| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2019 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced Date: Monday, February 25, 2019 at 6:53:00 PM Author: Jim Tarr <jtarr**At_Symbol_Here**STONELIONS.COM> |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] polymer curing question Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:43:07 -0500 Author: Tadeusz Wysocki Jr. |
Follow neither Paracelsus or the hormesis theory. It is way past time to advance from the current U.S. legal presumption of innocence for chemicals to the Precautionary Principle.
Before endorsing the presence of even one air pollutant, industrial polluters are encouraged to provide the studies to establish the "good" dose for each chemical by the inhalation route for all ages and physical conditions of people. And while they are at it, the studies should consider all those additive, synergistic, and potentiating effects of the other chemicals already in the air. (Thanks Alan.)
Clean air has been documented to be associated with the lowest incidences of respiratory disease and other related effects. Unless you want to endorse the idea that dosing children with certain pollutants might be even better for them and that industrial polluters have the right to dose them all for their own good, this is total insanity.
And while we are looking to old Greeks for answers, how about considering Hippocrates?
Good gosh, what is going on here? I don't have children, but some of you do.
Monona Rossol
---
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
-----Original Message-----
From: bvanscoy <bvanscoy**At_Symbol_Here**TWC.COM>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2019 6:19 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced
The concept of occupational exposure limits (OELs) e.g., PELs, RELs, TLVs, MAKs, etc. apply to chemical and physical agent exposures, including radiation in an occupational setting. Biologicals were/are not included. The EPA took a broader approach concerning public exposure limits, and included some biological agents, e.g., coliform.
The OEL concept was based upon "the dose makes the poison" proposed by Paracelsus - not the "hormesis theory" of moderate to high doses being harmful while low doses have beneficial effects.
I follow the best scientifically available information and limits when performing my duties typically using the lowest OEL available from scientifically published peer-reviewed information following "the dose makes the poison" theory.
At this time, my opinion is that not enough equally repeated and valid scientific papers regarding the effects of hormesis have been published at this time. The first key point is, which is the most scientifically sound principle to follow at this point in time, Paracelsus or hormesis? The second key point is Dr. Alan Hall, M.D. may be prophetic in his statement of inadequate knowledge of additive or synergistic effects - and that should be considered regardless if the agent is chemical, physical or biological. Anyone who has worked in a contract toxicology lab can confirm that all testing is based upon a single agent (antagonist), while we've learned most additive and synergistic effects via occupational medicine.
Thoughts?
Bruce Van Scoy
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> On Behalf Of Laura Damon
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 12:56 PM
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
Does anyone have thoughts on Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation?
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Slavin
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 10:49 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
I can think of a couple of examples where something toxic at a high level is not necessarily toxic at a low level. Vitamin C and A are both toxic at high levels, but who wants to argue that there is no safe level of exposure or no benefit. Certain metals, such as selenium, are toxic at high levels, but may be beneficial at low levels. Isn't the concept of a low dose challenge to the immune system behind the theory of vaccines. The linear no-threshold approach does not fit every situation. That is not to say that every chemical or bacteria is beneficial, but neither is it true that every chemical or microbe is dangerous an any level, no matter how low. I think this article misrepresents and overgeneralizes the work of Dr. Calabrese.
Tom Slavin
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> On Behalf Of Alan Hall
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 4:22 PM
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
Et al,
Having been rather lll and in the hospital all last week, this is the first I've seen of this.
Pollution good for you?
What kind of idiotic, moronic nonsense are we up to now? Bringing to environmental regulatory science and public health clearly discredited principles that used to constitute homeopathic medicine?
As to politics, I am a medium conservative republican who didn't like either choice for President last time around and so chose the one I though was least awful.
Climate change is clearly real. What is not clear is how much anthropogenic activities contribute to it or if it was going to happen anyway (as it has many times in the past)..
A book on the econmoincs of climate change I reviewed for a journal a few years ago lead me to the conclusions that we can no longer afford all of us in terms of a sustainable environment, and that whether or not anthropogenic activites contribute significantly to climate change or not, what's wrong with having clean air to breath, clean water to drink, and sa afe and adequate food supply, etc., etc. etc.
Are there "safe" levels of pollutant exposure? Quite difficu;t to say. There are levels below which we are currently not able to detect adverse effects, but that doesn't mean with long-term and usually multiple complex mixture exposures that they clearly do not exist. Public health should whenever possible err on the side of being to conservative rather than the "let the breather beware" lassez-faire approach.
Maybe I'll cogitate on this some more later when I'm more up to par, but this approach to me seems sheer lunacy.
Alan
Alan H. Hall, M.D.
Medical Toxicologist
Clinical Asistant Professor
Colrado School of Public Health
University of Colorado-Denver
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:28 AM TILAK CHANDRA <0000058f112ac338-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**lists.princeton.edu> wrote:
Thank 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
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced
The 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 names
you know and trust. Visit us at http://www.SafetyEmporium.com
esales**At_Symbol_Here**safetyemporium.com or toll-free: (866) 326-5412
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 --- 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
--- 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
Scanned by McAfee =AE Internet Security=E2=84=A2 and confirmed virus-free.
--- 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
--- 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
---
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