Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stevanovitch's avatar

Strangely in this “safe-obsessed” world, I’m feeling a lot less safe than b4 the ridiculous obsession. It’s a considerably more deadly world.

I’ve gotten used to it.

Expand full comment
Estar's avatar

Thanks for doing the recommendations. I have not heard anybody mention Seveso, one of the largest and most studied TCDD releases, useful to compare and inform testing strategies of environment and health. For example, Seveso ground zero benchmark of 15.5–5477 μg/m2 – called Zone A – from which many residents were permanently evacuated within a month and the homes demolished and buried. There was high animal and plant mortality after the exposure and within 2 years 80k animals had been slaughtered to prevent people from eating them. Seems testing animals, eggs, milk, and any uncovered feed should be high on the list; also, residues on any winter garden produce, fruit trees and popular forage spots, i.e. morels in the area – see map at https://www.thegreatmorel.com/morel-sightings/. People in the entire test area that radiated out from the Seveso hotspot, to where readings tapered off, were told not to eat any local produce or chickens at all. I understand it rained and snowed since the Ohio burn-off, so would rooftop residue now be accumulating on the ground around gutters? What about testing source point storm water runoff? Does dioxin remain in septic systems that are then pumped out and deposited in settling ponds somewhere? I imagine you will probably get to health test recommendations? Any funds donated for health testing should go first to pregnant and nursing women. There is reference to US breast milk background level study in the research papers.

Also this from STAT News: “Federal health officials are pressing Congress to fund a new office tasked with tackling the fallout from environmental exposures. But amid the first major environmental disaster of its existence, the East Palestine, Ohio train derailment, the tiny department seems unsure what to do — or if it can do anything at all.” Huh? Sounds like they need some tasks to justify their desired funding. Has anybody asked them to provide all existing baseline data on background dioxin levels for starters?

Short overview of Seveso: https://journals.lww.com/epidem/fulltext/2006/11001/the_seveso_accident__a_prototype_of_environmental.192.aspx

Some studies through the decades

https://cerch.berkeley.edu/research-programs/seveso-womens-health-study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221983/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080728215326.htm

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018313928?via%3Dihub#s0010

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018330757

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4532521

According to the studies, NIH and CDC contributed to the Seveso research and must be sitting on data. Are they stepping up to the plate in E. Palestine?

Expand full comment
38 more comments...

No posts