The NEW YORK TIMES last week ran a five-part series on environmental policy, by three different writers. Three of the stories ran on page one and all five left readers with the sense that the TIMES favors turning back the clock 20 years or more, to return to environmental policies we enjoyed prior to 1970. Today we will describe, and briefly comment on, the main points in each of the five articles.

As we saw last week, Part 1 of the series made three main points:

(a) U.S. environmental policy was never planned as a coherent strategy for protecting the environment, but evolved one law at a time, often in response to particular crises. THIS IS OF COURSE TRUE AND REGRETTABLE. IT IS ALSO TRUE OF EVERY OTHER COMPLICATED PUBLIC POLICY, SUCH AS MILITARY POLICY, FOREIGN POLICY, AND TRADE POLICY.

(b) Congress has allowed public sentiment to guide policy, instead of scientific experts who know better than the public what should be done. THE Times IGNORES THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CREATED THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOW STRUGGLING TO SOLVE. THE NATION'S BEST SCIENTISTS, EMPLOYED BY COMPANIES LIKE MONSANTO AND DUPONT, GAVE US A PLANET THOROUGHLY ADULTERATED BY TOXIC PCBS, OZONE-DEPLETING CFCS AND LEGIONS OF OTHER FANCIFUL MOLECULES INVENTED BY CHEMISTS. THE Times OFFERS NO EVIDENCE THAT THESE SCIENTISTS, OR OTHERS, CAN OFFER SPECIAL INSIGHTS INTO PUBLIC POLICIES DESIGNED TO SOLVE (OR BETTER YET, AVOID) SUCH PROBLEMS.

IN ITS 5-PART SERIES, THE Times DOES NOT ONCE MENTION POLLUTION PREVENTION. THE PUSH FOR PREVENTION IS COMING FROM THE TAXPAYING PUBLIC--MOST OFTEN POOR PEOPLE AND PEOPLE OF COLOR--WHO ARE BEARING THE PAIN AND THE COSTS OF POLICIES DEVELOPED BY PRIVATE FIRMS THAT WERE CREATED FOR THE NARROW PURPOSE OF HARNESSING SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL EXPERTISE.

(c) The TIMES goes on to suggest that because Congress has listened to the voters and not to the scientific experts, the nation's environmental policy has spawned an expensive and ineffective program that wastes billions of dollars on insignificant problems (mainly, cleaning up chemically-contaminated sites) while important problems, like the loss of species diversity and global warming, grow unchecked.

WE AGREE WITH THE Times THAT THE NATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION APPARATUS IS FRAGMENTED AND THAT SOME PROGRAMS ARE WASTEFUL. BUT, UNLIKE THE Times, WE BELIEVE THIS HAS OCCURRED BECAUSE NATIONAL POLICY DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THESE INTERRELATED PROBLEMS FROM A PREVENTION PERSPECTIVE, AND BECAUSE IT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT ALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ARE INTERCONNECTED.

THE Times's PREFERRED SOLUTIONS SUFFER FROM THE SAME NARROW FOCUS AS PRESENT POLICIES. THE Times SEEMS NOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOLVING A PROBLEM LIKE SPECIES LOSS WILL REQUIRE US TO CLEAN UP PAST, AND AVOID FUTURE, CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION. FOR EXAMPLE, ECONOMICALLY DEVASTATING LOSS OF OYSTERS IN CHESAPEAKE BAY IS BEING CAUSED BY OVERFISHING, BY DESTRUCTION OF HABITAT, AND BY LOW LEVELS OF METALS AND ORGANOCHLORINE COMPOUNDS THAT DAMAGE THE OYSTERS' IMMUNE SYSTEMS, MAKING THEM VULNERABLE TO FATAL BACTERIAL INFECTIONS.[1] THE Times's IMPLIED PRESCRIPTION FOR OUR ILLS DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THAT "LOW" LEVELS OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE VERY PROBLEMS THAT THE Times SINGLES OUT AS NEEDING OUR ATTENTION: MERCURY IN FISH, LEAD IN CHILDREN, GLOBAL WARMING, AND SPECIES LOSS. MANY STORIES IN THE Science Times (WHICH APPEARS AS PART OF THE Times EACH TUESDAY) HAVE MADE THIS POINT IN VARIOUS WAYS. PERHAPS THE BEST THING THE Times's WRITERS COULD DO IS READ THEIR OWN NEWSPAPER DILIGENTLY.

Part 2 of the series offers a lengthy example of what the TIMES considers bad policy: the 1988 ban on dumping New York City's chemically-contaminated sewage sludge into the ocean. The TIMES comes out squarely in favor of continued dumping of chemically-contaminated sewage sludge in the ocean because "some argue" that it would be less hazardous than "most of the disposal methods that have replaced it." "The ocean dumping ban is a striking triumph of environmental politics over science," the TIMES says.

HERE AGAIN, THE Times's WRITERS SEEM ASTONISHINGLY IGNORANT OF INTERCONNECTED ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. SEWAGE CONTAINS LARGE QUANTITIES OF VALUABLE (INDEED, ESSENTIAL) NUTRIENTS SUCH AS PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN. BUT SEWAGE ALSO CONTAINS TOXIC CHEMICALS BECAUSE OUR SMARTEST ENGINEERS MISTAKENLY BUILT SEWER SYSTEMS THAT MIX HUMAN WASTES WITH INDUSTRIAL WASTES. THE SOLUTION IS NOT TO THROW THE WHOLE MESS IN THE OCEAN AND HOPE FOR THE BEST. THE SOLUTION IS TO KEEP THE TOXICS OUT OF THE SEWERS (PREVENTION) AND TO RETURN THE PHOSPHOROUS AND NITROGEN TO THE SOILS FROM WHENCE THEY CAME.[2]

Part 3 of the series announced the TIMES'S recent discovery that laboratory animals are physiologically different from humans and that testing toxic chemicals on laboratory animals does not offer precise information about the effects of chemicals on humans. THE Times DOESN'T SEEM TO KNOW THAT THIS HAS ALL BEEN UNDERSTOOD SINCE THE 1920S WHEN ANIMAL TESTING FIRST BEGAN. THE Times SAYS THAT THIS KNOWLEDGE HAS "THROWN INTO QUESTION" THE "RATIONALE BEHIND A LARGE PORTION OF THE NATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS." BASED ON ANIMAL STUDIES, WHICH ARE NOW RECOGNIZED AS FLAWED, THE Times SAYS, EXPERTS ARE ASKING WHETHER THE NATION IS "WASTING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS REGULATING SUBSTANCES THAT MIGHT POSE LITTLE RISK." THE Times TOOK THIS OCCASION TO REPEAT THE PHRASE, WHICH IT HAD ALREADY STATED IN PART 1 OF THE SERIES, THAT DIOXIN "IS NOT NEARLY AS HARMFUL AS ORIGINALLY BELIEVED." THE Times LIKES THIS PHRASE AND HAS REPEATED IT AT LEAST FIVE TIMES IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, EVEN THOUGH IT IS CONTRADICTED BY THE LATEST AND MOST THOROUGH SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.[3] The TIMES goes on to suggest that animal studies should be supplemented by "studies of [human] population groups found to have been exposed to the substances without knowing of the possible risk," plus laboratory analyses of ways in which chemicals interact with cells. The TIMES then goes on to say that such studies are prohibitively expensive, leaving us with animal studies as the best available indicator of a chemical's toxicity.

THE Times FAILS TO MENTION WHY WE STUDY ANIMALS IN THE LABORATORY. WE DO IT BECAUSE IT IS IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL FOR SCIENTISTS TO CONDUCT HUMAN EXPERIMENTS WITH TOXIC CHEMICALS. (ODDLY, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED IMMORAL OR UNETHICAL TO EXPOSE WORKERS AND CONSUMERS TO TOXIC CHEMICALS ABOUT WHICH LITTLE OR NOTHING IS KNOWN. DOING SO TO EARN MONEY IS SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE; DOING SO TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE ABOUT A CHEMICAL'S EFFECTS IS CONSIDERED IMMORAL. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ANALYSTS AND THE Times MIGHT USEFULLY EXPLORE THIS APPARENT CONTRADICTION.)

Part 4 of the series describes what the TIMES calls a "grass-roots" revolt against the high cost of environmental regulations. The TIMES says this movement is made up of "home owners, farmers, miners, and timber industry workers" who are concerned about the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. THE Times DID NOT GIVE THIS MOVEMENT A NAME, BUT WE OBSERVE THE AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL SCENE CLOSELY AND THE ONLY GROUP WE KNOW THAT FITS THIS DESCRIPTION IS THE WISE USE MOVEMENT, A VOCAL AND SOMETIMES VIOLENT CLAN WITH A SMALL POPULAR FOLLOWING, WHICH RECEIVES FUNDING FROM MAJOR POLLUTERS.[4]

This part of the series gives a few examples of the "high" costs of protecting the environment. For example, the City of Columbus, Ohio, spends 11% of its budget protecting the environment, the TIMES says. The TIMES quotes a city official who complains that federal rules are "taking money from decent programs and making me waste them [sic] on less important problems." The official does not cite any examples of a "less important problem" but Part 4 opened with a description of EPA regulations requiring Columbus to clean up a chemically-contaminated vacant lot at a cost of $2.4 million; by this the TIMES seems to say that chemical contamination is the chief culprit in America's wasteful environmental protection program. WE AGREE THAT THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM HAS WASTED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND ACHIEVED FEW CLEANUPS. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT THE GOAL OF THE PROGRAM (CLEANUP, AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH) THAT WE FAULT. IT IS THE REAGAN/BUSH EPA'S CORRUPT AND WITLESS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM THAT TROUBLES US.

Part 4 ends by ridiculing EPA's radon regulations. Radon is a naturally-occurring radioactive gas that has been measured inside homes, particularly in modern homes built for energy efficiency. Radon has been around for a long time but older homes were leaky so fresh air entered them easily and diluted the radon. Modern homes are "tight" (to reduce energy waste); in such homes radon gas can accumulate to levels the EPA considers dangerous. EPA has also tried to limit the amount of naturally-occurring radon in water systems because water can release radon into the air inside a home when it becomes turbulent, such as during dish washing, flushing, or showering. THE Times RIDICULES THIS EPA PROGRAM SAYING, "IN OTHER WORDS, THE GOVERNMENT WAS TRYING TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM GETTING LUNG CANCER FROM THEIR MORNING SHOWER." BUT THAT IS, IN FACT, THE AIM OF THE PROGRAM AND IT IS A VALID AIM. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF RADON WAS DEVELOPED NOT BY ANIMAL STUDIES BUT BY EXPOSING LARGE NUMBERS OF URANIUM MINERS TO RADON IN THE MINES, THEN COUNTING THEIR CANCERS. THE Times DOES ITS BEST TO DISCREDIT EVEN THIS SOURCE OF INFORMATION SAYING, "AMONG THOSE [MINERS] WHO DIED, THOUGH, IT WAS ALSO TRUE THAT MANY WERE HEAVY SMOKERS." THE FIRST SCIENTISTS WHO STUDIED URANIUM MINERS TO ASSESS THE HAZARDS OF RADON TOOK SMOKING HISTORY INTO ACCOUNT, BUT THE Times IMPLIES THEY DID NOT AND THAT THEREFORE THEIR CONCLUSIONS ARE FLAWED. ANYONE WITH EVEN MEAGER KNOWLEDGE OF RADON'S HISTORY WILL FIND THE Times's OBVIOUS SELECTIVE BIAS MORALLY OFFENSIVE AND JOURNALISTICALLY REPREHENSIBLE.[5]

Soon we will examine the TIMES'S policy suggestions and begin a series describing an alternative "new environmentalism."
--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============
[1] Merrill Leffler, "Bay Oysters: Battered by Disease," MARINE NOTES [a University of Maryland Sea Grant Program publication] (September, 1992), pgs. 1-3.

[2] Barry Commoner, CLOSING CIRCLE (N.Y.: Knopf, 1971).

[3] Marilyn Fingerhut and others, "Cancer Mortality in Workers Exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 324 (1991), pgs. 212-218; see also 8 volumes produced thus far by U.S. EPA's "scientific reassessment of dioxin." EPA document numbers EPA/600/AP-92/001a through h.

[4] Barbara Ruben "Root Rot," ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION Vol. 24 (Spring, 1992), pgs. 25-30; and Mark Megalli and Andy Friedman, MASKS OF DECEPTION: CORPORATE FRONT GROUPS IN AMERICA (Washington, D.C.: Essential Information, 1991).

[5] Frank E. Lundin and others, RADON DAUGHTER EXPOSURE AND RESPIRATORY CANCER; QUANTITATIVE AND TEMPORAL ASPECTS (Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service, 1971).

Descriptor terms: ny times; science; pollution prevention; environmental policy; oysters; chesapeake bay; mercury; fish; lead; children; sewage sludge; ocean dumping; fertilizer; nitrogen; phosphorus; animal studies; laboratory animals; dioxin; wise use movement; superfund; corruption; radon; radiation;