TURNING AROUND THE DIOXIN SCARE

Low doses of dioxin may not be as carcinogenic as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states in its draft risk assessment, according to a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). In an analysis released today, the panel called on EPA to clarify uncertainties and better justify some assumptions about the danger of dioxin.

Historically found in herbicides and industrial waste, today dioxins come mainly from incineration of municipal trash. Emissions have dropped by about 90% since 1987, yet the compounds have contaminated soils and water worldwide and have made their way through the food chain by accumulating in animal fat. In lab animals, dioxins cause tumors, birth defects, and many other problems. But the risks to the general public from long-term, low-dose exposure are difficult to establish.

In its first risk assessment of dioxin, in 1985, EPA called the compound a "probable human carcinogen." As more data came in, the agency reassessed the threat, and in 2000 it gauged that the cancer risks for the most exposed people were 10-fold higher than it previously thought (Science, 16 June 2000, p. 1941). This was controversial, however, as was the agency's view that cancer risk depends linearly on dose (which would mean there is no safe dose). In 2004, after an interagency working group couldn't agree on the report, the 1800-page document was sent to the NAS for review.

A key finding of the 18-member committee is that EPA should not simply assume a linear relationship between low doses and cancer risk. That "is not the most scientifically justified approach," says toxicologist David Eaton of the University of Washington, Seattle, who chaired the panel. Rather, EPA should consider a nonlinear dose response with a threshold below which dioxin has no impact on cancer. Further evidence for such a response comes from a series of animal tests on dioxin, published last year by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science's National Toxicology program, the panel found. A nonlinear dose response would imply a lower cancer risk, although the panel did not calculate the amount. The panel also said the agency should quantify the uncertainties surrounding the risks of cancer and other health problems.

The committee's recommendations are "pretty important," says Martin Van den Berg, a toxicologist at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, who reviewed the NAS report. "In practice, the risk of dioxins with respect to carcinogenesis might have been overrated." Eaton says that EPA should be able to follow its recommendations and finalize the report in a year or so. "We hope that they can complete this in a timely fashion."

Source






RECYCLING FRUITCAKES LOSE A ROUND IN BRITAIN

The first person to be prosecuted for failing to recycle household rubbish was cleared of any offence yesterday after magistrates decided that there was insufficient evidence to convict. Donna Challice, 31, a mother of three, had denied that she was responsible for repeatedly leaving rotting food in a green recycling bin intended for items such as cans, paper, plastic bottles and glass. Mrs Challice denied six counts of contaminating the recycling bin and claimed that the food waste was put there by passers-by while the bins were on the street awaiting collection.

The decision by magistrates could have implications for other councils trying to persuade householders to sort their waste before putting it in the appropriate bins. Exeter City Council, which brought the prosecution, called for a change in the law to make it easier to get a conviction. The court was told that Mrs Challice was one of a number of residents who were sent warning letters by Exeter City Council alerting them of fines of up to o1,000 for failing to separate items for the green recycling bins. Council officials made several inspections of Mrs Challice's bin and on every occasion found food waste, including discarded takeaways, contaminating the recyclable items.

However, Frances Eastwood, the chairman of the bench at Cullompton Magistrates' Court in Devon, said that the council had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Mrs Challice who was responsible for putting the food waste into the bins. Mrs Challice had repeatedly told council investigators that neither she nor her children, Warren, 14, Kimberley, 12, and Ryan, 10, had put the food into the bin outside her home in Hazel Road, Exeter. Mark Shell, her solicitor, said: "Who put the items in the bin? We do not know. It is not our problem. It is the Crown who have to satisfy the court that it was the defendant."

After the case Mike Trim, the Exeter City Council recycling officer, said: "We will have to look at the implications for us and other local authorities. It will be hard to bring cases like this if there has to be direct evidence of an individual contaminating a recycling bin. "It's hard to see how you can carry out surveillance practically on what people do in their own homes and their own back gardens. This case shows the Act is not working in its current form." He said that the council would continue to enforce the recycling regulations. He added: "The cost of this case to the council is about 5,000 to 6,000 pounds, but it has been worth it because the cost of contamination to us each year is 100,000 pounds." Mrs Challice left court without making any comment but Mr Shell said that she was delighted at the outcome.

Source






Good, bad ideas from 'greenies'

Post lifted from The Locker Room

I groaned when I saw the cover of the latest Newsweek -- filled with the promise of more environmental silliness.

But I must admit that the lead story was pretty good. Sure, some of the ideas sound goofy. But the key is that most of the 10-page article dealt with private citizens and companies testing their ideas without resorting to public money or government regulation.

Writer Jerry Adler makes a brief mention of green government policies in Chicago and Austin, Texas. I'm in no position to debate the merits of those initiatives, but I presume voters in both communities would have a better chance of killing off wasteful local programs than trying to fight federal or state policies.

With those exceptions, I approached the other ideas with an open mind. If the developers of recycled-denim insulation can find a market for their product -- without government intrusion -- more power to them.

After reading that article, I figured there must be a catch. I was wrong. There were two.

First, there's the sidebar that criticizes President Bush's environmental policy. It seems some people can't understand why a man who uses captured rain and wastewater for his ranch's landscaping -- not to mention an underground geothermal system for heating and air conditioning -- wouldn't use the coercive power of government to force more people to do the same.

"Whatever motivated him to build a green ranch before he was president hasn't been translated at all into policy," says Frances Beinecke of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Perhaps Beinecke can find a clue in the sentence that describes the president's response to global warming.

Bush thinks new technologies-not treaties-can save the day.

Here's the second catch. As if the magazine was trying to soften us up for the blow, the green issue ends with a column: "What We Need Is Policy."

Writer Jane Bryant Quinn throws the whole market-based solution idea out the window. If only the magazine's printer could have skipped that page.






STUPID BRITISH VERSION OF "SMART GROWTH"

Too bad about what the people want in their housing

The cul-de-sac, a feature of almost every housing development built since the Second World War, has reached the end of the road. Estate agents emphasise the benefits of living in a dead end with no passing traffic. But it is precisely the lack of passers-by that has prompted the Government to condemn cul-de-sacs in its guidance on street design. It recommends instead a series of blocks arranged in a grid, a building pattern pioneered 2,000 years ago in Roman towns. The draft guidance, Manual for Streets, says that blocks are more conducive to walking and cycling, and make more efficient use of space. It says that cul-de-sacs often cause people to make long detours to reach shops and schools, encouraging them to travel by car.

The guidance says: "A dead-end road system of loops and lollipops has been the dominant layout of suburban housing developments for the last 30 years. It could be argued that most housing developments of this type lack any sense of coherent urban structure. "Many suffer from layouts that make orientation difficult, create leftover and ill-defined spaces, have too many blank walls and facades and are inconvenient for pedestrians, cyclists and buses."

Andrew Cameron, technical director of WSP Group, the consultancy which helped to produce the manual, said that research in the US had found that people living in cul-de-sacs weighed, on average, 6lb more than those living in grid-type developments. "The environment within which we live affects not just how we move about but our health as well. The Victorians were good at creating connected networks of streets, like in Clapham or Balham in South London. You get more street activity on these than on cul-de-sacs," he said.

The Space Syntax Laboratory at University College London found in the 1990s that householders were 30 per cent more likely to be burgled if they lived in a cul-de-sac. Ben Hamilton-Baillie, a street design consultant, said: "People may like the apparent exclusivity of cul-de-sacs, but, like gated communities, they often lead to a sense of isolation." Richard Hebditch, policy co-ordinator at Living Streets, formerly the Pedestrians' Association, said: "If you don't happen to get on with the people who live on your cul-de-sac, it can be a nightmare. A grid pattern is better at linking homes to a wider community."

Barratt Homes, one of Britain's biggest residential developers, defended the cul-de-sac and said that it planned to continue building them. A spokesman said: "A great many homebuyers like cul-de-sacs - and so do many planning authorities. As well as allowing houses to be arranged so that other houses in the close are visible, thereby improving security, they are not subject to through traffic and are, therefore, rightly perceived to be safer for pedestrians, especially little ones. Our experience is that cul-de-sacs also often help build a sense of neighbourliness and community."

The guidance manual establishes what it describes as a "hierarchy of modes", with pedestrians at the top, followed by cyclists then public transport users. Car users are at the bottom of the list. It concludes: "This hierarchy should be adhered to in the design process - this may at times result in reduced vehicle capacity and increased vehicle delay so that other modes can be accommodated

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************