From:
Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject:
Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical exposure and toxicity
Date:
Jan 28, 2022 20:32 UTC
Reply-To:
Monona Rossol
In-Reply-To:
[DCHAS-L] Chemical exposure and toxicity
Thanks David. That coupled with the CHEM CATS claim that they have over 32 million chemicals with different CAS numbers available right now for catalog purchase, and you have to realize this is totally out of control.
Monona
-----Original Message-----
From: David C. Finster <dfinster**At_Symbol_Here**WITTENBERG.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU
Sent: Fri, Jan 28, 2022 2:30 pm
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Chemical exposure and toxicity
Listers,
I wish to assess the veracity of the statement: "There are many tens of thousands of chemicals in use, but only a small percentage have been tested for toxicity. "
Some numbers: The National Toxicology Program (NTP) states (in 2012) "More than 80,000 chemicals are registered for use in the United States.: (
National
Toxicology Program | HHS | Catalog of Environmental Programs 2012 (epa.gov)), and that about 2000 more are introduced each year. The American Chemistry Council challenges this number and says it should be
closer to 38,304 due to duplication and inclusion of chemicals no longer being used. (Debunking the Myths: Are there really 84,000 chemicals? (chemicalsafetyfacts.org))
Further they suggest that the EPA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) is a better measure and that lists "only" 8707 chemicals.
With regard to "toxicity" the IARC has listed 121 chemicals as known carcinogens (although this, of course, is not the only form of "toxicity" that affect humans.) RTECS (
What
is the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances? - Definition from Safeopedia ) tallies 150,000 chemicals in the list formerly known as the "Toxic Substances List". Their methodology suggests that some "toxicity" testing has occurred the chemical
on this list but there is no connection to the NTP list.
Using these numbers in various combinations, one could conclude that the phrase "small percentage" is the original quote above is "pretty fair" or "entirely unfair". Complex situations often should not be reduced to a single statement
and, at the very least, if the original quote is accurate it should be accompanied by some explanations.
I would welcome from the group some insights about a "fair" statement about "chemical exposure" and the degree to which we have determined the toxicity within that group.
I will end with Monona's title from her book:
Pick Your Poison: How Our Mad Dash to Chemical Utopia is Making Lab Rats of Us All.
Dave
