Its Good Friday and in my free time, I was curious enough to read a copy of Casarett & Doull’s Toxicology. Me, reading a medical, pharmacological book (purposively bad grammar)? Because it will soon be a requirement next semester when I take up Industrial Toxicology. I am even thinking twice about taking the course due to the expected workload in C4 because like Epidemiology 201, it will take significant amount of effort to reach a marginal grade. As much as possible, I would like to approach the upcoming challenge with some degree of preparation and take a mindset of hands-on application and experience which I have gained over some years of audit experience and of course the current task on working for C4. It is just a matter of managing your time and the response of your brain to the load of information yet to come.
It is hard not put advocacy in the picture but things have become way too deep beyond the usual scope of climate policy, which I also think is too broad. Toxicology is similarly a very broad science and will require a certain level of specialization, and I think such specialization will also be required in working on climate change. I am very thankful that I am given an opportunity to use chemical management in climate policy while working in C4, I tried to make that connection as early as possible, linking RA6969, the Philippine counterpart to the US EPA Superfund to a possible legal basis for a local F-gas control policy. Having some toxicology background may be of help in assisting the DENR in a future regulation through a chemical control order.
There is also a greater understanding that people generally value health impacts more than environmental impacts. It will take a while before impacts to the climate may be felt while losing a love one due to a toxic response is far more painful and can provide more value and importance. Safety is not only about flammability, but toxicity from acute to chronic may be of far more importance.