Recently, President Obama's (creatively named) Cancer Panel (I know, I know, how many panels and committees are there in Washington?) released a paper that for the first time placed a significant emphasis on the role that our environment may play in the development of cancer. The paper stated that an astounding 80,000 chemicals are currently being used in the United States, while a paltry 200 have been assessed for safety. Previous cancer prevention initiatives had (rightly) focused on lifestyle choices and screening. Epidemiolgists had often put the figure for cancers caused by environmental reasons at 5%. However, the Cancer Panel's report said that figure might be "grossly underestimating" the truth.
Believe it or not, assessing chemicals (or really anything industry does or uses) is far more difficult than you might imagine. A Rolling Stone piece by Jeff Goodell brought the issue of coal ash regulation to the attention of the public--or at least (between bong rips) the Rolling Stone readership.
When coal is burned, there is a substance left over (think burning wood in your fireplace). That substance contains, among other things, some heavy metals. I'm not talking Pantera (R.I.P. Dimebag) heavy metal; I'm talking mercury, cadmium, arsenic. Each year 140 million tons of coal ash is produced. Some of the coal ash is used to make concrete, land filler, plastics, paints, and glass. Some is put into large, unlined ponds. Some people, like the aforementioned Jeff Goodell, believe that those heavy metals from the coal ash leaks into groundwater surrounding their unlined pools and make people living around the area sick.
Other people claim there is no evidence of toxicity to humans citing the Father of Toxicology, Paracelsus, and his claim that "The dose makes the poison." They say that the levels of heavy metals in the ash is low enough that it won't harm people. Paracelsus, though, was talking about acute poisons. In other words, hemlock will kill you, but at a low enough dose it won't. That isn't the same thing as saying constant, low-dose exposure to a poison won't hurt you.
Coal ash has also had some bad, albeit less publicized compared to oil, spills to deal with over the years. No matter how you cut it, this certainly appears to be an issue worth looking into. I contacted our state and federal politicians to see what they had to say about coal ash regulation.
Evan Bayh responded about a topic that was totally unrelated to my e-mail. Thanks for paying attention Senator Bayh.
Other than Senator "already checked-out" Bayh's incoherent response, other lawmakers offered vanilla opinions. State Representative Woody Burton responded, "My position is that technology today is proving scientifically that coal can be used as a clean and environmentally safe way to generate energy." He continued on the topic of regulation and alternative energy sources, "...but I also think that we need to use common sense in approaching the alternative energy issue by using the technology we have to keep clean coal as a source of energy." Senator Richard Lugar, who I'd like to point out responded quickly and with a scan of the actual letter he sent to the President (hear that Senator Bayh!!!!???), said in his letter that he is "hopeful that the EPA will carefully consider how any classification of coal ash as a hazardous material could create uncertainty about the beneficial uses of these products.."
Ok, ok, the point already! The point is this, the burden of proof for designating chemicals hazardous or not lies with the people. In other words, a chemical is automatically considered "safe" if industry deems it necessary for use until it is proven (i.e. people get sick and die) to be harmful to humans. This, as much as any other point, is the problem we face environmentally.
The recent, on-going and likely never-ending, health-care debate focused on many issues. One was cost cutting. Several people pointed out that if we focused more on prevention, we could save money. That theory is based on the idea that if Grandma doesn't get cancer, and no one has to pay for expensive cancer treatments, then paying for that mammogram or anti-smoking literature was well worth the money.
Looking at the quotes for Senator Lugar and Representative Burton highlights the backwards thinking that we have. The assumption is that someone has to prove that a substance containing several known poisons is dangerous to people before it is regulated at all. To suggest that the coal companies prove that it's safe before placing it in unlined beds that can leach those heavy metals into my damn water is considered blasphemous.
The President's Cancer Panel is, in effect, making that same argument. They aren't necessarily coming out and saying that all 80,000 of those chemicals in use cause harm, but they also aren't saying that we should simply assume they don't until people are losing years of their life to chemo. To continue with the coal ash example, it may be true that electric bills would rise if companies were forced to safely dispose of waste. But a couple of quick bullshit meter thoughts on that:
Many industries, from pharmaceuticals to meat packers have to deal with regulation and inspection. They howl and complain about it, but at the end of the quarter, they post big profits more often than not. The reality is, to their credit, they've discovered ways to make money even with regulation. The regulation forced innovation, and that innovation spawned both profit for them, and a better product for us. There is no reason to believe that electric companies too would innovate. That innovation might lead to more efficient recycling of coal ash. It might lead to improved methods of disposal that have high up-front costs, but long-term cost benefits. Those ideas may be shunned due to that high initial cost, but will be welcomed when the companies are faced with fines and the loss of their licenses. Indeed electric bills may rise some, but political pressure from a very unhappy electorate would hold them down. The companies would whine, adapt and overcome.
However, even if that entire paragraph is complete and utter crap, what sort of defense is it to say, "Well, you may die from cancer because of this waste, but we don't want to lose jobs or pay more for electricity. Good luck." What the hell? This is America. We put a man on the moon. We have been a social, scientific, and political beacon for over 200 years. You are seriously telling me that we can't reconcile the need to safely dispose of coal ash, or safely use industrial chemicals, with the need to make money. It's really ok that our lawmakers say vague things like, "common sense approach to climate change", or "that's not what the American people want, they want a bi-partisan solution" instead of offering up real ideas.
People are opposed to cap-and-trade. Fine. Without using the dumbass phrase, "common sense", or blathering on about the will of the American people (which is a topic for a whole other post. To assume that ANYONE can surmise the wishes of 300 million people from different regions, ethnicities, religions, races, and socio-economic backgrounds is patently absurd), state an idea to deal with greenhouse gases.
How about a truly novel idea, our lawmakers care first and foremost about our health, and second about whose donating to their campaign? Or at least, pretend to.
No comments:
Post a Comment