Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EBH
"None of the eight dispersants tested displayed
biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity.
"

Do you have link to the publication and data?

Was there insignificant "endocrine distrupting activity"?

Strange way to phrase this.

13 posted on 06/30/2010 2:01:07 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Article IV - Section 4 - The United States shall protect each of them against Invasion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Diogenesis

I thought that was strange too - and why did they only focus on “endocrine”, what about neurotoxicity and other things?


16 posted on 06/30/2010 2:10:18 PM PDT by justsaynomore (The Hermantor - 2012 - www.hermancain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Diogenesis

It is standard EPA wording.

There is no legalese wording such as “insignificant,” but only various definitions throughout the regulations stating things to the effect of “Biologically Significant” meaning

because of the higher potential or more lasting consequences of harm

So the findings of the EPA study and their wording indicate that there is not a higher potential or lasting consequences.

Which as difficult as it might sound for some folks here ...matches the company’s MSDS.


17 posted on 06/30/2010 2:30:20 PM PDT by EBH (Our First Right...."it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson