After my most recent entry, I received a comment from the fine folks at Dupont, emphatically arguing that Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) is not actually all that bad and maybe the people who read my blog would like a little more education on the subject. Ross, the Dupont representative, indicated that they would (in their kind, unbiased, industry authority) be happy to provide more information to all of us. In the meantime, he advised we should know that "no authoritative body has designated PFOA as a human carcinogen." If you'd like to see his response for yourself, check out the comments on my last post.
Here, then, is my response:
Ross, Ross, Ross. Thanks for your interest in my homespun blog. I guess it is an honor to draw the attention of DuPont's googlebot. Your argument is careful and well articulated. It is also steeped in industry rhetoric. While it may be technically true that "no authoritative body has designated PFOA as a human carcinogen," let’s talk about what it would entail in order for us to prove, conclusively, that PFOA is a human carcinogen.
It would entail the deliberate and rigorous testing of these chemicals on humans over a period of several years in a clinical setting. It would entail deliberate exposure of human test subjects to these chemicals in measured amounts to see if it, well, killed them. It would entail observing any deaths, without interference, to test the hypothesis. And then running a statistical analysis of these deaths to see if there was a strong enough correlation between deaths from cancer and exposure to PFOA.
This sort of testing, last I knew, was illegal.
So let’s be honest. No authoritative body has designated PFOA as a human carcinogen because the bodies are not stacked up outside of DuPont’s laboratories. Interestingly enough, the bodies ARE stacking up outside of DuPont’s manufacturing facilities. In Parkersburg , West Virginia, where most of DuPont’s Teflon is manufactured, PFOA is now present in the drinking water of residents. These include families with young children, Ross. Just like mine, Ross. Maybe just like yours.
Families and individuals in Parkersburg have been enjoying higher rates of birth defects, prostate cancer, autism, and asthma. Perhaps courtesy of their enhanced drinking water. Drinking their water and filling up their baby bottles is now dangerous, because, and here I’ll quote the same authoritative body that you did, according to the EPA, PFOA is a “likely carcinogen” (Read more here: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/pubs/pfoarisk.html)
It is in our best interest, and the best interest of our children that we follow the precautionary principle, which in layman’s terms means better safe than sorry. Yes, we have not conclusively found that PFOA is a human carcinogen. But I will not allow my kids to become human test subjects. Will you offer up yours?
Thanks for your interest.
Your last post made me cry. This one made it better. You GO girl !!! Michelle T
ReplyDeletePut the issue in context that people can understand... Gasoline containes additives that are KNOWN human carcinogens. How many people in the US manage to pump their own gas and not inhale the 'carcinogenic' vapors? Anyone with half a brain can. Even employees of states that require they pump your gase can manage to do it. If you burn your plastic spatula on the stove, you will release KNOWN human carcinogens, so why would you do it. Same goes for your non-stick pan. If (heaven forbid) you pour gas on yourself and light it, is Exxon liable for your death because it is flammable? Chemicales provide societal benefits when used properly and people need to start being accountable for what they do and stop looking for someone to sue. And you should get your facts straight.
ReplyDeleteNice one, "Anonymous". A lot of straw-man arguements there. The fact that gasoline contains known carcinogenics is not a compelling agurement to expose ourselves to more in our everyday lives. I had a laugh with the "half a brain" comment with regards to inhaling gasoline vapors. When it's fitting, does that mean it's still ironic? I really don't know what to make of your reference to law suit. I didn't see mention of anyone suing DuPont or anyone else in the blog post. A bit of paranoia, or do recent legal events have you understandably concerned? Lastly, you ask that Melissa get her facts straight, yet the best you can do is counter with an arguement along the lines of "Gasoline causes cancer, too"? This sounds more like a concession that PFAOs are dangerous rather than any real challenge to the facts she presented. Interestingly backward tactic. -Gavin, C.J.
ReplyDeleteThanks again, DuPont for your visit to my blog. Although this time you were cloaked as "Anonymous," and not as kind as Ross was the other day, it is a pleasure to have your time.
ReplyDeleteBut here's the deal: The precautionary principle is simple. We don't put in our bodies what we think might seriously hurt or kill us, even if we don't have absolutely conclusive evidence that it is deadly. I'll stick to it and continue to encourage others to do the same, m'kay?
And also, get the fuck off my blog.
Smiles,
Missy
Got to say, reading Anonymous' comments I had some of the same thoughts as Chris - who mentioned litigation? Where did that come from? I especially enjoyed that Anonymous chastised you to "put the issue in a context that people can understand". I mean really Missy, you'd have to have several Ph.D's to even begin to understand what you were trying to convey in that post. Next time you blog could you break it down to a George Bush (hehe) level that "Joe the plumber" can understand?
ReplyDeleteI am curious though whether the corporate googlebot is savvy enough to catch sarcasm...
Dupont PFOA Carcinogens Teflon hehehe...
ReplyDeleteDupont PFOA Carcinogens Teflon, Oh My!
ReplyDelete