The chlorine industry and its allies present the arguments of their opponents as coming from environmentalists, such as Greenpeace, rather than from scientists. In this way they characterise the argument that dioxin is dangerous as one based on fear and emotion whereas their own is based on science. For example, Gordon Gribble writing for the think tank, the Heartland Institute, says "Numerous reports in the media have ascribed possible detrimental health effects to chlorine, dioxin and other chlorinated chemicals... Greenpeace... has led the attack....Greenpeace's claims face formidable opposition from the scientific community." He and others in the industry continue to insist that "The only documented adverse health effect of exposure to dioxin is the skin disease chloracne." The issue of other health effects is never presented as a being supported by scientific evidence nor even as a scientific controversy.

The Chlorophiles say they are concerned that 'mankind' will be excluded from the benefits of chlorine because of "prejudices and false or erroneous information." Wise Users, Arnold and Gottlieb, go so far as to claim; "A $400 million government study has concluded that dioxin is everywhere and has been doing no detectable harm... However, environmental groups still try to peddle fear of dioxin as a fund raising gimmick and press for more government studies, hoping that one will someday come up with the politically correct result." (Arnold and Gottlieb 1993)

The Managing Director of the Chlorine Chemistry Council, C. T. Howlett said in a 1995 speech to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe:

Rather than being guided by what we know—the scientific facts about chlorine and chlorinated compounds and the many benefits they have brought to society—the debate is revolving around what we don't know and the fears that spring from a lack of understanding and rush to judgement.

He called for the debate to move from "Greenpeace's slanderous characterization of 'Absolute Death' to the scientific reality of 'Absolute Necessity'..." and that common sense would show that chlorine chemistry's benefits more than outweighed its "hypothetical risks." He even suggested that dioxin "may ironically help provide a cure for breast cancer" by providing, at certain exposure levels, "a form of chemoprotection."

In a 1995 speech to the American Chemical Society, Howlett stressed "the role that you, as scientists, can help play in setting the record straight." He said that "the scientific data to support a chlorine ban or restrictions on its uses are sketchy or non-existent" and that the chlorine issue was being driven by "perception, sprinkled with a strong dose of politics":

To the public, dioxin is the most toxic chemical known to mankind. This belief persists despite a preponderance of scientific evidence that dioxin does not cause adverse human health effects other than chloracne, a condition that results only from extremely high levels of dioxin exposure. Rather than advancing public knowledge about dioxin;and perhaps, calming some fears, the EPA's draft reassessment, failed to differentiate its regulatory policy on dioxin from matters of scientific fact.

...back to top

Arnold, Ron and Alan Gottlieb, 1993, Trashing the Economy: How runaway Environmentalism is Wrecking America (Bellevue, Washington: Free Enterprise Press)

...back to top