ACTSNYC@CS.COM on wed 20 dec 00
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:00:03 -0800
> From: pedresel
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: lithium in glazes -- allowable limits
>
> IMO there are a number of reasons the allowable limits tend to keep
> going down. Ron is correct that in many instances it is because we are
> finding out more about problems and risks through doing research on more
> substances. But I think there are other reasons which are not based on
> science in some instances.
>
> People tend to be willing to make changes to be more cautious, based on
> incomplete evidence but unwilling to make changes to be less cautious
> because new evidence shows things may not be quite so bad. In some
> cases, there are political agendas and what appears to be a bit of
> fanatacism.
>
> For example, the US EPA just promulgated regulations for radionuclides
> in drinking water. They set limits for many radionuclides based on a
> dose of 4 mrem/yr (under an assumed scenario of the amount ingested).
> However, they did not follow through on an original proposal on how to
> calculate the 4 mrem dose i.e. what concentration would give that dose.
> In the past the EPA had been using calculations made in the early
> 1960s. The proposed standard was to use more current calculations -
> based on more recent science and consensus factors agreed on
> internationally. <
No. They can consider foreign research, but in this case they cannot
consider international consensus or standards. The major source on which EPA
relied was the 1999 Federal Guidance Report-13 "Cancer Risk Coefficients for
Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides."
And the major reason for abandoning the zero tolerance policy for cancer
causing substances in food and water was interagency fallout from the
revokation of the Delaney Clause.
> Some in the EPA argued that, for carcinogens, no risk
> was acceptable so they should never raise standards even if new science
> showed the risks were much less than originally believed. They would
> lower standards based on new data, however. <
> So I think that quite often the regulators don't have the courage to
> relax standards when warranted and don't really have the interest in
> pursuing those situations. <
I think you are probably very knowledgable about these matters, but you have
somehow given regulators more power than they have. When the Delaney Clause
was revoked--and that was by legislation, not regulation--EPA and FDA had to
change their rationale and they did. They had no choice.
Regulators don't get to set policy. They must work within it. And
we--through our elected representatives--tell the regulators what that policy
is.
>
> BTW: The uranium standard in drinking water was set at 30 ug/L.
For those people who have my publication on ceramic ware hazards, that means
the chart on page 6 is changed. The level for uranium is changed from the
1995 proposed MCL of 0.02mg/L to a Final Rule MCL of 0.03mg/L.
Also the reference for this MCL is now changed to: 65 FR 76707-76753,
December 7, 2000.
>
> Well I was going to rant about risk/benefit but this is far enough from
> clay and long enough anyway. Maybe next time. <
I'd like that. I'd also like to hear (privately) your opinion of NJ Govenor
Whitman as the new head of EPA. That's like hiring G.W.Bush to teach
elocution.
Monona Rossol
ACTS
181 Thompson St., #23
NYC NY 10012-2586 212/777-0062
ACTSNYC@cs.com
answering:
-- Evan in W. Richland WA
| |
|
