ACTSNYC@CS.COM on wed 20 dec 00
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:20:41 -0800
> From: Earl Brunner
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: toxicity issues (fwd)
>
> Monona,
> Your advice here was good, I only had one comment of observation. I
> believe that one of the reasons we see so much cancer now is three fold.
> You have addressed possible environmental or exposure issues. A second
> reason I think is because we are living longer. The third reason I
> think is related to the longer life span. We have done away with or
> reduced many of the things that previously impacted mortality figures. <
You are correct
I concentrate on the environmental aspects because that's what I do for a
living. But you are correct in saying that living longer has an effect. But
it is not as big a factor as we thought in the past. It is the childhood to
middle years cancers that are on the increase.
You also are right in pointing out that none of us are getting out of here
alive. But if we want to live long and still have all our marbles at the
end, we need to make a lot of small wise choices along the way.
Monona Rossol
ACTS
181 Thompson St., #23
NYC NY 10012-2586 212/777-0062
ACTSNYC@cs.com
answering:
> Earl Brunner
> http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
> mailto:bruec@anv.net
>
ACTSNYC@CS.COM on wed 20 dec 00
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:17:35 -0800
> From: primalmommy@IVILLAGE.COM
> Reply-To: Ceramic Arts Discussion List
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: toxicity issues
> I spend most of my waking hours wanting to make pots and more pots, but
> frankly, the more i read about dioxins and toxins and leaching on clayart,
> the more I wonder if I should quit pottery now before I'm a full fledged
> potter and hooked for life.
>
> It's hard to know what (or who) to believe. My tendency is to assume the
> worst and wait for research to catch up and confirm my suspicions.
>
> Just in my lifetime, there have been a dozen examples: my mother (in the
> early 60s) believed great lakes fish was healthy food, and I no doubt got
> lots of lake Erie's PCBs and mercury in utero. (The surgeon general now
says
> nobody of childbearing age or younger should eat great lakes fish.) She
> worked as an x-ray tech back when they used to x-ray pregnant women's
bellies,
> and shoe stores had x-ray machines for kids to stick their feet in just
for
> fun. The doc was down to 3 fingers from holding babies under the machine,
but
> everyone said it was safe. So was the DES my mom was given during
pregnancy.
> Her family farmed in the shadow of Dow Chemical, where my grandpa spend 35
> years making several pesticides now internationally banned. We all drank
milk
> from the PCB tainted cows later buried in mass graves in michigan. oops.
>
> Dad had a summer job spraying migrant camps (and workers) with DDT to kill
> lice. As a kid he made spending money by melting scrap lead to make duck
> decoy weights in his mother's muffin tins. Nobody thought any of this was
a
> bad idea. Lead paint on my crib, asbestos in my school, even the talc in
baby
> powder was a bad idea. Add to the list the recreational substance abuse of
my
> college years; (I thought i was bulletproof and immortal). Now they link
> nitrates in hotdogs to childhood leukemia, prostate cancer to disposable
> diapers, dioxins in tampons to cervical cancers, the list is endless and
> terrifying. Remember playing with the balls of mercury from broken
> thermometers?
>
> There is a point, and a question, here. I am aware that there is no way to
> live without risk in the modern world. On the other hand, I am unwilling to
> accept logic that goes, "I'm still alive so (whatever toxin) must be OK." I
> realize that scientifically it's impossible to PROVE anything, even that
> smoking cigarettes causes cancer. <
You are right that it is usually impossible to prove an individual cancer is
from a particular exposure, but in the aggregate, there is some pretty good
data. Experts argue about the exact percentages of cancers that come from
environmental exposures, but they all agree that the amounts are large.
The way I look at it collectively is by considering the latest National
Cancer Institute Statistics for the U. S: One woman in every three, and one
man in every two, will get a diagnosis of cancer in their lifetimes. Some of
these cancers will be skin cancers that can be easily dealt with or prostate
cancers which can be managed, and so on. But the numbers of people getting
cancer now are staggering. And the numbers are in part a collective
expression of all the examples you gave of past risk factors.
And yet, there are always the George Burns' of the world who can drink a
fifth of gin and smoke a dozen cigars a day and live to 100. So the argument
that there is no risk because you are OK, as you pointed out, is not
statistically a good one.
And I am talking only about cancer. When you look at the data associating
Parkinson's disease with solvents, lead, and other neurotoxins, you can see
that these are connected as well. And it may be that other types of brain
damage is similarly associated with environmental exposures. Is this the
reason that in the US, an estimated 50% of people at age 80 have significant
dementia? It might well be.
As for giving up pottery---you have to do something. Giving it up in favor
of some other activity might be like the man who was so smart that he
correctly predicted the coming of World War II. He decided to get away from
all the dangers by moving to an island--called Okinawa.
Instead of giving up on pottery, allocate sufficient funds to safety and time
study the options and precuations. If you properly vent the kiln, you don't
have to worry about kiln emissions. If you mix glazes in a local exhaust
system, you don't inhale the chemicals.
It costs to work safely. You need to buy the equipment and take the time
maintain it. It also takes time to keep the pottery spotless, change clothes
and shoes before leaving the pottery, and so on.
> But here's what I'd love to have: a list of
> maybe the top ten REALLY BAD GUYS in pottery. Glaze ingredients, kiln
fumes,
> I'm learning a lot just reading clayart but would like at least know what
> dangerous elements everybody agrees on. <
That's why I spend so much energy and time doing OSHA hazard communication
training and teaching courses on art safety. Everyone can't agree on the 10
bad guys--because each potter uses different things and has different risk
factors.
I don't know where you learned about pottery, but schools should be teaching
this in enough depth that graduates understand the risks and how to set up
their own studios safely. A college graduate should know enough about the
hazards of their chosen profession to be able to make their own decisions
based on risk assessment. Sounds hard--but really isn't.
Since you are out of school, you will need to collect information and do some
self-education. Safety is not something you can solve with some
conversations on Clayart and looking for a list of the top 10 bad guys.
Monona Rossol
ACTS
181 Thompson St., #23
NYC NY 10012-2586 212/777-0062
ACTSNYC@cs.com
PS: One other thing you asked worried me. This was:
> should those little kids at
> the art camp be painting with underglazes and clear, then running off to
the
> next project without washing their hands? <
Now that's REALLY dangerous from two points of view--SMALL toxic exposures
and BIG bad habits. This is the age at which there should be no compromise
and good habits should be instilled. And if the clear is lead, there is no
excuse whatever for leaving your kid there for a minute.
Monona
Earl Brunner on wed 20 dec 00
Monona,
Your advice here was good, I only had one comment of observation. I
believe that one of the reasons we see so much cancer now is three fold.
You have addressed possible environmental or exposure issues. A second
reason I think is because we are living longer. The third reason I
think is related to the longer life span. We have done away with or
reduced many of the things that previously impacted mortality figures.
If you reduce the number one killer by focusing on it, then the number 2
killer takes it's place as the number one killer, not that the number
two killer has gotten any more prevalent, just that it now is taking up
a larger percentage of the pie so to speak.
Lets face it death is universal. It will get all of us sooner or later.
Be as cautious as we can, be as responsible as we can, be as careful
as we can and finally, die with dignity.
ACTSNYC@CS.COM wrote:
> The way I look at it collectively is by considering the latest National
> Cancer Institute Statistics for the U. S: One woman in every three, and one
> man in every two, will get a diagnosis of cancer in their lifetimes. Some of
> these cancers will be skin cancers that can be easily dealt with or prostate
> cancers which can be managed, and so on. But the numbers of people getting
> cancer now are staggering. And the numbers are in part a collective
> expression of all the examples you gave of past risk factors.
>
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
| |
|
