This discussion reminds me of the current conversation about oversight of DOE. The DOE has recently proposed order 140.1 which would significantly limit the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) oversight of the DOE and their contractors. This in light of many employee and public health issues that have occurred. Seems to me that we need more of these independent safety boards like the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) & DNFSB and not less.
I have to agree with Zack on this issue and we can all point to specific instances where something not right happened.. How about the EPA rushing thru rules in the last few weeks of the Obama administration without review or how about the mine flood with arsenic where no one at EPA was accountable and on and on from both scientific and political positions. We need the proper analysis of environmental problems with appropriate solutions not overboard either way with too much or not enough action. I too know several people at the EPA with whom I have worked with over the years and they are very good at what they do but oversight is needed.--- 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
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> on behalf of Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a disputed claim Trump's EPA has embracedThe 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-------- 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
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=E2=80™s that "-"Everything is a poison, nothing is a poison. It is the dose that makes the poison"I could go on but won't.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.ZackThank you Rob!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.Tilak
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> on behalf of ILPI Support <info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:03:40 PM
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you =E2=80" a disputed claim Trump's EPA has embracedThe title of this LA Times article speaks for itself. Interesting to hear what "mainstream" toxicologists have to say on this.Rob Toreki======================================================Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand namesyou know and trust. Visit us at http://www.SafetyEmporium.comesales**At_Symbol_Here**safetyemporium.com or toll-free: (866) 326-5412Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post