From: mjf9968@rigel.tamu.edu (Pi(3.143832666))
Newsgroups: sci.engr.chem,sci.chem,sci.med,sci.engr.civil
Subject: Re: NRDC Criticizes Domenici Plan to Gut Drinking Water Protections
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:15:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep4.073002.4456@bb1t.monsanto.com>, bjgaed@bb1t.monsanto.com writes...

[...]

>We simply cannot afford to continue to seriously impair our economy by 
>spending vast sums of money to reduce very, very small risks.  We 
>*have* to prioritize our problems and spend those funds on the 
>problems which will give the greatest return on our investment in 
>improved health of the population.  Spending that $250M on eliminating 
>those two excess cancer deaths per year, even assuming that all of our 
>models and assumptions were right, *DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CHEMICAL 
>INDUSTRY THINKS A HUMAN LIFE IS WORTH $125M DOLLARS.*  Please do not 
>try to hang that one on me.  My point here is that there are *a lot* 
>of better ways to spend $250M that will save orders of magnitude more 
>lives per year than two.
> 
>I hope that the person concerned about pesticide exposure is helped by 
>this.  The numbers I am using are in the ballpark of those which I 
>have seen calculated for actual cases.  For the most part the numbers 
>are available, and I urge people with concerns to seek out the actual 
>data and place the risks in perspective before making up their minds.
> 
>______________
>[            ]
>[  S O A P   ]
>[            ]    There, I'm down/off now.
>--------------
> 
>Electric Monk                    (Bruce Gaede)


	It seems at times that the American public is prone to
	hysteria, especially when its something for which
	there is some, but hardly conclusive, evidence.  I don't
	know if this is because most people get their information
	filtered through the non-technically-trained press, but
	I like to think so.

	Think about the incredable bru-ha-ha about the 
	GREENHOUSE EFFECT [evil music], during the most recent
	drought in the US.  Everyone was convince that CO2 
	emmissions had caused the whole thing and it was time
	to regulate, regulate, REGULATE!  This year, thanks
	to El Nino, most of the nation has gotten more rain than
	it wants.  Here in central Texas, all the lakes and resvoirs
	are over-full.  In other words, the GREENHOUSE EFFECT
	(evil music) was so much hype.  I'm not denying the 
	existence of a Greenhouse effect, I'm saying we know
	little about the realities of our climate, and reducing
	it to one model and proposing legislation on that is
	ludicrous.

	As for carcinogens in drinking water, recent experiments
	have shown that low levels of dioxins-- yes big bad, let's
	close down Love Canal before all the kiddies die, dioxins--
	in the diet can *stop* the growth of breast cancer in rats, 
	and cases has caused it to go into remission.

	What does this mean?  Are dioxins the next wonder drug?
	Who knows.  What we *can* glean immediatly from this is that,
	on the whole, we have sketchy data at best to work with
	when trying to figure out complex systems, and that to pass
	sweeping legislations based on that sketchy data is fool-
	hardy and wasteful.

	Living better through chemistry,
	Mike "Pi" Freeman
	MJF9968@rigel.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.engr.chem