Document LKo1aDGVkB71Nj4npE6kxmb3b

Monsanto Meknto Eufoo* 5 A A*f"u <J* T#f*urtr* 270-27? L*M#> 8I No B 1150 B'utfttli B*lo>jm The Editor Electrical Review Quadrant House The Quadrant Sutton Surrey SM2 5AS UNITED KINGDOM September 15, 1982. Dear Sir, 1 was dismayed and disappointed to sea polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) described as "highly toxic" and "carcinogenic" in the article, "P.C.B. pollution alarm for Hawker Slddeley," Electrical Review, 3 September 1982. 1 must point out that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence (see enclosed bsckground information) supports neither the "highly toxic" or "carcinogenic" label. As to toxicity, PCBs on an acute baais are about as toxic to humans as common table salt and arc thus classified as only mldly toxic. You should also know that since 1976 there have been 10 epidemiology studies of the human health effects of PCBs performed by scientists throughout the world and that none of these studies produced evidence of a link between PCBs and any human cancer or, indeed, any other chronic health effects. On the other hand, there is no question that PCBs are a persistent class of compounds requiring proper handling and disposal. In addition, they are not innoculous, i.e., like most chemicals, PCBs can produce harmful effects at very high doses. MOWS 003843 Til I0?< 76? M 1? TtlM 62927 RCB 294 694 C C P 000 OOOS787 57 TVA-BTW 406 580 943 Mors*'*.' fAGl No 2 Wc realise that there is substantial amount of misinformation in print and* unfortunattly, "on the record," regarding PCBs. Thus, we can understand how even a respected technical journal such as Electrical Review could be misled -- indeed* this is how myths ere perpetuated. At the same time* as a former manufacturer of PCBs and an unrivaled source of scientific expertise on them* we have a responsibility to combat the grossly exaggerated perceptions of risk associated with exposure to PCBs wherever encountered. It Is In this spirit that we provide the enclosed Information. Sincerely yours* Enel MOMS 003844