Friday, February 28, 2020


The meeting ended with another Webinar regarding Human Health Risk Assessment's (HHRA). There was an admission that even though one of the goals of a HHRA is negligible cancer risk, nevertheless additive health risks from synergistic chemicals present is possible. Also there are no health standards or criteria for multiple chemical exposure simultaneously. Other interesting points for me included that sometimes the gentleman presenting the HHRA prefers to use U.S. EPA (IRIS) data and numbers than those of Health Canada. The U.S. criteria etc. are more stringent again in some cases. Also every carginogenic chemical can also cause non carcinogenic health effects. Another interesting fact is that most contaminated sites HHRA's are looking for chronic not acute health risks. Hmm, that could be interpreted a number of different ways. Also of interest is that the fastest exposure method to reach target tissues (i.e. specific organs etc.) is by inhalation. Faster than either direct skin contact or ingestion. My last comment on HHRA's is this: I believe that an impartial scientist, expert etc. who has no conflicts of interest or personal stake in the issue can and will produce a document of accuracy and value. Conversely it is an abomination for any party with skin in the game to be in charge of either an HHRA or an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). The possibilities of a self-serving document (HHRA) that minimizes exposures, health effects, scopes and ignores numerous chemicals and or manipulates assumptions or subjective, allegedly professional decisions are far too great. In the current instance whereby Uniroyal/Lanxess and their consultants are in charge of the entire process with barely minimal supervision from the Ministry of Environment (MECP) and only token and impotent public consultation; then the process is both shameful and a farce. It is pure "greenwashing" at its worst.

No comments:

Post a Comment