Thanks, Monona, for saying this. Back when I was regularly attending IH conferences in the States I met many, many top-notch people working for the EPA who had
a lot of integrity, really knew their stuff and were committed to doing the right thing. It must be really hard for them to digest the messages currently coming from their organization.
We had a similar issue here in Canada where the previous government censored the scientists because they didn't like what they were saying about climate science.
That, and a few other factors, cost them the election and thankfully our scientists are able to speak freely again.
W.
Wayne Wood | Director, Environmental Health and Safety -
Directeur, Sante´,
securite´ et environnement|
McGill University | 3610 rue McTavish Street, 4th floor | Montreal, Quebec, Canada,
H3A 1Y2 | Tel: (514) 398-2391
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 9:02 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced
The EPA has been out of control for years and needs to be reformed so that they can continue to achieve their mission without hysteria from the press.
I just couldn't let this pass. It is never "the EPA" that is out of control. Take some EPA employees to lunch. You will find that 90% of the employees in EPA
are people like you and me, people just trying to do a job. What needs to be controlled is the politicians in power and the industries that own them.
When the wheels came off EPA's bus after the 9/11 building collapse, it was only the head of EPA, Whitman, who told people the air was safe as her handlers demanded.
The individual EPA workers shook their heads in disbelief and often told us the truth off the record. And I happen to be a long-time friend of one of the whistleblower employees to went through hell trying to let people know the truth.
The curse of this representative republic is we get exactly what we vote for.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zack Mansdorf <mansdorfz**At_Symbol_Here**BELLSOUTH.NET>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Thu, Feb 28, 2019 5:30 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced
This is total junk science. The entire field of industrial hygiene is based on the dose response model. To assume that any "toxic" has a zero threshold is crazy.
The best example is the trace minerals that are necessary to support human life. My morning dose of caffeine is heart healthy but probably carcinogenic just like the alcohol in my red wine. Paracelsus said way back in the late 1400's that "É"Everything
is a poison, nothing is a poison. It is the dose that makes the poison"
The point is that we do need to regulate air pollutants in a sensible manner that considers cost/benefit. The EPA has been out of control for years and needs to
be reformed so that they can continue to achieve their mission without hysteria from the press.
To verify the actual toxicity of various pollutants/particulates, we need to have the data on human clinical trials, not on other species According to recent UNO report, 4.2 million
deaths occur each year due to air pollution. Also, how we are going to measure low and high pollution.
This will be a good puzzle for Dr. Alan Hall, a toxicologist to interpret reported toxicological data published in peer review journals about some pollution is good for humans.
The title of this LA Times article speaks for itself. Interesting to hear what "mainstream" toxicologists have to say on this.
======================================================
Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at
membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
