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