February 16, 2007
1,4-dioxane: It's nasty stuffCommentary
Jeffery Kurz
The media has taken criticism for global warming coverage, by those who say too much credence has been given for far too long to naysayers, those who don't think humans are to blame, or others who don't think a degree change here or there makes much of a difference anyway. Now we're watching things that aren't supposed to melt melt.
It's true that while one of the basic journalism tenets, balance, serves the public well when it comes to things like politics, it doesn't always work as effectively with matters of science.
Part of the reason is that most journalists are not scientists, and are not in the best position to judge when scientists disagree. But they can act as referees, making sure each side gets a fair say, and letting the public make up its own mind. Quibbles aside, I'm not sure the public would want it any other way.
That said, reporters are people, at least theoretically, and human instincts are hard to ignore.
I recently reported on 1,4-dioxane, a chemical that does not sound like something you want to get near. It gives animals cancer, for example.
Now I know that if you inject a rat with enough of anything it's bound to make it sick, but 1,4-dioxane sounds like genuinely nasty stuff, enough to get it listed as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
A reader who wrote me after the article ran, a retired scientist, told me it is one of the most potent carcinogens around, and potent in any amount. He's also a concerned grandfather.
The stuff is in baby shampoo and bath products, not because it's an intended ingredient, but because it's a side effect of the manufacturing process. A new coalition of Connecticut health and environmental agencies has chosen 1,4-dioxane as one of its initial targets. They want it out of these products and want more vigorous government oversight in general.
It will likely not surprise you to learn that a scientist with a business group that represents the cosmetics industry disagrees. And what he told me sounded persuasive. The levels reported in a recent study were extremely low, he said, and should not be a health concern. This is something the Food and Drug Administration has been watching for 30 years, don't you think if there was a problem they'd let us know?
At one time that may have held weight with me, but not after the last six years, in which the interests of big business have held sway over those of consumers, and in which the interests of political loyalty have held sway over those of science. What a sorry legacy.
The bottom line is whether you'd give your kid something that had a known carcinogen in it. Who would do that?
Here's what Tim Morse, an associate professor of the Occupational and Environmental Health Center at the UConn Health Center, told me in an e-mail: "1,4-dioxane is listed as a carcinogen, and most independent scientists agree that there is no safe exposure to a carcinogen -- a small exposure can raise your risk slightly, and a large exposure can raise it more. It is thought that children may be more susceptible to carcinogens due to their more rapid metabolism. It is a reasonable public health precaution to try to eliminate exposure to carcinogens, and to have safer substitutes so that neither the public nor the workers that produce these products have exposures."
|
