As I understood Dale, he considers finding chloropyrifos in the urine
of practically everybody to be a statement of a fact that reflects a
status quo so universal that he doesn't question it (and why would he
he, if he lives within the framework of that world; yea, within the
house of those that are responsible for this "achievement", this new
world order.
Reversing this trend is simply not a consideration for Dale, and I
don't say that critically. (I though his recent post answering Sal's
questions was both nice and well done).
Dale has come a long way and will continue to make progress, while
others of us do the job of limiting (and hopefully cleaning up) the
"collateral effects" that splice 'em, dice 'em and gas 'em ag science
/ ag business have brought us.
Douglas Hinds, CeDeCoR, A.C.
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil
(Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization)
Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico
dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
Loren> Wilson, Dale wrote:
>>
>> Loren, Roberto, and Mark,
>> First, I don't think you folks have an appreciation of just how sensitive
>> modern quantitative analysis really is.
Loren> Dale, I am trying to rephrase your comment to ensure that I fully
Loren> understand your position before responding.
Loren> Are you suggesting that our disagreement with your position can only
Loren> have its basis in a misunderstanding of analytic chemistry?
Loren> If not, please clarify, because that's what I think you said.
Loren> If so, you have misunderstood
Loren> our statements and made a response unrelated to our positions.
Loren> I'll try this again. We were discussing finding chloropyrifos in the
Loren> urine of practically everybody.
Loren> Loren wrote:
>> Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself is
>> disregarded as being in the category of things we call
>> "a problem."
Loren> Deciding whether to label something a "problem" or not is a matter of
Loren> policy, not chemistry.
Loren> Roberto wrote:
>> I find such cavalier attitude towards chemical contamination
>> quite incredible.
Loren> The analytic chemistry showed the unambiguous presence of chloropyrifos
Loren> in the urine or 80-90% of the people checked.
Loren> Mark wrote:
>> Anything showing up in our bodies uninvited is a violation of
>> both property rights and human rights.
Loren> Mark does not wish to allow this chemical trespass and feels that his
Loren> rights have been violated.
Loren> To these above quotes, Dale responds:
>> Loren, Roberto, and Mark,
>> First, I don't think you folks have an appreciation of just how sensitive
>> modern quantitative analysis really is.
Loren> None of us said anything about analytic chemistry. We were all making
Loren> the point that we find it a problem when manufactured substances which
Loren> we have never used and in fact actively avoid contact with, nevertheless
Loren> can be found in our bodies, as evidenced by being excreted by our
Loren> bodies.
Loren> Sombody manufactures chloropyrifos. They sell it to person B. Now
Loren> person B "owns" it. As it is applied, person B seems to be allowing it
Loren> to run amok, and many of us are not pleased with that.
Loren> Person B is not allowed to store his lawnmower in my garage. His shoes
Loren> are not under my bed; his livestock may not graze in my front yard, nor
Loren> may his dog crap there. No shoes, no lawnmowers, not a single grazing
Loren> animal, not one little turd. Zero. I don't have to prove that it would
Loren> injure me seriously to have B doing any of these things. I do not want
Loren> these things on my property, and that reason is sufficient.
Loren> That is also the case for chloropyrifos. I did not buy it. I do not
Loren> benefit from it. I don't want it in my personal space or on my property
Loren> for any reason, in any quantity. If it's there, then person B still
Loren> "owns" it and he is trespassing with his stuff. He should have to keep
Loren> better track of his belongings. If it is not possible to ascertain which
Loren> "person B" has been careless with his purchase, then it is fine with me
Loren> if the legal responsibility for the substance still belongs to the
Loren> manufacturer.
Loren> I still haven't said anything about analytic chemistry. This subject
Loren> matter is not in the realm of analytic chemistry.
Loren> I have taken the opportunity to have 150 college students decide whether
Loren> chloropyrifos in the urine is or is not a "problem," by giving the
Loren> choice to them on an exam. They may choose either, provided only that
Loren> they supply their reasoning. I'll let you know what they think when I'm
Loren> done grading this mountain of papers.
>> At a sufficiently low level of
>> contamination, this controversy devolves into theoretical hair-splitting.
Loren> What does that mean? The "threshold" concept has never been validated,
Loren> and it is probably not valid. It is the responsibliity of all modelers
Loren> (for example those who estimate toxicological risk) to know the
Loren> limitations of the model and ALL of the assumptions built into the
Loren> model. The threshold assumption is built in to all the models. It's
Loren> use, however, is not a matter of analytic chemistry, it is merely a
Loren> policy choice, and we all know that POLICY and CHEMISTRY are not the
Loren> same thing. Or do we all know it? Must we eternally suffer this mutant
Loren> dialogue, where every time somebody doesn't like where the policy
Loren> conversation is headed, a random comment about "sound science" is
Loren> inserted in the hope of deflecting the conclusion?
>> Second, society subjects all of us to all kinds of risks.
Loren> Name some. This conversation is improved by specificity. How is this
Loren> statement relevant to the discussion of chloropyrifos in the urine of
Loren> people who never use chloropyrifos?
>> Ordinary risks we accept without second thought are a lot bigger than
>> pesticide risk (as far as I can tell).
Loren> Name some. Explain the relevance of this statement.
Loren> Which non-zero risks do "we" accept with absolutely zero benefit to us?
Loren> I cannot think of any.
Loren> Or do we "accept" them because we have no choice? Do we accept them
Loren> because we do not know about them? Is our conscious, informed choice
Loren> implied by your use of the word "accept?"
Loren> Are you and I are the same person in your "we" scenario?
>> Third, we constantly ingest all manner of toxic substances that occur
>> naturally.
Loren> How many of these compounds are large, chlorinated molecules?
Loren> Which ones were humans never exposed to before 1900? Which ones do we
Loren> ingest without knowing that we are eating something? How is this
Loren> statement relevant to chloropyrifos in my body?
>> To a large extent, the function of kidneys and liver is to
>> detoxify and/or eliminate these things.
Loren> Yes, these organs have co-evolved with other life forms on this planet
Loren> for many millions of years, and can, to some extent, allow the organism
Loren> to escape harm from naturally occurring toxins evolved over the same
Loren> time scale. UNLIKE CHLOROPYRIFOS.
Loren> And that's not analytic chemistry either, it's evolutionary biology,
Loren> which apparently is not a permitted subject matter in some parts of this
Loren> country. I wonder if my email will arrive with "the E word" deleted?
Loren> Loren
Loren> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
Loren> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
Loren> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
Loren> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
Loren> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
Loren> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
Loren> 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