View Single Post
  #7   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2010, 09:14 PM posted to rec.gardens.edible
Billy[_10_] Billy[_10_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,438
Default Report on chemicals out today

In article ,
Frank wrote:

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.


Do you want me to read it to you, Frank?
Is there something there that scares you, Frank?

BPAs are just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17568585

http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/bendrep.asp

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...mical-controls
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.

Nor did the act give the EPA the power to reevaluate chemicals in light
of new information‹such as the concerns about BPA that emerged in the
1990s. Researchers in a genetics laboratory noticed that a control
population of mice developed an unusually high number of chromosomally
abnormal eggs. The reason? BPA leaching from their plastic cages. From
this serendipitous discovery, scientists began to explore anew BPA and
other chemicals like
it, known collectively as endocrine disruptors. Studies since then have
linked BPA to asthma, behavioral changes, some cancers, cardiovascular
disease, diabetes and obesity. The National Toxicology Program warned in
2008 that "the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development
cannot be dismissed." Some health effects from BPA may even be passed
from one generation to the next, and in contradiction to textbook
toxicology, low doses of BPA may be as harmful as high doses. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that 93 percent of
Americans have detectable levels of BPA by-products in their urine.
-----

Wouldn't it be great if a government actually advocated for the people,
instead of just for the corporations?
It's supposed to be, "First, do no harm", not "First, get the money".
--
- 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