[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

E-M:/ Endocrine disruptors: From American Progress Report



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from Lowell Prag <lprag@mail.msen.com>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Alex J. Sagady & Associates wrote:

... see below ...

Hello Alex,

The below altrazine pesticide issue that you quote,
is just the tip of the iceberg.

There are many other chemical gender benders (endocrine disruptors)
which cause sex mutations and they are in many commonly used household
products, in addition to the gender benders found in our Great Lakes
which are causing fish mutations, and throughout the environment in
the USA, which are causing many other life forms to mutate, as I and
others have previously posted.

This is a good introduction:

What are Endocrine Disruptors?
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/EDs-PWG-16jun01.htm

A previous post here on the subject:

E-M:/ Re: endocrine disruptors (ED's)
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/2004-01/msg00086.html
and the follow up in that post, by Mary La France, also contains links
to more info.

Maybe the judges in question, are simply ignorant of the
enormity of the gender bender issue, and need to be informed.

If you will provide the names and email addresses of the four to whom
you refer, I will be happy to send them an email and others on this
discussion list, can do the same.

Regards,

Lowell Prag

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Alex J. Sagady & Associates wrote:

> I excerpt today's daily report from the
> American Progress Report
> http://www.americanprogressaction.org
>
> Note the last paragraph concerning endocrine disruption of
> frogs.   This speaks to the proclivities of the 4 republican
> Federalist Society judicial activists on the Michigan Supreme
> Court who've used "judge made law" to rewrite Michigan's
> Environmental Protection Act Provisions.   They want to
> be able to say that the act of granting a permit or other
> government approval (such as an approval of a pesticide)
> is an inherent guarantee of environmental protection and
> protection of resources which cannot be collaterally attacked
> as being damaging to the environment by citizens under
> the Michigan environmental protection act.   This sweeps
> away a lot of the effectiveness of the act that has been in place
> and working since 1970.
>
> Michigan environmentalists need to organize together with the
> Trial Lawyers, woman's groups, pro-choice organizations, labor
> unions and others to take back Michigan's Supreme Court.   Of
> the 4 anti-environmental judges, I think Maura Corrigan, the
> Chief Justice will be up next for re-election.
>
> ================
>
>
> HEALTH AND SAFETY
>
>
>
>
> Bush's Big Business Agenda
>
> Analysis by The Washington Post and The New York Times shows the Bush
> administration is continuing to use regulatory action, exempt from
> Congressional oversight and often hidden from public scrutiny, to further a
> big business agenda despite demonstrated risks to public health and safety.
> An extensive analysis by the WP reveals the administration has employed
> regulatory action
> "<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1315-2004Aug14?language=printer>to
> implement far-reaching policy changes…Under Bush, these decisions have
> spanned logging in national forests, patients' rights in government health
> insurance programs, tests for tainted packaged meats, Indian land
> transactions and grants to religious charities." The NYT notes the public
> has been distracted by Iraq and the fight against terrorism. Meanwhile,
> "Health rules, environmental regulations, energy initiatives, worker-safety
> standards and product-safety disclosure policies have been
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/14/politics/14bush.html?pagewanted=print&position=>modified
> in ways that often please business and industry leaders." The weakening of
> regulations has possibly endangered "consumers, workers, drivers, medical
> patients, the elderly and many others." Check out American Progress' and
> OMB Watch's
> <http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=81986>report on
> the Bush administration's dismantling of public safeguards.
>
> THE RECORD: According to the Post's analysis, President Bush's deregulatory
> record represents a radical departure from previous administrations. "All
> presidents have written or eliminated regulations to further their
> agendas," the Post notes. "What is distinctive about Bush is that he
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1315-2004Aug14.html>quickly
> imposed a culture intended to put his anti-regulatory stamp on government."
> In the past 3 1/2 years, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
> (OSHA), the branch of the Labor Department in charge of workers'
> well-being, "has eliminated nearly five times as many pending standards as
> it has completed. It has not started any major new health or safety rules,
> setting Bush apart from the previous three presidents, including Ronald
> Reagan. Unlike his two predecessors, Bush has canceled more of the
> unfinished regulatory work he inherited than he has completed."
>
> ADMINISTRATION SAYS SAFETY INFO "NOT OF MUCH INTEREST": One example of the
> Bush administration's disregard for public safety: On Saturday, the NYT
> highlighted a controversial regulation published by the National Highway
> Traffic Safety Administration
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/14/politics/14bush.html?pagewanted=print&position=>forbidding
> the release of some data relating to unsafe motor vehicles. Following the
> lead of auto company lobbyists, the administration said "publicizing the
> information would cause 'substantial competitive harm' to manufacturers,"
> even though it might help consumers choose safer cars. Chief spokesman Ray
> Tyson said he was sure the now-suppressed information, which includes
> "warranty-claim information, industry reports on safety issues and consumer
> complaints," would not be
> "<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/14/politics/14bush.html?pagewanted=print&position=>of
> much interest to the general public." Last week, the NYT documented how the
> administration is trying to
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/09/politics/09coal.html?hp>rewrite coal
> regulations in favor of owners, rescinding "more than a half-dozen
> proposals intended to make coal miners' jobs safer, including steps to
> limit miners' exposure to toxic chemicals."
>
> QUESTIONING THE DATA: Since it would be embarrassing to simply tell
> consumers and workers it's not willing to make businesses pay to protect
> them, the Bush administration has developed a different strategy for
> achieving regulatory roll backs: question the science. In today's WP
> addresses with the
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3733-2004Aug15.html>Data
> Quality Act, a little-known piece of legislation "written by an industry
> lobbyist and slipped into a giant appropriations bill in 2000 without
> congressional discussion or debate." The act is supposedly meant to ensure
> new regulations are based on "sound science," but the WP found it has been
> used predominantly by industry to challenge scientific data indicating
> risks to workers or consumers. Included among the petitions so far: sugar
> interests challenged dietary recommendations to limit sugar intake; logging
> groups challenged calculations used to justify restrictions on timber
> harvests; and the American Chemistry Council challenged data meant to
> justify bans on wood treated with heavy metals and arsenic in playground
> equipment.
>
> HORMONE DISRUPTION NO REASON FOR ALARM: Hermaphrodite frogs? No cause for
> alarm, says the Bush administration, and no need to regulate the chemical
> creating them. Indeed, the WP says the Environmental Protection Agency
> (EPA) used language provided by a petition filed under the Data Quality Act
> to stifle reforms aimed at curbing the use of atrazine, a major weed-killer
> found by scientists to disrupt hormones in wildlife – "in some cases
> turning frogs into bizarre creatures bearing both male and female sex
> organs." A sentence added to the EPA's final scientific assessment last
> year stated that "Hormone
> disruption…<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3733-2004Aug15.html>cannot
> be considered a 'legitimate regulatory endpoint at this time' -- that is,
> it is not an acceptable reason to restrict a chemical's use -- because the
> government had not settled on an officially accepted test for measuring
> such disruption." The language "rendered moot hundreds of pages of
> scientific evidence."


=============================================================ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
=============================================================