=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #437
—April 13, 1995—
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
The Back issues and Index are
available here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s
free.
===Previous
Issue==========================================Next
Issue===
RUSH LIMBAUGH WITH BOOK LEARNING
Until recently, there were only three camps in the environmental
movement. Now some journalists are trying to start a fourth camp.
The original three camps are distinguished by where they place
blame for environmental problems: The first says the general
public is at fault. The second blames powerful economic and
social institutions, chiefly in the “private sector.” The third
camp blames government.
People in the first camp want to solve environmental problems by
recycling newspapers, planting trees, and putting a brick in
their toilet tank to reduce water use.
The second camp wants the public to recognize that there really
is no “private sector” because all “private” industrial decisions
have profound impacts on public health and well being. They want
the public involved in decisions about technology.
A third camp blames government. They favor eliminating weak laws,
poor regulations, inept officials, and ineffective agency
structures. [1]
Now a fourth camp is trying to emerge. This camp says the
sources of environmental distress lie somewhere in the murky
past, but solutions are staring us right in the face; however, we
can’t reach these solutions because environmentalists in the
first three camps are so negative, so focused on doom-saying, so
cynically intent on making money by frightening the public
through direct mail appeals.
This new, fourth camp has just published its manifesto, calling
itself “ecorealism.” Ecorealism is upbeat, positive, buoyantly
optimistic. Its basic premise is that most environmental problems
either don’t exist or would soon disappear if environmentalists
would just stop exaggerating.
The ecorealists’ manifesto is Gregg Easterbook’s 745-page
encyclopedia of feel-good optimism, called A MOMENT ON THE
EARTH. [2] Here is a sampling:
** Human population is not a problem, if you just take the long
view of it (pg. 491);
** Genetic engineering is more natural than soccer fields and
rock concerts (because nature engages in genetic engineering
itself [cross-pollination, for example] but nature never made a
soccer field without human help) (pg. 419);
** No research has ever shown that industrial chlorine releases
cause any public health or general ecological harm (pg. 414);
** New landfills, incinerators, and factories usually do not have
emission problems (pg. 467);
** In the western world, the age of pollution is nearly over,
because by the year 2004 society will have “almost painlessly”
adopted a zero discharge philosophy (pgs. xvi, 206, 256, 648);
** Whatever industry’s stance may have been in the past, today
industry’s attitude is “respectful environmental behavior” (pg.
623);
** Nature makes far worse environmental problems than people do
(pgs. xvii, 21, 145);
** No one in the general public has ever been harmed by radiation
associated with nuclear power reactors (pg. 493) and humans are
not exceptionally sensitive to radiation exposure (pg. 506);
** Radioactive waste disposal is not really a problem because
even at the WIPP site in southern New Mexico, built to hold
long-lived transuranic military wastes, most of the radioactivity
will have disappeared within 300 years (pg. 514);
** There is no ozone hole over the north pole (pg. 539);
** Toxic waste isn’t an important problem because the National
Academy of Sciences in a 1991 report said there is “no clear
relationship between proximity to toxic wastes and cancer;” (pg.
604);
** Environmental problems developed in the old days, back when
“government was tucked snugly in bed with industry” but times
have changed (pg. 372);
** Chemicals are, today, assumed to be dangerous, and the burden
of proof is on the manufacturers of chemicals to prove safety
before new chemicals can be introduced into commerce (pg. 231);
** Most forms of cancer are in decline (pg. 246);
** Dioxin is in the same chemical family as table salt (pg. 414);
the largest study of dioxin and human health found only a
“slight” increase in cancer (pg. 235); dioxin is natural, caused
mainly by forest fires (pg. 238); and, anyway, new emissions of
dioxin have already been “nearly eliminated” (pg. 238).
I’ll stop here because the catalog of optimism goes on and on,
but the drift is clear to everyone.
Unfortunately, most of the ecorealists’ platform is simply wrong.
Let’s examine some of its assertions.
** According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
has been “reassessing” dioxin for the past 4 years, at least half
of the dioxin sources in the U.S. have not been identified (REHW
#390, #391), so Gregg Easterbrook cannot know that new sources of
exposure have been eliminated. EPA says forest fires are a minor
source of dioxin and even that minor source may be caused not by
nature but by industrial releases of chlorine settling onto the
leaves of trees. The largest study of dioxin and human health
found a 46% increased hazard of cancer among workers whose
exposure lasted at least a year and began at least 20 years ago
(thus allowing the cancer latency period to run its course); 46%
is not a “slight” increase by any reasonable person’s reckoning
(RHWN #219, #270, #290, #353). True, dioxin is a chlorinated
chemical, and so is table salt, but dioxin is only in the “same
family” as table salt in the sense that an AK-47 and a pea
shooter are in the “same family” –both can be used as weapons to
hurt people.
** The incidence rates of 14 out of 16 types of cancer are
increasing, not decreasing. The death rates for 8 of 16 types of
cancer are increasing. (See RHWN #385.) Easterbrook is wrong
when he says most forms of cancer are in decline.
** Today in the U.S., new chemicals are introduced at the will of
the manufacturer, and it is up to the public to prove that they
cause harm before a chemical can even be regulated, much less
banned. Mr. Easterbrook has it backwards.
** What the National Academy of Sciences actually said about
toxic wastes and human health was this: “A limited number of
epidemiologic studies indicate that increased rates of birth
defects, spontaneous abortion, neurologic impairment, and cancer
have occurred in some residential populations exposed to
hazardous wastes. We are concerned that other populations at
risk might not have been adequately identified.” And the Council
said, “Millions of tons of hazardous materials are slowly
migrating into groundwater in areas where they could pose
problems in the future, even though current risks could be
negligible.” (RHWN #272, #371)
** No ozone hole over the north pole? In 1993, Canadian
scientists reported measuring 35% more ultraviolat light on the
ground in Toronto, due to a large hole in the ozone layer over
the north pole. [3]
** Most WIPP radioactive wastes gone in 300 years? The WIPP
radioactive waste dump in New Mexico is slated to hold, at a
minimum, one ton of plutonium-239 with a half-life of 24,400
years. Plutonium is one of the two or three most potent
carcinogens around. According to the government’s environmental
impact statement, WIPP may eventually hold up to 44 tons of
plutonium. It will take 10 half-lives, or 240,400 years (far
longer than HOMO SAPIENS has walked the earth), for this
plutonium to decay away, not 300 years.
** No one ever harmed by nuclear power reactors? The
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the
industry-dominated standards-setting body for the nuclear
industry worldwide, estimates that nuclear reactors in the U.S.
(annually producing 80 gigawatt-years of power) cause 4000 deaths
and 2500 serious genetic defects each year in future populations.
(REWH #200, #201, #202) The U.S. National Academy of Sciences
estimates that the true number is 50% greater than the ICRP’s
estimate. Long after the reactors have been shut down, this
damage will continue year after year for aeons into the future as
radioactive gases waft into the air from uranium mill tailings
piles, and other radioactive wastes. Just because the deaths
will not occur today does not mean nuclear energy is “clean.”
Dead is dead, and immoral is immoral, today and tomorrow.
** Humans are insignificant compared to nature’s damage? True
for hurricanes and earthquakes. But for long-term distribution
of toxic chemicals and certain key nutrients into the
environment, humans surpassed nature some decades ago. For
example, each year humans inject twice as much arsenic into the
atmosphere as nature does, seven times as much cadmium, and 17
times as much lead. Measured by the elements that nature moves
into the oceans via river discharges, we humans mobilize (through
mining) 13 times as much iron as nature does each year, 36 times
as much phosphorous, and 110 times as much tin. Nature mobilizes
63 million tons of nitrogen each year, but humans (through
fertilizer and fossil fuel combustion) mobilize 215 million tons.
Yes, nature is large and sturdy, but in several important
respects, human activities have already dwarfed natural
processes. (REWH #155).
Gregg Easterbrook reserves special treatment for the main problem
that drives the grass-roots environmental movement: health damage
from toxic chemicals. He begins by sneering at the first
scientist who reported harm to the children living near Love
Canal, Dr. Beverly Paigen. Easterbrook says “Paigen essentially
assumed that if a Love Canal resident stated that a health
condition was caused by toxic wastes, it must be so.” (pg. 605)
With that, Easterbrook dismisses health problems among children
living near Love Canal and lays the foundation for his claim that
toxic chemicals aren’t a serious problem. But anyone who reads
Paigen’s work can see that she did not rely merely on peoples’
claims that toxic waste had harmed them. Using objective
measures, Paigen and others clearly revealed a pattern of harm to
children and wildlife near Love Canal. At least six
peer-reviewed studies have indicated harm to living things near
Love Canal (RHWN #104, #276, #371). Easterbrook’s account is
disgracefully distorted and false.
Gregg Easterbrook has been an environmental writer for NEWSWEEK
for several years. He has traveled the world, gleaning
first-hand information reported in this book. He has read
hundreds of scientific studies, and he spent 5 years preparing
his manuscript. Yet he feels compelled to support his case by
omissions, distortions, and fabrications. As a consequence, none
of the book seems trustworthy, or even worth reading.
Easterbrook comes across as a sophisticated Rush Limbaugh. What
a sad waste of a talented writer.
                
                
                
                
    
–Peter Montague
===============
[1] Sylvia N. Tesh, “Causal Debates in Environmentalism,” JOURNAL
OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY (Autumn 1994), pgs. 298-309.
Descriptor terms: environmentalists; environmental movement;
environmentalism; public policy; journalism; ecorealism;
population; genetic engineering; chlorine; landfilling;
incineration; natural disasters; radioactivity; radiation;
radioactive waste; military wastes; ozone depletion; toxic waste
dumps; superfund; onus; reverse onus; dioxin; epa; dioxin
reassessment; cancer; plutonium; wipp; waste isolation polit
plant; icrp; uranium; metals; nutrients; beverly paigen; love
canal; wildlife; gregg easterbrook;