Hluch - Kevin A. on wed 11 mar 98
Though I've sworn off responding to the list in my own voice I thought you
all might be interested in this. Not to set off mass hysteria but as an
informational point. :)
This morning I heard an NPR report that Dioxin has been found in clay
that is 40 million years old. Since this happens to be one of the most
dangerous substances known to human kind (Dioxin, that is) I was just
wondering how you all feel about this.
The report began by indicating that scientists were trying to discover why
two chickens were loaded up with Dioxin. They eventually found that it was
in the clay that was in the chicken feed that served as a stabilizer.
Further research indicated that clays from Kentucky and Tennessee were
contaminated with Dioxin. (Any hairs standing up on the backs of any necks
yet?)
As a result of this info I've decided they'll be no clay in MY
FEED!
The report ended by saying that there did not appear to be any danger to
the workers in ceramics.......This is from memory and is not verbatim.
Are we finding out that life is more risky than we had previously
ever imagined? The episodes on the X- files are beginning to appear less
and less bizarre to me now.
Naturally occuring Dioxin, just what the world needed,
Argh! What next? Carcinogins, and growth hormones in the food and plates
that leach lithium, manganese, cobalt, barium, copper, and perhaps even
iron.
Damn! And I was planning on living forever!
Kevin A. Hluch
102 E. 8th St.
Frederick, MD 21701
USA
e-mail: kahluch@umd5.umd.edu
http://www.erols.com/mhluch/mudslinger.html
Jennifer Boyer on wed 11 mar 98
Well,
I found an article about this i on the net. Apparently the dioxin was
found in bentonite used in chicken feed. The clay was mined by the
Kentucky-Tennesee Ball Clay Company. According to NPR some people think
the dioxin could be naturally occuring in clay deposite that used to be
swamps. Anyone have any ideas on how to procede with this little gem?
Can one have clay tested for dioxin levels at a lab??
The article address is:
file:///Hard%20Disk/desktop%20stuff/Documents/Dioxin%20in%20chicken%20and%20Eggs
Jennifer
--
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Jennifer Boyer jboyer@plainfield.bypass.com
Thistle Hill Pottery
Powder Horn Glen Rd
Montpelier, VT 05602
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Cindy on thu 12 mar 98
Sorry to be a complete dummy, Kev, but what, exactly (aside from a
purportedly deadly poison), is dioxin? Anyway, I thought iocane powder
(Princess Bride) was the most deadly substance known to man.
Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels
Custer, SD
USA http://blackhills-info.com/a/cindys/menu.htm
David McBeth on thu 12 mar 98
This dioxin thread is fascinating. Even more so because I live in the
same county as some of the K-T Ball Clay mines are located. I guess I
should not let my kids eat the dirt.
dave
--
David McBeth, MFA
Associate Professor of Art
330 C Gooch Hall
University of Tennessee at Martin
Martin, TN 38238
901-587-7416
http://fmc.utm.edu/~dmcbeth/dmcbeth.htm
Gracedart on thu 12 mar 98
try the dept of environmental protection for your state / federal: epa
dioxin is a known carcinogen...extremely toxic if ingested...find out if it
can be absorbed in through the skin...info coming from a bio-chemist...not a
potter...
Grace
Dale McCleskey on sat 14 mar 98
Dale McCleskey
03/13/98 08:54 AM
Just an ironic note to the dioxin thread. Have a friend who is a scientist
for the beef industry. He swears that the figures for how bad beef is for
you are all distorted. Says beef producers are selling a far leaner product
now, etc. etc. etc. He can go on all day about how much better, safer, etc.
beef is than chicken. I'm not necessarily buying his line, just found the
idea that we have all been killing ourselves with chicken to be filled with
an ironic humor. And for all you vegetarians, carrots will probably be the
next killer. Seems to me that what makes sense is a life of discipline,
avoiding excesses one way or another, lived with enough humility that we
don't delude ourselves into thinking our choices are superior to everyone
elses.
For what its worth. A search on the web with for the work "dioxin" will
yield more scientific information than we can digest.
Think I'll edit a book, go home and kiss my wife, and go play in the clay.
Dale McCleskey
Nashville TN, USA
46 on monday, and don't know half as much as I used to....
Nancy Galland on sun 15 oct 00
I am disturbed that Clayarters have not taken seriously the news that
dioxin has been found in Ball Clay from mines in Mississippi, Kentucky, and
Tennessee. Except for Edouard Bastarache's entries, no significant
discussion has developed. As a person who has been an organic farmer for 23
years and who has studied the effects of dioxin from both pesticides and
the many paper mills that surround our otherwise beautiful area in rural
Maine, I take the news very serioulsy. The fact is that we are exposed to
dioxins already from many industrial processes (incinerators, paper mills,
etc.) and most commonly through pesticide residues in the food we eat (90%
of our intake).
I have made many calls to clay suppliers, Ceramics Monthly, and researchers
of pottery-related health hazards and have come up with the picture that
the ceramics world is going through the denial phase that usually
accompanies news that threatens to turn one's world upside down.
It takes the EPA many years and many studies to come out with classifying
any substance as a carcinogen. Studies on dioxins began in 1977. Dioxin
has been recognized as a carcinogen by the EPA through studies since 1985.
Driven by dioxin-producing industrial interests, the EPA has gone through
many "reassessments" of their original findings that the threshold level of
exposure is 0.006 picograms per killograms of body weight - or .42 pg per
150 lbs. This means that our human bodies can tolerate only this amount of
exposure daily until the accumulation of dioxin becomes carcinogenic in
tissues, especially fatty tissues such as found in breasts and the liver.
But on the average, we are already carrying far above this threshold of
exposre in our bodies. According to EPA studies, we are already consuming
119 pg per day. (A picogram is 1,000 times smaller than a nanogram.)
At 1991 the Eleventh International Symposium on Chloriniated Dioxins, the
EPA's original 1985 assessment was confirmed. More importantly, it was
determined from the vast scientific data submitted, that the accumulated
levels of dioxin currently found in the population (the "background body
burden") are already so high that " as body burdens increase within and
above this range, the probability and severity as well as the spectrum of
non-cancer effects most likely will increase". This means that not only is
dioxin a carcinogen, but other health effects also occur when we are
exposed to dioxins. These include infertility ( dioxin is an "estrogenic
compound", meaning it acts as a weak hormone and has been shown to be
linked to male infertility), diabetes, learning disabilities, childhood
cancers, and breast cancer ( breast milk is typically high in dioxins,
which are transferred to infants during breast feeding). All of these
health problems are on the rise in this country.
It also means that as a society, we have been accumulating dioxins in our
bodies and as a result, it will take only small additional exposures to
push some people's dioxin levels to trigger adverse health effects. Low
doses build up in the body over time. EPA studies also show how damage from
dioxin exposure to infants and children my not be "expressed" until much
later in life. Are schools using dioxin-contaminated clays ?
I have abstracted all this information from "Dying from Dioxin", by Lois
Marie Gibbs, who some may recognize as the one-time happy mom who turned
into an activist when her family and neighbors became terminally ill
living near the infamous Love Canal.
The conclusion any logic will lead us to is that there is no safe level of
exposure to dioxins since our bodies already carry a high dose of "
background burden".
We need answers to many questions, but how the dioxin got into the Ball
clay is not a helpful one at this point.
* We need to know if a substitute can be found for Ball Clay - I was told
that it could , by technicians at the Laguna clay factory. We need to let
them know we want it to be done.
* We need to know if dioxin remains in the clay after firing, and if so,
can it leach through glazes. Do glazes and slips containing Ball Clay leach
dioxins?
* We need to know what happens to the dioxin in clay and glazes when we
fire it - does it burn out, does it emit toxic fumes ?
* It is esablished that dioxin enters the body through any path available:
breathing dust and fumes, skin contact, ingestion. How can we protect
ourselves from exposre?
I have changed my clays to only those not containing ball clays. I suggest
calling your suppliers and finding out which clays do not contain ball clay
and changing to those until more answers are found and a substitute for
the ball clay is found. Think of the miners who are exposed to dioxin as
they mine this stuff! These mines may be closed if OSHA decides they are
too toxic. Be prepared!
Mert & Holly Kilpatrick on sun 15 oct 00
A few other sources on dioxins and Love Canal, just for a different
perspective, for those who are interested in the subject:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-02-96.html
www.heartland.org/suites/environment/chemicals.htm
Holly
----- Original Message -----
From: Nancy Galland
> I am disturbed that Clayarters have not taken seriously the news that
> dioxin has been found in Ball Clay from mines in Mississippi, Kentucky,
and
> Tennessee.
Cindy Strnad on mon 16 oct 00
Hi Nancy, Bass, and all.
Sorry to ask a dumb question and expose my lack of exposure to the world at
large (okay, I live in a kind of self-created isolation--no TV, very little
radio, no newspapers), but what is a dioxin? I've heard the term, and it
stirs vague memories, but I can't seem to pin them down.
So far from posts, I've figured out A) It must be an organic compound if
people are surmising it may have come from ancient forest fires or dinosaur
remains, B) It's found in pesticides and/or herbicides, C) It's another
carcinogen, and
D) Its been discovered in TN and KY ball clays.
So, why is it in pesticides? Why is it a danger associated with paper mills?
What causes dioxins to develop? Is there some relation to chlorine?
Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730
USA
earthenv@gwtc.net
http://www.earthenvesselssd.com
Edouard Bastarache on mon 16 oct 00
Ave Cindi,
read this post on dioxins and furans.
It answers most of your questions.
If not let me know. They forgot to put
it in the archives.
Dioxins in clays
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs) are
tricyclic aromatic compounds with similar chemical and physical properti=
es.
They are ubiquitous in the environment and usually do not occur
naturally.There are 75 positional isomers of PCDDs and 135 isomers of PCD=
Fs.
2,3,7,8-TCDD (TCDD) is the most toxic isomer, and the estimated toxic ris=
k
in humans is calculated in terms of =ABTCDD equivalents=BB. For exemple, =
the
toxic effect of different isomers is calculated in terms of the amount th=
at
would cause the same degree of toxicity as TCDD.
Octachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxine, produced during the synthesis of
pentachlorophenol (Norback et al. 1975), is quite less toxic than TCDD
produced during the synthesis of the herbicide 2,4,5-T.
The most important sources include contaminated products such as
chlorinated phenols and their derivatives. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB=
s);
incineration of municipal, hazardous, and hospital wastes; sewage sludge;
automobile operations; fossil fuel combustion; and emissions from fire
involving PCBs are other sources. Production of chlorophenols and their
derivatives; chlorophenol wood treatment; chlorine bleaching in the pulp
industry; and production and handling of iron, steel, and other metals, s=
uch
as aluminium, also yields dioxins.
Exposure has also occurred from herbicide use and from industrial and
transportation incidents. In occupational settings, exposure has occurre=
d
in chemical manufacturing processes and from handling the wastes from the=
se
processes.
Ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption are all thought to be routes=
of
exposure to PCDDs and PCDFs. However, exposure for most individuals will =
be
small and will come through a variety of sources.
It is generally accepted that about 98% of human exposure comes from food.
Dioxins are insoluble in water but lipophilic (soluble in fats) and other
hydrophobic materials, and bind to solid material such as soil and fly as=
h.
They have a low rate of metabolic breakdown, they preferentially accumula=
te
in adipose tissue, skin, liver, and breast milk in mammals. The amount o=
f
dioxins expressed as TCDD equivalents in breast milk of lactating women
often exceeds the tolerated Swedish daily intake of 5 pg/kg body weight b=
y a
factor of 20 to 30.
In soil TCDD has an extremely long half-life time, greater than 10 years.
The biologic half-life in humans has been measured to be in the range of =
5
to 8 years.
TCDD represents the most toxic synthetic compound known. It acts as a
complete carcinogen in several species.
By now, an increased risk for all cancer sites combined has been shown in
cohort studies on TCDD-exposed subjects, with an especially high risk for
soft-tissue sarcoma (STS).
In Seveso, Italy, area with TCDD soil contamination, excess numbers of
tumors have been found, including lymphomas and STS.
Among Vietnam veterans, increased mortality in STS was reported.
As has been concluded, TCDD is among the most potent identified chemical
carcinogens.It is transspecies, transstrain, transsex, multisite, and
complete carcinogen.
For humans, the immunotoxic effects by dioxins are probably at least as
serious as the carcinogenic properties.
It also causes chloracne in humans, which is the most precocious clinical
sign of
excessive exposure to TCDD. It may also cause allergic dermatitis and is =
an
eye
irritant.
When heated to decomposition it emits toxic fumes of CL-.
NIOSH REL (Dioxin) : Reduce to lowest feasible level.
Little is still understood about the potential effects on fertility and t=
he
developing nervous system in children by dioxins and related chlorinated
compounds.
Also of concern is the high content of dioxins in mother=92s milk and in =
the
food chain (e.g. some fatty fish)
Conclusion :
Not knowing the isomers( different levels of toxicity) identified in kaol=
ins
and ball clays and their concentrations, it is very difficult to discuss
this problem properly.
For obvious reasons, we should be more worried about employees working in
mining and processing these dioxin-containing clays, and by pottery facto=
ry
employees than by studio potters, hobbyists, teachers and their students.
The use of clays made without these could be recommended for those more
worried while awaiting more information on this subject from the mining
companies, even from those located on other continents
It gives a good exemple why good housekeeping of your studio, avoidance o=
f
unnecessary dusty operations and the use of a decent dust mask are import=
ant
factors.
Also stay away from some fatty fish!!!
Later,
Edouard Bastarache M .D. (Occupational & Environmental Medicine)
Author of =ABSubstitutions for Raw Ceramic Materials=BB
edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
http://www.sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/
References :
1-Occupational Medicine, Carl Zenz, last edition.
2-Sax=92s Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, last edition
3-Hazardous Materials Toxicology, Sullivan & Krieger, last edition.
4-Toxicologie Industrielle et Intoxications Professionnelles, Lawerys, la=
st
edition.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Cindy Strnad
=C0 : CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Date : 16 octobre, 2000 19:55
Objet : Re: dioxin
>Hi Nancy, Bass, and all.
>
>Sorry to ask a dumb question and expose my lack of exposure to the world=
at
>large (okay, I live in a kind of self-created isolation--no TV, very lit=
tle
>radio, no newspapers), but what is a dioxin? I've heard the term, and it
>stirs vague memories, but I can't seem to pin them down.
>
>So far from posts, I've figured out A) It must be an organic compound if
>people are surmising it may have come from ancient forest fires or dinos=
aur
>remains, B) It's found in pesticides and/or herbicides, C) It's another
>carcinogen, and
>D) Its been discovered in TN and KY ball clays.
>
>So, why is it in pesticides? Why is it a danger associated with paper
mills?
>What causes dioxins to develop? Is there some relation to chlorine?
>
>Cindy Strnad
>Earthen Vessels Pottery
>RR 1, Box 51
>Custer, SD 57730
>USA
>earthenv@gwtc.net
>http://www.earthenvesselssd.com
>
>________________________________________________________________________=
___
___
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Cindy Strnad on tue 17 oct 00
Thanks, Bass.
I read through this carefully, and I think I understand most of it. If the
dioxin has a half-life in soil of around 10 years (you said, "greater" than
10 years, but that doesn't sound like 100,000 years at any rate), then the
dioxins in ball clay are likely to be a fairly recent addition. Not the
result of ancient deposits.
And it does matter, because if it's something we've been doing, then we need
to find a way to stop doing it. If dioxins can get into the clay, they can
get into the water table.
This also sounds like dioxins will burn out of the clay (and release toxic
gasses in the process) so they aren't going to be a factor in the finished
pottery or glazes.
It sounds to me like your advice is pretty much: Mop the floor, vent the
kiln, use a proper mask for mixing glazes and other dusty stuff, think hard
before deciding to mix your own clay from dry materials, and wash all your
fruits and vegetables. In other words all the advice we've been urged to
follow by others, to protect us from other genuine risks.
Hmm, well, I guess I'll have to mop the floor. ;)
Thanks, Bass
Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730
USA
earthenv@gwtc.net
http://www.earthenvesselssd.com
Nancy Galland on wed 18 oct 00
Thanks Monona for your input. I have not yet received the articles you said
you have written on the subject, so I look forward to that.
I also emailed the FDA contact you suggested for a list of dioxin free clays.
It was news to me that "Ball" clay is a method of mining and not a specific
type of clay! I was always under the impression it was used because of its
versatile expansion qualities. Could anyone please clarify this? Where does
this lead our understanding of what we are using? How much more about this
do we need to know?
As for Ron Roy's admonition that we can keep on putting our hands in the
dioxin/clays as we wait for the answers to surface, did you miss the point
that our bodies on average already contain more than the safe threshold
that the EPA has arduously established and that miniscule increments can
push some of us over that threshold and that dioxin accumulates in our
tissues faster than it can be eliminated? Better safe than sorry....
Numo Jaeger & Michael Miller on wed 18 oct 00
>did you miss the point that our bodies on average already contain more
than the safe threshold that the EPA has arduously established and that
miniscule increments can
>push some of us over that threshold and that dioxin accumulates in our
>tissues faster than it can be eliminated?
Is there anything a lay person can do that will help get rid of dioxin
accumulations or other toxic chemical in tissues if it already exists there?
Numo
ferenc jakab on thu 19 oct 00
>
> And it does matter, because if it's something we've been doing, then we
need
> to find a way to stop doing it. If dioxins can get into the clay, they can
> get into the water table.
>
Cindy,
If the dioxin is in the clay then its already in the water table unless the
clay is a pocket trapped in impermeable rock.
Feri.
Ron Roy on thu 19 oct 00
Never said that - all I said was - vent those kilns properly.
One of the problems with finding which clays could be a problem is finding
someone to test for this stuff. As for taking a clay company's word for how
much is present - isn't that like asking the fox to count the chickens?
RR
>As for Ron Roy's admonition that we can keep on putting our hands in the
>dioxin/clays as we wait for the answers to surface, did you miss the point
>that our bodies on average already contain more than the safe threshold
>that the EPA has arduously established and that miniscule increments can
>push some of us over that threshold and that dioxin accumulates in our
>tissues faster than it can be eliminated? Better safe than sorry....
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
Terpstra Karen K on fri 20 oct 00
Ron,
You've made an important point and think about it from this perspective.
Testing often means finding the money to do it. Ceramic engineers,
geologists, etc. from research institutions and companies involved with
research are often faced with financial burdens. Finding the people,
finding the money unfortunately take time. I am guessing results as to
how all of this affects everyone from miners in the clay mines, workers
in our supply houses, to the private studio potter is going to take a
while.
From: Ron Roy
Subject: Re: dioxin
......One of the problems with finding which clays could be a problem is
finding
someone to test for this stuff.....
I wrote John Flatley from the Legislative and Political subcommittee of
ACerS. he wrote the following:
Karen, we agree that this is an important issue and LPAC has begun to
educate the members of the Society on what EPA is doing
and why this is important to them. For the most part (at least with the
corporate folks), this has not been on their radar screen.
Like with crystalline silica, it is an education process. Steve Freiman
is doing an environmental presentation at the Monterey
conference later this month and we have talked about this issue. LPAC
has also had Marcus Cooke, an expert on dioxin, do a
report on dioxin for the Ceramic Bulletin. We will continue these
outreach efforts and would be pleased to work with you and others
who are taking a lead on this issue. Thanks for the note and look
forward to a continued dialogue. John.
I am thinking about the number of Clayarters that Mel posted today as I
contemplate such a huge issue. He's right:
....if we all pull together, and think of service rather than self.
we can do a great deal...
mel
Karen Terpstra
Assistant Professor of Art/Cermics
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Nancy Galland on sat 21 oct 00
If you need specific data, contact these people at the EPA and FDA:
Winters.Dwain@epamail.epa.gov, Lorber.Matthew@epamail.epa.gov,
jmatheso@cvm.fda.gov
"Every ball clay that was tested in 1997 contained elevated levels of
dioxins. Clays from mines in all three states were sampled. As a result, no
ball clays are in now use in animal feeds and, as far as I know, no ball
clay has been shown to be free of dioxins." - John Matheson, FDA
Nancy Galland on sun 22 oct 00
I don't know how much reading on this subject you have done, but it has
been well documented that dioxins are produced by certain industrial
processes for a long time now. And the news that dioxins are dangerous to
our health has been around since 1977. Pick up a copy of "Dying from
Dioxin" by Lois Gibbs.
What you are not realizing is that it is small amounts of dioxin that are
dangerous, and that has been scientifically proven since 1985. If you read
my original post, all the figures are there. If you like, I'll re-post it
to you. In fact, there is no safe level of dioxin, not even the
"non-detect" level that papermills talk about are safe, because it
bio-accumulates in the food chain.
And as the top animal in the food chain, we already have more than the "
safe" levels in our tissues.
One could say that it is NOT KNOWN how much if any dioxin from the clay is
absorbed through the skin. One could also say that even though we have no
measurement of this particular possibility, it is still a possibility. "Not
known" is not the same as "proven safe".
One could say that maybe the clay attracts dioxin to the extent that it is
not released into the skin. One could also say this is not known, this is
just as much conjecture as the other hypothesis that it does release dioxin
to the skin. Dioxin is water soluble. Skin absorbs water. Is it rocket
science to imagine that potters using wet Clay that is contaminated with
dioxins will absorb it through their skin? If dioxin can migrate out of
milk cartons into the milk, through coffee filters into coffee, and it can
be absorbed through the skin, should we not assume the likelihood of it
being tranferred through water in the clay to water on the hands and
through the skin into the bloodstream?
The Precautionary Principle, an internationally recognized m.o. for
environmental assessment, holds that when an environmental hazard is
recognized, it is the responsibility of the source of the contaminant to
prove that it is safe for public health. In other words, it turns the usual
"let's wait and see if it's harmful" approach to "Let's assume it is
harmful until proven harmless".
As for your example of the gasoline additive, we are not talking about
developing another chemical to replace a chemical. We are talking about
substituting one clay for another. As potters we have grown used to the
idea of having our old reliable materials suddenly become unavailable and
to search for alternatives. We should be encouraging our suppliers to
research alternatives and to test them for dioxins as well.
I know this is a hard pill to swallow because it affects much of what we as
potters use daily and assumed was safe and turns it upside down. Denial is
the first step in fully realizing an awful truth. Watch the debate grow and
see where it goes. NG
Nancy Galland on mon 23 oct 00
Dr. Wm. Kaukler wrote:(exerpted)
"My life has been bombarded by the chemical
dangers in our environment and I seek them out and mentally file them to
realistically evaluate the dangers. The clay-dioxin connection is new to me
and I am collecting information as I bring together my own observations and
resources. The issue is not cut and dry to me by any means.
I have yet to hear that the origin of the dioxin is not natural. If it is
natural, then the danger has been present since year one (of man on earth).
Dangerous pots have been made for thousands of years.
As far as the argument about which direction the dioxins will migrate, that
is the kind of question I prefer to address because it one that science can
answer. Without being a chemist in this field, I still can develop a
scientific assessment of how things may evolve. I also sense that you also
realize that chemical affinities between skin and clay are at the center of
such a scenario. Without actually performing the experiment, we have only a
theory. However, the selective adsorption of dioxin and similar compounds
by clay suggest the precedent that the dioxins and like compounds are bound
to the wet clay. There may be a saturation concentration where this may no
longer apply. I suggest instead that clay would serve as a good material
to remove the dioxins from an environment (ground water for example) and
prevent contact with humans unless released by heat or other chemical
reaction. Indeed, clay has been employed for such cleaning up operations for
centuries. The apparent affinity for dioxins lessens my concern with clay
use as pottery but heightens it for some other uses like chicken feed or
applications where the clay is not adequately heat processed like paper
coatings (where the dioxin binding can be compromised by drying and organic
additives). Each case has its own special considerations.
Not that it matters here, I am not an expert nor well read on this topic. I
am only somewhat knowledgeable in many connected aspects to this subject :
my degrees are in materials science and metallurgy, I am a chemistry
department faculty member, I have had a graduate course on paper manufacture
(decades ago). I am not an advocate of industry, but often find myself on
the fence where the environmentalists are concerned."
Nancy Galland replies:
Please forgive me if I have been defensive on this. I appreciate your
perspective - and there is nothing wrong with your English! I think what we
are expressing is the the difference between a "lay" person who has
dedicated her adult life to producing organic food for a living (23 years
-I am no youngster) and fighting industry for a cleaner environment, and a
scientist who will abide the long and (in my opinion) unending process of
scientific proof. When data is finally available,it will be challenged by
industry. Much of the research is often supported by money from industry.
Industry plays a strong hand in regulating itself in this country. If my
faith in the way science has protected us from industrial/chemical
contamination is a bit thin, it is not without some basis.
Monona Rossol, who writes books about the toxic materials used in the arts
and and how to protect oneself, has warned us that it will not be
surprising if the clay mines will not allow the data to be released at all.
I share her doubts; experience has taught me this, not mere defensiveness.
So I start from a deep skepticism that science and industry will be of much
help to me to sort this out in time for me to protect myself adequately.
Our bodies are very good at filtering out toxins - some bodies do a better
job than others. We make our choices, as you point out, in this "chemical
soup" we operate in. For example, I heat with the renewable resource wood
instead of oil or propane but burning just about anything produces dioxins.
We all make compromises. It is a matter of choosing what you feel most
comfortable within those compromises.
At some point our bodies become saturated and they can no longer filter
well. Dioxin is one of those substances proven to accumulate faster than it
can be eliminated. As a woman, my breast tissues are most likely high in
dioxins.
I am not at all comfortable with dioxins, and when I can avoid them, I
will. I changed my clay to one that does not have ball clay. That doesn't
mean it is free of dioxins. It only means that as far as I can know, with
the information available to me, it is a safer bet. I am urging others to
do this also. And to ask the clay suppliers to come up with a substitute
for ball clay. When we get the answers, we can use them. Right now all we
can use is our common sense. Mine tells me to avoid what toxins I can, when
I can. Stay out of harm's way. Enough said. NG
Norman van der Sluys on mon 23 oct 00
Hi Nancy,
This is the first post in this thread to mention two qruestions I found most
pertinent. Having spent much time trying to live a "clean" life environmentally. I
appreciate your point of view. I remember years ago reading that the burning of
wood was likely to be contributing to the dioxin burden. I doubt that it would be
practical to eliminate combustion entirely as af human activity, especially in
Michigan! While I realize that animal feed might be considered off-topic, I 'm
surprised nobody has exclaimed about the use of ball clay for this purpose. Maybe I
was doing something wrong in raising my livestock without it all those years!
I do think we need to be careful in condemning a material on the basis of a label
such as "ball clay" (which seeems to mean "that plastic stuff we dig up in blocks
or balls", without more concrete evidence that all "ball clays" contain dioxins.
"Dioxins" is also a very broad term, and we need more information about which of
these compounds are present and what the mechanisms of damage to the body might
be. Without the link between exposure and causation, statistical information is
limited in its usefulness can actually lead us astray in our quest for a prudent
course of action. I would hate to switch to a formula using fireclay instead of
ballclay only to increase my exposure.
Nancy Galland wrote:
> Dr. Wm. Kaukler wrote:(exerpted)
>
> I have yet to hear that the origin of the dioxin is not natural. If it is
> natural, then the danger has been present since year one (of man on earth).
> The apparent affinity for dioxins lessens my concern with clay
> use as pottery but heightens it for some other uses like chicken feed or
> applications where the clay is not adequately heat processed like paper
> coatings . . . .
Nancy Galland wrote:
>
> We make our choices, as you point out, in this "chemical
> soup" we operate in. For example, I heat with the renewable resource wood
> instead of oil or propane but burning just about anything produces dioxins.
>
--
Norman van der Sluys
by the shore of Lake Michigan
Numo Jaeger & Michael Miller on mon 23 oct 00
My understanding about dioxin is that it is a by product of papermils. Are
there any papermils nearby the ball clay mining sites that may be dumping
on the site.
Clay is a great filter to clean water.
-Numo
| |
|
