|
Report on chemicals out today
Op-Ed Columnist
New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: May 5, 2010 The President¹s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and decla chemicals threaten our bodies. The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday, warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health. I¹ve read an advance copy of the report, and it¹s an extraordinary document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals. Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President¹s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic. more at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/op...ristof.html?hp -- Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden What use one more wake up call? |
Report on chemicals out today
On 5/6/2010 7:29 AM, Bill who putters wrote:
Op-Ed Columnist New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: May 5, 2010 The President¹s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and decla chemicals threaten our bodies. The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday, warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health. I¹ve read an advance copy of the report, and it¹s an extraordinary document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals. Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President¹s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic. more at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/op...ristof.html?hp 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. |
Report on chemicals out today
I'm not going to wade through the whole thing:
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp.htm 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. 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. |
Report on chemicals out today
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 |
Report on chemicals out today
In article ,
Frank wrote: On 5/6/2010 7:29 AM, Bill who putters wrote: Op-Ed Columnist New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: May 5, 2010 The President¹s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and decla chemicals threaten our bodies. The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday, warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health. I¹ve read an advance copy of the report, and it¹s an extraordinary document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals. Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President¹s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic. more at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/op...ristof.html?hp As a retired chemist, chemo-phobia has always been a sore point with me. "President's cancer panel" smells of politics. As a still working chemist, you strike me as a nut-case, Frank. If you were a scientist, you know that you should first show that the "President¹s Cancer Panel" is engaging in and, disseminating a phobia, before engaging in "seat of the pants" smell evaluations. There are already several international recognized authorities that are essentially apolitical. Corporate then? Wouldn't that be ducky, for them, not us. http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/...ell_guidance_c sa_en.pdf -- - 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 |
Report on chemicals out today
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. |
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 |
Report on chemicals out today
In article ,
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. Ignore that man behind the screen. I look forward to the report but in my heart I don't need too. Life as a web seems to be obvious and oblivious but the breaking of if it like eating a given. Heal the web and we may heal our selves if they exist. Not one not two Japanese high minded philosophy but corrupted too. See Zen at war a book. Potatoes need checking. -- Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden What use one more wake up call? |
Report on chemicals out today
|
Report on chemicals out today
Bill who putters wrote:
Potatoes need checking. Yea you have watch them rampant and fractious potatoes. David |
Report on chemicals out today
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: Bill who putters wrote: Potatoes need checking. Yea you have watch them rampant and fractious potatoes. David Thanks for the new word Fractious . Bad tempered but I was cooking their ilk. -- Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden What use one more wake up call? |
Report on chemicals out today
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. The world is not all black and white. I would say there are varying degrees of political. Cited report came from one I consider on the high political side. Then there's Billy - need I say more ;) |
Report on chemicals out today
In article
, 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. The world is not all black and white. I would say there are varying degrees of political. Cited report came from one I consider on the high political side. Then there's Billy - need I say more ;) No. -- - 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 |
Report on chemicals out today
|
Report on chemicals out today
On May 7, 1:17*pm, phorbin wrote:
In article 73ccf623-9d9e-4acf-9b47-1659c7d28a23 @o8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says... 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. *The world is not all black and white. *I would say there are varying degrees of political. Cited report came from one I consider on the high political side. Then there's Billy - need I say more ;) Unfortunately, I am *absolutely* right. There are no degrees of political, only degrees of skill at handling political issues. On the whole I like Billy's online persona. --You can say no more with my blessing. Billy's a wacko - aren't we all? His problem is that he's too touchy ;) |
Report on chemicals out today
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. The world is not all black and white. I would say there are varying degrees of political. Cited report came from one I consider on the high political side. You might be right. But 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? OK which ones and where is the evidence? David |
Report on chemicals out today
On May 7, 7:01*pm, "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. *The world is not all black and white. *I would say there are varying degrees of political. Cited report came from one I consider on the high political side. You might be right. *But 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? *OK 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 saying that most chemicals are not tested and their throwing in the BPA controversy. Politicians and the general public will not go beyond this. That is why the report is biased. |
Report on chemicals out today
In article
, Frank wrote: On May 7, 7:01*pm, "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. *The world is not all black and white. *I would say there are varying degrees of political. Cited report came from one I consider on the high political side. You might be right. *But 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? *OK 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‹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. ----- 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=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html |
Report on chemicals out today
On May 8, 12:47Â*pm, Billy wrote:
In article , Â*Frank wrote: On May 7, 7:01Â*pm, "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. Â*The world is not all black and white.. Â*I would say there are varying degrees of political. Cited report came from one I consider on the high political side. You might be right. Â*But 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? Â*OK 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‹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. ----- 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 1,000Â*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...Zinn_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. |
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 |
Report on chemicals out today
Frank wrote:
On May 7, 7:01 pm, "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. The world is not all black and white. I would say there are varying degrees of political. Cited report came from one I consider on the high political side. You might be right. But 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? OK 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 saying that most chemicals are not tested and their throwing in the BPA controversy. Politicians and the general public will not go beyond this. That is why the report is biased. So now it is biased. By your judgement. It is your judgement that there is not enough evidence that BPA is potentially harmful even for restriction under the precautionary principle. OK, other disagree but OK for now. Now back to the original point. What political end is being served by this bias? Why is the PCP biased? David |
Shah Polymers developing and marketing, Suppliers of Engineering Plastics, Polyacetal (POM), Polycarbonate, Polyurethane (PU), Polymers, Acrylic, Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), PVDF Suppliers, Styrene Acrylonitrile (SAN), PolyUrethane (PU), Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA), Poly acetyl, K Resin (NSBC), Nylon (PA 6, 66), manufacturing and marketing superior quality Polycarbonates Sheets for the building and construction industry in Bangalore, India.
Polyacetal (POM), Polycarbonate, Polyurethane PU, K Resin (NSBC), Engineering Plastics, (SAN) Styrene Acrylonitrile, (SAN) Styrene Acrylonitrile, Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Nylon (PA 6, 66), Acrylic (PMMA), polyvinylidene fluoride suppliers, Shah Polymers, Manufacturers, Bangalore, India. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter