Science Rant

[da]

Dear Bob McDonald and Quirks and Quarks,

I was dismayed by the absence of any substantive discussion of health
risks in your story on antimony in the Arctic just now on Quirks and
Quarks. The report starts by saying it's very similar in structure to
lead; it has no biological function, and it might be hazardous. In a few other places, antimony is compared to lead, but nowhere do you actually say how hazardous it is.

Dr. Shotyk spent some time talking about how he mesasured antimony in the
environment, which is interesting science. But 2/3 of the way through,
you asked Dr. Shotyk, "You're seeing antimony in plastics, in the
environment, and in the Arctic. Is there any indication that this stuff
is causing ill health?"

He briefly said that the measurement in bottled waters is below drinking
level standards; but it steadily leeches into the water so the amount goes
up over time. "And we need to sit down and have a hard look at this."

Then you changed the subject: "What can be done about it?" And he went
into discussing how Japan uses titanium instead of antimony for industrial
purposes.

How is the listener supposed to draw any sort of useful conclusion? I just did
20 minutes of research on the health effects of antimony, and the results are
not terribly earth-shaking. It might be as hazardous to health as
ammonia. In volumes considerably higher than you'll get from a PET
bottle.

I have always been impressed with your discussion of new science and
health research. But I should think that an 8 minute science
report titled "Antimony: The New Lead" (on your website) should
do much better.

Sincerely,
Me