Nice sleuthing, A.S.

I'm not particularly paranoid about overtly 'tainted' researchers, nor even the (sometimes evident) misrepresentation of their findings -- more often, the imputing of 'safety' as cannot follow from either the nature of the samples or, omission of tests re very many other bodily functions - not examined. Expensive, such tests or even 'tests'.

But look at the material just on DU, here. I admit to slothfulness in not finding the source for "estimated number of new substances introduced into the environment" each year. It's a humongous number. To me, it's not even simplistic reductio to observe what may well be the whimper part of, ..going out with a whimper or a bang?

The Nature of capitalist theology is (of course) Make a Buck by any means possible, until.. enough data accumulates for your particular rushed-into-production device to be Legally Banned. {Dalkon Shield\ufffd, the Thalidomide fuckup [later complexificated by discovery of another area in which there may be redemption for this clever chemical!], the discarded six-pack plastic rings which killed lots of birds, other animals ... ... and so on, from those pathetic Radium-dial brush-licking girls and on to MTBE, a gasoline additive APPROVED though it was KNOWN that it was water soluble!! etc.}

Such is the perspicuity of the 'watchers' taming the entrepreneurs.

It takes Time and lots of dead bodies before even the more egregious situations grind through the process. But there is a common denominator to them all -- and thus, to the very basis of modrin techno- capitalisto- civilization:

n!

(I suspect this simple symbol shall become the stark mathematical footnote in the autopsy of this civilization; it will, natch - take-up far less word-space than descriptions of the religio- politico- pathologies, which will no doubt exponentially magnify the merely log-expanding ticking of this "n-factorial clock of Ignorance?"). The autopsy will not be Televised.

Fact is - we are unwilling to spend (probably incapable of imagining a need to spend) the $/time to 'properly' evaluate the compounded effects of most new substances, especially chemical -- which come into being #1, in order to generate profits, SAP.

(The other 'reasons' - more comfort or leisure or ability to eat crap food with fewer ill effects, etc. - obv are always listed first, but #1 remains 100% the raison d'\ufffdtre for every single large production.)

Just extrapolate the time you spent collecting these refs (of varying substance) on One item, DU - a few million times..

ie
Have a nice century y'all :-)
What me worry?
-- Alfred E. Neumann

[link|http://environment.about.com/cs/waterissues/a/MTBE.htm|MTBE] at about.com:

MTBE has been used as an octane enhancer (helps prevent the engine from "knocking") in gasoline since 1979, after the US phased out lead additives. Since 1992, MTBE has been used at higher concentrations in some gasoline to fulfill the oxygenate requirements set by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

Oxygen helps gasoline burn more completely, reducing harmful tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles. In one respect, the oxygen dilutes or displaces gasoline components such as aromatics (e.g., benzene) and sulfur. In another, oxygen optimizes the oxidation during combustion. Most refiners have chosen to use MTBE over other oxygenates primarily for its blending characteristics and for economic reasons, although they may choose to use other oxygenates, such as ethanol.

Oxygenates (primarily MTBE and ethanol) reduce carbon monoxide emissions and volatile organic chemical emissions. At certain levels, MTBE reduces benzene emissions (a known carcinogen.)

Removing tetraethyl lead from gasoline was a good thing. Something had to replace it and MTBE was a reasonable choice at the time. Since MTBE's been banned as a gasoline additive by many states it should become less of a problem over time (though it does take a long time to degrade).

Almost every choice has consequences, some of which might not be seen in advance no matter how obvious they seem in retrospect. As for ethanol, it has significant costs too: The federal government subsidizes agricultural ethanol by [link|http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:0hvv90Rxu38J:www.ncenergy.appstate.edu/plan/ch5.pdf&hl=en|54 cents/gallon] (which can be, and is, argued for based on reduced foreign oil demand and less pollution), helping to drive up the deficit and enriching ADM. It also means more farmland is needed, more petrochemical-based fertilizers, more land erosion and water pollution, etc., etc.

TANSTAAFL. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!