Document 1Q1YN0vd7nYe78Gnvg2EY6abj

The Holocaust That Didn't Happen And the Black Soldiers Who Weren't There The Truth on El Salvador Stalling on South Africa Mexican "M iracle" Twin Towers Theories Howard Zinn vs. John Silber 000023 The Dispute Over Dioxin John J. Burton, Washington, New Jersey: March 3,1993 Peter Montague's "The Times Detoxifies Dioxin" accuses the Times of presenting only one side of the dioxin controversy {LOOT, January/February 1993, p. 9). But I find this article also to be biased. A picture is shown of the meeting where the EPA offered to buy the town of Times Beach, Mo., because of dioxin contami nation. No mention is included of the fact that nine years later Dr. Vernon Houk, director of the Centers for Disease Control, said that if he knew in 1982 what he knows now about dioxin's threat, he never would have recommended that Times Beach be evacuated. Michael LaCombe, in the same issue, said "Dioxin's grue some reputation, derived from disclosures of its effects in mass exposures like Agent Orange during the Vietnam War and the 1983 evacuation of Tunes Beach, has fueled extensive research," This is misleading; no effects have been shown in either case, so the judge in the Agent Orange veterans lawsuit was not able to determine which veterans should get the benefits. I have been involved in the problem of dioxin for about 30 years. In 1951 I designed and put into operation a unit at Diamond Shamrock (then Kolker Chemical) to manufacture 2, 4, 5-T and for the next nine years, the occurrence of chloracne among the workers was one of my biggest concerns. My last involvement was being a consultant to the group of lawyers in their lawsuit against the manufacturers of Agent Orange. I em phasized to this group that I could provide indisputable evidence that at least one manufacturer, contrary to their claimed igno rance, knew of the presence and toxicity of dioxin in Agent Orange. But I also emphasized there was no evidence of any effect on U.S. troops in Vietnam. My experience, and I believe this is generally correct, was that the first effect of dioxin was to cause chloracne and there was no evidence of this on Americans in Vietnam. I was pleased to see the $180 million awarded to the Vietnam veterans because the conditions under which they serv ed made all such benefits warranted; I had been an active oppo nent of the Vietnam war. There must have been much harm from Agent Orange to the Vietnamese who were directly exposed to it and who had to use contaminated water from streams and lagoons. I know of no study made to investigate this. When there was an outbreak of chloracne among workers at German 2, 4, 5-T plants in the early 1950s, their government forced them to stop production and not to resume it until they had found the cause and the means to prevent it. Their research found that dioxin, formed in small amounts in the process, was the cause, and the toxicity of dioxin was described in an article in Dermatologica, Reference to this article appeared in our Chemical Abstracts in 1959 but was apparently not noticed by our manufacturer's research groups. 24 LIES OF OUR TIMES In 1960 Monsanto purchased from a German firm the techni cal information on dioxin, and I understand Dow Chemical did the same in 1965 when they had an outbreak of chloracne among their workers. In spite of their having good contacts with German 2, 4, 5-T manufacturers, Diamond failed to similarly purchase this available technical information but instead relied on piece meal and often contradictory free bits of information from the Germans. The story of dioxin includes much incompetence, culpability, and disinformation on the part of our government and our manu facturers. But Lies O f Out Times should be careful to maintain its own credibility if it is to properly cany out its role of promoting honesty in the media. Peter Montague responds: The statement by Dr. Houk that Mr. Burton cites was one he made as an individual, not as a representative o f government (incidentally, Houk's title is Special Assistant to the Directorfor Environmental Health; he is not, and never was, "director o fthe Centersfor Disease Control" as Burton identifies him). Further more, on June 10,1992, Dr. Barry Johnson, assistant adminis trator of the federal Agency fo r Toxic Substances and Disease Registry testified before Congress that the government's official position today is that, faced with another Times Beach situation, the government's response today would be exactly what it was 10 years ago--they would evacuate the citizenry. At that same public hearing on June 10, Houk's views were characterized by Rep. Ted Weiss as ,,cockamamie,, and "quirky " (see Rachel's Hazardous Waste News #290). As for Burton's claim that there is no evidence o f harm to Vietnam veteransfrom exposure to Agent Orange (an herbicide containing dioxin and sprayed extensively in Vietnam), it ap pears that he is simply misinformed. Unfortunately, since no one was measuring dioxin exposures in Vietnam at the time they were happening, the only kind o f study possible today is epide miological, and the exposures must be estimated, not measured. Epidemiology cannot "prove" a cause-and-effect relationship but it can indicate a correlation between two things, such as exposure to herbicides and presence o f disease conditions. In April 1990, the Agent Orange Scientific Task Force (com posed o f seven prominent, independent scientists and physi cians) published a report called Human Health Effects Associ ated With Exposure to Herbicides And/Or Their Associated Contaminants--Chlorinated Dioxins (Washington, D.C.: Na tional Veterans Legal Services Project [2001 S Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20009-1125; (202) 265-8305J; 41 pages, plus 33 pages o f useful appendices; $10.00 plus $3.00 shipping). In their report, the authors reviewed 285 separate studies o f human exposures to the kinds o f herbicides used in Vietnam (called phenoxy herbicides). The panel concluded that there is a "significant statistical association " between exposure to herbicide Agent Orange and various cancers (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and soft tissue sar. coma), serious skin disorders (chloracne), and liver disorders. The panel said, "The aggregate interpretation o f several sound studies showing a statistically significant association for each o f these conditions make this conclusion inescapable " (see Rachel's Hazardous Waste News #73 and ^ U i ) 0 O 2 4 * May 1993 The Hazardocri Waste Mews Page 2 URCE RECOVERY: iht Q u e stio n s for C itiz e n s C h e m ic a ls in the New s: nda Hove D IO X IN 4. Plants do not always operate at peak efficiency. Attempting to head off Ask whether the plant will The term dioxin is generally used to refer to a pending garbage crisis be shut down for repairs group of .75 compounds known as dibenzo-p-dioxins. The Jersey( the state when monitoring shows that most. toxic of these b 2,3,7,8-tetracnlorodibenzo-p- Xature, in 1970, emissions exceed the limits dioxin, or TCDD for short. ferred. control of sol- that have been set. Ask Dioxin is an unsought waste product of many manu ste disposal from lo where the garbage will go facturing processes. It is particularly associated with to state government. when the plant is "down." the production of herbicides (Agent Orange), pesticides, 975 amendments to the Waste Management Act ed a2l garbage dis- Is. there a contingency plan? *** and other chlorinated hydrocarbons (for example, the cleanser hexachlorophene). Dioxin is also found, whenever it is. looked for, s in the state , 20 ies and the Hackensack 5. Much air pollution comes, directly from the in the fly. ash (smoke and soot) of garbage incinerators. The majority of this dioxin is producea by the combus wlands Development materials that are being tion of chlorinated hydrocarbons, including polyvinyl ration. Each district burned. Ask whether metals chloride (PVC) plastic (used in plastic wraps, textiles, old it must design a will be. removed before in pipe, and bottles, for example). A much smaller amount for disposing of its olid waste. The De- cineration -so they are not volatilized (changed into a of dioxin is produced by the combustion of wood, paper, and coal. ent of Environments1 ction was charged:with ving these plans. State policy called phasing out of land- and a phasing in of lied high technology ions (i.e., "resource ery"). . There are two basic ties of resource re- v plant : those where Lables are removed 2 incineration, and where recyclables are removed "before in- ation-- the. so-called burn facilities. Both ties, however, have.as mon theme the burning 1lid waste to obtain f in the form of steam ictricity, foreover, whether the :ion is called a re- 2 recovery facility, a to energy plant, or a ge incincerator, there magic about it. Gar- Ls burned, but it does totally disappear, incineration, roughly y volume of the solid is left over Cas ash noncombustibles like and glass ). Thus a ill, albeit a smaller is always associated resource recovery. In addition, smoke and go up the stack along gases and many toxic :al8 that do not burn typical incinerator ratures. These may or not be caught .by 31icat ed po1lution 31 devices. Since nearly . every y in the state is cury considering some of resource recovery, the Hazardous Waste are concerned that ens obtain the ' in- tion they need to make riate decisions. This e is the first of a b . It offers some stions about vha t ions citizens should king. - * ** Resource recovery doei liminate the need for ill space. Ask where Bh will go and whether roundwater can be pro- gaseous or particulate form .in the heat) and sent up the stack. Ask whether Slastics will be removed so ioxins and furans are not produced during combustion. * ** 6. The theory in resource recovery circles often ap pears to be "the bigger the better. Once a large plant is built, efficiency demands a steady supply of. garbage. Contractual arrangements also require a steady output of steam or electricity. Plants should' be sized conservat ively to allow for and .encourage increased recycling. Ask how resource recovery and recyc1ing programs vil 1 be integrated. Is the plant too big? Will the demand for garbage to burn threaten to end successful and growing recycling pro- *** 7. Siting difficulties and political pressures often make government choose to build a few large facilities rather than many smaller ones. This -means that the risks associated with waste disposal are not always shared equitably among the waste producer's. Clarifying the trade-offs that must be made between, the need for garbage dis posal, the risk of possible environments1 contami- nat ion, and the need to protect everyone's right to clean air and water is not always easy. Citizens should ask themselves and then ask their governors whether fairness and equity have been considered in the siting process. ^ 8. And lastly, when .the hard questions of risk, responsibility, and trade offs have been fairly answered, citizens should ask the promoters of re source recovery whether they| honestly, would, be willing to have the facili ty in their backyard. (In the nstf issue: Air pollution ana resource re Dioxin clings tightly to soil particles. It is fractically insoluole in water.. Dioxin does not, thereore, leach easily through .soil, and so one does not generally, find dioxin contaminating water supplies under a. dump site. Dioxin may, however, be moved around by wind as it. blows contaminated dust, or by the tires of moving vehicles, or other.everyday means. Dioxin is soluble in alcohol, oil, and fat. It will stay in body tissue; therefore exposure to dioxin has a culmulative effect. Ultraviolet light causes dioxin to break down. Tests show the half-life, of dioxin in sunshine to be 1 to 2 weeks. (Half-life is the time it takes for half an amount of the substance to break down.) In soils, how ever, dioxin is long-lasting. Genetic engineering tech niques have been used to develop bacteria capable of biodegrading some varieties of dioxin. These experi ments may someday lead to an improved method of cleanup. Health effects TCDD is one of the most potent poisons known. One of the most perplexing properties of all dioxins is, however, that different amounts affect dif ferent species in different ways. For example, as little as one millionth of a gram per kilogram of body weight (1 kg B 2.2 lbs. and 1 g 1/28 oz.) of TCDD will kill.a guinea pig* The lethal dose for a hamster is 5000 times this amount. Scientists do not know which species will prove to be the closest model for the way dioxins affect human beings. Scientists do agree that very small amounts of dioxin, measured in parts per million or billion, are dangerous to various body systems. Dioxins have been associated with a variety of human health problems, from chloracne to liver disease and neurological disorders. Exposure to dioxin also increases the likelihood of.cer tain cancers. Researchers do not agree whether dioxin itself causes the cancer or whether dioxin ^acts as a "promoter," that ie it increases a person's suscep tibility to other carcinogens in the environment, cigarette smoke or engine, exhaust,for example Ingestion of dioxin appears more harmful than either inhalation or skin absorption. In children the greatest risk of exposure comes from playing in con taminated dirt. Adults ingest dioxin by eating fish or shellfish that feed in waters where the soil bed has been contaminated by dioxin. Standards There is no agreement about how much .ex posure to dioxin is safe for human beings. Some scien tists argue that there is no safe level of exposure. In 1983, responding to. the needs of the Times Beach, Mo., cleanup, the National Center for .Disease Control set levels for human exposure to dioxin in soils as one part per billion (ppb). This standard was set not because research had indicated this to be the proper level, but because it was the lowest level of concentra tion that could be practically measured. Homes in Times Beach, bought by the government, showed contamination levels of 200-300 ppb. The Diamond Alkali site .in Newark showed contamination levels of 500-1200 ppb, with some Bpot contamination of 51,000 ppb. The U.S. Food and Drug. Administration regulates consumption of contaminated fish with these standards: 5v t ) parts per trillion (ppt)--no consumption; 25-50 ppt-^once a week; under 25 ppt-- unlimited consumption. It has been said that one part per trillion is the eqi- valent of one postage stamp in an area the .size of Dal- las. There is no federal standard air. d from possible con covery. ) ation. If it can be, ill it be. *** i ______ * _ ,, .r - : -- . ____ i S nA fit F u e l R e tu r n t n H v e to r H ro o k DaIa v a H