I was surprised to see a report like that on CNN, but they had a long coverage about the fact that the danger of most chemicals that are used today are not evaluated. No one knows how large the risk is of those ten-thousands of pre 1979 introduced chemicals that surround our daily life.

Perhaps one can tell me, was that only aired on CNN international? Or did it appear also on the domestic US CNN branch. (around 2 days ago)

Somewho its a good thing that an American channel at least try to make an issue out of it, but on the other side its funny. Its good, because anything that raises the hardly existant environmental consciousness of the US a little bit is a way in the right direction, allthough its funny because while you might not even discuss really about it, the EU allready confirmed the largest programm the chemical industries have ever seen, starting in 2007 and lasting around 11 years while costing above 2 billion €. Its called REACH and its aim is nothing less to investigate all chemicals in use according to their danger to health and environment (exceptions for low use chemicals that show no sign of being in any way harmfull, but still also they have at least to be registered).

The offical respons from the US to the program was not very enthusiastic. Fostered by the fear of the American chemical industries it tried to intervene allready in the EU legislation process of a completely internal issue. That not enough they tried to bring the law even to fall. In they end they failld with this task, allthough the package has been easend up the core rules remain, that were the reason for the strong opposition of the US industry, REACH is now law in Europe.

I am not sure how the Americans think about the issue. That your industires are not keen on their own risk studies beeing publised by the authorities in case they want to stay on the European market and have to pay for large additional costs is clear. But what will say the normal American citizen if a range of new dangerous chemicals are identified in daily products and the consquence would be that they are taken from the European market while the Americans will further have to enjoy them?

Official site of the European chemical bureau:
http://ecb.jrc.it/REACH/

Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registr...n_of_Chemicals

Seems I have shot too fast. REACH is not law yet. Oh my god, do the European mills move slooowly. The Parliament is voting about it currently, than the council has to approve it too, and not before that it will be fix.

But the directive has allready a 10 year long history since it was brought up the first time. And I the date with the year 2007 might still be not too optimistic.

There is an extremely good tool in New York, an organisation called INFORM which provides neutral information on the huge problem of chemicals in the environment.

Unfortunatley the CNN report is correct to the extent that very little is known about the short term to long term impacts of chemicals introduced into the eco system.

Another good source --- is Center for Media Research in Colorado.

Thanks for the information.

The main problem in my eyes is not that its too difficult to get to the informations we have, but the huge lack of informations on chemicals that have been brought onto the market before the 70's

I still hope the best for the REACH program as it will change that situation dramatically. I guess we might prepare us for some surprises.


I hope that things get moving now. And that its this time Europe that will lead the developement makes me proud allthough I would prefer if the US joining the effort.

These problems are global in form and structure --- that is the Europeans were the first to industrialise causing unknown difficulties in the few centuriies it took them to destroy the environment around them .

so the toxic and hazardous wastes which are being transported via air, sea, water and even left in the sludge is primarily in europe to begin with and it is these countries both east and west which have to clean up their wastes chemical and other wise!

As the information on this form of toxification has been around for almost a century at the very least -- I am not sure what you are referring to as suddenly appearing in the seventies!

I fear you confuse something here.

You are talking here about a very important point, about detoxification and redoing of environmental damage, that allready took place. I was talking about something far more fundamental. Not about the act of repairing nature and opposing substances known as dangerous to men and nature, I talked about getting to know in first place which substances are dangerous.

You can not do the latter before the former one in a complete way. You know we have nowadays ten-thousands of different chemicals used in our daily lifes, in the industries, and affecting nearly all areas of our lifes. From those chemicals we know those introduced after the 70's rather well because they had to be risk analyzed in detail. But from those that were in business allready before the 70's we just have knowledge of those that allready caused severe problems or where due to basic chemical knowledge danger is very likely.

Tenthousands of chemicals remain unproved according to their risks for men and nature. Probably most of them are rather harmless, but who knows? There took place allready some very spectacular cases where only due to immidiate desasters or nearby desasters a substance formerly considered to be harmless had to be banned immediately.

So all in all, we really dont know much about most of the substances we use, from an empirical point of view. Theory can err, and it has allready done so in the past. If we dont take this huge project on know, we risk to poison us constantly without even knowing it. Just like the Romans for example did with the heavy usage of lead.


So REACH is a programme to classify and evaluate substances yet unproved, in a relliable way. And if risks should be discovered to take the necessary actions to handle those chemicals.

Do you see the difference to what you wrote about?



Anyway you mention something important too, also the contaminations that exist allready and that can be redone with the technologies we posses today (its astonishing what is possible allready, even if its a monsterwork and very costly).
I disagree though in the totallitarity you lead the responsability to Europeans when it comes to pollution and contamination.

First of all, the US was only a few decades behind Europe in industrializing itself (at best). Allthough it had not near the capacities untill WW1, it did its fair share too, considering its number of inhabitants. Secondly the contaminations and pollutions went first into the local neighborhood, only through air and water a further transport took place.

Concerning the air, the only major factor would be CO2 but even this part of the CO2 level from the time of European dominance is compared to the modern share of antropogenic CO2 quite insignificant. Other possibly poisonous gases have been diluted so far that I dont see the point, even the more as most of them most probably are not even in the air anymore but have been transformed or metabolized etc in the meantime.

WRT water, we also have the dilution effect, at least when it went further away from its origin. On the very location of the former factories etc, we still have many areas of high contamination. But thats our problem not yours. Those substances that reached the ocians, either dont exist anymore (see what I wrote about the air) or are totally in the shadow of current pollutions and contamination.


Apart from that way of argumentatioi theres another one. You simply can not do much about contaminations of oceans and the atmosphere. Even if you want. The sole thing one can do is relly on the self repair ability of the nature that does in many cases a good job, through cut off the source for further pollutions of that kind. The reason why the world gets more and more polluted is not the very past but the fact that we supercede by far the self purification abilities of the nature through the immense annual pollution quantities.


Long speech short. I really believe I am not wrong or arrogant when claiming that Europe is on the leading edge regarding ecological and sustainable technologies and actions. Of course we have good reasons for that, but the US for example and today even allready India and China etc get everyday more reasons why they should join us too in the effort.

Europe tends to move almost two to three decades behind.
It allows them to avoid the initial crippling costs that actual and real chemical problems which have been around at least for fifty years -- those that are known to be cancer producing for example.

In the case of the United States very reliable research and development of all forms of chemicals has been under way at least for the last fifty years.
They have consistently shared that detailed information with commercial and scientific partners duriing the same period.
So much so, that Europe has consistently ignored this form of information on everything environmental. The programs and technologies which you speak of tend to be very expensive, and do little to reduce the overall problems of pollution in all its forms.

I think that you will find that CNN covered the Rio summit- and ahd even covered prior to taht environmental issues through its Earth channel.

I fear that you are giving in to stereo typical thinking throughout your so called argument.

The prime difficulty with the US is not that it had no interest in environmental issues, far from it!

The concerns of
Americans began at least one hundred years ago - and resulted in very clear conservation and preservation policies.

In the case of the air, water, and super waste dumps --
these were all started in thirty years ago!

In the case of European interests - it is extremely difficult to work with the Parliament and Commissions on anything which represents real facts!

Try it some time.