From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 18:30:12 MDT
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Robbie Lindauer wrote:
> For the record, I never proposed the "zero" exposure rule.
Understood. This was my incorrect extension of the direction in
which I thought you were taking things.
*But* there are cost-benefit tradeoffs. If we simply take asbestos
(as perhaps a bad example) -- I've never seen any analysis of how
many cases of cancer (or deaths) it may have caused vs. how many
lives it may have saved (reduced numbers of fires, slower burn
times allowing greater opportunities to escape, etc.). One could
do a similar analysis with the analysis of reductions of pollutants
in water supplies -- but one has to balance this with increased
costs of water supplies that might prevent parents from providing
their children with proper nutrition. One sees the debate perhaps
most with so-called "organic" food. Producing organic food is
in many cases less productive than using historic agricultural
methods that may involve the use of pesticides. Result -- the
food is more expensive. So I can buy organic produce but I
may not be able to afford a car with side impact air bags.
If one is being rational about this one has to think about the
tradeoffs. There is a very big question as to whether we have
already driven the requirements (in the U.S.) for minimal exposure
to carcinogens so low that in most cases the costs significantly
exceed the benefits. There is still a big debate that current
carcinogen exposure standards are extrapolated from very high dose
exposures and that because of the way DNA repair regulation works
there may be minimal danger from low dose exposures.
The rules are also inconsistent. Though we *know* that natural
radon exposure in a number of areas is responsible for a significant
fraction of lung cancers -- there are not any mandated laws requiring
those houses be destroyed. You also don't see laws saying one cannot
build homes above certain altitudes due to increased cosmic ray
exposure.
> Nor did I ever say that "all persons are created (immunologically)
> equal".
Agreed. This was my pointing out that there may not be universal
solutions.
> I'm talking about OBVIOUS things like dumping heavy metals and known
> poisons into water supplies, storing radioactive waste near humans,
> billowing smog into the air second after-second, etc.
In the U.S. the water standards are very strict. I get a report every
year from the city of Seattle with the results of their continual
analysis of the water. People who have individual wells and who have
to deal with the content of the groundwater are perhaps at greater risk.
Low level exposure to radioactive waste may actually be beneficial for
the DNA repair activation reasons I have outlined. The risk of the
theft of such material for its use in a dirty bomb is probably a much
greater risk at this time. The primary sources of smog at this
time are probably automobiles and coal power plants. In these cases
I would tend to agree that a little bit more economic and political
pressure might result in improvements. But we (in the U.S.) have
significantly improved things from the decades where high quantities
of acid rain were poisoning our lakes. The real populations at risk
are in the 3rd world countries where environmental quality standards
are much lower than those in the U.S. Here one does see the air pollution
standards in California slowly turning the screws on the automobile
manufacturers. So the big remaining problem would appear to be G.B.
attempting to relax regulations on the coal power plants -- but the states
in New England are taking him to court on that one I believe.
So overall I think things are not as bad as they may appear at first
glance.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 18:39:20 MDT