DOCTORS FOR DISASTER PREPAREDNESS NEWSLETTER
September, 1991 Vol. VIII, No. 5
TRASHING THE PLANET...OR THE ECONOMY?
The same experts who were predicting an ice age in the 1970s now argue for an ``environmental revolution'' of drastic government measures to head off ``enormous calamities in a very short time.''
In a sense, everyone is an environmentalist. Have you ever met a person who was against clean water or clean air? But every intervention carries a price tag. The bills for ``protecting'' the public from nonhazards need to be examined. For example:
Ø As much as $100 billion could eventually be spent removing PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) from the environment. Huge daily lifelong doses of some PCBs (not all) cause cancer in rats. Industrial exposures have not been shown to increase the cancer rate in human beings. (Science 253:361, 1991).
Ø About $200 million is scheduled to be spent to clean up dioxin-tainted waste sites in Times Beach, MO, and to incinerate 100,000 cubic yards of soil. The CDC now states that low doses of dioxin pose minimal health risks, even though the chemical was once described as ``the most potent carcinogen ever tested.'' But the clean-up will probably proceed anyway ``because we've got the public so riled up'' (as by forcing them out of their homes) (Wall St J 8/6/91).
Ø US hospitals will probably have to spend about $1.3 billion per year to comply with the Medical Waste Tracking Act, although household waste contains on the average 100 times more pathogenic microorganisms than medical waste. Aside from sharps, which have caused disease only in occupational settings, there is no evidence that medical waste has caused health problems (N Engl J Med 325:578-582, 1991).
Ø A ban on synthetic pesticides would cost consumers about $18 billion per year, a 6.5% increase in average food expenditures (Science 253:518-522, 1991). There is no evidence that synthetic pesticide residues are a significant health risk to either adults or children. And 99.99% of the pesticides in the human diet are produced by the plants themselves (Bruce Ames, Priorities, Winter, 1991).
The costs in these examples are trivial compared with the costs of proposals to reduce fossil-fuel consumption or to restore nuclear weapons facilities to a pristine wilderness condition. The estimates do not include the health effects of diverting resources from productive use to allaying superstitious fears. These fears may be deliberately fanned by persons cloaked in scientific authority. (Some of the same authorities worked to promote the ``nuclear winter'' myth and disinformation about nuclear weapons effects.)
Because silence is interpreted as assent, physicians have a responsibility to speak out on these public health issues. Doctors for Disaster Preparedness intends to take the lead in this effort. The environmental symposium at our Ninth Annual Meeting will focus on global warming, one of the most important of the current apocalyptic scenarios.
Send all correspondence (manuscripts, address changes, letters to editor, and meeting notices) to:
DDP, 1601 N. Tucson Blvd. #9, Tucson, AZ 85716, telephone 520-325-2680. Instructions for authors available on request; SASE is appreciated.