RE: cancer rates (was: e: How do you calm down the hot-heads?)

From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 19:24:55 MDT

  • Next message: Damien Broderick: "Re: Automatic cameras thwart furtive fly-tippers"

    > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Robbie Lindauer wrote:
    >
    > > My point is simply that to reduce the overall amount of
    > carcinogens and
    > > known toxins in our environment is a GOOD IDEA if we want
    > to extend our
    > > lives and our chances for survival. I still don't see why
    > this is even
    > > slightly controversial.
    >
    > Ah, but as the saying goes, "there's the rub". I don't have
    > any problem
    > with the removal of mutagenic substances generally deemed universally
    > harmful. Asbestos might be a good example. But with many other toxic
    > substances the level to which one "should" be exposed (to
    > maintain optimal
    > defense mechanisms) is genome specific. So exposure levels
    > that help one
    > person in terms of extending lives might actually harm someone else.
    >
    > Robert

    That's probably a minor factor, given that our ancestors survived quite
    happily without modern industrial chemicals in their environment for
    millions of years.

    There is, however, a far more important cost tradeoff, which is polution vs
    technology/progress. Removing the toxins is a good idea in isolation, but
    remember that they are there for a reason; they are the result of someone
    doing something. In many cases judgement should go toward removal of the
    toxin (eg: dioxins?), but in other cases it is less clear.

    For example, look at the growing problem of heavy metals (I think) leaking
    out of old computers, and the resulting toxin levels in the environment
    (ground water?). To have not made this mess, we very well probably would
    have had to significantly slow down the computer revolution of the 80s and
    90s, if not forego it altogether. Would it have been worth it?

    Many on this list ask an unfashionable question about the use of nuclear
    power; namely, are the waste problems caused, and the the safety concerns,
    bad enough to have warranted the backlash and subsequent avoidance of it?
    What price did we pay for not having the cheap power that it could have been
    providing us all these years?

    This, imo, is the big question about pollution. I'm no supporter of
    pollution, by any means, but I don't think it's a dichotomy; theres a
    multidimensional space of the various costs involved, and the evolving
    solution is a constant dance between two much restriction and two much
    environmental degradation/poisoning.

    Also, as to removal of toxins being a good idea, all things being equal, I
    think we can say that about a lot of things (exercise, diet, research money,
    etc). Finite resources/effort will be applied to all these things in the
    end. For what it's worth, I think the settings are probably wrong in some
    areas (research dollars, for instance). Removal of toxins may be underfunded
    too, I'm not sure.

    Emlyn



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 19:35:43 MDT