In article ,
Frank wrote:
I'm not going to wade through the whole thing:
You mean, why deal with facts to reach a conclusion?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/op...ristof.html?hp
but I glanced at top report and see fallacious statement up front that
talks about the 80,000 chemicals in the US market that are largely untested.
What part is fallacious, Frank, hmmmmm?
The number is suspiciously close to the number of chemicals on the TSCA
inventory and those of us familiar with industry know that registration
does not mean the chemical is in use and also know that the bulk of
these materials are polymers and essentially innocuous.
So there ARE 80,000 chemicals, why didn't you say so? So there are
80,000 chemicals sitting on the shelf, already to go, but not
necessarily being used. Is that the point you were trying to make, Frank?
Of this 80,000, only about 3,000 have been submitted with health and
safty data. Let's see 80,000 chemicals minus 3,000 chemicals
= 77,000 chemicals
for which there is NO health or safety data. That sounds like they are
mostly untested. Right, Frank?
These numbers may not make sense, unless you keep on reading, Frank ;O)
So again, what was the fallacious statement that was up front. I'm still
looking for it, Frank.
-----
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...mical-controls
April 2010, Scientific American
p. 30
Chemical Controls
.. . . As the law stands, the EPA cannot be proactive in vetting chemical
safety. It can require companies to test chemicals thought to pose a
health risk only when there is explicit evidence of harm. Of the 21,000
chemicals registered under the law's requirements, only 15 percent have
been submitted with health and safety data‹and the EPA is nearly
powerless to require such data. The law allows companies to claim
confidentiality about a new chemical, preventing outside evaluation from
filling this data gap; some 95 percent of new submissions fall under
this veil of secrecy. Even when evidence of harm is clear, the law sets
legal hurdles that can make action impossible. For instance, federal
courts have overturned all the EPA's attempts to restrict asbestos
manufacture, despite demonstrable human health hazard.
Consequently, of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the U.S., only
five have been either restricted or banned.
Not 5 percent, five.
The EPA has been able to force health and safety testing for only around
200.
BPA is a case study of what has gone wrong. Although scientists
identified potential problems decades ago, regulatory changes have been
slow to follow. First synthesized in 1891, the compound became essential
to the plastics industry as a building building block of the
polycarbonates in our eyeglass lenses, the polyesters in our clothes and
the epoxy resins in the lining of our cans. In the 1930s BPA was
identified as a potent mimic of estrogen; it could bind to the same
receptors throughout the human body as the natural female hormone. But
the Toxic Substances Control Act explicitly allowed chemicals already
employed at the time of the law's passage‹BPA and more than 60,000
others ‹ to continue to be used without an evaluation for toxicity or
exposure limits.
.. . . So the EPA is gearing up to try to regulate chemicals,
establishing a list of "chemicals of concern" that echoes a similar list
developed by regulators in the European Union under a recent law
requiring that chemicals be tested for safety before being sold.
Congress has begun to debate how to support this effort. It should begin
by reforming and strengthening the Toxic Substances Control Act to
require reviews of chemicals for safety, force manufacturers to provide
adequate health data on any chemical under review, and empower agencies
to restrict or ban the use of chemicals with clear evidence of harm.
Industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council have recognized
that such measures are needed to ensure public confidence in their
products. Ultimately, the goal of oversight is simply to reflect the
best available science, so that people are protected from the
demonstrable risks posed by chemicals such as BPA and can rest assured
that the chemicals industry says are safe really are.
------
Let me just paraphrase that last sentence so that we all understand.
Ultimately, the goal of oversight is simply to reflect the best
available science, so that people can rest assured that the chemicals,
that "industry" says are safe, really are.
Sounds like somebody has some doubts about the honesty of industry.
Oversight?!!!, and the neo-nuts go wild.
Chemical industry don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Food industry don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Oil drillers don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Fossil fuel burners don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Banks don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Wall Street don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Government don't need no stinkin' regulation.
Right Frank?
How about another cup of tea, hmmm?
For those of you who would like chemicals tested before they are
released into the environment, you may want to look at a synopsis of
"The Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2009" on Senator Feinstein's
web-site
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/i...wsRoom.PressRe
leases&ContentRecord_id=01832cd5-5056-8059-76db-c984d14b7fce&Region_id=&I
ssue_id=551e9cd8-7e9c-9af9-771b-7176768bc4b6 .
If you buy food commercially, and you conclude that you don't want to
eat, breath, and bath in toxic compounds, you may want to take a moment
to contact your Congressional representatives to let them know your
feelings on the issue.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html