Demystify: 

>> 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. "
>
My reaction to that statement is that it is too broad to be considered a technical statement backed up by data; rather it is a statement of perception. Perception varies in space, time and by stakeholder as indicated by your citations. I would also suggest that the term "toxicity" like "flammability" has an exposure scenario built into it.

For example, we have a pretty good idea of the toxic impacts of ethanol over a variety of exposure scenarios, but many fewer exposure scenarios for plutonium. Is there a way to fairly compare those data sets? Perhaps, given a specific audience at a specific time and place (e.g. citizens deciding whether to site a brewery or a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in their neighborhood). However, assessing this may better serve as an opportunity to explore the nature of uncertainty in scientific discussions by applying some error bars to the statement, such as you have done. That would be my approach to making a veracious statement about this situation.

Thanks for asking another good question to chew on!

- Ralph

Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
ralph**At_Symbol_Here**rstuartcih.org

---
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

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post