Tittabawassee River Watch Editorial          Back to editorial page  

WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)

Paul Hanly 3/11/05 reader opinion posted to Midland Daily News article

  Paul Hanly Mar, 11 2005
  Two comments:

A second test of say 30 people who believe they have adverse health effects linked to dioxin exposure which could then be compared to the random sample would be useful. What is the point of doing testing of only those expected to have average exposure? What about those who believe they will have high exposure?

Where is the comparable international benchmarking from UK, Austraila and New Zealand - what if all the areas being tested are effected becuase the dioxins are spread throughout your food growing areas because of incineration and other sources, then going through the food chain, bio-accumulating. You have a right to know where you fit not only against another Michigan group who could also have high dioxins because about 90% is through food and they are buying foods from the same supermarkets supplied by the same manufacturers, but also from international studies. My understanding is that most US citizens are likely to be over the age adjusted curve implied by the Tolerable Daily Intakes recommended by World Health Organisation (1-4 pg per kg of Bodyweight per day with advice to try to achieve lower level of 1) European Committee on Food Additives and the AustralianNational Health & Medical Research Council (both 70 per month = 2.3 per day).



Back to editorial page