The Global Scope of
Chemical Exposures in our 21st Century Environment: Indoors and Outdoors
Articles/Comments
submitted by Dr. Susan Kegley
Subject: A recent e-mail that I received
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:33:23 -0500
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of
California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
Dear Mr. Helliker,
i thought you might like to read a recent e-mail that I received:
Last week I borrowed the syllabus of this year's annual
meeting of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine from a local
environmental medical doctor who attended the meeting. The meeting was in
Colorado Springs October 18-21, 2001, and the topic was "The Growing Role
of Chemical Exposure Upon Health in the 21st Century." There were dozens of
presentations by a variety of very well-informed people, and I photocopied quite
a lot of the material in the syllabus. If you're interested, perhaps there is an
AAEM member near you who can lend you their copy.
Anyway, I read the following in a paper presented by
Douglas B. Seba, Ph.D. The title of the paper was "The Global Scope of
Chemical Exposures in our 21st Century Environment: Indoors and Outdoors."
Dr. Seba has been researching the effects of xenobiotic compounds on terrestrial
and aquatic wildlife for the last fifty years; in other words, during the same
time that others have been developing the concept of chemical sensitivity in
humans:
"Admiral Hyman Rickover, the outspoken father of
the nuclear submarine, described the monotonously repeated tactics used by those
with a vested interest in harmful technology. First you confuse the issue by
arguing as if a law of science were at issue when, in fact, the proposed
legislation deals with technology, not science. Second, when this logic fails,
the need for legislation is categorically denied. Warnings of scientists are
rejected as anecdotal, unproven and exaggerated. Third, when it turns out that
the scientists were right after all, the argument shifts from the question of
technological harm to the legitimacy of any kind of protective legislation, such
as the violation of basic liberties and government tyranny. Fourth, when all
else fails and protective legislation is imminent, create urgent demands for
more research to prove the appositeness of the proposed law."
"Admiral Rickover observed that these delaying tactics
are highly effective and that has certainly been the case for the last 50 years
since Dr. [Theron] Randolph expounded the principles of chemical sensitivity.
"In an unwitting tribute to Dr. Randolph's efforts,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in April this year released the
First National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals exactly 50
years after Dr. Randolph first reported it.
"This first report initially measures the exposure of
the U.S. population to 27 environmental chemicals, including metals (e.g., lead
and mercury), pesticides metabolites, phthalate metabolites and cotinine (which
tracks exposure to tobacco smoke). The goal over the next few years is to expand
the report to provide information on about 100 compounds to better understand
the impact of the environmental chemicals on our health (http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r010321.htm).
"What extraordinary irony, then, that just as this
report came out, so also was the xenobiotic chemical industry forced to confront
damning evidence released by veteran journalist Bill Moyers on the Public
Broadcasting Service documentary, "Trade Secrets." The program
revealed a 50-year chemical industry pattern of withholding information from
plant workers and the public about the dangers of toxic chemicals. Moyers,
surprised to find out his blood contained 84 synthetic chemicals, repeatedly
made the point that these internal industry documents are not a matter of
opinion or point of view but actual fact (http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/).
"In response, the editor of Chemical & Engineering
News, the main trade magazine of the American Chemical Society noted that the
only answer is to admit past egregious behavior and make public health data on
the safety of chemicals for there must be no more secrets and lies (http://www.pubs.acs.org/cen)."
Well, Steve, I checked out the Chemical & Engineering
News web site mentioned by Dr. Seba, but when I tried to access items containing
the words "Bill Moyers" (there are seven of them) I couldn't, because
I don't have a subscriber number and password. If you have a way of accessing
information on this web site, it might be worth seeing exactly what the CEN
editor said. Of course, who knows whether his industry will do what he is
suggesting.
Well Mr. Helliker,
Mark Twain once noted: "There
is no security in life, only opportunity."
I did not know there were "regulators" back in Mark's day.
You once again have the opportunity to provide security for the public or
the POISON "industry" PROFITS, which one will you do now?
Respectfully,
Stephen L. Tvedten
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing
information on pesticides, Email Us.
TOP