On 5/6/2010 1:31 PM, Billy wrote:
In ,
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.
-----

Take the speakers out of your ears. Go look at the original report,
summary page.