Ray Aldridge on thu 26 aug 99
Thought you all might find this interesting.
I came across this piece while looking for cases of fatal acute lead
poisoning, as mel requested. By Scott Field, this story appeared in the
March 97 Environmental Health Perspectives, and our own Monona is quoted at
length. She sounds quite civil, and I disagree with nothing she says. To
make sure that I have not corrupted the context of the following passage,
read the whole piece at:
http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1997/105-3/focus.html
Here's an excerpt:
"Typically, a potter preparing a glaze will scoop powdered glaze
components--primarily silica and a flux, such as lead or barium, plus about
5% by weight of a metal oxide to provide color--out of their containers to
mix with water, producing a slurry that is brushed onto the piece before
firing it. Because the colorants are finely ground, they become airborne
easily and pose an inhalation risk. Potters also run the risk of silicosis
from inhaling the silica that forms the bulk of the glaze. But the greatest
risk to many potters may be lead poisoning from handling lead and inhaling
fumes while firing lead glazes. In England 100 years
ago, more than 400 cases of lead poisoning were reported among potters.
Although more careful housekeeping and the introduction of lead substitutes
reduced the incidence of lead poisoning in commercial facilities,
many fine artists continue to use lead glazes in less than pristine
settings, risking exposure to themselves and their families."
How much exaggeration, slanted data selection, oversimplification and
irrelevance do you see in this passage? Folks, this is what some people
think you're doing, and this is what I meant when I referred to
irresponsible bureaucratic turf-building. (I should make it clear that
Monona had nothing to do with this passage, so far as I could tell.)
Ray
| |
|
