From Pirate Discussion
Q ….Risk Quotients (EEC/LC50). However, as Nancy said, we have to consider the fact that the compound affects the reproductive system. Therefore death (as measured with the LC50) should not be the endpoint under consideration. (Dr Perkins, is there an ECx that specifically targets the reproductive cycle?).
A. The "E" for effective does not describe the effect. It is always some adverse effect. You have to go to the literature that describes the toxicological testing to find out what the effect was. For Risk Quotients, they are always talking about non-cancer effects. Reproductive testing, say for a new drug, involves several tests, including multigenerational tests. These are expensive. There are many "reproductive" effects, sterility in the exposed generations, birth defects in the next generation, and genetic damage in succeeding generations.

**Q. Is there a numeric scale by which ecologic hazards are rated or characterized? I have a pretty clear picture of how the EPA evaluates and rates (via hazard index and excess cancer rates) sites for human health hazards, but I am not clear on how that part of the process works for ecologic assessments.
A. It is tough to define the proper indicator species with respect to trophic levels, etc. Then you need to get the public and regulators to accept them as relevant. The foregoing is often the biggest problem. Then you test the indicator species and find various LD50's , LC 10's etc. Now at what level will you be allowed to kill the animals in the environment? If it is / was a one time spill, you could argue that if you only kill 10% of the animals, the species will quickly spring back to re-fill its ecological niche. If you are tying to get a permit for a constant discharge, you will be killing 10% of the animals year in and year out. Perhaps an LC 1 would be more appropriate. The LC 10 is commonly accepted, if there are other factors that make that conservative. For example, the LC 10 exists only a small mixing area, the rest of the river or lake will have a lower concentration. If the indicator species is known to be very sensitive, that might be a conservative factor as well. We'll approach this again when we look at water pollution in Module 12.

**Q. I thought it interesting that we could construct an acceptable LD for different species. I also found it interesting that the LD could be different if a polluter could show that the population could "spring back" in a year or two. What if it didn't? What then?
A. See above. Also, for a permit, it could be written to reappraise the situation in a few years. It's tough for the designers to build something if they do not know how much they can discharge.

**Q. Is there a list of standard indicator species designated for specific chemicals? How are they classified and or arranged? Is there a protocol that one can reference for the use of the standard indicator species?
A. No. There are lots of lists. Most of these species are for permit applications. The applicant must persuade the permitting agency that the species is relevant to the chemical being tested. The agencies prefer species they are familiar with.

Q. Another thing bothers me. Part of the "margin for safety" such as it is, was to have a border around the field of untreated cotton. How many farmers do you imagine will allow part of their crop to go to waste when they can prevent it for the sake of a few bird (that they likely battle to keep seed uneaten, etc.). This sounds like the industries way of saying "not my fault they didn't follow directions." Just like pharmaceuticals do when medicines are prescribed to kids but approved only for adults (even though they marketed to pediatricians). Dr. Perkins is there a version of that administrators can't ignore the workers taking the easy way out rule that can be applied to product liability?
A. "Product liability" is a legal term from the US common law that simply says that if a manufacturer markets a product that is "unreasonably dangerous" and someone gets hurt, the manufacturer is liable. For Pirate we are talking about a license to market a product, before anyone gets hurt. This is exactly like drugs, the FDA requires a statement that explains how a drug is to be used, you can get that from the pharmacy. You can overuse and poison with any drug or pesticide. The question here is whether the stipulation is reasonable. Most maximum application rates of pesticides are reasonable, because it costs money to exceed them. Here, requiring an intricate pattern of application, might not be reasonable.