Interesting idea.  But I believe this was tried without success.  Without getting into all the different “regulatory” bodies or experts, we may want to consider the grand results of the GHS Standards.  Each country was to either accept and adopt all aspects of a GHS Hazcom definition for SDS’s or only include those with which they would completely concur with.  Didn’t happen, would you like to start listing examples of junk science being published?  If so, I would suggest a database since a spreadsheet would not have the capabilities.

Define toxicities scope, is it LD/LC50, IDLH, acute, chronic, carcinogen, mutagenic or reproductive, etc., or a mixture of any of the tests (to include those not listed)?  The scope of your assessed veracity statement needs clarified and defined before it can be even discussed to scope.  I’m only a safety guy but does your e-mail follow the scientific method?  You mentioned the IARC list of known carcinogens, but what about mutagens or teratogens being compared to a simple asphyxiant?  I won’t ask about the toxicity effects of nanoparticles, that would blow up the database.

BruceV 

Listers,

I wish to assess the veracity of the statement:  “There are many tens of thousands of chemicals in use, but only a small percentage have been tested for toxicity. "

Some numbers:  The National Toxicology Program (NTP) states (in 2012) “More than 80,000 chemicals are registered for use in the United States.:  (National Toxicology Program | HHS | Catalog of Environmental Programs 2012 (epa.gov)), and that about 2000 more are introduced each year.   The American Chemistry Council challenges this number and says it should be closer to 38,304 due to duplication and inclusion of chemicals no longer being used. (Debunking the Myths: Are there really 84,000 chemicals? (chemicalsafetyfacts.org))  Further they suggest that the EPA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) is a better measure and that lists “only” 8707 chemicals.

With regard to “toxicity” the IARC has listed 121 chemicals as known carcinogens (although this, of course, is not the only form of “toxicity” that affect humans.)   RTECS (What is the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances? - Definition from Safeopedia ) tallies 150,000 chemicals in the list formerly known as the “Toxic Substances List”.  Their methodology suggests that some “toxicity” testing has occurred  the chemical on this list but there is no connection to the NTP list.

Using these numbers in various combinations, one could conclude that the phrase “small percentage” is the original quote above is “pretty fair” or “entirely unfair”.   Complex situations often should not be reduced to a single statement and, at the very least, if the original quote is accurate it should be accompanied by some explanations.

I would welcome from the group some insights about a “fair” statement about “chemical exposure” and the degree to which we have determined the toxicity within that group.

I will end with Monona’s title from her book:  Pick Your Poison: How Our Mad Dash to Chemical Utopia is Making Lab Rats of Us All. 

Dave

David C. Finster
Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry
Wittenberg University

--- 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