Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ubc-cs!van-bc!sl
From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Attikamek-Montagnais Protest PCB Plan
Message-ID: <261@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 6 Sep 89 04:47:01 GMT
References: <2324@yunccn.UUCP> <620791816.24086@telly.on.ca> <1989Sep5.173937.24977@utzoo.uucp> <8328@looking.on.ca> <28908@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates
Lines: 27

In article <28908@watmath.waterloo.edu> sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes:
}>Are PCBs that dangerous?  I have read that they are quite inert -- that's
}>why they were used in transformers.  According to what I heard, they are
}>only dangerous if burned improperly, upon which they are carcinogenic.
}>
}>Seems to me there are a tremendous number of substances far more dangerous
}>than that, or have I heard wrong?
}
}They are massively carcinogenic on contact.  They have on 'no effect
}level', i.e. concentrations in the body so small that they are hard to
}detect (parts per billion) still seem to statisticly induce cancer.  On
}the other hand, the "PCBs" being discussed are really PCB-laden oils,
}not just pure PCBs.

I would certainly appreciate a reference for the above statement.

Just the other day I heard some (obviously ill-advised) commentator say that
there was no evidence for carcingenic effects other than studies on mice.
And that there where no recorded deaths from PCB's. He did reference a
Japanese study where some workers exposed to PCB's had a skin
dis-colouration.

Here on the other hand we have a definite authoritative statement of fact. 
So I for one would like to know the reference so I can start quoting it too.

-- 
Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)