It would be nice to have some lead figures.... About the only thing we
can put into our reports at the moment is: this is what it used to be,
come back and look at it again when we have something to compare it to.
This is far from ideal.
We could use the last tox figures as a stop-gap, but the removal of
those in preperation for the potential methodology change has lead (no
pun) to a real problem. As we have no idea yet if the final figures are
likely to go up or down, we certainly cannot give clients any security
at all that their figures and strategies will hold up over time before
some new official tox data comes out. This one in years to come might
make an interesting test case. Let us say the figure goes from 700 to
350, where does that leave clients? Likewise I have not seen any new
figures for other areas (H&S etc.) in regards to lead exposure or
allowable amounts so we cannot really reference anything else to give us
a clue either! Has anyone seen any lead figures changed recently in any
related field? And did they go up or down? Likewise has anyone asked HPA
if they have a view on this? Ultimately they will have to agree (or at
least not disagree to strongly) with the toxicology the EA chooses to
use.
In regards to PBET, SBET, bioavailability, etc. until the EA agrees they
are valid methods, I do not see how anyone can go down that route alone
yet, especially as we have no screening value to say when we should be
doing it in the first place... However, we may have to if nothing else
presents itself or the tox is seen as potentially flawed.
Chris Swainston
This email has been scanned for viruses by Netshield MXSweep.
Geotechnics Limited, Registered in England No. 1757790 at The Geotechnical Centre, 203 Torrington Avenue, Tile Hill, Coventry CV4 9AP www.geotechnics.co.uk
|