In reviewing the data of a pesticide within the cyclical guidelines of the PCP Act, I decided to look at the maximum rates, and maximum allowable applications to determine the potential exposure levels possible.
And to be on the safe side I take the evidence (rat and mouse studies) and apply a 300 fold safety factor. That’s what I’m putting in my report.
So that’s 10 fold for intra-species differences (one rat might be different than another) and another 10 fold for inter-species differences (humans ain’t like rats) then another 10 fold for the little kiddies (cuz their parents let them lick the floor).
So 300 fold the safety level….
But wait… 10 x 10 x 10….doesn’t that equal 1000 fold safety level? Oh, I can say 300 fold, then change the math to fit my desired outcome.
So instead of meeting the criteria of less than 1 per million incidences of a potential carcinogenic effect, I’ve changed the hurdle rate to one per billion chances of contracting (that’s not the right word) cancer from this product.
1,000 x 1,000,000. Do the math.
So in the entire human population of 7 billion, there may be a chance that 7 people develop cancer due to direct exposure to this product.
Perfect, I ban those products or uses to save those people. I am good.
What’s that? What about other benefits?
Lyme disease, West Nile, asthma, Zika, malaria. Bed bugs and the effect on the psyche of people living with them. Cockroaches sharing your food, which many people can’t afford. Stored product pests completely ruining grains and flour, food and feed.
And all the other benefits that product brings…
I still ban it to save those 7 people. I am good.
Zero use means zero risk correct?
Hey buddy, can ya’ spare a smoke? Gotta ponder this.