Argall Family wrote:
> Dale wrote:
> "Theory will only get you so far. When they actually feed high doses of
> 2,4-D esters or amines to mammals, the chemical doesn't seem very dangerous,
> not from an acute, nor from a carcinogenic perspective. The biggest danger
> is splashing the concentrated formulation in your eyes, which can cause real
> injury.
>
> I suggest that there is something less than theory in that statement, Dale.
> I think it is more sensible to adopt the cautionary approach from product
> information, as below. Note that the list is of symptom outcomes, without
> discussion of the systemic derangement causing symptoms. The symptoms do not
> arise out of the air and some theoretical discussion of systemic causes is
> important.
>
> Or you can discuss with the Agent Orange crowd, for a blizzard of contrary
> argument.
>
> I really don't understand an agenda of dismissing what are sensible
> community concerns about a deteriorating chemical environment as a result of
> chemical treatments for narrow purposes, lacking regard for holistic
> scientific perspectives. Or do you question the foundation of that - that we
> are confronted with a massive increase in industrially produced chemicals in
> the environment?
>
> All science is theory; the great errors arise when theory is taught as fact,
> when fact is treated as dogma and becomes the basic assumptions of new
> research and hypothesis. It is not extremist, but sensibly scientific to
> question the broader ecological impact of products produced and marketed
> with very narrow 'scientific' claims as to their benefits. We stopped
> x-raying children's feet and tonsils way back, as we stopped bathing people
> in DDT; we've stopped dumping chemicals under houses. I don't think the room
> for hindsight has vanished. I don't think it helps when a case is made for
> the 'safety' of products which does not EVEN match the official product
> warnings. That can only make people doubt more.
>
> Dennis
> ======
>
> The Hazard Summary http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/cancer/24d.txt reads:
>
> HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
>
> Acute Health Effects
> The following acute (short term) health effects may occur
> immediately or shortly after exposure to 2,4-D:
>
> * Skin or eye contact can cause irritation.
> * Overexposure can irritate the throat and lower airways.
> Symptoms include headache, nausea, vomiting, poor appetite,
> sweating, fever and diarrhea. Muscle damage with tenderness,
> weakness and twitching can occur. Other effects include damage
> to the kidneys and liver and effects on the nerves to the arms
> and legs, with weakness and poor coordination.
>
> Chronic Health Effects
> The following chronic (long term) health effects can occur at some
> time after exposure to 2,4-D and can last for months or years:
>
> Cancer Hazard
> * 2,4-D causes MUTATIONS (genetic changes). Such chemicals may
> have a cancer or reproductive risk. In fact there is limited
> evidence that 2,4-D causes cancer of the breast and other
> sites in animals. Non Hodgkin's lymphoma have been observed in
> farmers occupationally exposed to 2,4, D.
> * Many scientists believe there is no safe level of exposure to
> a carcinogen. Such substances may also have the potential for
> causing reproductive damage in humans.
>
> Reproductive Hazard
> * 2,4-D may damage the developing fetus.
> * There is limited evidence that 2,4-D is a teratogen in humans
> and animals. Until further testing has been done, it should be
> treated as a possible teratogen in humans.
> * 2,4-D may decrease fertility in males.
>
> Other Long Term Effects
> * Skin allergy to 2,4-D may develop. If this happens, even low
> future exposure can lead to rash and itching.
> * Repeated exposure can lead to patchy areas of loss of skin
> pigment, and to kidney and liver damage. Lung effects (airway
> narrowing, emphysema) have also been reported. Thinning of the
> lining of the throat (atrophy) can also occur from the
> repeated irritation.
>
> [and from the end of the document]
>
> DISTRIBUTION AND PERSISTENCE IN THE ENVIRONMENT
>
> 2,4-D is moderately persistent in water, with a half-life of
> between 20 to 200 days. The half-life of a pollutant is the amount
> of time it takes for one-half of the chemical to be degraded.
> About 91.7% of 2,4-D will eventually end up in water; about 3.3%
> will end up in aquatic sediments; about 3.5% will end up in
> terrestrial soil; and the rest will end up in the air.
>
> BIOACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS
>
> Some substances increase in concentration, or bioaccumulate, in
> living organisms as they breathe contaminated air, drink
> contaminated water, or eat contaminated food. These
> chemicals can become concentrated in the tissues and internal
> organs of animals and humans.
>
> The concentration of 2,4-D found in fish tissues is expected to be
> much higher than the average concentration of 2,4-D in the water
> from which the fish was taken.
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail