by Mary O'Brien

There are two questions about dioxin that have completely differentconsequences for wildlife and humans who live in and around theSan Francisco Bay, as well as people and wildlife far away beneaththe wind, and in faraway water currents.

The first question asks, "How MUCH dioxin is ok to go intothe Bay?" The second question asks, "What are our optionsfor producing ZERO dioxin, for making sure the LEAST possibleamount of dioxin goes into the Bay?"

The first question, "How much dioxin is ok to go into theBay?" is the RISK ASSESSMENT question, and that is the questionthat those who produce dioxin WANT government regulators to ask. They try to make laws FORCING government regulators to ask therisk assessment question, and they try to make government regulatorsfeel like they're greenhorns unless they use risk assessment.

But there's no answer to the question, "How much dioxinis ok in the Bay?" and there are a million answers, becauseit's not a question that anybody can answer with science. However,those who produce dioxin or permit dioxin discharges, like toprovide mathematical, scientific-looking answers that you can'tdecipher or challenge very well.

These risk assessments refer to a background level of dioxinas if it is natural. It is NOT. A background level of dioxinis like a background level of child abuse. It's horrifying, andit's not necessary. In fact, the current "background"level of dioxin pollution IS child abuse. And embryo abuse. And Laotian fisherperson abuse. And fish abuse. It is abusiveof all living beings. And it is not necessary.

YOU need, therefore, to require that the second question

be asked, because it is the ONLY one that will prevent the current,abusive level of dioxin. The question you must insist upon isthe alternatives assessment question. The question that mustbe asked and answered, is "What is every facility's, everycommunity's options for producing zero dioxin?" Asking andanswering THAT question will yield interesting, useful, important,and verifiable answers. Answering THAT question will reduce theabuse. It is a question that, unlike, the risk assessment question,CAN be answered scientifically and technically. There ARE alternativesthat do not involve use of chlorine chemicals, and that do notinvolve incineration.

It is extremely important that you are organized as the ZeroDioxin Exposure Alliance. Don't think for a minute that you arebeing outrageous with a title like that. The prestigious, formal,International Joint Commission for Great Lakes Water Quality,is appointed by the federal governments of U.S. and Canada toguard over the water quality of the Great Lakes. In 1992, intheir Sixth Biennial Report on Water Quality, they wrote an incrediblyimportant statement. They wrote, "We conclude that persistenttoxic substances are too dangerous to the biosphere and to humansto permit their release in any quantity."

They printed that sentence large in their report, and they printedthe word "any" in red. Let me read it once again andplease don't forget it:

"We conclude that persistent toxic substances are too dangerousto the biosphere and to humans to permit their release in anyquantity."

Thank you for your passion, your clarity, and your determinationto take care of the biosphere and its humans.

-- Presented at the People's Hearing on Dioxin, Health and EnvironmentalJustice, Sponsored by Communities for a Better Environment andCalifornia Zero Dioxin Exposure Alliance. Berkeley, CA, May 6,1997.