About This Archive  |	DCHAS-L 2019 Index   |	DCHAS-L Yearly Index
Search All Posts:   Advanced Search     Disclaimer

Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.

Previous by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced Date: Monday, February 25, 2019 at 5:58:43 PM Author: bvanscoy**At_Symbol_Here**TWC.COM

Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 03:30:22 +0000 Author: Monona Rossol

We are all exposed to a toxic chemical cloud in most situations. I believe that is where the emphasis needs to be.

Jim Tarr

> On February 25, 2019 at 2:58 PM bvanscoy**At_Symbol_Here**TWC.COM wrote:
>
>
> The concept of occupational exposure limits (OELs) e.g., PELs, RELs, TLVs,
> MAKs, etc. apply to chemical and physical agent exposures, including
> radiation in an occupational setting. Biologicals were/are not included.
> The EPA took a broader approach concerning public exposure limits, and
> included some biological agents, e.g., coliform.
>
> The OEL concept was based upon "the dose makes the poison" proposed by
> Paracelsus - not the "hormesis theory" of moderate to high doses being
> harmful while low doses have beneficial effects.
>
> I follow the best scientifically available information and limits when
> performing my duties typically using the lowest OEL available from
> scientifically published peer-reviewed information following "the dose makes
> the poison" theory.
>
> At this time, my opinion is that not enough equally repeated and valid
> scientific papers regarding the effects of hormesis have been published at
> this time. The first key point is, which is the most scientifically sound
> principle to follow at this point in time, Paracelsus or hormesis? The
> second key point is Dr. Alan Hall, M.D. may be prophetic in his statement of
> inadequate knowledge of additive or synergistic effects - and that should be
> considered regardless if the agent is chemical, physical or biological.
> Anyone who has worked in a contract toxicology lab can confirm that all
> testing is based upon a single agent (antagonist), while we've learned most
> additive and synergistic effects via occupational medicine.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Bruce Van Scoy
>
>
>
> From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety On
> Behalf Of Laura Damon
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 12:56 PM
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
> Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a
> disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced
>
>
>
> Does anyone have thoughts on Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation?
>
>
>
> From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety
> [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Slavin
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 10:49 AM
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
> Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a
> disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced
>
>
>
> I can think of a couple of examples where something toxic at a high level is
> not necessarily toxic at a low level. Vitamin C and A are both toxic at
> high levels, but who wants to argue that there is no safe level of exposure
> or no benefit. Certain metals, such as selenium, are toxic at high levels,
> but may be beneficial at low levels. Isn't the concept of a low dose
> challenge to the immune system behind the theory of vaccines. The linear
> no-threshold approach does not fit every situation. That is not to say that
> every chemical or bacteria is beneficial, but neither is it true that every
> chemical or microbe is dangerous an any level, no matter how low. I think
> this article misrepresents and overgeneralizes the work of Dr. Calabrese.
>
> Tom Slavin
>
>
>
> From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety > > On Behalf Of Alan Hall
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 4:22 PM
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
> Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a
> disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced
>
>
>
> Et al,
>
>
>
> Having been rather lll and in the hospital all last week, this is the first
> I've seen of this.
>
>
>
> Pollution good for you?
>
>
>
> What kind of idiotic, moronic nonsense are we up to now? Bringing to
> environmental regulatory science and public health clearly discredited
> principles that used to constitute homeopathic medicine?
>
>
>
> As to politics, I am a medium conservative republican who didn't like either
> choice for President last time around and so chose the one I though was
> least awful.
>
>
>
> Climate change is clearly real. What is not clear is how much anthropogenic
> activities contribute to it or if it was going to happen anyway (as it has
> many times in the past)..
>
>
>
> A book on the econmoincs of climate change I reviewed for a journal a few
> years ago lead me to the conclusions that we can no longer afford all of us
> in terms of a sustainable environment, and that whether or not anthropogenic
> activites contribute significantly to climate change or not, what's wrong
> with having clean air to breath, clean water to drink, and sa afe and
> adequate food supply, etc., etc. etc.
>
>
>
> Are there "safe" levels of pollutant exposure? Quite difficu;t to say.
> There are levels below which we are currently not able to detect adverse
> effects, but that doesn't mean with long-term and usually multiple complex
> mixture exposures that they clearly do not exist. Public health should
> whenever possible err on the side of being to conservative rather than the
> "let the breather beware" lassez-faire approach.
>
>
>
> Maybe I'll cogitate on this some more later when I'm more up to par, but
> this approach to me seems sheer lunacy.
>
>
>
> Alan
>
> Alan H. Hall, M.D.
>
> Medical Toxicologist
>
> Clinical Asistant Professor
>
> Colrado School of Public Health
>
> University of Colorado-Denver
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:28 AM TILAK CHANDRA
> <0000058f112ac338-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**lists.princeton.edu
> > wrote:
>
> Thank you Rob!
>
>
>
> To verify the actual toxicity of various pollutants/particulates, we need to
> have the data on human clinical trials, not on other species. According to
> recent UNO report, 4.2 million deaths occur each year due to air pollution.
> Also, how we are going to measure low and high pollution.
>
>
>
> This will be a good puzzle for Dr. Alan Hall, a toxicologist to interpret
> reported toxicological data published in peer review journals about some
> pollution is good for humans.
>
>
>
> Tilak
>
> _____
>
> From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety > > on behalf of ILPI Support > >
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:03:40 PM
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
> Subject: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a
> disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced
>
>
>
> The title of this LA Times article speaks for itself. Interesting to hear
> what "mainstream" toxicologists have to say on this.
>
>
>
> https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-secret-science-20190219-story
> .html
>
>
>
> Rob Toreki
>
>
>
> ======================================================
>
> Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
>
> you know and trust. Visit us at http://www.SafetyEmporium.com
> <http://www.safetyemporium.com/>
>
> esales**At_Symbol_Here**safetyemporium.com or toll-free:
> (866) 326-5412
>
> Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the
> Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
> Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
>
> --- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the
> Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
> Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
>
> --- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the
> Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
> Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
> <https://home.mcafee.com/utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-e
> mail&utm_content=emailclient?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=s
> ig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> Scanned by McAfee
> <https://home.mcafee.com/utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-e
> mail&utm_content=emailclient?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=s
> ig-email&utm_content=emailclient> R Internet SecurityT and confirmed
> virus-free.
>
>
>
> --- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the
> Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
> Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
>
> --- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the
> Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
> Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
>
>
> ---
> For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
> Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post