Tittabawassee River Watch EditorialBack to editorial page
Oct, 17 2004
In response toMidland Daily News 10/17/04 article
The claim by Dow that inhalation does not lead to increased body burden would seem to
be directly contradicted by a recently published study in New Zealand of a population
around the (former?) DOW Ivor Watkins plant in Paritutu, New Plymouth, New Zealand. The
results of serum testing indicate quite strongly that exposure to an operating plant can
lead to significantly higher body burdens, particularly where the emissions are not
subject to adequate controls. See http://www.moh.govt.nz/dioxins
and in particular the serum test results.
In Belgium when they introduced constant sampling (AMESA) they found that incinerators were putting out 25 to 30 times as had been indicated by the periodic sampling by prior arrangement between monitoring authorities and polluters like DOW. The relevant paper (" Underestimation in dioxin emission inventories" and others are at http://www.becker-messtechnik.de/amesa/eng/publications.htm
Does Dow even have rapid quench and constant sampling like AMESA (see http://www.becker-messtechnik.de/amesa/eng/amesa.htm for info on AMESA)?
While cancer is important, dioxin is believed to have harmful effects on development at levels well below the levels that might be suspected to cause or promote cancer and the protection from non-cancer effects should be the appropriate focus. See the Powerpoint presentation by Birnbaum of US EPA on this issue.
Rhodes NSW Australia
(near a former Union Carbide plant undergoing remediation )
Back to editorial page