Jim:
> Look down the table of contents for examples of areas where bad
> information and bad science have caused exactly the type of
> widespread confusion and questionable policies that Kovacs is talking
> about.
>
> *the cranberry scare of 1959
> *SILENT SPRING and dieldrin
> *the saccharine debate
> *PCB's and DDT: Too much of a good thing?
> *Dioxin, Agent Orange, and Times Beach
> *Love Canal: Was there evidence of harm?
> *Superfund
> *the asbestos and alar scares
> *arsenic in drinking water
> *the nitrite controversy
> *Do rodent studies predict cancer in human beings?
> *acid rain
> *CFCs and ozone depletion: are they as bad as people think?
> *global warming

I am not sure what the significance of these items are?

Having researched many of these issues myself (prepared academic papers on
the science) I think it is should be obvious that many of these issues are
pretty clear as to their significance.

On dioxins for instance and Agent Orange, the science is demonstrable. The
Australian government has compensated the victims of exposure to Agent
Orange, and there are some insurance companies will not provide life
insurance to US Vetnam War Vets. Despite the science, most wheat is still
chemically treated with 2,4-D because the grasses are not affected by the
phenoxy herbicides. Each time a person eats any wheat flour their body is
ingesting 2,4-dichlorophenol, and trace amounts of dibenzo-furans and
dioxins....The long term cumulative effect on life exposed to these
contaminants is unknown.

The largest ever man-made ecological disaster was the devastation of about
2.5 million acres of mangroves and tropical rainforest in Indo-china. This
landscape for the most part is still not recovered.

Many of the phenoxy herbicides are either are under total bans or partially
prohibited. 2,4,5-T which has the highest amounts of  TCDD is no longer
manufactured. The last user I believe was New Zealand.

Monsanto was sued for by Times Beach residents in a court case which became
the US longest trial by jury in the Nations history.

If the environmental and health science was not demonstrable for these
issues, then there would the substances or processes would still be used
widely in each nation which previously required them.

On the CFC issue it should be noted that Dow Chemical voluntarily suspended
production of the CFC's after it's own scientists discovered how the
substances caused the depletion of the ozone. It was Dow Chemical that
patented and invented the refridgerant in the first place. This was an
important environmental and ethical milestone in the use and abuse of toxic
and environmentally harmful things. The problem is still relevant too
because emerging markets like China could still use these cheaper
refridgerants. However the new refridgerators are more efficient than the
older ones with CFC's in them anyway.

Often the bottom line with the 'defendents' of the environmental carcinogens
(eg, CFC's indirectly), mutagens, clastogens, xenobiotics, and other harmful
entities is economic costs, not environmental and social costs.

I think the PR industry in the US earns about $2 billion per year in
revenues 'defending' the continued use of these substances. So it should not
be surprizing that 'fog' making is so common in view of the science. I do
not think the industries that have benefitted have any other issue in mind
but to reduce future costs (they have their own 'risk mitigation' policies
which improve 'bottom lines'.) Dow Chemical did the right think to stop the
production of
CFC's and develop alternatives so as to 'enter into a new market segment'.

The high prevalence of organic foods, non-GE foods, now on the market also
is phenomenon too which would illustrate the power of the consumer to have
some 'sovereignity' when it comes to well informed choices. Those industries
which cannot supply goods and services which are in demand (ones that have
strong demand growth curves) are the one's that change perception about all
kinds of human-animal-environment relationships.

It is possible too now to buy non-dioxin produced paper and paper products
simply because of the combined actions of consumers, environmental
organizations, government, and industry. I think that the industries which
are unwilling to accept change usually are the industries which dissappear
when there is change. The asbestos industry was very large in Quebec, but is
practically non-existent now. There are many better substitutes on the
market now which remove completely the environmental and health risks
associated with asbestos. There are new ceramic panels which are
fire-resistant, and have a very high insulation value.

If older products were designed to meet the live-sustaining requirements of
set up by teams of conscientious experts and reviewers, then they should be
used. However many of the older, less tested products were never tested
fully for cumulative effects. One example is the use of the anti-fouling
paints which contained organotins. The tests were never carried out on the
sea welks, for instance, and it was not believed that the organotins would
bioconcentrate in sea life. It was only found out after decades of use that
the sea welks were being exterminated by the organotins (they failed in some
environments to reproduce). The marine shipping industry was alarmed by the
policies which would have strictly prohibited the use of organotins, citing
extra shipping costs of up around $2 billion worldwide, increased fuel costs
leading to more GHG emissions. The interesting thing is that in some cases
the affected industry will resort to 'environmental costs' which are
unrelated to the environmental harm that the industry is being charged with.
So the ideological situation is very clear:  that capital must be preserved
and allowed to run free. In nature though there is no 'cost to capital'
because in nature nothing can be created and nothing destroyed. The
productive function of nature, it's biological capacity, is continuous as
long as the functional factors are maintained, or enhanced (sustained). The
idea that humanity could simply transform the earth into a monocrop of about
100 species is possible, but that would perhaps initiate a chain of
reactions, and something would be put out of  'balance'. For instance global
climate which a few institutions claim is 'impossible'and even some speakers
cite profound benefits associated with climate change such as increased
growth of plants (C4 based photosynthetic plants). We have all points of
view, opinions, but then there is 'facticity' which is often against
interpretation. And that is where 'ethics' steps up to podium. To have and
want a conscience first of all means to inform thy self.

chao

john foster