From: <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060914.CHEMICALS14 /TPStory/Environment>Toronto Globe and Mail, Sept. 14, 2006 <http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_canada_will_study_4000_chemicals .060914.htm>
Risk Of 4,000 Everyday Chemicals To Be Studied By Martin Mittelstaedt, Environment Reporter After a massive investigation spanning seven years, federal scientists [in Canada] have determined that a staggering total of about 4,000 chemicals used in Canada pose enough of a risk to human health or wildlife that they need to be subjected to in-depth safety assessments. Staff at Environment Canada and Health Canada are planning to give the list of chemicals to their respective ministers later today, the beginning of what is expected to be the biggest effort ever undertaken in the country to deal with potentially harmful substances used in everything from pop bottles and lip balm to household cleaners and plastic baby bottles. All 4,000 chemicals will be studied, but the ministers will decide which ones pose the greatest threat and should be studied first. They will also decide whether any regulations are needed to control those substances. Federal officials expect to make public the chemicals they're worried about in the next few weeks, along with a plan for dealing with the substances. But they're already saying they have conducted the most comprehensive review ever undertaken in the world of potentially harmful compounds in widespread commercial use. "We're actually quite proud of what we've done here. We are the first country in the world that has done a systematic review of all of the chemicals in use," said Paul Glover, Health Canada's director-general of safe environment programs. Mr. Glover said the government assessed the chemicals because of worries they might be factors contributing to disease or illness. "Quite frankly, we think that that might be the case and that's why we've done this work," he said in an interview. Recent scientific research has cited some widely used chemicals that weren't originally assessed for possibly causing cancer, declining sperm counts, attention-deficit disorders and other ailments. Many of the chemicals to be subjected to assessments are contained in products virtually all Canadians come into contact with, while others are used extensively by industry in manufacturing, where workers face possible exposures and factory emissions could contaminate the environment. Industry officials and environmentalists have worked closely with the government in compiling the list of suspect chemicals. This list includes about 4,000 compounds needing review, although federal officials refused to confirm that number yesterday. Some of the chemicals have been used extensively in consumer products, including polyethylene terephthalate, a building block for pop bottles; styrene, a component in many plastics; toluene, a solvent used in household cleaning products; and bisphenol-A, used to make dental sealants. "These toxic chemicals are found in many aspects of our lives, everything from personal-care products, cooking pots and pans, electronics, furniture, clothing," said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, a conservation think tank based in Toronto. Some of those who have seen the list are calling for quick government action to limit use of the questionable substances. Federal law gives Ottawa the power to ban or place restrictions on the use of compounds deemed harmful. "These chemicals are the worst of the worst," said Fe de Leon, a researcher at the Canadian Environmental Law Association. "There has to be comprehensive regulatory action, not just on a handful of the chemicals [but] all 4,000." The chemicals selected for review were in commercial use before Canada adopted its first comprehensive pollution legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, in 1988. At that time, there were 23,000 substances in use exempted from safety study because federal regulators decided to concentrate on screening new chemicals, of which there are about 800 introduced a year, rather than deal with the problems posed by substances already on the market. But recently, there has been an international effort to come to grips with the possible health consequences of the widespread use of these inadequately assessed chemicals. In Europe, a review of the safety of grandfathered chemicals is under way. The exemption in Canada meant that tens of thousands of chemicals have been legally used for years, despite never having been formally assessed -- or having been poorly assessed -- for the risks they might pose to either human health or to the environment. The decision, made years ago, by the government to permit use of these older chemicals angered some environmentalists because it may have exposed Canadians to needless health risks. "They've completely failed" because they've allowed nearly two decades of use of the chemicals, said Mr. Smith, whose group conducted tests that found many Canadians have residues of harmful chemicals in their bodies. To try to close this regulatory gap, a group of scientists from both Health Canada and Environment Canada spent the seven years jointly poring over the long list of grandfathered chemicals. In selecting those in need of further study, authorities looked at each of the exempted chemicals and picked some because they are in such widespread usage that almost everyone in the country is likely to be exposed. As well, they've also screened the list for those chemicals that are "inherently toxic," the government's term for substances that pose health threats to humans or wildlife, while also possessing the dangerous attributes of accumulating in living things and being resistant to natural breakdown into less harmful substances. ------- >G'day all > > >Hi Joe, > > > >You are absolutely right in suggesting that there are problems with mercury > >and other toxins that we are exposed to but todays society presents them as > >a minor problem and therefore we should not worry about them. > >Actully new studies suggest that there are approximately 100,000 toxic > >chemicals that we are exposed to that were unknown to our grand parents. It > >sometimes takes many years before health problems show up from these toxins. > >The average food cart at the super market contains 60 to 80 toxic chemicals. > > From a previous message: > > >>Moreover, processing enhances shelf life and limits microbial toxins. > >>See the references below for some background. > > > >Processing, or the kind of processing you're talking about, might > >"help" to instil some sort of keepability in the thoroughly > >denatured industrialized crap some people call food (emotional? - > >yes! AND true!) but it'd be more accurate to call it embalming than > >"life". > > > >More than 5,000 additives are used in food processing, the average > >consumer eats the equivalent of 13 aspirin-sized tablets per day of > >food additives. Many of them are naturally occurring substances, but > >such rates of consumption are in no way "natural". All perfectly > >safe of course, they've all had the same safety tests as thalidomide > >did. Um, except that, as Thor said, nothing is known about their > >synergistic effects. For instance, some are safe when taken > >individually, but can pair up with other "safe" substances to form > >co-carcinogens. > > > >The following is about the environment, not the human body, but it applies: > > > > >We do not and can not test for all the combinations of toxic > >synthetic chemicals and how they affect the environment. Example: > >The herbicide Dicamba is characterized as "slightly toxic" or > >"practically nontoxic" to fish. It has been found that this is > >widely variable. If Dicamba is absorbed by vermiculite (a common > >ingredient in potting soils) its toxicity increases by 30 times. No > >effects were observed on yearling coho salmon at 100 ppm. However, > >it has now been found that doses as small as 0.25 ppm can kill coho > >salmon as they migrate from seawater to fresh water for spawning. > > > > > >Researchers at the University of Florida and Tulane University > >have found that endosulfan, toxaphene, dieldrin and chlordane when > >tested by themselves had a weak estrogen response. However, when > >combine the response increased dramatically. For example when > >endosulfan and dieldrin were combined the estrogenic potency > >increased up to 1,600 times over the individual chemicals! Reported > >in Journal Science, National Wildlife Oct./Nov. 1996. > > > > > >Research with mice found that combinations of herbicides such as > >atrazine and aldicarb and fertilizers such as nitrate can alter > >thyroid hormones, suppress immune systems and affect nervous system > >functions, resulting in increased aggressive behavior among the > >young mice. This University of Wisconsin study headed by > >toxicologist Dr. Warren Porter was published in the mid-March issue > >of Toxicology and Industrial Health, 2002. > > > >A further awkwardness is that many of these chemicals were tested in > >the 1970s and early 80s by a US company called Industrial Biotests. > >Strangely, it's now quite hard to find information on Industrial > >Biotests. Anyway, the company was visited unexpectedly by tax > >inspectors suspecting tax evasion, but what they found instead was > >evidence of widespread falsification of test data. That wasn't their > >remit, so they left and called the feds. When the feds arrived it > >was to find the directors furiously shredding the evidence, most of > >which was destroyed. But not all. They were convicted, but in a very > >odd decision, considering the record of the chemical industry (and > >subsequent such cases), the court ruled that there was no reason to > >suspect that the chemical companies which had sent their chemicals > >to IBT for safety testing (virtually all of them) had any knowledge > >of the falsification. Why then were the tests being falsified? It > >was also ruled that the test results would be allowed to stand for > >those chemicals for which the records had been destroyed. > > > >With safety like that, who needs risks? > >:-( > >Best > >Keith > > > >Terry Dyck > > > > > > >From: Joe Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org > > >To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org > > >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra > > >Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:31:33 -0500 > > > > > >Ok this is the part I don't get. You keep saying there in a >massive cohort > > >of subjects walking around with amalgams and how come we aren't seeing a > > >problem, and I'm telling you there's a massive cohort of subjects and we > > >are seeing problems. I can't prove it is the amalgam and you can't prove > > >it's not. And it has nothing to do with a coverup or conspiracy by the > > >medical association cause they don't know for sure either.( but there is > > >the precautionary principle right?) At the time amalgams were first used > > >they seemed like a wonderful solution. Trans fat was going to be the > > >solution to a problem as well remember? All I'm saying is that >one day when > > >you say to yourself 'crap, I just found out that I should wear gloves when > > >I change the engine oil on my car cause there's stuff in there that can > > >harm me if I get it on my skin' then you wear gloves right? You don't go > > >on getting motor oil all over your hands. But maybe if you're an > > >unscrupulous garage owner you don't bother to tell your >mechanics about the > > >issue because then you have to do something for them and it might cut into > > >your profits. Unfortunately I'm just as skeptical of UV cure epoxies as I > > >am now of the amalgam I have in my head. Epoxy is the new wonderful > > >solution but it has even less of a track record. Gold is probably fine but > > >then I have to be careful next time I go to the third world walking around > > >with that gold flashing in my mouth. If I go porcelain my buds >will accuse > > >me of having a glass jaw and what can I say? Ahh you can't win. Stay away > > >from candy kiddies! > > > > > >Joe > > > > > >robert and benita rabello wrote: > > > > > >>Joe Street wrote: > > >> > > >>>Hi Robert; > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Yeah I got your point. My point was that people are making claims ( > > >>>please for the moment don't pull a 'show me the data' .... just for > > >>>argument's sake allow me this for a moment) they are making claims that > > >>>just maybe a large upswing in the occurrance of certain diseases may be > > >>>related to long term effects of low level exposure to certain toxins, > > >>>mercury being one of the suspects. Sure it's complicated by rising > > >>>levels of all kinds of unhealthy things in trace concentrations in our > > >>>environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink, the food supply. > > >> > > >> > > >> The overall impact of environmental insults is very difficult to > > >>determine. As Keith pointed out, the SYNERGY of these chemicals may be > > >>related to a host of human ills, and our methods for identifying cause / > > >>effect relationships remains weak in many cases. But saying a negative > > >>correlation exists simply because I THINK it exists smacks of > > >>superstition. > > >> > > >> I grew up in Los Angeles during the 1960's, and I remember how > > >>TERRIBLE the air was back then. It burned my eyes and made me short of > > >>breath. It killed the trees in the Angeles National Forest and caused > > >>serious trouble for kids and elderly folk with asthma. Yet the auto > > >>makers refused to accept the correlation between car exhaust and smog. > > >>There were scientific studies and public hearings, court cases and a > > >>flurry of media attention before the state finally FORCED auto makers to > > >>address the issue. > > >> > > >> Without evidence, however, nothing would have changed. > > >> > > >> The same type of problem exists on your end of the continent with > > >>respect to pollution from factories and refineries. We have a huge > > >>backlog of investigating to do with respect to the garbage we're putting > > >>into our air, water, food and environment. But labeling a whole host of > > >>health problems on dental fillings serves no purpose but to make concerns > > >>over environmental problems sound like the rantings of >Inquisitors hunting > > >>witches. > > >> > > >>> Maybe that's the big picture here. Check with fisheries on the > > >>>guidelines for those fish you are pulling out of the Fraser for example. > > >>>So maybe the body of evidence is massive and right there in front of us. > > >>>Questionmark. > > >>>Check out what this SFU paper has to say about mercury levels in the > > >>>Fraser watershed and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) >the ones that > > >>>can slip into your DNA helix and have fun with your cellular > > >>>reproduction. > > >>> > > >>>http://www.rem.sfu.ca/FRAP/aquae.pdf > > >> > > >> > > >> Ugh! Now I'm not going to be able sleep tonight! (insert sarcastic > > >>tone) Thanks a lot, Joe . . . : - ) > > >> > > >> Adult salmon don't eat on their way back to spawn, but their > > >>offspring are certainly exposed to toxins in the water as they grow and > > >>move out to the sea. Moreover, the problem of biomagnification ensures > > >>that whatever it is we're dumping into the air and water will >come back to > > >>haunt us in our food. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>All of these things play a role I am certain but the real world is not a > > >>>closed carefully controlled lab environment so what can be said in a > > >>>scientific manner? > > >> > > >> > > >> Indeed, it's not. That's one reason to avoid putting unnatural > > >>substances into the environment, or increasing the concentrations of > > >>substances known to cause us harm. > > >> > > >>> I am reminded of post docs here in my lab who run plasma processes > > >>>that have several variables that are wildly out of control and >while they > > >>>tweak one of those variables and they get one device on their wafer out > > >>>of a hundred at the end which has a desireable characteristic they then > > >>>assume it is due to their matrix of values for this one variable and not > > >>>to some chance confluence of uncontrolled parameters. They realize it > > >>>later ( after they have published) that they have the devils own time > > >>>trying to reproduce it! ROFL. Are you going to put a bunch of humans in > > >>>a cage and control everything they are exposed to over their lifetime? > > >>>When you hear that something you have been eating, drinking, or smoking > > >>>is potentially harmful do you stop consuming it, or do you wait to get > > >>>sick so you have your own personal data? How fanatic do you need to be > > >>>in your adherence to the dogma of the church of reason? > > >> > > >> > > >> Ah, but I've been attending that church for so long, it's habitual > > >>now! It's very hard to escape the influence of education and >environment. > > >> > > >>(impact of mercury exposure) > > >> > > >>>ISOLATED? No, not beyond a reasonable doubt, not out here in the real, > > >>>complicated world. Maybe in a 50 year lab experiment with real human > > >>>subjects, or maybe with rats that have an 80 year life >expectancy if they > > >>>existed. > > >> > > >> > > >> We've got several generations of human beings exposed to mercury > > >>amalgams now. It's a HUGE population sample. If there was a direct, > > >>causal relationship between amalgams and health problems, it should be > > >>showing up by this point. I simply don't buy the conspiracy theory that > > >>the dental associations are trying to cover up some heinous truth and > > >>suppress data concerning amalgam fillings. There are other >materials used > > >>to fill holes in teeth, including porcelain and gold, which are >inert, and > > >>are used worldwide. The reason dentists fill holes with amalgam is that > > >>it's easy to work with, it's less expensive than gold, and (like real > > >>tooth material) it has a certain amount of "give", which is not true of > > >>porcelain. > > >> > > >>>But see my comments above. What is isolated in the real world? Read up > > >>>on the mental health effects of exposure to mercury vapour. Is there a > > >>>correlation? Perhaps? Ever heard the expression "mad as a hatter"? Felt > > >>>hats used to be made with mercury. Is contemplating suicide a form of > > >>>madness? > > >> > > >> > > >> Next time my neighbors complain that I'm crazy, I'll tell them it's > > >>because of my amalgam fillings! : - ) > > >> > > >> > > >>robert luis rabello > > >>"The Edge of Justice" > > >>Adventure for Your Mind > > >>http://www.newadventure.ca > > >> > > >>Ranger Supercharger Project Page > > >>http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ > > >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
