I read chapter one of “Slow Death by Rubber Duck” By: Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie. Chapter one is basically an introduction to Rick and Bruce’s introduction to harmful chemicals that are in our world and we can’t avoid. Here they also show and describe that like “Super-Size Me” they do various test to prove that there are chemicals such as PCP’s, mercury, and etc... I read two other chapters besides the introduction and chapter one this was 1) chapter three: the world’s slipperiest substance and 2) chapter four: the new PCB’s. Chapter three introduces to us the info about PFOA factsheet. As well as chemicals such as PFO’s and PFC’s and how they get into our blood, body air, and even personal products. The DuPoint Teflon problem is also mentioned, which eventually lead to the largest environmental administrative penalty in history by the EPA in 2005. As well as subjects such as the non-stick frying pan, public water fountains, furniture stain repellents, and etc… thus in chapter four we are brought to the new subject of flame retardants, PBB contamination in Michigan, PBDE’s that emerge in mothers breast milk, the effects of PCB’s some more and as well as on how PCB’s effect a person’s IQ and other chemicals and there effects on human and biological development. Over all this was a very dull book not I recommended read from me. “Slow death by rubber duck” is true 100% and its contents are easily predictable. Mainly this book for me does not need to be fully read to get the point. The point of discussing chemicals is not important because we must stop them or regulate and pass laws. The point is to in the first place have responsible chemist and producers that make a product are all responsible even if they were not involved because e I believe there one like a union and if they fail others fail if they succeed others succeed. Regulating is part of the answer but good responsible business men who know there stuff is what we need.
The PCB Playbook
“When PCBs were banned industry’s attempts to forestall the inevitable lasted only a few years. The evidence of global contamination and human health problems linked to PCBs, along with numerous PCB-spill accidents throughout Europe and the united states, made it clear pretty quickly that the jig was up an insight into the industry’s thinking can be gleaned from a fascinating internal 1967disscussion paper from Monsanto-the only PCB manufacturer in the U.S. at the time. Entitled “PCB Environmental Pollution Abatement Plan”, the document acknowledged that “PCBs are a worldwide ecological problem” and sets out three possible courses of action, noting the pros and cons of each. Here’s an excerpt from the Monsanto “playbook”:
1) Do Nothing-“we would most likely to be forced out of this business. Other product areas would be adversely affected. We would project an image as an irresponsible member of the business world.”
2) Discontinue Manufacture of All PCBs-“although we all realize this could be an eventually [sic], unfortunately the solution is not this simple…. Financial loss could be considerable…. Competition would take advantage on al l fronts. We would be admitting guilt by our actions.”
3) Respond responsibly, admitting that there is a growing evidence of environmental contamination by the higher chlorinated biphenyls and take action as new data is generated to correct the problem-“we could maximize the corporate image by publicizing this act…. Additionally we could gain precious time needed to develop new products and investigate further the lower chlorinated materials
“Monsanto choose option 3 (seem reasonable on the surface but do everything possible to delay) over option 1 (seem obstreperous and patently unreasonable) or option 2 (do the right thing). Similar approaches are taken by bromine companies today. In 1970 Monsanto announced that it would no longer sell PCBs for the use as water- resistant plasticizer or as a hydraulic fluid but that it whould continue to manufacture thee chemical used as a coolant in electrical transformers. In spite of the unstoppable momentum behind the PCB ban, the company kept producing PCBs for almost six more years. It wasn’t till 1976 that Monsoto announced it was planning to phase out the manufacture of PCBs completely. Even then the company spokesman said he couldent give an exact timetable for the phase-out. Fast forward to Europe in the late 1990s in the wake of the Swedish breastmilk study. Wile protesting all the wile that ther products were safe BSEF members started to soften there public line defending “Penta” one of the three commonly used PBDEs, but they retrenched around defending other PBDEs “Octa” and “Deca”. When the E.U. and California proceeded to ban Penta and Octa in 2003, Great Lakes Chemical announced it would voluntarily phase out these two chemicals by 2005 but rampted up its difference of Deca and newer products like Firemaster 55. “Deca-BDE is the most widely used of the three and has been tested extensively by the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, and the EPA,” BSEF said at the time. “all hade given Deca-BDE a clean bill of health.”. Tris-BP and PBBs in the 1970s.Ethlene dubromide in t5he 1980’s. Penta and Octa in the 1990s. Deca today. The bromine industry’s use of the PCB Playbook has succeeded almiost 40 years
( I found this chapter very interesting)
