Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Report on chemicals out today
In article
, Frank wrote: On May 8, 12:47�m, Billy wrote: In article , �rank wrote: On May 7, 7:01�m, "David Hare-Scott" wrote: Frank wrote: On May 6, 6:24 pm, phorbin wrote: In article , says... As a retired chemist, chemo-phobia has always been a sore point with me. "President's cancer panel" smells of politics. There are already several international recognized authorities that are essentially apolitical. LOL I used to believe in apolitical until the real world made its presence known. There's no such thing as apolitical. You're absolutely right. �he world is not all black and white. � would say there are varying degrees of political. Cited report came from one I consider on the high political side. You might be right. �ut before I accept your view some details please. What is the reason that makes you infer that the PCP is not supplying fair medical and scientific advice? Do you think it is beholden to some vested interested and serving their point of view? �K which ones and where is the evidence? David I did not look at the whole report but just executive summary which is what reporter used. "My chemophobia comment is based on the erroneous use of TSCA" What was the erroneous use of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Frank? saying "that most chemicals are not tested" Do you contend that most chemicals have been tested, Frank? "and their throwing in the BPA controversy." Why, as a case in point, is mentioning BPA equated to chemophobia, Frank?"Politicians and the general public will not go beyond this." Where else is there to go, Frank? That is why the report is biased. Again, Frank, where is the bias? 1) That the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is egregiously flawed is the whole point in reforming it, Frank. 2) TSCA grandfathered in approximately 62,000 chemicals, Frank. 3) Because companies are REQUIRED by TSCA section 8e to report information about known health hazards caused by any of their products, to AVOID LITIGATION or the costly ban or restricted use of a product, chemical companies generally DO NOT CONDUCT TOXICITY TESTS. 4) Asbestos has been known to be harmful to human being since before Christ, and under the TSCA it can't be banned. 5) BPA has been known since the 1930s to be a potent mimic of estrogen; it could bind to the same receptors throughout the human body as the natural female hormone, but it was grandfathered in with the TSCA. Nor did the act give the EPA the power to reevaluate chemicals in light of new information�uch 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. ----- Executive Summary p.32 Weak Laws and Regulations The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA)101 may be the most egregious example of ineffective regulation of environmental contaminants. This legislation was intended to give EPA authority to control health risks from chemicals in commerce. TSCA grandfathered in approximately 62,000 chemicals; today, more than 80,000 chemicals are in use, and 1,000–2,000 new chemicals are created and introduced into the environment each year.102 Yet TSCA does not include a true proof-of-safety provision.103 At this time, neither industry nor government confirm the safety of existing or new chemicals prior to their sale and use. In fact, because companies are required by TSCA section 8e to report information about known health hazards caused by any of their products, to avoid litigation or the costly ban or restricted use of a product, chemical companies generally do not conduct toxicity tests. Under TSCA, EPA can only require testing if it can verify that the chemical poses a health risk to the public.104,105 Since TSCA was passed, EPA has required testing of less than 1 percent of the chemicals in commerce and has issued regulations to control only five existing chemicals. Companies are required to provide health and safety data for new chemicals and to periodically renew approvals for the use of pesticides, but historically, chemical manufacturers have successfully claimed that much of the requested submissions are confidential, proprietary information. As a result, it is almost impossible for scientists and environmentalists to challenge the release of new chemicals.106 In 1989, EPA issued a ban on asbestos based on 45,000 pages of documentation on its risks. However, TSCA stipulates that chemicals should be restricted using the least burdensome regulations available. In 1991, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals nullified EPA¹s ban, ruling that EPA had failed to show that asbestos posed an unreasonable risk, as defined by TSCA, that was best addressed by banning it.107 Because of TSCA¹s constraints and weakness, EPA also has been unable to substantially restrict or eliminate the use of other known carcinogens such as mercury and formaldehyde, and has not attempted to ban any chemical since the 1991 court ruling. --- Please use citations this time, Frank, you know, like a professional, and don't just pull the answers out of your backside. -- - 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=Arn3l....thirdworldtra veler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html You are a first class jerk. I could sit and pick this apart bit by bit, but for what end, to satisfy you? Not worth my time. I get paid for regulatory consulting. For someone who says they are a working chemist, you are chickenshit when it comes to chemicals. That's quite a potty-mouth, you have there, for the big HE-MAN you posture yourself to be, Frank. g You always say things without supporting evidence, Frank. Why is that, Frank? Why can't you do that, Frank? That's not very professional of you, Frank. Could I have a citation, or shall we just chalk this up to another load out of your backside, Frank? g " I get paid for regulatory consulting." ROLF, snark, g -- - 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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Pond chemicals | Ponds | |||
slightly ot, was chemicals | Gardening | |||
"Chemicals" | Gardening | |||
Need brand names of chemicals | Orchids | |||
CO2 and other chemicals question. | Freshwater Aquaria Plants |