RE: raw data

[Jim Cooper <james.cooper@socma.com>]

Actually, Rich, the real issue was that information about chemicals
was not readily available to the general public.  Non-industry and
industry toxicologists, medical practitioners, chemists and others
use the structures of chemical molecules to predict how the chemical 
reacts and affects human health and the environment.  These structural
relationships are not easy to understand without a chemistry or
toxicology background.  In addition to expert judgement, the 
chemical industry has spent untold millions of dollars on
chemical testing.  By law, any adverse effect resulting from testing
must be report to EPA.  Unfortunately, the results from tests showing
no adverse effect are usually not welcomed for publication in 
scientific journals, and not welcome for publication by EPA, until
now.  Also unfortunate is the fact that nobody, including industry, 
has done a good enough job explaining all this to people.  

Yes, it is true that we need more information to assist us, as a
society, in making decisions about chemicals and our quality of 
life.  EDF's premise of "toxic ignorance," however, is only true 
for certain populations (e.g., non-scientists).  To me, this indicates 
a need for more and better communications.  EPA is now in a position
to take the lead in this effort.  The public has a right to know
about chemicals and how they impact human health, the environment,
and the quality of life.  EPA should take the responsibility to 
ensure that all available information, even the stuff they don't
agree with, is made available to the public.  Editing or withholding
information should not be allowed without consent of the original
author(s).  Does this sound like a reasonable approach?

Sincerely,
Jim Cooper