> Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself is
> disregarded as being in the category of things we call
> "a problem."
> I find such cavalier attitude towards chemical contamination
> quite incredible.
> Anything showing up in our bodies uninvited is a violation of
> both property rights and human rights.
First, I don't think you folks have an appreciation of just how sensitive
modern quantitative analysis really is. At a sufficiently low level of
contamination, this controversy devolves into theoretical hair-splitting.
Second, society subjects all of us to all kinds of risks. Ordinary risks we
accept without second thought are a lot bigger than pesticide risk (as far
as I can tell).
Third, we constantly ingest all manner of toxic substances that occur
naturally. To a large extent, the function of kidneys and liver is to
detoxify and/or eliminate these things. One of the reasons chlorpyrifos is
relatively safe is that it is excreted rapidly. In the context of general
chemical risk, it may not be that important.
> Blurred vision, muscle weakness, headaches and problems with
> memory, depression and irritability have been linked to large
> amounts of exposure to Dow Chemical's Dursban...
> The EPA analysis found exposure to Dursban on the skin, in food,
> or by inhaling it could be harmful to human health...
So...what else is new? Everybody knows this.
> The report laid out potential health risks, but did not indicate
> whether the agency planned to tighten use of Dursban, require new
> labels alerting
The press release is just spin, based on some routine EPA report. It may be
that some uses like flea collars and in-home application should be banned.
Is there a link to the EPA report, or some reliable source of technical
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: