HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS

This has not been easy or light reading. The Independent Fact-Finding Panel on Herbicide 2,4,5-T has not been nearly as exciting or enjoyable reading say as a book I obtained over the holidays titled "Rocky Mountain Locust". The author's psuedonym is I.M. Lastman and yes this is a book about the end of mankind (not the world) courtesy of a plague. The author is actually a local, Elmira resident and I must say that I am impressed with both his philosophy and his environmental grasp of the big picture. To date this is both an educational and very entertaining read. Michael P.S. is one hell of a writer.

I am going to quote from page 50 of the Fact-Finding Panel: "Both toxicological hazard assessment in laboratory animal studies and epidemiological assessment in human populations offer strengths and weaknesses in study design and in informing risk assessment of potentially exposed populations. Laboratory studies can limit and effectively control many variables, but extrapolating results of these studies to human populations is difficult. Conversely, results of studies in human populations can be applied directly to understanding potential adverse health outcomes in people, but controlling the wide array of variables in human populations is complex and difficult and often makes it challenging to use the results of these studies. Taken together, both toxicology and epidemiological studies can offer important insight when establishing causes of adverse health outcomes in human populations."

Pages 51 and 52 are a a Table (3.7) of the Assessment of Uncertainties of these two types of studies of 2,4,5-T and 2,3,7,8 TCDD. The left hand column lists twelve different Assumptions that have been made and the next column (middle) of the Table gives the Justification of the assumptions with the right hand column being the Effect on Analysis. While these Assumptions are reasonable and explainable they do of course affect the final analysis. The quote from the previous paragraph ends with "...(these) studies can offer important insight...".

This is what must never be forgotten. These studies are not omniscient nor are they without a ton of assumptions no matter how reasonable they appear to be. These studies OFFER IMPORTANT INSIGHTS. My take is very simple. Dioxins are incredibly complex and dangerous. No one knows how much exposure you've already had BEFORE you get dosed yet again via inhalation, ingestion or skin contact. Therefore my opinion is that no dose is "safe". The only "safe" dose is ZERO thank you very much. No one, nowhere has the right to tell me that further exposure to Dioxins are "safe". No company or environmental agency has the right to tell me that discharges of dioxins to the natural environment, at any level, via any method are O.K.. THEY ARE NOT. They are immoral and heinous and but for corrupt governments everywhere, they would be illegal around the globe.