Nancy Galland on fri 20 oct 00
Monona - thanks for hanging in on the dioxin thread.(and thanks for the
articles - got 'em)
Could you please tell us what you meant in lay terms in this statement -
what is the difference between the two dioxins? Why is it amazing?
"Only a few things have been tested and testing is going to take
longer since EPA thinks now the samples should be testing for all the dioxin
congeners. This is time-consuming and expensive. But EPA has a good reason,
which is that the classic 2,3,7,8-TCDD is not the dominant dioxin in some of
the samples they tested. In the new set of samples, 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
(pentachlorodibenzodioxin) was the primary dioxin congener. And there some
other odd ones up high on the list, too. That's just amazing to me."
>From what I understand albeit imperfectly, there are many different kinds
of dioxins and dioxin-like compounds like furans and PCB's. I have read
that it is important to measure all such substances when they are found in
something because they increase the toxicity in combination with each
other. A Toxic Equivalency is a figure that describes the toxicity of the
totality of dioxins and furans and PCB's in any substance, based on the
most toxic form of dioxin, the 2,3,7,8,-TCDD.
So are you saying that the EPA is in the process of determining the Toxic
Equivalency in the ball clay samples? If I understand this correclty, is
that so the public health risk can be more clearly assessed?
I am still wondering why "they" don't know how much dioxin can be absorbed
through dermal contact. Ball Clay has been removed from animal feed , but
humans can keep right on using it, absorbing dioxins through their skin,
inhaling the fumes and dust, with no more than a "we don't know". How good
is that?
And Monona, thanks for putting it out there that we will be fighting the
industrial mining companies for the truth about all this. Or was it them
fighting us? "The companies and mines that sell the stuff will fight like
hell to keep the data out of your hands."
Nancy G.
| |
|
