Home  |  Out & About  |  Dining  |  Events  |  Singles  |  Classifieds  |  Archive  |  Advertising

Differing dioxin standards have differing purposes

 by Dr. Ted Schettler and Dr. Peter Orris

     We have followed the recent controversy surrounding dioxin contamination of Midland and the Tittabawassee River flood plain with concern and a sense of déjà vu.  In the early 1990s, after contaminating Maine rivers and wildlife with dioxin for years, pulp and paper companies adopted tactics similar to those that Dow Chemical Co. is using today. Then they argued that there was no evidence of harm and that dioxin was not as toxic as previously thought.

Today Dow argues that there is no evidence of harm and that the state threshold criterion for soil dioxin, 90 ppt, is too low. Those arguments deserve a response, but not before acknowledging that Dow has, regrettably, contaminated its home community and an extensive downstream watershed with hazardous amounts of dioxin-a potent toxic chemical that causes cancer, neurodevelopment disorders, and problems in the immune, reproductive, and endocrine systems at extremely low levels of exposure.

Much of the recent controversy centers on Michigan's 90 parts per trillion (ppt) standard vs. the Federal 1000 ppt threshold for dioxin concentrations in soil. Various commentators have compared these as apples to apples. They are not. Michigan's 90 ppt soil criterion for dioxin is a level that is meant to be protective of public health in properties for unrestricted residential use.

It is generally consistent with similar criteria in many other states.
The Federal 1000 ppt threshold serves a very different purpose. It is a level at which there is significant concern about health effects.  In fact, the lead Federal agency for public health research and education, the Centers for Disease Control, advises that soil levels exceeding 50 ppt should be a cause of concern, necessitating a more thorough analysis.

Further, State and Federal criteria restrict their focus to cancer as the outcome of concern, though we now know that other health effects occur at lower levels of exposure and may affect the entire population.  In fact, due to the array of low-level effects, scientists today are uncertain about the threshold amount of dioxin that may begin to cause or contribute to illness in people.

Moreover, dioxin-related health effects are often "hidden" in the general burden of disease and disability in the community. Trying to identify them as "caused by dioxin" is a fruitless task.

The important issues here should not be obscured by inappropriate comparisons of Federal and state criteria. These numbers, which serve two different purposes, are merely aids to understanding the magnitude of contamination and its likelihood of causing human health effects. Dow does the community a disservice by attempting to minimize the significance of their toxic contamination of the community by adjusting the ruler against which it is measured. That sleight of hand does nothing to protect public health.

It may be disruptive for owners if their property is labeled a "facility" when soil levels of dioxin exceed 90 ppt, but no one should be deceived into thinking that the problem goes away by changing some numbers.

The world already knows that Midland and the downstream watershed are contaminated with Dow's dioxin. As this story unfolds, residents should be very careful to protect their own health and economic interests, and not forego remedies that will likely be welcome, including, but not limited to, access to clean up.
                                              
Ted Schettler is an MD,MPH at the Department of Internal Medicine at the Boston Medical Center & Science Director at the Science & Environmental Health Network. Peter Orris, MD,MPH is Professor of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences at the University of Illinois School of Public Health in Chicago.



 Dear Editor;

Let me introduce myself. I have been involved with the Dow/ Dioxin issue since the first day. In fact, I was one of the original members of the Tittabawasee River Watch along with Whitney's, Taylor, Hurd-Ridduck, and many others.  I AM NOT however, part of the class action suit; but even so, I see this issue as one that cannot be ignored. 

I do not live along the river, I live in Thomas Township near the river, but no matter where I live, I see this poison in our watershed unacceptable.   At one of the first public meetings, I stated that I'd spent more than 25 years swimming, skiing, and boating in the Tittabawassee /Saginaw River almost on a daily basis.   During that time, I took some extremely painful falls, swallowing what had to be gallons of water, and also absorbing any toxins through my skin and through any wounds I received. 

 I now have health concerns with Multiple Sclerosis and no family history of this disease.  I find this curious since at the first public meeting I attended, over 2/3 of the people at the table regarding health concerns and dioxin either had been diagnosed or was going through the process of being diagnosed with what their health professionals were considering a strong case for MS.

Before you think I am just another one of "those people" who are "after Dow", you need to understand that I am only interested in the safety and welfare of all ecosystems and life along the watershed. Until we have the proper testing and evaluations done, it will never be known just what effects dioxin has had to this water system and the life along it. 

As I stated earlier, I am not a part of the class action suit and have nothing to gain except maybe to assist in finding out what dioxin is doing to our precious ecosystems and life.  Yes, I may have some personal gain regarding my health since it is currently unknown what exactly causes MS, but I have no ideals on monetary gain from Dow or anyone else. 

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could somehow find a link and help others who have the same health concerns I do?  What is the harm in testing humans for the dioxins and their effects? Wouldn't it be beneficial to know for sure what we are dealing with? 

 I have offered myself as a human "guinea pig" as you will, in front of many people, I have even talked to a Dow representative, (who called me), about offering tissue and blood samples, but have heard nothing since. 

I really would like to see if I have levels of dioxin in my systems and it is tiring to listen to people talk, talk, talk, and point fingers without actually taking the next step to see if the levels of dioxin ALREADY FOUND to be well over the acceptable level is in fact having the adverse effect on people exposed to it.

The vast majority of MS cases are within the industrial belt of the United States. Aren't you the least bit curious why?  If this contamination is happening here, it is happening elsewhere. This very disease or others could attack you or a member of your family at any time without warning. 

It is already documented through vast numbers of research about the harmful effects of dioxin.
 It has been stated through research that Dioxin has connections to nerve damage & disorders, so could there be a link? Why do you think signs now appear in many areas along the river systems, because there is no concern?  How can Dow state in their full page ad last May that" based on everything we know and studies that have been conducted, this is a healthy community and the presence of dioxins and furans does not pose a health concern, " and "in 1985,the EPA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, concluded that since Midland community soils were below the federal standard of 1,000 ppt, they did not pose a health risk." 

1985? Midland? What about 2004 and all the communities downriver of Midland?   Why did they delay the reconstruction of the State Street bridge and road after flooding due to potential health concerns?

They further state that they will be funding a "human exposure study".  My hope is that it will include plans that will be a study that is comprehensive enough to answer questions and done independent of Dow itself.  I think this should be a "must".  What effects are truly evident will never be accurate if all we do is talk and stall about things like, who, what, where, and how? 

The fact remains, dioxin is present, is known to have health risks, and Dow and any other organization who cares should stand up and take ACTION.  I have almost pleaded with anyone who will listen to "light the fuse" and get me tested to start on the road to discovery and somehow get this situation rectified.

 I have explained my history and stated my concerns to numerous politicians, press, Dow representatives, DEQ representatives and Governor Jennifer Granholm.  

I have spoken to each of these representatives in person regarding my knowledge and concerns around the potential health risks of dioxin.  I hoped that would help push things along and raise the concern enough to get the ball rolling and I hope it is still in motion.

Dow has done many things for our community over the years.  I do not think anyone could dispute that.  Here is their chance to do one more thing positive.  Move forward, work towards a solution, and if you have put toxins into our water system, take that responsibility to keep all life safe and healthy. 

No level of toxins/ dioxin, is acceptable.  Let's stop doing all the talking and find out once and for all what the effects of this contamination is and what needs to be done to clean it up.  I am still willing, are you?
 
Curtis Dalton
Tittabawassee River Watch
Thomas Township


PS:  The latest information about The University of Michigan doing tests on people has thus far completely left me off the list. No one has contacted me. I am being avoided and they most definitely know who I am.

home  |  out/about  |  events  |   personal  |  store  |  classified  |  real estate  |   forums  |  archives  |  contact
© 2009 Review Magazine.  All rights reserved.