Document zdYNzy2apZXezooeQbxEN2jo0

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #248 Providing news and resources to the Movement for EnvironmentaJ Justice - August 28, 1991 A TALE OF SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY For the last several years two debates have been swirling around the notorious chemical di oxin. One debate has engaged real scientists in the question, How dangerous is dioxin to humans and to wildlife? The second debate has occurred within industries that release dioxin into the en vironment and so will be directly affected by the outcome of the science debate. According to Chemistry & Industry magazine (Feb. 18, 1991, pg. 112) the chlor-alkali industry (which produces chlorine, the use of which by many other industries creates dioxin) "has taken an active interest in the course of the scientific debate." In fact, the Chlorine Institute--a trade association--is coordinating a "public outreach program" to "capitalise [sic] on the outcome of a recent Banbury conference on dioxin." Could such a "public outreach program" have any effect? The New York Times took a most unusual step August 15, 1991, when it announced on page one that the U.S. Environmental Protec tion-Agency (EPA) was beginning a year-long review to develop "a new formal opinion on the risks of dioxin." The Times often reports that studies have been completed, but it rarely reports that studies have been begun. Furthermore, Sci ence magazine had reported May 17, 1991 (pg. 911) that "(EPA) administrator William Reilly has launched a major new effort to reassess the toxicity" of dioxin-so the Times's August 15th news was three months old. In the Times's August 15th story, EPA Ad ministrator Reilly not only announced that his agency was undertaking a year-long review of dioxin toxicity, he also took the unusual step of suggesting to the Times how the study would come out: "I don't want to prejudge the issue, but we -xre seeing new information on dioxin that suggests a lower risk assessment for dioxin should be applied," Mr. Reilly told the Times. The next day the Times ran an editorial prais ing federal officials for "sensibly considering new evidence that could lead to relaxation of the cur rent strict and costly regulatory standards [for dioxin]." And three days later the Times ran a second front-page story which began, "Dioxin, once thought of as the most toxic chemical known, does not deserve that reputation, accor ding to many scientists." The Times did not name any of the "many scientists." What "new information" about dioxin has EPA Administrator Reilly found? According to Sci ence May 17th, the "new information" is a "des cription [given to Mr. Reilly by two EPA scien tists] of a meeting last November at the Banbury Center at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory that Reilly says made the most compelling case for change [in EPA standards for dioxin]." Science had written its own description of the Banbury Conference Feb. 8, 1991 (pg. 624): Sci ence said 38 dioxin researchers from the U.S. and Europe met at Banbury and "reached an agreement that surprised almost everyone." Sci ence went on to say, "And this unlikely agree ment on how dioxin works at the molecular lev el--and some hurried calculations scribbled on a blackboard--could force a dramatic change in how the federal government assesses the risk of this and similar carcinogens [cancer-causing chemicals]." However, two weeks later--February 22, 1991S c ie n c e reported something quite different about the Banbury meeting ("Flap Erupts Over Dioxin Meeting," pg. 866), revealing that the meeting had been sponsored by the Chlorine Institute and that the Institute had hired a public relations firm to circulate a summary of the meeting claiming a "consensus" had been reached when in fact nothing of the kind had happened. For example, one letter, from a PR firm to the North Carolina Environmental Management Com mission, said, "The Banbury Conference was organized for the express purpose of developing a scientific consensus concerning a biological basis for risk assessment.... They were able to achieve consensus." However, independent scientists who had attended the Banbury meeting dispute this view. For example, according to Science, Dr. Ellen Silbergeld of the University of Maryland and "a number of other participants" at the conference felt "manipulated and misused." Silbergeld sent a letter to the Banbury Center's director saying, "I am in fact rather astounded by such a product from a Banbury Conference.... The press re leases and statements imply that a major focus of the conference was a discussion of the regulatory risk assessments that have been applied to diox ins; this was not the focus of this meeting." "I C00083 did not expect to be manipulated by industry and government spokespeople (who are not dioxin researchers, incidentally) to be made into a sup porter of their political views on dioxin and risk assessment," Silbergeld said. According to Science, the Chlorine Institute initiated the Banbury Conference and paid for half of i t Science quoted The Chlorine Insti tute's head of communications, saying the Insti tute believed the meeting could be "beneficial to our interests, particularly our interest in the paper industry." The use o f chlorine in industrial pro cesses often leads to the creation of dioxin as a by-product; the paper industry is under great pressure to reduce its dioxin' emissions. For example, the newsletter Environment Week repor ted Feb. 14, 1991: A $1 million punitive damages award by a M ississippi jury last October against Georgia Pacific [paper company] fo r alleged dioxin pollu tion o f the L ea f River has touched o ff a stampede o f similar suits against paper mills in Mississippi, Tennessee and several other states. The legal actions, which involve thousands o f plaintiffs and billions o f dollars in damage claims against major paper companies, have begun to resemble the avalanche o f legal problem s that h it the asbestos industry in the 1980s. Enormous dioxin liabilities don't stop with the paper industry. On July 10, 1991, a Missouri jury awarded $1.5 million to the. family of Alvin J. Overmann, a S t Louis trucker who died of cancer, his workplace had been contaminated by dioxin. Several hundred similar lawsuits are pending in the Missouri courts now as a result of the contamination of the town of Times Beach. Why might the New York Times participate in a public relations campaign to promote the view that dioxin is less dangerous than previously believed? James Ledbetter, a media columnist for New York's Village Voice said Aug. 27 (pg. 8) said, "For some reason, August is dioxin re visionism month.... Once again, the chemical industry is trying to bamboozle federal regulators and the public, with the eager cooperation of the mainstream press," he said, citing the Times. Ledbetter suggested that perhaps the Irmes's "industrial-strength enthusiasm over eliminating 'strict and costly' standards can be traced to the fact that the New York Times Company has an 80 per cent interest in a Maine paper mill, and a 49 per cent interest in three Canadian paper mills. Indeed, on August 12, just four days be fore [the Times's] editorial ran, two groups of Canadian Indians filed suit against Kimberly Clark and the Times Company for $13 billion (Canadian), charging that one o f the mills has polluted three rivers with dioxin and other tox ins," Ledbetter said. A two-day Citizens' Conference on Dioxin has been organized by an international group o f scientists and researchers. It will be held S ep t 21-22 at the Omni Europa Hotel in Cha pel H ill, North Carolina. The first day ("Defining the Problem s") w ill feature three sessions: (1) A Lay Person's Guide to Dioxins and Related Compounds; (2) A Status Report on Dioxin's Impact on Human Health and the Environment; and (3) Fraud and M anipulation in Dioxin Studies. The second day w ill feature "Solutions Pro moted by Citizens": (1) Clean Production, W aste Reduction and Zero Discharge; (2) Get ting the Chlorine Out o f the Paper Industry; and (3) Banning Incineration. To attend, phone Paul or Ellen Connett in Canton, NY: (315) 379-9200. Fax: (315) 3790448. More on this important event next week. Rachel's Hazardous Waste News is published weekly by Environmental Research Foundation, P.0. Box 73700, Washington, D C 20056-3700. Telephone (202) 328-1119. Editor: Peter Montague, P h D ; Associate Editor Maria B. PeSerano; Assistant Editor Annette Eubank; Circulation M anager Laura Burt; Associate Director Bobbin Lee Zeff, PhD.; Research Assistant Sophie Young. Subscription rates: $40 per year for individuals and citizen groups, $80 tor government agencies, $15 tor students and seniors with ID, $400 tor businesses and professionals. In Canada and Mexico, add $6.00; in all other countries, add $11.00. All payments in U.S. funds. Printed on ioo% recycledpaper. SU B SC R IP T IO N O R D E R FO RM Name: Address: City: State and Zip: Environmental Research Foundation P.0. Box 73700 W ashington, D C 20056-3700 A D D R E S S C O R R EC T IO N R E Q U E ST E D TO: FIRST-CLASS MAIL U.S. POSTAGE PAID Washington, DC Permit Ho. 4682