Congress asks EPA for timeline on dioxin report

The toxic potential of the dioxin family ( particularly the TCDD congener) has been recognized ever since 1952 when a Monsanto research scientist alerted the Federal Government of a toxic chemical which appeared in the antecedent herbicides ( 2,4-D and others) which was subsequently identified as a TCDD…..In spite of the 10 year lag betwen this disco very and it use in Vietnam, the feds CONTRACTED with Monsanto AND DOW and others to provide millions of barrels of Agent Orange for use as a defoliant…..with the goal of complete deforestation of Vietnam……STudies on this family of chemicals have been ongoing since then…and, the US Military added its won 35+ year Prospective look at healthe effects from exposures in its Ranch Hand II study. concluded ( I think) in 2006…A book summarizing those then known health effects has beed published but the complete data from all the years has yet to be finalized and released. Other wise unexplained ischemic heart disease has recently been added to the list of health effects…..the 1994 REASSESSMENT of risk was done at the request of the public represented by environmental groups , long concerned over the potentially harmful effects of dioxins in the food chain and rthe environment….Controversy over Scientific Advisory Board membership and its affiliation with various industrial companies delayed the Reassessment and vituperative debate ensued…..thousands of pages of inconsistent and contradictory science confounded and obfuscated the findings…..In a World Conference held in Berlin a few years ago, over 600 papers on the topic of organochlorines and persistent organic pollutants, of which dioxins dominate, were presen ted…..more debate…more uncertainty….finally the National Academy of Science was asked to evauate and comment on the 1994 Draft Reassessment…It did and its own report has been subject to interpretation that differs from one group to the next…….Meanwhile, the German Versorgeprinzip, useful to the Eurpoean community concerned about the effects of global warming in the North Sea, was resurrected and called The Precautionary Principle in the 1992 World Conference on the Environment in Rio de Janeiro…..Inherent in its application is the lttle known fact that such ap[plication must include a benefit to cost analysis which is a root cause for fuerther delay, particularly in remediation efforts…research done over the 30+ most recent years has shown that environmental dioxin levels and serum levels in peopple have been and continue to drop drastically…What is unknown , however, is just how low a level , IF ANY , can be considered safe and acceptable……Carcinogenic risk has been , itself, reassessed and an increase of 1 in 10,000 ( some advocate for 1 in 1000) cases has been considered acceptable….that is NOT …0 risk and does little to assure that 1 extra case’s family but nevertheless is considered by our government as still acceptable……and, so……deliberations have continued and the release of the final draft of the US EPA Dioxin Draft Reassessment languishes…………..Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have written a small paperback…comic-book style TRUST US , WE’RE THE EXPERTS in which all research is criticized when the researchers have known connections to chemical industries……sides are taken…lines are drawn and debate continues….the reassessment in its current form is over 2000 pages long and remains subject to interpretation….so, while a “final” report may be desirable to the members of congress who are requesting one, I doubt if any ONE of those members will be able to understand it when it comes or agree on its implications any more tha our government did in 1952 when first alerted ……………

So we do nothing? I think not. We apply morals, do what’s right by the people and apply precaution and err on the side of keeping people safe.