Dear all,

Last week or so there was some discussion of the effects of a ship
anti-fouling paint on mollusks.

The unexpected disaster due to tributyl tin was one of two examples of
endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) cited in a new report by the British
Royal Society, according to the free newsletter "Rachel's Environment and
Health Biweekly." Over 100 species of mollusks have been adversely affected
by the paint and in some cases there have been population declines and even
extinctions.

"Rachel's" does a good job of digesting and explaining important scientific
findings and discussions to a lay audience. And it does so from a point of
view independent of the constraints sometimes placed on corporate and
academic science.

Rachel's recently had an illuminating review of a new book published by MIT
Press,  "Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk
Assessment," by Mary O'Brien. It has a critique of the current
government/corporate dogma called "risk assessment," which always asks "How
much risk is acceptable?" The book proposes another standard, "alternatives
assessment," which would essentially ask, "How little damage is possible?"

If folks would like an electronic copy of the article about the Royal
Society findings and/or the review dealing with risk assessment please
e-mail me privately at [log in to unmask]


David "I like my micros but I like to look at the big picture, too" Kirsh