Document woz7VMa8JXVEGEwYBpqV0qB3

DIOXIN Dow goes- to%;iw,( ork on a contamination problem DOW Chemical's- offer of $2.5 million ' for dioxin studies is a welcome acknowi--, edgment of the public concern over , t h e " possible effects of the chemical, pot to . mention the damage the dioxin controversy has done to Dow's image. The studies, if they are carried out under conditions that .assure their integrity, should help to reme-v dy both problems. ' '. > Em . State officials obviously have to.clarify the conditions under which state.agencies.,, can accept Dow's' offer. The''results. of.{ ,Dow's own dioxin research in the past have been questioned by those who'disagreed with their methodology or scope. The cpm> pany must realize; already/vth^need .tjfe i involve some of its critics in'the^desigh of1'" the proposed studies, well beforejj they^ i : begin, so' that the `results cannot1be' dls- 1 ; missed or discredited, whatever they show. ' t Dow is still under,a mandate to provide,^; information on Us manufacturing processes '' and discharges to the federal Environmen tal Protection Agency, and that flow, of * information should continue. The compa ny's concern about the confidentiality of its manufacturing processes is legitimate, apd;., .DVo'w 'Chemic'al plant'%--t's'*r& L1.'*i-'s. 1the EPA should fihdra way to respect it.*' . when science simply doesn't'-provide the Beyond the Dow-dioxin case>.iie>;i[he answers fast enough for society to make larger unsolved problems of how-to deal the proper decisions.' It will be a long time with a multitude of other suspected carcin before' those problems are worked out. Ir ogens in the environment; how to lessen the . the meantime, Dow's willingness to co adversary relationship between industry, operate with state government in explorinj and government, which hinders scientific and defusing this specific issue is an impor ' i!--irVlQt tft fif. tant bit of progress. /