Argumentation:
←--1: . PCBs were a group of oily products that were used in sevaral places until 1980's but that were banned due to their persistence and toxicity. Although PCBs are formed in a poorly controlled burning processes in the same way as dioxins, they are much less toxic compared with dioxins. Therefore, the major concern with PCBs is not the formation in burning but the existing PCBs in building materials, transformers, and other places. PCBs do not bring any significant new understanding to the emissions of the different alternatives, and therefore it should be excluded from the risk assessment. --Jouni 06:47, 22 September 2006 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- ⇤--2: . I agree that the planned MSWI will not have any effect on the PCB exposure of the Hameenkyrö inhabitants and thus PCBs in general do not have to be taken account in this model. However, I think it might be relevant to notify the baseline PCB concentration, calculated as WHO-TEQs, of the people in this model. The reason for this is that when the concentration is expressed as TEQs, it particularly reflects the dioxin-like (AHR-mediated) biological effects of the agent. Thus, equal amount of PCBs (in TEQs) is supposed to have identical biological effects as the same amount of PCDD/Fs (in TEQs). Further, the average fat contents of PCBs and PCDD/Fs (in TEQs) in Finnish people were almost identical. Thus PCBs seem to affect as much as PCDD/Fs the possible dioxin-like health effects caused by the baseline exposure. If the planned MSWI would have a significant impact on the dioxin exposure of the Hämeenkyrö inhabitants and if a threshold for the health effects caused by dioxin-like compounds exists, then certainly the backgound exposure to the PCBs have impact on the health outcome in an individual. Marjo (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ←--3: . In addition to Marjo's comment, exposure-responses and health effects include human epidemiological data, in which exposure contains both PCDD/F TEQs and PCB TEQs. Therefore they should be included at least somehow in risk assessment too. Sanna 11:02, 22 September 2006 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|