Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chuck Harris wrote:
The one part of the discussion that you should note, is that in industry, folks were literally bathing in the stuff, (occasionally) with no problem. We have several of those folks here on the group, and they have related their personal experience. Thats a bit like the "My grandad smoked 80 a day all his life and lived to a 101" chestnut. Is this proof that smoking doesn't give you cancer or that the cancer statistics are wrong? Personal experience or anecdotal evidence means very little when dealing with long term toxicity (unless the illness is specifically associated with a given exposure, like asbestos and mesothilioma). It is medical statistics of a large, controled group that shed any truth to a matter such as this. Unfortunately, these are hard to come by because of the long term nature of PCB toxicity in a society literally bathed in chemical contaminants and highly mobile. Even closely monitored exposures, like the Seveso incident in Italy are inconclusive (I once spoke to the head of toxicology for the UKs Chemical Response Unit who reckoned that no-one found any ill effect from that incident, but she was defending a hazardous waste site at the time.) If you take reasonable precautions to keep the stuff off of your skin, and out of your mouth, you will not be harmed. Even if you don't, at those small amounts, it is very doubtful that you will ever show any symptoms. 'Symptoms' are a sign of acute poisoning, obviously to be avoided, but the health authorities of EVERY developed country would consider someone with levels of PCBs in thier bodies millions of times less than that needed to cause 'symptoms' as being over the limit of reccomended exposure and at possible risk. Having been exposed to whopping doses doesn't mean you will be comparitively more ill than someone with a lot less inside them in the long term - the mechanisims of toxicity of PCBs are not the same as mercury or arsenic, where the more you have, the sicker you are. The endocrine system of the body works with tiny amounts of hormones and messenger chemicals, and its having these messed with that is the real worry (especially in developing children), and we DO know that PCB's and the like do just this. For instance, there is a disorder of the womb that is rampant today (can't remember the name right now) that was extremely rare before the invention of PCB's. There can never be a 'smoking gun' leading to the prescence of all pervasive PCB's in the environment as being the cause of this (for a number of reasons), but it is EXACTLY the type of illness predicted to be caused by long term PCB body burden and endocrine disruption. The World Health Organisation place a TDI of 1-4 picograms (a picogram being a *trillionth* of a gram) on Dioxin-like PCB's. That is an incredibly small amount Chuck, and when dealing with large amounts of this stuff (meaning any visible amount) you could easily get comparitively huge doses inside you without noticing, and you can't in all honesty state with confidence that 'you will not be harmed' by these amounts. Nobody knows for sure, but there is certainly enough evidence and (non-hysterical) concern around to be more than cautious. Andy Get your free morse ringtone at http://www.planetofnoise.com |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
AndyB wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote: .... We have several of those folks here on the group, and they have related their personal experience. Thats a bit like the "My grandad smoked 80 a day all his life and lived to a 101" chestnut. Is this proof that smoking doesn't give you cancer or that the cancer statistics are wrong? Smoking and cancer are a funny (as in peculiar) example to pull out as a comparison to PCB exposure. First, the anti smoking groups pretend that no one ever got lung cancer without smoking. The truth is more like as many people get it with smoking as get it without. The cancer connection is difficult. The heart disease and emphasema associations are much easier to prove... and I am not now, nor have I ever been a smoker. Second, smoking is a great act of self deception. People who smoke go out of their way to become heavily exposed to tobacco smoke. It doesn't seem to me that it would be all that common for people to intentionally ingest PCB's. Being in the presence of PCB is not the same as being exposed to PCB, or ingesting PCB. Personal experience or anecdotal evidence means very little when dealing with long term toxicity (unless the illness is specifically associated with a given exposure, like asbestos and mesothilioma). It is medical statistics of a large, controled group that shed any truth to a matter such as this. Unfortunately, these are hard to come by because of the long term nature of PCB toxicity in a society literally bathed in chemical contaminants and highly mobile. There a couple of ways of looking at that. The one I tend towards is the connection can't be found because it doesn't actually exist for such small levels of exposure. Even closely monitored exposures, like the Seveso incident in Italy are inconclusive (I once spoke to the head of toxicology for the UKs Chemical Response Unit who reckoned that no-one found any ill effect from that incident, but she was defending a hazardous waste site at the time.) Again, this is probably because the connection doesn't exist for small levels of exposure. .... The World Health Organisation place a TDI of 1-4 picograms (a picogram being a *trillionth* of a gram) on Dioxin-like PCB's. Dioxin and PCB's aren't the same thing. The WHO TDI is a limit for *ingested* amounts of PCB on a *continual* (eg. daily) basis, not an extremely infrequent, accidental skin exposure to a very small quantity (such as might happen if one touches a leaky PCB coated capacitor). 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. No one is suggesting that the PCB be intentionally ingested over a long term. And no one is suggesting that you make a habit of exposing yourself to PCB. We are all going to die of something. And yet with all of our exposure to toxic chemical coctails, heavy metals, and radiation, quality of life, and life expectancy continues to rise...(even accounting for the extreme lack of childhood deaths due to the success of vaccines on the usual childhood diseases.) Reasoned caution is good, but hysteria isn't all that useful in cases like this. -Chuck |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I also dislike hysterical rhetoric for political or monetary gain, but
it cuts both ways. I've found that the worst evironmentalists are no more hysterical than industry PR is in reverse (completely playing down dangers of its products or byproducts). I hate people that create terror in an attempt to gain political power. The anti DDT, anti nuke, anti Freon, anti lead, anti mercury, anti gun, anti any chemical man knows how to make group fits this pattern. I'm sensing a lot of hate there Chuck - maybe you should go and hug your trees ![]() Do I take it that you also think DDT, nukes, lead, mercury and guns are not as bad as most people make out or are 'fairly harmless'? |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chuck Harris wrote:
I am very fond of the environment. Probably much more so than you. I long ago put my money where my mouth is. I am not at all fond of those that call themselves environmentalists. My contribution to this thread has long since past the point of being a reasonable side tracking. This is my last posting on this subject... for now. -Chuck Well since you're bailing I feel safe in agreeing with you because I neither want to belabour an argument in whats good can be bad or vice versa. But... I worked a while in NE Oklahoma. Asbestos mines, lead mines. Pretty much under the radar of the environmentalists who seem to need someplace snazzier than Picher, Oklahoma to drive home their point. I found the local conditions appalling. Maybe because I was constantly reminded about don't drink the water...or inferences that "hell, thats the way those crazy Okies are". I worked in direct contact with people and it seemed as though EVERYBODY had a mentally defective family member hidden away in a back room and there was certainly no shortage of borderline cases outside and on the street. Anybody from outside would notice it. I'm 100% against the Kerry-camp type of "sky is falling" kneejerk reaction to anything that isn't mountain spring water (imported from France) so I'm not speaking from that context. It would seem to me, an eternal Devil's Advocate, that there are indeed issues with 'public level toxicity' that get totally overshadowed by both extreme camps. The guy that puts on a hazmat suit to work on his boatanchor or the politician that claims that they are producing honey if the industry benefits his district. Both come off as fanatics deflecting concern from the real world aspects. So yeah, these scenarios really do exist but not because an old radio is leaking fluids. If you want to save the earth you can start by saving Picher, Oklahoma and forget about the miniscule implications of your weenie little capacitors. -Bill |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|