I wasn't directly relating PCB exposure to smoking, just the practice
of citing anecdotal evidence like 'it never did me/him any harm' as
anything meaningful or to suggest that something isn't harmful. Your
quote on lung cancer levels being the same with/without smoking is crap
though - where did you get THAT from, the Marlboro good health guide?

I know Dioxins and PCB's are not the same, but they are often present
together - as I said, only specialist testing will tell you the actual
I-TEQ (overall dioxin-like toxicity) of anything PCB-like.

You cannot legitimately
infer that because PCB has a 1-4 picogram TDI, that occasional skin
exposure to a 1-4 picogram sample is harmful.

I wasn't infering that at all, but the amounts involved in even the
slightest contact with *actual* PCB fluid (such as getting enough on
you to actually see, say a fingertip smear) would involve amounts
millions (possibly billions) of times greater than levels we are
exposed to in the environment. Lots of studies show that PCBs are
rapidly absorbed into the skin, so its quite possible to absorb doses
that would equal a lifetimes normal exposure just by touching a 'leaky
PCB coated capacitor' with bare hands.

Being in the presence of PCB is not the same as being exposed to PCB, or ingesting PCB.

Wasn't aware I said it was, though you shouldn't discount dust vectors.


Reasoned caution is good, but hysteria isn't all that useful in cases like
this.

If you look at what I'm saying and compare it to the typical
environmentalist view you'll find its a million miles away from being
hysterical. Most environmentalists would class my current views as
downright evil.
I won't say what they'd call you.

What about you Chuck - I'm interested to know where your views on the
subject come from. Have you physically worked a lot with PCB's or come
from a healthcare/medical background? Done lab work with hazardous
chemicals? Why do you trust one view (not very dangerous) over the
other (very dangerous). Just hate tree huggers?

Andy