=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #331
—April 1, 1993—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
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===
EDITORIAL: N.Y. TIMES ALIGNS ITSELF WITH THE
WISE USE MOVEMENT’S RADICAL ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALISM
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.
[2] Barry Commoner, CLOSING CIRCLE (N.Y.: Knopf, 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;