<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Are our standards for exposure to toxics all wrong?]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/fat-rats-may-be-evidence-that-were-all-doomed/ Sun, 13 May 2007 00:29:30 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fat-rats-may-be-evidence-that-were-all-doomed/1 and lest we forget ...

Animal testing of various substances for toxicological effects is ethically very controversial.  Rodents are highly sensitive animals.  Forcing them to submit to the introduction of certain substances into their bodies, with the expectation of causing ill health or death, is immoral.

Here is some information, with links, from the Humane Society of the United States:

http://hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

]]> and lest we forget ...

Animal testing of various substances for toxicological effects is ethically very controversial.  Rodents are highly sensitive animals.  Forcing them to submit to the introduction of certain substances into their bodies, with the expectation of causing ill health or death, is immoral.

Here is some information, with links, from the Humane Society of the United States:

http://hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

]]> Comment #2 by Green Granny http://www.grist.org/article/fat-rats-may-be-evidence-that-were-all-doomed/ Sun, 13 May 2007 00:29:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fat-rats-may-be-evidence-that-were-all-doomed/2 Regulations and false assumptions

The thought that any level of regulation could be enough may be the biggest false assumption of them all.  Why do we assume that any level of environmental/food poisoning is safe/acceptable?  What kind of assumption do we make when we decide how many people harmed is few enough and how small the harm is little enough?  Several years ago son was aghast to discover there are FDA regulations about how much puss can "safely" be allowed in milk.  He wanted to know how anyone could think ANY puss was OK.  

Is any level of any poison, including those that affect the endocrine system, acceptable?  

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

]]> Regulations and false assumptions

The thought that any level of regulation could be enough may be the biggest false assumption of them all.  Why do we assume that any level of environmental/food poisoning is safe/acceptable?  What kind of assumption do we make when we decide how many people harmed is few enough and how small the harm is little enough?  Several years ago son was aghast to discover there are FDA regulations about how much puss can "safely" be allowed in milk.  He wanted to know how anyone could think ANY puss was OK.  

Is any level of any poison, including those that affect the endocrine system, acceptable?  

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

]]> Comment #3 by Quinn http://www.grist.org/article/fat-rats-may-be-evidence-that-were-all-doomed/ Sun, 13 May 2007 14:40:03 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fat-rats-may-be-evidence-that-were-all-doomed/3 NOEL

There is something called the No Observable Effects Level or NOEL.  It's pretty self-explanatory but what it is is a threshold dose of toxin determined under which there are no observable effects.  The government takes this value and multiplies it by a factor of around 100 and develops standards for an acceptable level of exposure.  

My point is that it doesn't matter if the effects vary with the dose.  The fact that rats are obese with a low dose of DES and scrawny with a high dose is completely irrelevant.  In determining levels of safe exposure to a chemical, any observable effect is taken into account.  Scientists look for the threshold at which effects start and normality ceases.  Anything beyond that point is interesting and intriguing, but not relevant to regulatory toxicology.

We're not "all doomed."  Enough with the whistle blowing for the sake of whistle blowing.  

As for the question of whether any level of poison is acceptable, first define poison.  Any substance at a large enough dose is poisonous including (believe it or not) water, caffeine, and sugar.  Granted the dose would have to be enormous, but they still could be fatal.  

That said, some chemicals are more toxic than others.  But as long as people are around, there will be toxins around to affect us.  To declare that any level of toxin is unacceptable is completely unrealistic.  Since everything is toxic at a large enough dose, the best we can do is find out what dose is safe and try to keep it below that.

]]> NOEL

There is something called the No Observable Effects Level or NOEL.  It's pretty self-explanatory but what it is is a threshold dose of toxin determined under which there are no observable effects.  The government takes this value and multiplies it by a factor of around 100 and develops standards for an acceptable level of exposure.  

My point is that it doesn't matter if the effects vary with the dose.  The fact that rats are obese with a low dose of DES and scrawny with a high dose is completely irrelevant.  In determining levels of safe exposure to a chemical, any observable effect is taken into account.  Scientists look for the threshold at which effects start and normality ceases.  Anything beyond that point is interesting and intriguing, but not relevant to regulatory toxicology.

We're not "all doomed."  Enough with the whistle blowing for the sake of whistle blowing.  

As for the question of whether any level of poison is acceptable, first define poison.  Any substance at a large enough dose is poisonous including (believe it or not) water, caffeine, and sugar.  Granted the dose would have to be enormous, but they still could be fatal.  

That said, some chemicals are more toxic than others.  But as long as people are around, there will be toxins around to affect us.  To declare that any level of toxin is unacceptable is completely unrealistic.  Since everything is toxic at a large enough dose, the best we can do is find out what dose is safe and try to keep it below that.

]]>