Thursday, October 25, 2007


Officials claiming that RDX is a harmless substance that may be found in deodorants, cosmetics and aerosols are either not doing enough research or deliberately misleading the public as to the cause of the explosion in Glorietta 2 which killed 11 people and injured dozens of others. This puts into question the credibility of the report that the PNP is preparing in an attempt to shed light on the cause of the explosion.

The latest theory that the PNP is presenting is that the explosion was an industrial accident, caused by the explosive ignition of methane and diesel fumes in the mall’s basement. In order for this theory to hold, the traces of RDX found by the PNP must be ignored. But how can you ignore such a finding?

In the investigation of an explosion in a theater in Ludhiana, India last October 14 where six people were killed, police concluded that the explosion was caused by RDX when they found traces of the substance in the blast site. In this country, traces of a known explosive substance are explained as possibly coming from deodorant.

DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno tried to downplay the traces of RDX in the blast site by claiming that RDX is a substance found in ordinary items such as deodorant, aerosols and even cosmetics. With the wonderful world wide web at my fingertips, I did some research in teh comfort of my computer chair. My research yielded nothing about RDX being used in such everyday consumer products. All I came up with in my research is that RDX is an explosive substance used in military applications. How did traces of it end up in a mall?

In fact, the very name of the substance is indicative of its nature and use. “RDX stands for Royal Demolition Explosive or Research Department Explosive. How can that be used in deodorants and cosmetics? Would you put something named Royal Demolition Explosive under your armpit? My guess is you won't.

Besides, deodorant is supposed to prevent "putok", not cause it, right?

The impossibility of RDX being used in consumer products is supported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s classification of RDX as a “possible human carcinogen”. Likewise, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says that RDX can cause seizures in humans and is considered a hazardous substance.

Scientific research and testing of RDX on rabbits and rats resulted in reproductive effects. Thus, the researchers recommended that human females of childbearing age be protected from exposure to RDX. What company will use it as a component of lip stick?

The attempt to downplay the traces of RDX in the Glorietta 2 blast site leads one to suspect that the authorities are trying to lead the public into believing a theory that the explosion was not deliberate, that it was just an accident. They even say that RDX is not an explosive, contrary to information provided in websites of U.S. government agencies which describe RDX as a type of explosive. Why is this so?

I find it hard to believe that the experts in the PNP don’t know what RDX is. They are experts. They should know what it is. Unless, of course, if they are doing this deliberately.

In spite of all the information I have gathered that RDX cannot possibly be a component of consumer products, I am willing to swallow my pride and publicly apologize if the PNP can present a deodorant, cosmetic or aerosol that which has RDX as an ingredient. In the meantime, they better get their act together and give us the real story behind this incident.

No comments: