
different estimates from one study of TCDD's cancer potency. Averaging is a
dangerous and logical impossibility in these questions.  If answers aren't
evident, you may have to get into the guts of different claims to decide
which is right, even if it takes decades.  In the case of dioxin TDI's it's
clear which one is based on the most exhaustive, wide-open/inclusive of all
scientists, expansive, complete risk assessment to date--EPA's draft 0.01
pg/kg/d, the lowest one.  None of the other's I've seen mentioned come
within a mile.  Even this most conservative one does not come close to
reflecting our complete exposures or addressing all the health effects data
gaps, nd all the info that's poured in since then gives more cause ofr
concern.  All this puts the averaging suggestion in a different, radical,
dangerous (private interest over public health) light.  Meanwhile the
Precautionary Principle is irrefutable and of great utility to society.
--

>> Some posts from these people have been logical, others not.  >

>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.
>
>Connie Hansson
--