http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17203/clp_study_en.pdf

Two surveys[1] related to the understanding of labels and the safe use of chemicals indicate that the new labels (pictograms) used from 2010 to indicate the dangers on chemical products are scarcely understood by the general public: only a few pictograms are recognised.  Awareness-raising activities should be targeted at the general public

For example, the exclamation mark is familiar to many  (44%), perhaps because it is seen in a number of different situations, but understood by only 11 %. On the other hand, the environmental hazard pictogram is familiar to few, and yet many say they can understand its meaning. These new labels, already applied to substances, must have also replaced the old hazard pictograms on all mixtures by 2015.

These new labels and the associated “precautionary statements” originate from the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals and its transpisition into the European legislation “CLP”[2]. This worldwide initiative classifies chemicals by types of hazard and proposes harmonised hazard communication instruments, including safety data sheets (for workers) and labels (for both consumers and workers).

Encouraging more awareness campaigns and activities towards the public at large

Awareness-raising activities should be targeted at the general public as well as at specific audiences such as families, single households, workers, school children, etc. using a variety of didactic means (web pages, leaflets, audio-visual material, etc.). In this respect most risk communicators themselves are still lacking familiarity with the pictograms and new labelling text information and experience in reaching out to the public.

In particular, industry is encouraged to bring product appearance and packaging more in line with the hazard  information on labels, making use of behavioural drivers to amplify the label’s message, thereby promoting the appropriate safety behaviour in consumers. Indeed, the presence of happiness-related pictures or of an eco-label can actually counteract the purpose of hazard pictograms when influencing an end-user’s choice regarding the purchase, use and storage of a chemical.

The study shows indeed that messages expressed explicitly or inherently through the appearance of a product or through its packaging override the messages contained in a CLP label. For instance, the shape and colour of packaging; the presence of “innocence” related visual elements on a product (for example, pictures of a child or a flower); brand recognition and appreciation; the user’s perception of the usefulness of the product; understanding a product to be more “natural” than industrial; these are all factors that influence the perception of hazards.

The sudies also showed that the perceptions of the hazards pertaining to certain products differ considerably between Member States. Therefore, these awareness-raising measures with national audiences need to be addressed in a differentiated manner and play on the emotional drivers of risk-related behaviour such as the use and storage of household chemicals. Indeed, safety behaviours are influenced by acquaintance with the product rather than an information-based hazard perception.

Among the potential needs for additional information is that messages should focus on safe storage as well as specific safety and disposal measures, make use of intuitive behaviours and be consistent with the message of the hazard pictogram.

For the general public and for stakeholders to regain some sense of control over the activities of institutions, in which they no longer fully trust,  can only be regained and built up over time, through routine, transperent and regular communication.

Some basics on Hazard versus Risk, safety and on their perception

“Hazard” is defined as a possible source of danger, or conditions physical or operational that have a capacity to produce a particular type of adverse effect.

Consequently, hazard communication is the provision of information on the (intrinsic) potential for a substance, activity or process to cause harm and/or and adverse effect.

By contrast, “risk” is a combination of the exposure and the hazard severity of a substance, activity or process that causes harm. The correlation between risk perception and “safety” behaviour is rather low. The survey suggests that risk perception is not a major driver of safety behaviour while safe-storage behaviour is directly related to the perceived danger associated with the chemical household product.

Many of the fundamental elements on risk communications have remained unchanged for years – e.g. a recognition that the perception of risk is an emotional and not a rational response, which often runs counter to actual risk.

The Guidance document on risk communications of ECHA can be found at: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17231/risk_communications_en.pdf.

European Chemicals Agency : Annankatu 18, P.O. Box 400, FI-00121 Helsinki, Finland | Tel. +358 9 686180 | Fax +358 9 686180 | echa.europa.eu

[1] The  “Eurobarometer Survey Questionnaire on consumer perception of labels and chemicals”  and the qualitative research “In-depth study of hazard perception of household chemical products”. See also  http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_360_en.pdf

Summary by  GreenFacts of the 2011 Report from the United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental Effects Assessment Panel.

New studies suggest that stratospheric ozone depletion increased UV-B radiation reaching the Earth’s surface can influence biological processes by driving large scale climate change events. Meanwhile, models suggest also that in the first half of the 21st century the recovery of ozone and changes in cloudiness will result in decreases in surface erythemal irradiance by 2–10% at mid-latitudes, and by up to 20% at northern and 50% at southern high latitudes.

Reactions driven by solar UV radiation, coupled with a range of effects caused by climate change, can significantly alter carbon cycling in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems by changing the nature and biological availability of organic carbon and nitrogen in decreasing the capacity of the oceans in the polar regions to take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Ozone loss, UV exposure and human health

Recent studies and estimates of the human health impact of air pollution highlight the potentially large impact of the coupled effects of stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change.

Without the Montreal Protocol, by 2065, erythemally weighted UV radiation would have been increased by a factor of 3 or more at all latitudes. Fortunately, an upward trend in total ozone over Antarctica since the late 1990s is detectable and is presumably due to reduction in CFCs.

The report highlights that exposure to solar UV-B radiation causes various types of skin cancers and where monitored, the annual incidence rate of these cancers has increased over the past 30 years and is projected to continue to increase, particularly in those aged over 50 years. In particular, melanoma is now more definitively linked with solar UV-B exposure as a risk factor, particularly episodes of severe sunburn; its incidence continues to increase.

Epidemiological evidence reported in the study suggests that conjunctival melanomas (on the external surface of the eye) but not intraocular (internal) melanomas are likely to be induced by exposure to solar UV radiation.  Exposure to solar UV radiation contributes to the development of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), an uncommon but aggressive tumour that occurs on sun-exposed body sites. MCC is found most frequently in elderly men, and survival is poorer than for melanoma.

Changes in the climate resulting from depletion of stratospheric ozone and global warming might also result  in a rise in the incidence and prevalence of water-borne and vector-borne infections.

UV-B radiation is also an essential ingredient in the formation of many photochemical pollutants, including ground-level ozone and a large portion of fine particulates. Therefore, quality of air at ground-level can be improved without significant increases in exposures to UV radiation.

 The paradox of vitamin D

Low levels of exposure to the sun and/or of vitamin D are associated with an increased risk of multiple sclerosis, diabetes and some infectious diseases. Meanwhile,  the potential benefit of vitamin D, produced as a result of increased exposure to solar UV-B radiation, should be balanced against the harmful outcomes of such exposure, including skin cancers and cataract. A too low or too high vitamin D status may equally not be beneficial. This has been shown for prostate cancer, tuberculosis, premature aging, and mortality, says the report.

Although many health benefits have been proposed for vitamin D, some caution is thus required, particularly in situations where the vitamin D levels are increased through dietary supplements rather than by natural sunlight exposure.

 Environmental impact

Evidence continues to demonstrate that solar UV-B radiation is an important regulator of interactions between plants and consumer organisms, such as pests and pathogens. A major breakthrough has been made in the understanding of the molecular mechanisms at the photoreceptor level  that control plant responses to UV-B radiation. However, while the mechanisms by which UV-B radiation affects aquatic organisms are now well-known in many cases, understanding of the magnitude of biogeochemical responses in relation to these interactions remains very limited. For example, many invertebrates, including zooplankton, have a variety of successful defences that can reduce the negative impacts of elevated UV exposure.

The report explains how combined effects of changes in solar UV-B radiation and climate can reduce biological carbon fixation in aquatic systems and thus modify oceanic uptake of CO2. Climate change may also reduce up-welling and availability of nutrients for phytoplankton resulting in further interactions with solar UV radiation on biological fixation of carbon.

In terrestrial ecosystems, exposure to solar UV radiation affects below-ground as well as above-ground processes, with consequences for ecosystem carbon balance.

Reference :  the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP)  produces a detailed report every four years; the most recent was published in 2010 (Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2011, 10, 173–300). The parties to the Montreal Protocol are informed by three panels of experts. One of these is the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP), which deals with two focal issues. The first focus is the effects of increased UV radiation on human health, animals, plants, biogeochemistry, air quality, and materials. The second focus is on interactions between UV radiation and global climate change and how these may affect humans and the environment.

 Source document : United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Environmental effects of ozone depletion and its interactions with climate change: progress report, 2011, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2012, 11, 13–27

http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C1PP90033A

(this summary by GreenFacts is largely based on excerpts of the  summary of the original report)

The results presented in this WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2011 show that it is possible for any country, regardless of political structure or income level, to implement an effective tobacco control programme to reduce tobacco use. The progress made provides strong evidence that there is political will for tobacco control on both national and global levels, which can be harnessed to great effect.

Many countries have indeed made significant progress in fighting the epidemic of tobacco use, and can be looked to as models for action by those countries that have not as yet adopted these measures. Countries must continue to expand and intensify their tobacco control efforts, ensuring they have both the financial means and political commitment to support effective and sustainable programmes.

A preventable cause of death

Tobacco use continues to be the leading global cause of preventable death. It kills nearly 6 million people and causes hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage worldwide each year. Most of these deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, and this disparity is expected to widen further over the next several decades. If current trends continue, by 2030 tobacco will kill more than 8 million people worldwide each year, with 80% of these premature deaths among people living in low- and middle-income countries. Over the course of the 21st century, tobacco use could kill a billion people or more unless urgent action is taken.

Many users still too much unaware of harmful effects of tobacco

 Many tobacco users are still unaware of the harmful chemicals in tobacco products and tobacco smoke, as well as the wide spectrum of specific illnesses caused by tobacco use (7), and frequently do not know that smoking also causes cancers other than lung cancer as well as heart disease, stroke, and many other diseases. Many smokers also incorrectly believe that “light” or “low tar” cigarettes are less harmful.

Many non smokers are still not aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke. The extreme addictive nature of tobacco is also not widely acknowledged. Ths tudy underlines that, surprisingly,  many people, including smokers, incorrectly believe that tobacco use is simply a “bad habit”, not an addiction. They often do not fully comprehend the speed with which people can become addicted to nicotine, or the degree of addiction, and grossly overestimate the likelihood that they will be able to quit easily when desired and before health problems occur.

The WHO initiatives : FCTC and MPOWER

The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) , is a legally binding global treaty to which adhere a total of 173 Parties, covering about 87% of the world’s population. it is a continued global commitment to decisive action against the global tobacco epidemic.  The WHO FCTC provides the foundation with the necessary tools for countries to implement and manage tobacco control programmes to address the growing epidemic of tobacco use.

In 2008, WHO introduced the MPOWER measures that provide such practical assistance with country-level implementation of effective policies to reduce the demand for tobacco through a package of six evidence-based tobacco control measures that are proven to reduce tobacco use and save lives.

More work to be done

Although there has been substantial progress on tobacco control in many countries, more work needs to be done. Despite the progress being made by countries in levying revenue-generating tobacco taxes, governments still inadequately fund tobacco control activities. Governments collect nearly US$ 133 billion in tobacco tax revenues, says the report, but spend less than US$ 1 billion on tobacco control, a deficit that is most evident in low- and middle-income countries.

Because traditional avenues for marketing tobacco products have become increasingly restricted, the report notes that the tobacco industry has become increasingly more reliant on cigarette packaging as a primary marketing vehicle. This is why it is considered that favouring generic packaging may increase accurate perceptions of the risk of tobacco use and decrease smoking rates, and efforts to prohibit the use of logos, colours, brand images and other promotional information are gaining traction. According to the report, pictorial labels are more effective than text-only warnings, in part because they are noticed by more people, provide more information, and evoke emotional responses to the images. Pictorial warnings are even more important in countries with low literacy rates where many people cannot understand written messages. Providing direct information about cessation services on tobacco packaging, in addition to health warnings, may further motivate smokers to make a quit attempt.

In general, the study underlines that warning labels are overwhelmingly supported by the public, often with levels of support at 85–90% or higher, and even most smokers support labelling requirements. Studies of children and adolescents find in particular that mentioning specific diseases on health warning labels makes them more believable than general warnings and that pictorial warnings are effective in making youth think about the health dangers of smoking and about reducing consumption.

The main purpose of the report is to provide relevant and useful information on environmental issues to the public and decision-makers in order to raise awareness and support more informed environmental management decisions.  For the first time the report goes beyond a descriptive summary of evidence to include graded ‘report-card’ style assessments of environment condition and trends, pressures and management effectiveness. Also new to national State of the environment reporting in 2011 are discussions of the drivers of environmental change, resilience, risks, and future projections or ‘outlooks’.

Among the many facts reviewed it was noted that the overall condition of the Australian marine environment is good, but that integrated management will be key to the future conservation of their ocean resources. The report mentions also that acidification and erosion currently affect large areas, although wind erosion has decreased in response to better agricultural practices. Data on biodiversity suggest that many species continue to decline, despite promising investment in addressing these pressures. Invasive species, inappropriate fire patterns and grazing are having a significant impact on much of land environment.

Climate change poses the largest future threat to Australia inland water systems. Current water-sharing rules tend to favour water entitlement holders over environmental flows in dry times. Australia’s water consumption fell by 25% from 2004-05 to 2008-09. Regarding health, ambient air quality and air pollution management in Australia’s urban centres are generally good, but the impact of urban air quality on health is still a matter of serious concern.

Context : The report was written by an independent committee of experts chaired by Dr Tom Hatton (Director, CSIRO Wealth from Oceans Flagship) appointed by the Australian Minister for the Environment.  An independent peer review was used to validate and strengthen the content of the report and its supplementary technical reports.

In many cases, workshops were held with experts to gather evidence and information, discuss issues and gauge opinion.

Reference

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2011/report/key-findings.html

1. – THE REPORT details the scientific state of the art findings of a project on mixture toxicology and ecotoxicology commissioned by the  European Commission, DG Environment.

According to it, there is strong evidence that chemicals with common specific modes of action work together to produce  combination effects that are larger than the effects of each mixture component applied singly. In the case of such combinations of chemicals that interact with the same sub-system of an organism, the concept of dose addition is applicable for the prediction of their effects when the toxicities of individual mixture components are known.

The currently available scientific evidence as well as pragmatic considerations, says the report, support the idea of adopting dose addition as the preliminary default concept for the assessment and prediction of mixture effects. Indeed, deviations from predicted additivity, indicative of synergisms or antagonisms, are comparatively rare, relatively small and largely confined to mixtures with only a few compounds.

This approach, says the report is borne out by current practice in many regulatory bodies in the EU, USA and by recommendations of international bodies.

There is however, according to the report, decisive evidence derived from studies relevant to human toxicology and to ecotoxicology  that have been conducted with mixtures composed of chemicals with diverse modes of action, indicating that the effects of such mixtures are higher than those of the individual components when each component is present at doses equal to, or below a no-effect level.

Whether or not risks arise from combined exposures in such cases can only be decided on the basis of better information on  human populations and wild life which is currently missing,  according to the report., Also, uncertainty factors used in chemical-by-chemical risk assessment could offer insufficient room to allow for mixture effects for all possible realistic mixtures.

The scientific state of the art of mixture toxicology shows that mixture risk assessment in the EU is necessary, in order to avoid underestimations of risks that might occur under the current paradigm of considering substances on a chemical-by-chemical basis. In the meantime,  it shows also that it is also feasible as demonstrated by a multitude of risk assessment methods already in use by international bodies & EU member states.

As a matter of facts,  the report states that there is strong evidence that it is possible to predict the toxicity of chemical mixtures with reasonable accuracy and precision. There is no need for the experimental testing of each and every conceivable mixture, which would indeed make risk assessment unmanageable.

2.- THE OPINION is the Preliminary Opinion approved for Public Consultation on  Toxicity and Assessment of Chemical Mixtures expressed by the three  independent non-food Scientific Committees of the EU Commission SCCS, SCHER and SCENHIR.

Based on the analysis of the available scientific literature, their conclusions are that :

(1) Under certain conditions, chemicals may act jointly in a way that the overall level of toxicity is being affected;

(2) Chemicals with common modes of action may act jointly to produce combination effects that are larger than the effects of each mixture component applied singly. These effects can be described by dose/ concentration addition;

(3) For chemicals acting independently, no robust evidence is available that exposure to a mixture of such substances is of health concern if the individual chemicals are present at or below their zero-effect levels;

(4) Interactions (including antagonism, potentiation, synergies) usually occur at medium or high dose levels (relative to the lowest effect levels). At low exposure levels, they are either not occurring or toxicologically insignificant;

(5) In view of the almost infinite number of possible combinations of chemicals to which humans and environmental species are exposed, some form of initial filter to allow a focus on mixtures of potential concern is necessary. Several criteria for such screening are offered;

(6) With regard to the assessment of chemical mixtures, a major knowledge gap at the present time is the rather limited number of chemicals for which there is sufficient information on their mode of action. Currently, there is neither an agreed inventory of mode of actions, nor a defined set of criteria how to characterise a mode of action for data-poor chemicals;

(7) If no mode of action information is available, the dose/concentration addition method should be preferred over the independent action approach. Prediction of possible interaction requires expert judgement and hence needs to be considered on a case-by case basis.

Based upon these conclusions, a decision tree for evaluating the risk of chemical mixtures is proposed by the Committees.

REFERENCES.

1. State of the Art Report on Mixture Toxicity – Final Report, Executive Summary December 2009 .

A project on mixture toxicology and ecotoxicology commissioned by the European Commission, DG Environment. State of the Art Report on Mixture Toxicity – Final Report, Executive Summary December 2009 . Study Contract of the EU Commission Nr 070307/2007/485103/ETU/D.1 Contractor: The School of Pharmacy University of London (ULSOP) . Note that the Commission services do not accept any liability with regard to the contents of this document.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/pdf/report_Mixture%20toxicity.pdf

2. Toxicity and Assessment of Chemical Mixtures -(Preliminary Opinion approved for Public Consultation Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR),) June 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consultations/public_consultations/scher_consultation_06_en.htm

Note:  the short excerpts proposed by GreenFacts of international reports on health and environment are not verified by its Scientific Board.

The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited among users of wireless mobile telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past mobile or cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period).

This has relevance for public health, says the report, particularly for users of mobile phones, as the number of users is large and growing, particularly among young adults and children.

The overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between mobile phones and cancer risk

A concise report summarizing the main conclusions of the IARC Working Group and the evaluations of the carcinogenic hazard from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including the use of mobile telephones) was published in The Lancet Oncology on June 22, 2011.

Background

Over the last few years, there has been mounting concern about the possibility of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to radiofrequency elecromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by wireless communication devices.

In May 2011, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries assessed the potential carcinogenic hazards from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The Working Group discussed the possibility that these exposures might induce long‐term health effects, in particular an increased risk for cancer.

To this end, the Working Group evaluated the available literature tackling the exposure data, the studies of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals, and the mechanistic and other relevant data. Among the exposure categories involving radiofrequency electromagnetic fields examined were personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones and environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and wireless telecommunication.

The Working Group considered hundreds of scientific articles; the complete list will be published as part of the Volume 102 of the IARC Monographs. Several recent in press scientific articles resulting from the Interphone study were made available to the working group shortly before it was de to convene, reflecting their acceptance for publication at that time, and were included in the evaluation.

Reference : http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

[1] ‘Limited evidence of carcinogenicity’: “a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.”

Note : the short insights published by GreenFacts on recently published scientific reports are not reviewed by its Scientific Committee.

A summary prepared by GreenFacts of the

This regulation is amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XIII

16.3.2011 Official Journal of the European Union L 69/7

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:069:0007:0012:EN:PDF

1. The specific importance of persistance, bioaccumulative and toxic properties for managing risks

The identification of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic properties of substances (PBT substances), and very persistent and very bioaccumulative substances (vPvB substances) is important in order to evaluate their intrinsic potential impact to affect human health and the environment and assess the real risks.

This is also the basis on which define regulatory rules regarding their use, substitution or ultimate ban, depending on each specific case (within the global EU chemicals Regulation or more specific Regulations such as the one on electric/electronic equipments (RoHS Regulation) .

To this end, the EU Commission redefined the approach to be applied within the EU for the identification of PBT substances and vPvB substances and  the EU  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 was amended accordingly. The revised aproach is based on a weight-of-evidence determination using expert judgement applied by comparing all relevant and available information.

Indeed, experience shows that, for the adequate identification of PBT and vPvB substances, all relevant information should be used in an integrated manner and applying a weight- of-evidence approach by comparing the information to the criteria set out.

2. What is a “weight –of-evidence approach” ?

The regulation states that a weight-of-evidence determination means that all available information bearing on the identification of a PBT or a vPvB substance is considered together, such as :

- the results of monitoring and modelling,

- suitable in vitro tests,

- relevant animal data,

- information from the application of the category approach (grouping, read-across), (Q)SAR results, see below) ,

- human experience such as occupational data and data from accident databases, epidemiological and clinical studies and well documented case reports and observations.

The quality and consistency of the data shall be given appropriate weight. The available results regardless of their individual conclusions shall be assembled together in a single weight-of-evidence determination.

A weight-of-evidence determination is particularly relevant in cases where the application of the classical and basic criteria set in the Regulation is not straightforward.

The identification shall also take account of the PBT/vPvB-properties of relevant individual constituents of a substance including their relevant transformation and/or degradation products and shall apply to all organic substances, including organo-metals.

3. How to gather the appropriate information on PTB properties.

In cases where the technical dossier contains, for one or more endpoints, only limited information, the Regulation says that the relevant information available in the technical dossier should be used for screening for P, B, or T properties. In order to avoid unnecessary studies, if there is no indication of the P or B properties from the screening registrants should not be required to develop additional information.

Only in cases where the screening assessment indicates a possible of P, B, or T property, or a vP or vB property, the registrant should develop additional information or propose additional testing to conclude its PBT and vPvB assessment, unless the registrant implements or recommends sufficient risk management measures or operational conditions.

Since substances can have one or more constituents with PBT or vPvB properties, or can transform or degrade into products with such properties, the Regulation specifies that the identification should also take account of the PBT/vPvB-properties of such constituents and transformation and/or degradation products.

Registrations of substances under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 that are not in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation shall be updated in order to comply with this Regulation no later than 19 March 2013.

4.  In brief : what are the criteria set by the Regulation for classification as PTB or vPvB

4.1.Persistence

A substance fulfils the persistence criterion (P) or very bioaccumulable (vP) in any of the following situations:

the degradation half-life in marine water, fresh or estuarine water in marine sediment, in fresh or estuarine water sediment, in soil is higher thana priod comprised between 40 and 180 depending on the medium

4.2. Bioaccumulation

A substance fulfils the bioaccumulation criterion (B) when the bioconcentration factor in aquatic species is higher than 2 000.

A substance fulfils the “very bioaccumulative” criterion (vB) when the bioconcentration factor in aquatic species is higher than 5 000.

4.3. Toxicity

A substance fulfils the toxicity criterion (T) when either/and

-  the long-term no-observed effect concentration (NOEC) or low effect concentration (EC10) for marine or freshwater organisms is less than 0,01 mg/l;

- the substance meets the criteria for classification as carcinogenic, germ cell mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (“CMR”) according to Regulation EC No 1272/2008;

(c) there is other evidence of chronic toxicity, such as specific target organ toxicity after repeated exposure.

(see the original text of the regulation for more precise information)

5.  In brief : what  information is considered relavant for the assessment of PTB or  vP, vB properties

The following information shall be considered for screening for P, vP, B, vB and T properties :

5.1. Indication of (very) Persistant properties

(a) Results from tests on “ready” biodegradation or other screening tests (e.g. “enhanced ready test”, tests on inherent biodegradability) from theoretical evaluation using Quantitative Structure-activity relationships between molecules of the same kind ( (Q)SAR models or any other information provided that its suitability and reliability can be reasonably demonstrated.

5.2. Indication of (very) Bioaccumulative properties

The criteria is its octanol-water partitioning coefficient experimentally determined, estimated by (Q)SAR models.. . The partition of a molecule between octanol and water is a good indicator of its tendency to accumulate in lipidic media (memebranes, fat, …) Other information can be used provided that its suitability and reliability can be reasonably demonstrated : data on aquatic or terrestrial animals (inclmuding human data), chronic toxicity or rate of elimination from organisms (“toxicokinetics”),

5.3. Indication of Toxic properties

Aquatic toxicity in short term toxicity towards aquatic organisms towards microorganisms, algae (their growth inhibition), invertebrates (like microcrustacea), fish. Any other information can also be used in a “weight of evidence approach”  provided that its suitability and reliability can be reasonably demonstrated (in particular carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (3CMR”) toxicity in terrestrial organisms such as insects,mammals or birds).

(see the original text of the regulation for more precise information)

note : the short summary reports published on the Blog of GreenFacts are not verified by its Scientific Board

The Digest  produced by GreenFacts is a faithful summary of this report written in an accessible language:

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/index.htm

In brief,  confusion about the impact of the accident has given rise to highly exaggerated claims that tens or even hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of the accident. In fact, says the report, a much smaller death toll can be directly attributable to Chernobyl radiation. Twenty-eight emergency workers died from acute radiation syndrome, 15 patients died from thyroid cancer, and it is roughly estimated that the total number of deaths from cancers caused by Chernobyl may reach 4000 among the 600 000 people having received the greastest exposures.

According to the report, in the general population of the contaminated regions, there is so far no convincing evidence that Chernobyl has increased the number of cases of leukaemia or solid cancers, except for childhood thyroid cancer.

Thousands of those who were children and adolescents at the time of the accident have developed thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to radioactive iodine. The majority of those cancers have been treated successfully. Among workers who were exposed to higher doses of radiation this exposure has contributed to an increase in the number of cases of certain types of leukaemia and solid cancers, and possibly of cardiovascular diseases and cataracts. Future analytical studies should be able to clarify this.

Background

About 25 years ago, the most serious accident in nuclear history produced massive amounts of radioactive materials release into the environment, resulting in a radioactive cloud that spread over much of Europe. The greatest contamination occurred around the reactor in areas that are now part of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.

On 26 April 1986, one of the reactors of the nuclear power plant exploded and the consequent fires that lasted for 10 days, led to huge amounts of radioactive materials being released into the environment and a radioactive cloud spreading over much of Europe. The greatest contamination occurred around the reactor in areas that are now part of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.

Since the accident, some 600 000 people have been involved in emergency, containment, cleaning, and recovery operations, although only few of them have been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. Those who received the highest doses of radiation were the emergency workers and personnel that were on-site during the first days of the accident (approximately 1000 people).

At present, more than five million people live in areas that are considered to be ‘contaminated’ with radioactive materials from the Chernobyl accident ¹. The area closest to the reactor site was most heavily contaminated and the 116 000 people who lived there were evacuated soon after the accident.

See more details in the GreenFacts Digest :

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/index.htm

note : the content of the short reports prepared for the Blog of GreenFcats are not verified by its Scientific Board