Re: Carson's 'Silent Spring' Turns 50

[Guest guest]

Sharon: Thanks for this link.  I am copying a passage from the Atlantic article by Grossman below. I think the regulatory response, after 1962 as alluded to below, to issues accented by Carson is impressive. The environmental, safety and health programs that were created in the 60s,70s, and 80s were and are important and have had a very important impact on our quality of life.

 

" The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,

and Endangered Species Act did not yet exist, nor did the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration. There was no such thing a Superfund site. Industrial

plants were not required to account for their releases of toxic pollutants.

There was no federal law to protect communities from hazardous waste or to

protect Americans' right to know the chemicals to which they might be exposed.

US law did regulate how pesticides were labeled but it did not yet regulate

their use. And imperfect as it has been, there was not yet a Toxic Substances

Control Act to regulate chemicals in commerce. Silent Spring and the

outcry it prompted -- among the public and lawmakers

-- helped give rise to the modern American environmental movement and led to

passage of our landmark pollution prevention laws. " However, I believe the passage below, from the second paragraph of Grossman's article, is unfair and untrue. It seems to have been included for effect, not for accuracy.

" Even more shocking is to recognize how little our regulatory response to these chemicals’ effects has changed, despite the past five decades’ great advances in scientific understanding…. "

The challenges remain and increase, and the responses will always be compromises, but the overall emphasis on EHS quality outdoors, at work, and indoors is undeniably at a much higher level than 50 years ago, in my opinion.

Don Schaezler, Ph.D., P.E., CIH

ETC Information Services, LLC

Cibolo, Texas

 

Katy's Exposure Blog quoting Grossman, The Atlantic

http://wp.me/plYPz-3p0

 

" For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death, " Carson wrote....Now almost every day brings a new report detailing health hazards associated with synthetic chemicals. Exposure to some of these substances has been linked to increasingly widespread chronic health problems, among them diabetes, obesity, and reproductive and neurological disorders. "

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Don,

Glad you found the link informative. I see merit in your words regarding many advancements in policy. I also see merit in Grossman's words of advancements that could have come much sooner.

I'm not sure what people follow on this board or do not follow regarding advancements in policy for the protection of the public from chemical and environmental exposures. I have a pony in the race, so I tend to follow it closely.

I, personally, think we are at a monumental turning point in that a shift is occurring that it is recognized low dose exposures are scientifically accepted to be known endocrine disrupters.

We've known this for a long time, but science only counts in protecting the public when it becomes policy.

History of exposure science. This is what they knew in 1998

Environmental Health Perspectives: Environmental endocrine disruption: an effects assessment and analysis

This is what they knew in 1995 of how misapplying mechanistic risk assessment models could by used to delay action in policy

Environmental Health Perspectives: Mouse or molecule? Mechanism-based toxicology in cancer risk assessment

"For Hardin [sic, co-owner of VeriTox and co-author of the ACOEM & US Chamber mold statements], senior scientist in the Office of the Director at NIOSH, the issue can be viewed from another perspective. "Pursuit of more and better scientific data can be used very effectively by forces whose interests are served by avoiding action, by delaying action . . . 'paralysis by analysis'." He says these forces can make skillful and plausible appeals for more and better science before some government intervention is allowed that would disturb the established order, perhaps at the expense of public health. "Whose risk is being minimized?" he asks.

Hardin, along with other scientists, also expresses concern that resources gained for mechanistic research will come at the expense of whole-animal bioassays and epidemiologic studies. "Those sorts of studies provide the most convincing and most powerful tools we have today for protecting human health. Despite the faith we all have in mechanistic work, I predict it will be many, many years before it is possible to regulate any chemical in commerce as a carcinogen in the absence of epidemiologic or animal evidence of carcinogenicity,' Hardin says."

I think we are witnessing history in the making.

Sharon

Sharon:

Thanks for this link.

I am copying a passage from the Atlantic article by Grossman below. I think the regulatory response, after 1962 as alluded to below, to issues accented by Carson is impressive. The environmental, safety and health programs that were created in the 60s,70s, and 80s were and are important and have had a very important impact on our quality of life.

"The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act did not yet exist, nor did the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. There was no such thing a Superfund site. Industrial plants were not required to account for their releases of toxic pollutants. There was no federal law to protect communities from hazardous waste or to protect Americans' right to know the chemicals to which they might be exposed. US law did regulate how pesticides were labeled but it did not yet regulate their use. And imperfect as it has been, there was not yet a Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate chemicals in commerce. Silent Spring and the outcry it prompted -- among the public and lawmakers -- helped give rise to the modern American environmental movement and led to passage of our landmark pollution prevention laws."

However, I believe the passage below, from the second paragraph of Grossman's article, is unfair and untrue. It seems to have been included for effect, not for accuracy.

"Even more shocking is to recognize how little our regulatory response to these chemicals’ effects has changed, despite the past five decades’ great advances in scientific understanding…."

The challenges remain and increase, and the responses will always be compromises, but the overall emphasis on EHS quality outdoors, at work, and indoors is undeniably at a much higher level than 50 years ago, in my opinion.

Don Schaezler, Ph.D., P.E., CIH

ETC Information Services, LLC

Cibolo, Texas

Katy's Exposure Blog quoting Grossman, The Atlantic

http://wp.me/plYPz-3p0

"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death," Carson wrote....Now almost every day brings a new report detailing health hazards associated with synthetic chemicals. Exposure to some of these substances has been linked to increasingly widespread chronic health problems, among them diabetes, obesity, and reproductive and neurological disorders."

[Guest guest]

Sharon: Thanks for the message; I often feel ignored when I comment. I will read the links you sent with interest. Don

 

Hi Don,

 

Glad you found the link informative.  I see merit in your words regarding many advancements in policy. I also see merit in Grossman's words of advancements that could have come much sooner.

 

I'm not sure what people follow on this board or do not follow regarding advancements in policy for the protection of the public from chemical and environmental exposures. I have a pony in the race, so I tend to follow it closely. 

 

I, personally, think we are at a monumental turning point in that a shift is occurring that it is recognized low dose exposures are scientifically accepted to be known endocrine disrupters.

 

We've known this for a long time, but science only counts in protecting the public when it becomes policy.

 

History of exposure science. This is what they knew in 1998

Environmental Health Perspectives: Environmental endocrine disruption: an effects assessment and analysis

 

This is what they knew in 1995 of how misapplying mechanistic risk assessment models could by used to delay action in policy

 

Environmental Health Perspectives: Mouse or molecule? Mechanism-based toxicology in cancer risk assessment

" For Hardin [sic, co-owner of VeriTox and co-author of the ACOEM & US Chamber mold statements], senior scientist in the Office of the Director at NIOSH, the issue can be viewed from another perspective. " Pursuit of more and better scientific data can be used very effectively by forces whose interests are served by avoiding action, by delaying action . . . 'paralysis by analysis'. " He says these forces can make skillful and plausible appeals for more and better science before some government intervention is allowed that would disturb the established order, perhaps at the expense of public health. " Whose risk is being minimized? " he asks.

Hardin, along with other scientists, also expresses concern that resources gained for mechanistic research will come at the expense of whole-animal bioassays and epidemiologic studies. " Those sorts of studies provide the most convincing and most powerful tools we have today for protecting human health. Despite the faith we all have in mechanistic work, I predict it will be many, many years before it is possible to regulate any chemical in commerce as a carcinogen in the absence of epidemiologic or animal evidence of carcinogenicity,' Hardin says. "

I think we are witnessing history in the making.

Sharon

 

 

 

Sharon:

 

Thanks for this link.

 

I am copying a passage from the Atlantic article by Grossman below. I think the regulatory response, after 1962 as alluded to below, to issues accented by Carson is impressive. The environmental, safety and health programs that were created in the 60s,70s, and 80s were and are important and have had a very important impact on our quality of life.

 

" The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act did not yet exist, nor did the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. There was no such thing a Superfund site. Industrial plants were not required to account for their releases of toxic pollutants. There was no federal law to protect communities from hazardous waste or to protect Americans' right to know the chemicals to which they might be exposed. US law did regulate how pesticides were labeled but it did not yet regulate their use. And imperfect as it has been, there was not yet a Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate chemicals in commerce. Silent Spring and the outcry it prompted -- among the public and lawmakers -- helped give rise to the modern American environmental movement and led to passage of our landmark pollution prevention laws. "

However, I believe the passage below, from the second paragraph of Grossman's article, is unfair and untrue. It seems to have been included for effect, not for accuracy.

" Even more shocking is to recognize how little our regulatory response to these chemicals’ effects has changed, despite the past five decades’ great advances in scientific understanding…. "

The challenges remain and increase, and the responses will always be compromises, but the overall emphasis on EHS quality outdoors, at work, and indoors is undeniably at a much higher level than 50 years ago, in my opinion.

Don Schaezler, Ph.D., P.E., CIH

ETC Information Services, LLC

Cibolo, Texas

 

Katy's Exposure Blog quoting Grossman, The Atlantic

http://wp.me/plYPz-3p0

 

" For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death, " Carson wrote....Now almost every day brings a new report detailing health hazards associated with synthetic chemicals. Exposure to some of these substances has been linked to increasingly widespread chronic health problems, among them diabetes, obesity, and reproductive and neurological disorders. "

[Guest guest]

Sharon: I am a little confused about Hardin; he was with NIOSH and now is with VeriTox. Has he perhaps changed teams and is using his former team's playbook to his new teams' advantages?

 What has changed in cancer risk assessment since 1995-1998 with respect to approach and capacity to come to policy decisions? How does the cancer risk assessment approach differ from the endocrine disruption approach?

 Don

 

Hi Don,

 

Glad you found the link informative.  I see merit in your words regarding many advancements in policy. I also see merit in Grossman's words of advancements that could have come much sooner.

 

I'm not sure what people follow on this board or do not follow regarding advancements in policy for the protection of the public from chemical and environmental exposures. I have a pony in the race, so I tend to follow it closely. 

 

I, personally, think we are at a monumental turning point in that a shift is occurring that it is recognized low dose exposures are scientifically accepted to be known endocrine disrupters.

 

We've known this for a long time, but science only counts in protecting the public when it becomes policy.

 

History of exposure science. This is what they knew in 1998

Environmental Health Perspectives: Environmental endocrine disruption: an effects assessment and analysis

 

This is what they knew in 1995 of how misapplying mechanistic risk assessment models could by used to delay action in policy

 

Environmental Health Perspectives: Mouse or molecule? Mechanism-based toxicology in cancer risk assessment

" For Hardin [sic, co-owner of VeriTox and co-author of the ACOEM & US Chamber mold statements], senior scientist in the Office of the Director at NIOSH, the issue can be viewed from another perspective. " Pursuit of more and better scientific data can be used very effectively by forces whose interests are served by avoiding action, by delaying action . . . 'paralysis by analysis'. " He says these forces can make skillful and plausible appeals for more and better science before some government intervention is allowed that would disturb the established order, perhaps at the expense of public health. " Whose risk is being minimized? " he asks.

Hardin, along with other scientists, also expresses concern that resources gained for mechanistic research will come at the expense of whole-animal bioassays and epidemiologic studies. " Those sorts of studies provide the most convincing and most powerful tools we have today for protecting human health. Despite the faith we all have in mechanistic work, I predict it will be many, many years before it is possible to regulate any chemical in commerce as a carcinogen in the absence of epidemiologic or animal evidence of carcinogenicity,' Hardin says. "

I think we are witnessing history in the making.

Sharon

 

 

 

Sharon:

 

Thanks for this link.

 

I am copying a passage from the Atlantic article by Grossman below. I think the regulatory response, after 1962 as alluded to below, to issues accented by Carson is impressive. The environmental, safety and health programs that were created in the 60s,70s, and 80s were and are important and have had a very important impact on our quality of life.

 

" The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act did not yet exist, nor did the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. There was no such thing a Superfund site. Industrial plants were not required to account for their releases of toxic pollutants. There was no federal law to protect communities from hazardous waste or to protect Americans' right to know the chemicals to which they might be exposed. US law did regulate how pesticides were labeled but it did not yet regulate their use. And imperfect as it has been, there was not yet a Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate chemicals in commerce. Silent Spring and the outcry it prompted -- among the public and lawmakers -- helped give rise to the modern American environmental movement and led to passage of our landmark pollution prevention laws. "

However, I believe the passage below, from the second paragraph of Grossman's article, is unfair and untrue. It seems to have been included for effect, not for accuracy.

" Even more shocking is to recognize how little our regulatory response to these chemicals’ effects has changed, despite the past five decades’ great advances in scientific understanding…. "

The challenges remain and increase, and the responses will always be compromises, but the overall emphasis on EHS quality outdoors, at work, and indoors is undeniably at a much higher level than 50 years ago, in my opinion.

Don Schaezler, Ph.D., P.E., CIH

ETC Information Services, LLC

Cibolo, Texas

 

Katy's Exposure Blog quoting Grossman, The Atlantic

http://wp.me/plYPz-3p0

 

" For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death, " Carson wrote....Now almost every day brings a new report detailing health hazards associated with synthetic chemicals. Exposure to some of these substances has been linked to increasingly widespread chronic health problems, among them diabetes, obesity, and reproductive and neurological disorders. "

[Guest guest]

Don,

Yep.

Sharon:

I am a little confused about Hardin; he was with NIOSH and now is with VeriTox. Has he perhaps changed teams and is using his former team's playbook to his new teams' advantages?

What has changed in cancer risk assessment since 1995-1998 with respect to approach and capacity to come to policy decisions? How does the cancer risk assessment approach differ from the endocrine disruption approach?

Don